Man shot on Tube

[Wombat]

This is the problem as I see it. You get pulled over by someone who 'might' be a cop.

If you guess right that it's a fake, then taking off fast is the right thing to do; if they are armed they won't shoot, someone else will be along soon.

If you guess wrong and it really is teh police, you are now in big trouble, even if you weren't before.

Conversely, if you guess it's the police and stop, even to go through the careful window just down a bit ploy, you are fine if you guess right and in serious trouble if it's an armed carjacker and you guessed wrong.

[missy]

If you are REALLY that concerned, what you could do is quickly call 911, tell the dispatcher what is happening, and find out if it's an actual officer or not, while continuing to drive until you find out (hopefully to the nearest precinct).

An officer is NOT going to start lethal pursuit right off the bat (in fact, depending on the jurisdiction, it may be illegal to pursue).

[Tyler]

(in fact, depending on the jurisdiction, it may be illegal to pursue).

Several major jurisdictions here have passed policies prohibiting a chase unless there is a violent felony in comission. This came after a string of auto deaths resulting from police chases...it was interesting to note that the police departments and sherriff's department all adopted these policies voluntarily.

[missy]

it's not illegal to pursue in our local area yet - but it IS up to the responding officer as to whether a pursuit will jeopardize the public, and most are called off if they move to crowded city streets.

There was one several Friday's ago that was almost comical (since it didn't end tragically). The officers called off pursuit when the "flee - ee" went off the highway and onto a city area. But the flee-ee continued at a high rate of speed, and managed to jump the car OFF an overpass onto pavement 20 ft below (this was a stolen vehicle - a VW Passat (?), I think). Anyway, the entire engine came OUT of the car - in one piece! The "flee - ee" wound up breaking his pelvis, but was very lucky that was all that happened - and no one else was involved in the wreck.

[TomB]

it's not illegal to pursue in our local area yet - but it IS up to the responding officer as to whether a pursuit will jeopardize the public, and most are called off if they move to crowded city streets.

There was one several Friday's ago that was almost comical (since it didn't end tragically). The officers called off pursuit when the "flee - ee" went off the highway and onto a city area. But the flee-ee continued at a high rate of speed, and managed to jump the car OFF an overpass onto pavement 20 ft below (this was a stolen vehicle - a VW Passat (?), I think). Anyway, the entire engine came OUT of the car - in one piece! The "flee - ee" wound up breaking his pelvis, but was very lucky that was all that happened - and no one else was involved in the wreck.

Missy: Flee-ee. Is that some sort of techincal police lingo you learned on your citizen ride-along?

Tom

[missy]

nah - I just made it up cuz I couldn't type what the officers really called him!

[TomB]

nah - I just made it up cuz I couldn't type what the officers really called him!

Darn!

[Wombat]

If you are REALLY that concerned, what you could do is quickly call 911, tell the dispatcher what is happening, and find out if it's an actual officer or not, while continuing to drive until you find out (hopefully to the nearest precinct).

An officer is NOT going to start lethal pursuit right off the bat (in fact, depending on the jurisdiction, it may be illegal to pursue).

Personally, I never have been that concerned, and that's something I'm very grateful for. I have occasionally had to make snap decisions whether someone flagging me down is official or not and I've so far got it right.

But you are making it seem a lot easier than it really is here. First you have to know the policy in the area you happen to be in and that is tricky for people always on the move. Secondly, and this brings us back to the boy who was shot, you'd better not be from a subculture or ethnic group who have good reason to believe that the police often won't play by the book with people like them.

[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.

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.

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

Damn. I swore off postings in the Political thread, and this is near enough, so I'm stopping there...

[Cayden]

My point exactly. Good on you.

[TomB]

Damn. I swore off postings in the Political thread, and this is near enough, so I'm stopping there...

I've wondered where you've been. Come on back to them.

Tom

[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"?

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.

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.

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.

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'. It isn't. Have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4719551.stm if you haven't already. 250 suspected suicide bomb incidents, 7 coming close to police 'action'.

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:

1. Be observed by special branch officers leaving a premises which is under intense anti-terrorist surveillance less than 24 hours after a major (failed) suicide bombing attempt in the immediate vicinity.
2. Be dressed suspiciously and inappropriately in a thick padded coat in the middle of summer, a coat concealing what appears to be a bulky belt. A bulky belt which later becomes visible and is seen to have 'wires coming out of it'. The same belt which at least one civilian eye-witness later described as a 'bomb belt'.
3. Approach the exact scene where less than 24 hours earlier a failed suicide bombing had taken place.
4. Immediately flee on being challenged by armed police. (some in uniform, according to one civilian eye-witness report).
5. Continue fleeing onto a train full of people. A similar train full of people at the same place where, of course, less than 24 hours earlier a suicide bomber had a deferred success.

Of course we now know that the 'bomb belt with wires coming out of it' was most likely the chap's tool-belt (he was an electrician, after all). We now know a great many things which were not known at the time. And 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).

But I would suggest that for such a string of 'similar circumstances' to occur is pretty bloody unlikely.

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.

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

Nice try. No cigar.

[missy]

GaryKelly wrote:
"4. Immediately flee on being challenged by armed police. (some in uniform, according to one civilian eye-witness report).
5. Continue fleeing onto a train full of people. A similar train full of people at the same place where, of course, less than 24 hours earlier a suicide bomber had a deferred success. "

These are the two that are beyond my powers of comprehension.

We had a police shooting here 2 years ago that "sparked" riots. A young African-American ran from police, at night, jumping fences and down darken alleys. While in pursuit, the officers found out over the radio that the man had numerous outstanding warrents (and were not advised as to what type of warrents these were). The man jumped a fence into a darkened alley that an officer had just entered. The man made a move that the officer interpreted as grabbing at something in the pocket or waistband of his pants, and continued to make the movement after being ordered to stop. The officer then fired, and killed the man. The man was found to be unarmed.
The officer was cleared of all wrong-doing - by an internal board, by an external board, by the FBI, by numerous civil rights groups, etc. None of that matters - it is still constantly brought up that this man was "murdered".

There is NO way I would be an officer in this day and age. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't, you are constantly seconded guessed on every move, and the African-American officers (at least in this city) get it much worse than their white counterparts (who get it bad enough).

[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.

[Wombat]

.. 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.