Man shot on Tube

[Martin Milner]

.. there are still many things we don't know (why he fled, for one, or why it seems he made no attempts to call out for help from passers-by or uniformed officers if he believed he was being mugged or robbed).

I heard on the grapevine that his visa had expired some months earlier, and so presumably he thought he was going to be arrested and deported. However this is a grapevine report, and I don't have any official data to back it up.

That was the story run on the most reputable news channel here.

Ah. I got it from my mate Michelle, who is reputable if not always reliable.

[buddhu]

To be fair to the police and even to the Home Office, this is a bloody awful no-winner.

That said, I am against any policy of shooting to kill someone who just might be an armed terrorist. Too much scope for error, as has been demonstrated beyond doubt.

This isn't about 'armed' terrorists, this is about terrorists equipped with enough explosives to kill tens if not hundreds of people going into public places to detonate those explosives. What policy would you be 'for'? Let the explosion take place and then say "Aha, he was indeed a suicide bomber"?

Yes.

And for the record, I definitely consider a terrorist who is "equipped with enough explosives to kill tens if not hundreds of people" as being an armed terrorist. Very armed indeed.

As for the "just might be", that's childish. Police offers in this country don't shoot people simply because they 'just might be' anything, and well you know it.

In this incident, there was no doubt at all in the minds of the officers at the scene. None.

And an innocent man was killed. Mistakes happen. Perhaps my choice of the phrase "just might be" was inappropriate. Perhaps "appear to be" would have been better.

Now, with 20/20 hindsight we can see how an astonishing sequence of circumstances led to the tragedy. But that doesn't and shouldn't detract from the fact that at that time, at that place, those officers acted with tremendous courage to protect the lives of all those aboard that train, and at great risk to their own. I'm not sure I would have the courage to tackle someone who I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt was wired with explosives and was bent on detonating them. And sitting in comfy office chairs and armchairs I very much doubt that anyone else pontificating here would either.

I agree, and I did not criticise those officers.

Furthermore, despite Blair's insistence that terror will never win, it is winning. By filling our tabloids with cheap, sensationalist reaction, by giving politicians excuses to curtail liberties, by giving racists and xenophobes excuses for their disgusting rants.

Blair is considering implementing Acts which would permit people to be held in custody, without charge or trial, for 3 months. Gitmo in the UK? I sincerely hope not. He's already taken too many lessons from his special relation across the pond. Sadly, tabloids will always be filled with cheap sensationalist reaction, and racists and xenophobes have never needed an excuse for their rants.

I stand by what I said.

And a shoot to kill policy - or even tolerating and excusing individual shoot to kill events - just adds to the terror.

By 'tolerating and excusing individual....events' I assume you mean the shooting on the Tube?

The inquest and subsequent inquiries might well return a verdict of "lawful killing", though it'd be wrong to pre-empt the verdict since in reality all we have is hearsay evidence to go on.

At least we still have inquests and inquiries whenever the police are involved in a shooting.

But you seem to be suggesting this sort of thing goes on all the time, and is 'tolerated' or 'excused'...

Not at all, and I would have no argument with a verdict of lawful killing. Again you infer a condemnation of the police officers that was not implied.

I accept that this was an exceptional event in every respect I can think of. I'd prefer to keep it that way, and not allow excuses to make us tolerant or complacent to a degree that would see widespread application of a policy that made each individual event less shocking and extraordinary.

And please note that the context of my original comments was to illustrate that despite Blair's rhetoric, terrorism has already made government and law enforcement act in ways that further terrorist aims by resulting in: curtaiment of freedoms, alienation of ethnic groups, promotion of fear, disruption of normal routine...

You'll also note that this was an observation that Blair's assertions were incorrect. I did not blame him, government or law enforcement.

Please don't take my dissatisfaction with our reponse to terrorist attacks as a blame game, or as criticism of individuals or agencies unless I actually say that. If I mean it I will say it plainly.

British Asian people have spoken in UK media about being concerned that they could be shot in similar circumstances, so some of them are avoiding the tube, and in some cases even going out less often.

In order for there to be 'similar circumstances' they would need to: ...

(To keep this post as brief as possible, please refer to Gary's list in the post above)

Sorry, wrong choice of words again. Should I have said "other cases of mistaken identity or intent"? To be honest, I suspect you knew what I meant by similar circumstances, but I stand corrected for my careless terminology.

I can understand some British Asians being concerned. The bombings aren't being carried out by ginger-haired six-foot-six white Scottish men with kilts and freckles, after all. I also think if I were a British Asian obliged to travel on the Tube tomorrow (Thursday) I would consider leaving any large rucksacks in my possession at home, out of consideration for the nerves of fellow travellers as much as to reduce the possibility of inconvenient stops-and-searches taking place.

Another score for the terrorists: now Asian people shouldn't wear rucksacks...

Damn. I swore off postings in the Political thread...

Nice try. No cigar.

Not sure what you mean there, but if you mean that by participating in this thread I am breaking the promise I made when I bowed out of the political thread, then I sincerely apologise for my lack of resolve (no ironic or satirical tone here, I mean it).

I'm also sorry that you seemed somehow to take my post personally or at least as an attack on your colleagues (or is it former colleagues?) in the police. No such attack was intended.

My wording may have been revised in light of your criticism, but my opinion remains the same.

Thanks for the perspective.

[GaryKelly]

To be fair to the police and even to the Home Office, this is a bloody awful no-winner.

That said, I am against any policy of shooting to kill someone who just might be an armed terrorist. Too much scope for error, as has been demonstrated beyond doubt.

This isn't about 'armed' terrorists, this is about terrorists equipped with enough explosives to kill tens if not hundreds of people going into public places to detonate those explosives. What policy would you be 'for'? Let the explosion take place and then say "Aha, he was indeed a suicide bomber"?

Yes.

Interesting. So your policy is for the police to stand and do nothing, allowing tens or hundreds to be killed or horribly maimed, even when said officers are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt...

Thanks for the perspective.

Looks like the police have captured one of the would-be bombers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4720027.stm who, according to hearsay, was wearing a rucksack containing a device which the bomb disposal team are planning to disrupt in a controlled explosion. I dunno why they bother, bhuddu, do you? Better just to have let him get on with killing a busload of people, then at least they'd have been certain.

[Martin Milner]

I can understand some British Asians being concerned. The bombings aren't being carried out by ginger-haired six-foot-six white Scottish men with kilts and freckles, after all. I also think if I were a British Asian obliged to travel on the Tube tomorrow (Thursday) I would consider leaving any large rucksacks in my possession at home, out of consideration for the nerves of fellow travellers as much as to reduce the possibility of inconvenient stops-and-searches taking place.

Another score for the terrorists: now Asian people shouldn't wear rucksacks...

Is it really the aim of the terrorists to make their fellow countrymen and other Muslims uncomfortable in public? Obviously this has been a result, but was it intended?

It is unfortunate that people are singled out for particular vigilance, based on their skin colour, hairstyle, or mode of dress - but what can you expect? The same was true for mods and rockers in Brighton in the 60s.

Some comments in the METRO today, mostly but not all from non-Caucasians, included being watched carefully while they pull out a tissue to blow their nose, or while they pull out their mobile phone. This is contrary to usual tube-behaviour, where even if you have your nose jammed against someone's sweaty armpit, you pretend they are not there.

What Gary is suggesting is that people who fit into the same ethnic groups as the known terrorist suspects should be aware that they may cause distress in other passengers if they behave in a particular way. In multi-cultural London, we don't really want people to feel they have to hide in their houses, but showing a little sensitivity to and awareness of the current situation would be a wise precaution.

[OnTheMoor]

I can understand some British Asians being concerned. The bombings aren't being carried out by ginger-haired six-foot-six white Scottish men with kilts and freckles, after all. I also think if I were a British Asian obliged to travel on the Tube tomorrow (Thursday) I would consider leaving any large rucksacks in my possession at home, out of consideration for the nerves of fellow travellers as much as to reduce the possibility of inconvenient stops-and-searches taking place.

Another score for the terrorists: now Asian people shouldn't wear rucksacks...

Is it really the aim of the terrorists to make their fellow countrymen and muslims uncomfortable in public? Obviously this has been a result, but was it intended?

Some would argue yes. Not of the bombers themselves, but whoever directed them. Turn people against muslims so that the muslims have no alternative other than to turn against everyone else.

[buddhu]

...
What Gary is suggesting is that people who fit into the same ethnic groups as the known terrorist suspects should be aware that they may cause distress in other passengers if they behave in a particular way. In multi-cultural London, we don't really want people to feel they have to hide in their houses, but showing a little sensitivity to and awareness of the current situation would be a wise precaution.

I understand that, Martin, and I don't disagree.

But I guess what they will be most sensitive and aware of is the (actual or perceived) risk of being shot or otherwise harmed. It is the response that our government and law enforcement have been forced into that is making them change their behaviour - possibly as much as, or more than, the fear of actual terrorist attacks.

Again, my point is merely that it is wrong to state so glibly, as Tone and Dubya do, that terrorists will not win. They may not get a signed surrender from the nations they act against, but they do force the governments of those countries to act in ways that erode freedom and cause more fear. That in itself must give them great satisfaction.

As for wanting to make fellow Muslims uncomfortable in public... I don't think they give a monkey's about anything but destruction. For their purposes it probably suits them to consider British Muslims as British first and Muslims second. As for other Asian and Middle Eastern people who may not be immediately visually identifiable as non-Muslim, but who will attract suspicion nonetheless... I expect they care about them even less.

In short, perverse though it seems (even to me - and I do have to use the London tube), I consider minimum visible reaction to be far more defiant, and likely to be far less encouraging to these deluded, glory-seeking nutters.

[buddhu]

Some would argue yes. Not of the bombers themselves, but whoever directed them. Turn people against muslims so that the muslims have no alternative other than to turn against everyone else.

Fair point.

[s1m0n]

The standard uynderstanding about the strategy behind terrorism (when their *is* understanding--the "they're CRAZY! They just want to KILL!!!" rhetoric is nothing but deliberate stupidity) is that terrorists aim to make to help their cause by forcing or inciting governments to become intolerably repressive, thereby radicalizing the population. A certain portion of that newly radical population will join the terrorists, thereby making them stronger.

[SteveShaw]

There's a danger that the man's "suspicious" actions are going to be used as an excuse for killing him. Wearing a big coat, running when shouted at, going on to a train (and thereby mingling with a crowd, a good hiding place if ever there was one.....), etc. None of these actions is an offence. That's one thing. The other concerns the police's "absolute certainty" about the man's intentions. I wonder what "intelligence" this was based on. I too want to take comfort in the actions of our police force in protecting me from harm, but I can't forget the ropey intelligence that was used to take us to war in Iraq, or the complete lack of intelligence to forewarn us of the attacks in London on both July 7 and July 21.

As for "Muslims" having to take more care as to how they're seen out and about, do we mean "practising Muslims," "lapsed Muslims," "people who look like Muslims" or "any non-white person who isn't obviously African-Caribbean?"

I'm reminded of the "Not the Nine O'Clock News" sketch in which the rather over-zealous new young policeman was told off for arresting someone for "looking at him in a funny way..."

Steve

[Martin Milner]

In short, perverse though it seems (even to me - and I do have to use the London tube), I consider minimum visible reaction to be far more defiant, and likely to be far less encouraging to these deluded, glory-seeking nutters.

I agree. I think public reactions are high at the moment, but will soon settle down.

The thing is we have several different effects here - the Government's reaction, the Police reaction (not necessarily the same), and the public reaction. If we get enough terrorist attacks by peope, who "look" muslim, some innocent muslim is going to get lynched eventually. I don't agree with that reaction, but I think it is a danger.

[missy]

a question for you Brits.......

Here in the US, there are constant accusations of "profiling". When a certain "looking" element of society commits a good portion of the crime, and then others are on the alert for people that fit that same description - it's called profiling, and is not seen as being prudent, but as being racist, etc.

Would / will the same accusations occur in the UK if Muslims become a "watched" group?

Just curious.........

[TomB]

a question for you Brits.......

Here in the US, there are constant accusations of "profiling". When a certain "looking" element of society commits a good portion of the crime, and then others are on the alert for people that fit that same description - it's called profiling, and is not seen as being prudent, but as being racist, etc.

Would / will the same accusations occur in the UK if Muslims become a "watched" group?

Just curious.........

One would hope.

[Martin Milner]

a question for you Brits.......

Here in the US, there are constant accusations of "profiling". When a certain "looking" element of society commits a good portion of the crime, and then others are on the alert for people that fit that same description - it's called profiling, and is not seen as being prudent, but as being racist, etc.

Would / will the same accusations occur in the UK if Muslims become a "watched" group?

Just curious.........

Yes.

But, supposing just the bombings were all comitted by white middle-aged men wearing bowler hats, pin-striped suits and carrying briefcases, umbrellas, and a copy of the Financial Times, and we all started being very vigilent and cautious around middle-aged men wearing bowler hats, pin-striped suits and carrying briefcases and umbrellas, and a copy of the Financial Times, would it still be considered racist?

[s1m0n]

But, supposing just the bombings were all comitted by white middle-aged men wearing bowler hats, pin-striped suits and carrying briefcases, umbrellas, and a copy of the Financial Times, and we all started being very vigilent and cautious around middle-aged men wearing bowler hats, pin-striped suits and carrying briefcases and umbrellas, and a copy of the Financial Times, would it still be considered racist?

We wouldn't start profiling the straight white men in the first place, so the question would never come up.

No one's ever created a profile of the anthrax guy, for instance, even though he is thought to be white, middle aged, educated and middle class. If fact, he's dropped well off the radar in way that would not have happened if he'd been any other colour.

[missy]

"No one's ever created a profile of the anthrax guy, for instance, even though he is thought to be white, middle aged, educated and middle class. If fact, he's dropped well off the radar in way that would not have happened if he'd been any other colour."

I never heard this, or read this. Are you talking about the anthrax at the National Inquirer in Florida and / or the letter in DC and / or the missing vial from a university? I hadn't heard they had a suspect, much less they were one in the same.