Whistling Pops wrote:
If the man had no connections to terrorists or any other kind of criminal activity and he was shot dead by police, what other word would you care to use besides "mistake"? Are you saying that because he ran (for whatever reason we may never know) that his killing was justified? I am not saying that the man was innocent. I do not know whether or not he was guilty of any crime. But if it turns out that he wasn't, it is a little late to undo the verdict. Perhaps he did not understand what the officer said. Perhaps because of the bombings people are nervous and their first instinct is to run. I am not soft on terrorists or any kind of criminal. Hang em all if they are guilty. But if "shoot first and ask questions later" is the policy, the questions may never be answered.
It was you who used the word 'mistake'. No-one else has, certainly not the police.
All they've done is announced that the dead man was unconnected to Thursday's suicide bomb attempts (in other words, they are saying he was not one of the four suicide bombers). That's not a mistake. They're merely correcting an impression that press reports might have given that the dead man was one of the four would-be suicide bombers still being hunted.
The officers in the case clearly believed it was necessary to shoot the man and on the face of it, all the circumstances leading up to the shooting tend to support the 'reasonable grounds to suspect' that the bloke was a threat to life: He was seen coming out of a premises which was under close surveillance by special branch officers and that surveillance was related to the attempted suicide bombings less than 24 hours earlier. He was dressed in an unusual manner which, under the circumstances, led witnesses to believe he was wired with explosives (and if eye-witnesses at the scene thought that, then you shouldn't have an issue with pursuing officers thinking the same). He ran when challenged, not down some back alley or side-street, but straight to the tube station where he vaulted ticket barriers with what appeared to be the clear intention of getting onto a train full of people. Which he did. Same train station that would-be suicide bombers had attempted to attack less than 24 hours earlier.
Note that the police still haven't released any details about whether the dead man was or was not rigged with explosives. Such details will emerge in the enquiries.
my god...stringed together coincedences?? i hope not. i hope he was guilty..i hope he was carrying the explosives on his body..
but i tend to believe it was an incredible mistake..
" Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair has apologised to the family of the Brazilian man shot dead by police in south London on Friday.
He said the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a "tragedy", but admitted more people could be shot as police hunt suspected suicide bombers"
Hope that they are not Black or Irish..
Slan,
D .
And many a poor man that has roved,
Loved and thought himself beloved,
From a glad kindness cannot take his eyes.
Peter Laban wrote:While I can understand the pattern of thought that underlies the whole thing, I find it quite unsettling when policemen discharge five bullets into someone's head at close range when they already have him down.
if they think he has a bomb on him, he can still discharge it even if he is down and take out lots of people, so they have to disable him
the brave do not live forever,
but the cautious do not live at all.
I think the operative question isn't what happened after they had him down, it's on what basis the police leapt to the conclusion that he was a bomber in the first place.
Those who argue that "if the police believed X..." are missing the point. The questions is why they believed X for no reason.
Clearly, there was no direct evidence of any kind--he was just a brown guy in the wrong place.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
Clearly, there was no direct evidence of any kind--he was just a brown guy in the wrong place.
He was an exceedingly stupid brown guy in the wrong place.
I am not normally an apologist for heavy handed police tactics, but based on the limited evidence available, I find it hard to blame the police officer for taking no chances when hesitating could kill him and everyboy in the area.
David
Payday, Piping, Percussion and Poetry- the 4 best Ps
Weren't there a lot of mistakes made by the British authorities regarding the IRA bombings in the 70s and 80s? Wasn't "In the Name of the Father" a movie about one of these mistakes? The difference of course is that the IRA never used suicide bombs, but innocent "suspects" were imprisoned and at least one died there.
When did police in Britain start carrying guns? I thought they didn't... am I wrong?
~~~
The other disturbing aspect of the arrival of the suicide bombers in the West is that the sort of situation that has plagued Israel all these years is being exported to Israel’s supporters. The Palestinians have retaliated out of desperation against the occupation and brutality of the Israeli government by resorting to horrific tactics like suicide bombs, and now it’s coming home to the same people who supported Israel in their occupation and ignored the protests from the International community.
The London police are now experiencing the mind-set of the Israeli military in dealing with this desperate and ultimate response to their immoral war in Iraq. The US military is also experiencing the same mind-set in Iraq. By mind-set I mean thinking that any suspicious person might have a bomb strapped to them. This is what led to the innocent man being shot and killed.
Arabs throughout the Middle East refer to the US occupation forces there as the "new Jews." They haven’t forgotten how the US vetoed UN resolutions against Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians, and they know who helped Saddam come to power and armed him and supported his crimes against his people. For these reasons it's no surprise for me that these same tactics would arrive there as well.
All of this adds up to the spread of terrorism rather than overcoming it. Tragically, as usual – innocent people are the victims.
BigDavy wrote:
He was an exceedingly stupid brown guy in the wrong place.
He's not the first guy to ever forget his second language in panic when being chased by men with guns. Remember, he comes from a city in which death squads of off-duty cops go out at night and shoot "thieves", ie, poor people.
~~
Behaviour during panic has no relation to intelligence, and isn't predictable.
In this event everyone involved was panicking, including the police.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
jGilder wrote:Weren't there a lot of mistakes made by the British authorities regarding the IRA bombings in the 70s and 80s? Wasn't "In the Name of the Father" a movie about one of these mistakes? The difference of course is that the IRA never used suicide bombs, but innocent "suspects" were imprisoned and at least one died there.
A distant relative of mine was shot by the army in Northern Ireland. He was a member of Sinn Fein, as are many people in that area of the country, but he wasn't involved in any terrorist activities.
jGilder wrote:
When did police in Britain start carrying guns? I thought they didn't... am I wrong?
Check out Garry Kelly's earlier. The police have Tactical Firearms Units, which are deployed when required.
jGilder wrote:
All of this adds up to the spread of terrorism rather than overcoming it. Tragically, as usual – innocent people are the victims.
The army's tactics in Northern Ireland certainly helped to spread sympathy for the IRA.
Mukade
'The people who play the flat pipes usually have more peace of mind. I like that.'
- Tony Mcmahon
gonzo914 wrote:Why don't we wait for the facts to come in before we start trying to hang the police?
I would futher submit that if you've never had to make a shoot/don't shoot decision, you especially have no business speculating about these officers' conduct based on the limited information available at this point.
If this is directed at me, I am NOT trying to hang the police. And I have as much business speculating about this as anyone else does. Or do you think that you and those who agree with you are the only ones who have a right to speculate?
Gonzo didn't give his opinion, what he would agree with, he just pointed out that maybe facts would be useful in this situation. I would agree. You can speculate all you want I suppose, but why when the facts will probably come out in due course?
Come on now, we've never needed facts to discuss topics on this board before, why should we start now?
Besides, this is a Pub. How many pubs have you been in where the only things being discussed by the patrons are those that they have a complete set of facts for? :roll:
I'm just wondering whether, as an innocent chap being chased through a rough part of London by a gang in "plain clothes" claiming they were police, I'd believe 'em. Anyway, whatever you think of the unwiseness of the guy's actions, they sure didn't warrant the grisly outcome. No way.
Steve
"Last night, among his fellow roughs,
He jested, quaff'd and swore."
They cut me down and I leapt up high
I am the life that'll never, never die.
I'll live in you if you'll live in me -
I am the lord of the dance, said he!
Tell us something.: I've picked up the tinwhistle again after several years, and have recently purchased a Chieftain v5 from Kerry Whistles that I cannot wait to get (why can't we beam stuff yet, come on Captain Kirk, get me my Low D!)
Steve...
Hard to say, Eh?
If a rabble in plain clothes was chasing me, I might just turn 'round an' give 'em what for! (I'm a rather big guy, folks usually dont mess)
by the way...
has anyone ever told you that you resemble Red Green?
“First lesson: money is not wealth; Second lesson: experiences are more valuable than possessions; Third lesson: by the time you arrive at your goal it’s never what you imagined it would be so learn to enjoy the process” - unknown
Tyler Morris wrote:Steve...
Hard to say, Eh?
If a rabble in plain clothes was chasing me, I might just turn 'round an' give 'em what for! (I'm a rather big guy, folks usually dont mess)
by the way...
has anyone ever told you that you resemble Red Green?
Well, like you I wasn't there, but I doubt that they gave the impression of being a rabble. I can't think that the poor man had much reason to expect to be chased by armed police in a country where such things are not routine, so he panicked, or didn't believe they were police, or both. Of course, we'll never know now what was in his mind except for the one stark fact that it sure wasn't terrorism. In view of what happened to him, and in front of many terrified eye-witnesses to boot, I do wonder about the way we so carelessly use that term.
Steve
"Last night, among his fellow roughs,
He jested, quaff'd and swore."
They cut me down and I leapt up high
I am the life that'll never, never die.
I'll live in you if you'll live in me -
I am the lord of the dance, said he!
Whistling Pops wrote:
If this is directed at me, I am NOT trying to hang the police. And I have as much business speculating about this as anyone else does. Or do you think that you and those who agree with you are the only ones who have a right to speculate?
Gonzo didn't give his opinion, what he would agree with, he just pointed out that maybe facts would be useful in this situation. I would agree. You can speculate all you want I suppose, but why when the facts will probably come out in due course?
Come on now, we've never needed facts to discuss topics on this board before, why should we start now?
Besides, this is a Pub. How many pubs have you been in where the only things being discussed by the patrons are those that they have a complete set of facts for? :roll:
All the Best, Tom
You're right of course, but in a case like this, what is the point of discussing it when you can be certain that facts will be presented in the incredibly near future? This isn't a discussion about Tom Cruise's sanity, it was about a shooting that had the focus of the international media and had. I simply thought it made more sense to discuss later since many questions that would be asked would be answered in the meanwhile.
