Allotments 4 All
General => The Shed => Topic started by: adam04 on July 25, 2005, 22:59:41
-
well, what do you think of it?? were the police right to shoot?? has an innocent life been wasted??
weel, he had nothing to do with the bombings, but why did he run?? apparantly his visa had expired but his family said it wasnt? so why run if there was nothing to hide?? i think the police were absolutly correct to fire. he wa asked to stop and instead he ran, jumping ticket barriers to get onto a train.
now, the police will be blamed and the whole issue about the bombings and the mets good work recently will be forgotten. even though, the police were doing their jobs, trying to save more lives.
-
There's some comment in the "More London Bombings" thread.
Maybe he was a petty thief or a drug dealer and ran because he thought that was why they were after him. If he was given the usual verbal warning before being shot at, he should have understood - he was Brazilian, hence he spoke Portugese, and the Portugese word for police is "polícias". He would have known what it meant.
However, I have heard on another forum that the new police 'rules of engagement' for suspected suicide bombers it to shoot to kill without giving a warning first. If this is true then it is a scary prospect, but makes sense if you consider what a bomber might do if he thinks they're on to him. If this policy is more widely known then perhaps people won't be as daft as to run towards a crowded train when challenged.
It does seem odd that the police followed this guy right into a tube station before taking any action. Surely they could have stopped him beforehand, somewhere where there were less people who may have been at risk from a bomb. It's a terrible mistake, and one I hope isn't repeated. However, we should not castigate our emergency services on the ground for trying to keep us safe. The policeman who shot the guy should not be blamed, it was whoever was responsible for gathering or interpreting the intelligence who was at fault.
-
I think it's sad how life is changing for the worse in this country. People who live amonst us don't seem to share our values but enjoy our freedoms. Where will it all end?
-
It's all this nonsense about how the police say it's not a "shoot-to-kill" policy that gets me. Their policy is if it is a suspected suicide bomber, they shoot them in the head incase the "bomber" has explosives on their chest where they would normally shoot. But doctors say a head shot will kill someone. So it is shoot to kill.
It frightens me.
It means anyone can be killed for just looking suspicious. Sounds like the first step towards this country becoming a police state.
And quite frankly I believe that whether or not the person was a bomber, they should not be killed. This is capital punishment without a trial. It doesn't matter whether the person is innocent or not they should not be executed.
I understand the need to protect the public. But surely leaving it until the "suspect" is actually on a tube train is not protecting the public.
Five shots to the head seems incredibly excessive. To me it speaks of the police taking the law into their own hands and using brutal tactics that remind me of the SS.
I carry a bulky black backpack (which incidently contains a lunchbox) but I don't feel quite paranoid enough to be a target for gun-ho police officers - I don't exactly look much like a muslim fundamentalist!
-
Why can't people understand, there is no such thing as a "shoot to wound" policy. If a soldier or policeman makes the decision to open fire on you, he fully intends to kill you. :o
-
I am fully in agreement with the `Shoot to Kill`policy where suspected terrorists and suicide bombers refuse to heed police warnings, but there are two things about it which puzzle me:-
1. When the Tory government implemented such a policy against the IRA in Northern Ireland the whole of the Labour Party condemned it.
2. If a householder kills a burglar or mugger who is threatening him with a weapon he will almost certainly be arrested and charged with either murder or manslaughter.
So just what makes the present policy different?
-
Five shots to the head seems incredibly excessive. To me it speaks of the police taking the law into their own hands and using brutal tactics that remind me of the SS.
See, this is the problem. You are blaming the chap who had to decide, in a split second, how to stop a suspect (who he had been told might have a bomb) who didn't stop when challenged as most people would do, but started running towards a packed train. It wasn't police brutality (and how do they remind you of the SS, exactly? Please don't compare those atrocities to this one tragic mistake). It was an ordinary human being faced with an awful decision, who most likely panicked, but still actually ran towards a man he thought was carrying a bomb, with the intent of somehow stopping him from setting it off, instead of running the other way. I doubt I could have done that.
The problem is not the tactics, it's the strategy - it's the bad intelligence that led to someone being put into that awful position. Hopefully it won't happen again, and hopefully the poor bugger who made that awful mistake on the spur of the moment is getting some help to deal with what he's done.
-
Hopefully it was a mistake, as you say. It could also be a case of somebody who'd been given permission to shoot people, and just had to do it, or someone with his head full of stereotypes about immigrants. Probably, we'll never know.
-
The rules are there...well publicised.
If someone shouted to me 'Armed Police...stop' my hands would be reaching for the stars pronto believe me.
The choice is simple...obey the laws of the land whatever they are. We are in difficult and sad times and they ain't going to get better.
The choice is do you take one life or risk possibly many more killed or maimed... that's a hell of a choice to have to make.
The UK is an open Country....wide open.. so here are the consequencies folks
Derek
-
You see that's the problem. Part of the tactics with pursuing suspected suicide bombers is that the police DO NOT shout a warning as this would give the "bomber" a chance to blow themselves up. How could someone who is being pursued by what would look to anyone like a gang of men (Ie - plain clothes police men) NOT have the urge to run? I know I would be frightened of being attacked and would probably run.
Why does it remind me of the SS? Well I do not see that we should only feel that it is wrong and tragic when thousands of people die. If one person is killed that is an enormous tragedy to me.
This is not what I believe living in a democracy is about. This is what happens in police states.
(I understand the police are doing a very difficult job and one that I would not want to do. But I'm also an idealist and a humanist and I cannot help but feel enraged when those who are supposed to be protecting us make such a huge error as ended someone's life.)
Rant over.
(hmm - maybe I'd better stop reading this thread before I truely get enraged...!)
-
If we allow the police to do stuff like this without holding them accoutable, then we reduce ourselves to the same level as the terrorists. That's the big danger I see, especially when I see the headlines in certain tabloids! If the police really shouted a warning, wouldn't they have made a statement to that effect by this time, given the criticism they're facing?
-
Part of the tactics with pursuing suspected suicide bombers is that the police DO NOT shout a warning
The police did give a warning though! thats when he ran!
-
:o Where did you hear that Adam? and did he understand it I wonder (being a foreigner)? Or did he think he was being chased by a mugger till he was shot in the head 6 times by a person who was told he may have a bomb and kill many people?
Not quite cut and dried? ???
-
the police did make a statement.
they said that the man was followed some distance (including a busride) while they tried to decide the best course of action. when he neared the tube station the order was given not to allow him to enter because he could be lost in the throng of people and board a train.
the police called to him to stop and he ran, not towards the safety of uniformed staff instead vaulting over the turnstiles and half running, half jumping down an escalator to the platform.
the police followed, shouting 'police, get out get out' to the terrified public. they caught up with him as a train pulled in. faced with the prospect of a large number of innocents the officer grabbed the guy and shot 8 times.
-
by the way, the brazillian for police sounds almost identical to the english so he would have understood.
he was wearing a large woolen 'duffle' style overcoat on a hot day.
police were searching for a bomber seen leaving one of the crimescenes with wires protruding from his shirt that they believed might be explosives.
today they announced that his visa was out of date and had been 'clumsily' forged.
-
:o Where did you hear that Adam? and did he understand it I wonder (being a foreigner)? Or did he think he was being chased by a mugger till he was shot in the head 6 times by a person who was told he may have a bomb and kill many people?
Not quite cut and dried? ???
There you go dave (or tara) have put the full story down!
-
I wonder. If the passport was forged how come he could travel on it? Wearing a coat on a hot day is typical of immigrants; my own family do it.
-
I wonder. If the passport was forged how come he could travel on it? Wearing a coat on a hot day is typical of immigrants; my own family do it.
it was a forged visa, not passport!
-
The same question still applies! Even if it was forged, it's not an offence which should carry the death penalty, especially extra-judicially. If that sort of stuff can be accepted, then I see no moral difference between the police and the terrorists.
-
no, but the visa was not the reason he was shot. it may however, explain why he ran from the police. i am not denying that this was a tragic mistake, nor am i saying that this man did anything for which he deserved to be shot.
i do believe that the policeman acted in a brave way to try and avert a massacre such as occured in london earlier this month.
-
Of course it wasn't the reason he was shot. It looks to me as though they're trying to label him as an 'illegal immigrant' in order to dilute the blame, and that shouldn't go unchallenged. A human life is a human life, after all.
-
I really can't understand why the police are being attacked here. Under the circumstances, how else should they have reacted? ???
-
Normally I don't participate in debates here but this time I will.
This is my view:
The policeman made a tragic mistake, if he hadn't, he would be a national hero today.
The victim made a tragic mistake, if he hadn't, he would have been alive today.
-
weel, he had nothing to do with the bombings, but why did he run??
Because he was being chased by what looked like ordinary folk (plain clothed policemen), who had guns! >:(
-
Yeah but those said plain clothed policemen have to give warning before they
shoot......... and given the same set of circumstances we would get the same
result again........... to which a large percentage of Londeners will sleep a d**n
lot easier knowing they are doing the brilliant job they are doing !!
-
Last thing I would do with a gun pointing at me, no matter who is doing it, is run.
Even if I didn't see the gun and I was being accosted or chased by men in a populated area, I wouldn't run but seek help from the people around me, preferably from uniformed personnel which must be all around the stations these days.
As I said, a tragic mistake.
-
It doesnt matter what they said as they could have easily been random thugs lying. No exceptions, anyone will be scared of a gun pointed at their head and will react in different ways. And as for the "brilliant job" they did, killing an innocent man doesnt sound that brilliant to me.
-
Well lets think of it another way. if the police hadnt have acted and the man had had a bomb.
the headline would read: london blown up, police watch on.
there would be uproar, if the police had have let the man walk onto a train in rush hour and had stopped him and then he had a bomb and boom!
-
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Or, if they had let him go after chasing him and nothing happened? Once the journalists had gotten wind of that: Police gave up chase and let a potentially dangerous person get away on a crowded train.
Do we really expect the police to jump on him and first look what's under that coat or in his bag? Wrong time and place for that, these are not normal times.
True, 'anyone will react differently when a gun is pointed at their head' the victim's reaction was a tragic mistake.
-
ina, i thank you. i think you have summed up this whole topic very nicly there!
-
What would you do if I waved a gun at you and shouted 'Police!'? Any mugger can do that, and the guy came from a country where the police have been involved with death squads and all sorts. Since they'd apparently followed him for some distance, they'd probably had every chance to stop the guy without running after him and panicking him, and I can't really see that coming out of some flats they were watching constitutes 'reasonable grounds' to suspect anything. They haven't said anything at all which in any way connects him with whatever specific flat they were interested in. It seems to me that the more awkward questions we ask about this sort of thing the better. My guess is that the police panicked when he went onto the underground, but why wasn't he stopped earlier if they really suspected him?
-
i'd put my hands up.
-
Lets face it, even if they were muggers with guns - you don't run on the grounds bullets travel faster than sound! :o
-
I would because anything except a rifle is strictly a short-range job, and you can't shoot while you're running. Especially if I had a train I could run for!
-
Firstly, I'd like to point out that this guy had a name - Jean de Menezes. I only point this out as there seems to have been an attempt in the media, in its rush to somehow rationalise this killing, to dehumanize the victim.
Secondly, our perception of this event is controlled by the same media, by passing on information from the police and the home office of their choosing. So at first we were told that he belonged to the terror gang, until it became obvious that he wasn't. Then we were told he arroused suspicion by wearing a bulky coat, now it seems it was an ordinary dennim jacket. He was alleged to have vaulted the ticket barriers, now it seems that the witness who made that claim may have mistaken the victim for one of the policman. You see how the story changes over time? Hopefully in time the facts will emerge in a full independent enquiry, but don't hold your breath, no doubt most information will be withheld for reasons of "national security". So maybe we will never know. Perhaps it was an inevitable consequence of suddenly flooding the streets of London with thousands of armed police.
Another thing, since when was shooting to kill a lawful policy? New guidance for dealing with suicide bombers was apparenly issued in 2002 without anyone thinking it necessary to inform the public or parliament. Allowing the police to write there own rulebook is indeed a step towards a police state.
This event was neither a mistake nor a tragedy. Locking yourself out of your house is a mistake. People in the third world dying of preventable diseases is a tragedy. This was at best a monumental thingy-up and at worst an act of state-sponsered murder.
-
So many people, so many opinions.
-
again ina, you are right.
it seems that we each have our own opinions in this matter and are unlikely to change them anytime soon.
as someone who lives in london and has to use public transport with my children i have to say that i welcome greater powers for the police including the so called shoot to kill policy.
that said, i am bowing out of this thread because i feel very strongly about it yet want to continue to enjoy this site and stay friends with the people on it.
see you all on the other topics,
Tara xx
-
I'll join you. Too emotionally loaded.
-
I think there has been too much surmising with too little facts and peeps forming their own opinions with little or no evidence, (myself included) so unless you were that fly on the wall we may never know exactly what happened.
I feel this should now be laid to rest. :(
-
I'm finding very difficult to get over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Perhaps some of you would like to join me and others who are very unhappy about a innocent man being killed by the police, about this shoot to kill policy, about the way lies and myths were allowed to circulate as true causing further suffering to the family: a demonstration/vigil will take place outside Downing Street tomorrow 22 August at 6pm.
Sorry about the short notice but I've only learned about this today.
-
Too short a notice, but good to see you back BsidePig ;D
-
I'm not in a fit state to get there unfortunately, but the revelations in the last couple of days make me even more worried about this; they just seem to be confirming my worst suspicions.
-
its amazing how people react to these kind of things. what if it was a suicide bomber, and he had blown up a tube killing 100's of people, wonder what you would be saying then??
-
what if it was a suicide bomber?
'It' was, in fact, an electrician, and somebody's son...
-
Who appears to have done absolutely nothing wrong, and to have been lied about by the police in an attempt to transfer the blame.
-
I am waiting for the enquiry.
-
Let's hope it's impartial, and not like the first enquiry into Bloody Sunday.