MOH Forum: Glad I don’t live there anymore. (London shooting.)

Glad I don’t live there anymore. (London shooting.)

Posted By:
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Jul 23, 2005

<a href="http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITAIN_UNDERGROUND?SITE=AZPHG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-23-04-14-51" title="null">Not really a hoax</a>

This is bad anyway, pinning someone to the ground and then shooting them five times in the head. I bet they'll have one of their standard investigations and the officers the committed this murder will be exonerated.

This is the passage thet get me though
"If you are dealing with someone who <u>might</u> be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them," Mayor Ken Livingstone. "Therefore, overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."

This is carte blanche for the cops to shoot anyone they want, all they have to do is claim they beleived the guy/gal was a suicide bomber.

Since when was London a police state?

Sorry, this probably doesn't belong on a hoax forum, but I had to vent.

Category: News-Story; Replies: 21

Comments

Accipiter Member	Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 \| 02:35 PM Sorry to disagree with you on this, Sharruma, but the police acted properly in this matter. This wasn't just a case of the police suddenly noticing some random person in a crowd, jumping on him, and shooting him. The man, dressed in a suspicious way, came out of a building that the police had been watching. He then went to the Underground station. At that point the police took action, warning him to stay where he was or they'd shoot. He decided to be an idiot and run, and he ran onto a train. Considering that he was a potential suicide bomber and was acting in a semi-suicidal way, the police would have to assume that he was trying to blow himself up on the train. He matched the general description of the bombers, he was dressed in the manner of many bombers, he came from a building that was a suspected operating area of the bombers, and, when confronted by the police, he acted like a bomber would have. Any one of those reasons by itself wouldn't be cause enough, but all together they give plenty of reason for action. And so the police acted in the only way that they could.
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 \| 03:55 PM I don't know Acci True the guy shouldn't have run but the police had him pinned to the ground before they shot him. What worried me most is how far this can go could a cop shoot an irriatating neighbour and then claim 'I thought he was a suicide bomber' this is the message I'm getting from the story
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 02:11 AM To be honest, I was hoping this wouldn't come to our forum. Go to <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/43680">metafilter</a> if you want to know my opinions on the matter.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 02:25 AM Sharruma, the way you wrote that last entry, and looking at your Sumeritan-looking avatar reminded me of the version of Gilgamesh I read in 9th grade, with its disjointed poetic style. And I won't be such a jerk, I'll summarize my opinions here: The man may have been insane, or the man may not have realized the plainclothesman were really police men. The man may have been running from what he thought were gang members to a place where he thought they wouldn't shoot him. The man had already been pinned down, ensuring he couldn't activate a bomb (unless it was psychicaly activated). The plainclothesman who shot him should be treated like a youth who found a gun and shot his friend, and have his badge taken away, minimum. Ultimately, allowing police to behave like this will lead to more civillian deaths than it will prevent, and is not an effective way to combat this terrorism (withdrawing armed forces from Iraq would be smarter). Well, those are about all my important thoughts on this matter, and chances are I won't be saying more. Cheerio.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 07:03 AM I don't think this one incident is going to start raping and pillaging among police officers. The UK has never had to deal with this before, and unlike the single attack made to the US on Sept. 11, the Brits have had to put up with 2 weeks of terrorist attacks. They are probably scared out of their freaking minds. And maybe I'm just weak and easily sedated, but I remember when my siblings and I would rough house...I could easily pin one of them to the floor. Before I knew it, though, I had been flipped over and was stuck under 2 or 3 of them. If I could manage to get a hand free I could pinch one of them until they let me up. SO, why am I telling you about my childhood playtime? Because it illustrates that just b/c he's been pinned to the floor doesn't mean he won't still get loose. I'm sure the UK police are much better at pinning someone down than I am, but the principals are still the same. I'm sure the officer was afraid, but I highly doubt that we'll see anarchy in the streets of London b/c of this single incident.
thunder in England Member	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 07:16 AM I think the police were right. Yes it was only a potential suicide bomber but if i were in that situation i would rather shoot dead one person who is maybe a suicide bomber then let him walk and blow up the train. Most of England are more alert than they already were, my dad's train has been stopped and the whole station evacuated 3 times since the first four bombs went off (thankfully none were actual bombs). Yes they had him pinned to the ground but he only needed a few seconds to detonate a bomb. Say they handcuffed him with his hands behind his back, that could be where a trigger could be. The bomb may have not even been on his body, but one flick of a switch and he could have blown up a lot of innocents. That probably didnt come out too well but I know it in my head. My town has been called a 'hotbed of terrorist action and streets close to my own alquida(sp?) street. If this person helps stop that then i'd say its a good thing Always choose the lesser of two evils, right?
Hairy Houdini	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 11:16 AM lemme see if I've got this right... The victim was "dressed" like a terrorist...The Policemen were UNDERCOVER, and therefore, not in uniform... The victim was Brazillian, meaning DARK SKINNED...being Brazillian, he may not have spoken English...he RAN AWAY from UNuniformed men with guns...Here's my take: THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT...if we start shooting people who are afraid of cops, who may or may not speak English, or, people who are Simple, Brain-Damaged, Insane, or just plain SCARED, then the cops better have a shitload of bullets, because a lot of us fit parts or all of the above personal descriptions... WELCOME TO THE NEW OIL ORDER, Kids...be afraid- be VERY afraid...I have NO LOVE for any lunatic who kills for Allah, Jesus, or Mickey Frickin' Mouse, but this is not the way to fight terrorism...my condolences to the victims of terrorism, whatever form it takes... we are better than this, and we need to start proving it
Snowy in aeternum Member	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 12:07 PM Amen, Brother.
padego Member	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 03:37 PM Meagan,the Brits have had to deal with this form of terrorism in the form of the I.R.A. Throughout the 70s and 80s random bombings on the transit and tube lines occured. In my travelling days, mid to late 70s, there were posters on all the buses and subways to report any suspiscious packages to the authorities.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 \| 03:58 PM I read an article recently about a woman who tried to report a suspicious looking back-pack on a train, and nobody did anything. I guess it's more fun to shoot people then to send in a bomb squad. (OK, that's my very last opinion on the matter. I swear.)
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 \| 05:42 AM I dunno, if I've ever been stopped by anyone claiming to be an officer, my first thought isn't to tuck-tail and RUN. If someone identified themselves as police, if I HAD been in the process of moving, I would probably at least pause to see what was going on. And that kid should have been able to recognize the level of alert the police would have been on at the time of the incident. I saw an interview with his family on the news this morning - they all indicated he spoke english VERY WELL. I also read the article that advised he was a good Catholic boy. Sorry, but I don't recall the last time MY halo showed, so the police knew NOT to shoot me as I fled from them. Uniformed or not, I'm sure they have some sort of protocol for identifying themselves as police to suspects. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's okay to shoot innocent people. I'm sure the police regret having killed someone who (after investigation) was innocent. According to the the news this morning, the biggest give-away was his heavy coat. About 2 days after the first London attacks, I saw some Israeli police official (maybe retired?) giving a list of what to look for in possible suicide bombers. Number ONE on the list? Inappropriate clothing for the weather. If it is Summer, and he has a coat on - he might be hiding some sort of device under his coat. I don't think it's a good idea to have a 'shoot to kill' policy, but the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few. I should also have indicated that England has not had to deal with THIS LEVEL of terrorism, rather than no terrorism.
thunder in England Member	Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 \| 05:58 AM 'lemme see if I've got this right... The victim was "dressed" like a terrorist...The Policemen were UNDERCOVER, and therefore, not in uniform... The victim was Brazillian, meaning DARK SKINNED...being Brazillian, he may not have spoken English...he RAN AWAY from UNuniformed men with guns...Here's my take: THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT...' No, they found this blokes name in one of the failed bombers backpacks, he had an expired visa - meaning he is an illegal immigrant - he could speak english well, the police called 'STOP POLICE' and the man ran. Surely if he had nothing to do with it he would have the common sense to stop, even as Maegan says, to see what was going on, not to run onto a train where six bombs have gone off in the last three weeks. Wouldnt you be suspicious of someone wearing a big heavy coat on a hot day? The MET dont just arrest people who are dark skinned, and from what I hear from my uncle, they avoid arresting anyone other than white because surprise surprise its called racism. Lastly, Citizen Premier, when someone reports a suspicious package on a train, the whole station is evacuated with a 200 meter cordon(sp?). Any bomb threats on trains at least are dealt with very well. Sorry, I know I'm ranting, but I feel very strongly about this. The shoot-to-kill policy has nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good reason, as this incident was.
padego Member	Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 \| 09:26 AM O.K. I'm going to get picky here... In the late 70s England was a mess, Northern Ireland had quickly developed into a mini Vietnam and bombings and associated threats both there and in London were becoming fairly frequent. They have definatly seen this level and more. The British learned a lot back then, with the help of the Isriali Mosad they began to formulate protocals for dealing with urban and international terrorism. Granted they became lax of late but you can bet they're in full swing now.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 \| 10:53 AM People who were on the police force in the 70s are probably NOT on the police force today (or if they are, they're probably into the higher ranks and aren't on the streets every day). SO...TODAYS officers HAVE NOT seen this level of terrorism for quite a while.
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 \| 03:44 AM Either damn way... 1 - The kid was an illegal, most likely for a reason. 2 - He was already linked to terrorist activity, his name was found in/on/around "other" known terrorist bombers. 3 - And not only did he "look" like a terrorist, he acted like one as well. He was in a foreign country and "well-aware" of recent events in said country I'm sure. It was his responsibility, English speaking or not, to make sure that he was cooperative with "authorities" in the country he was visiting. His responsibility to not do anything that might get him killed. But he did, so his death is his fault as far as I'm concerned. And while I'm sticking my opinions out there to be attacked and ridiculed... It's also my opinion that he was a terrorist, he just wasn't on his mission from Allah at that particular time. He's been linked to the group responsible for bombing London, he was dressed inappropriately for the weather (who wears a down-filled WINTER coat in July?) and he failed to follow orders given by the people put in charge. I speak not one word of Russian BUT if I were visiting Moscow and while there "terrorist bombings" were taking place, no matter who's yelling at me, in whatever language you'd like, my reaction would not be anything like his... it's not like he was shopping or something, he ran onto the trains where the bombings have recently been taking place! In that scared London cops place, I probably would have shot the kid too! Slightly off-topic - Isn't Razela over there currently? Has anyone heard in from her about any of this? Her thoughts about these events?
Winona in USA Member	Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 \| 03:54 AM Mark: from the article, Brazilian media reported that Menezes was an electrician who had been legally living and working in England for the past three years.
Winona in USA Member	Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 \| 03:55 AM And I did talk to Razela after the first bombing, but not since this bit. She's ok.
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 \| 04:00 AM He was legal Win... but that status had since changed. Someone who's a conscientious person, working in a foreign country, does NOT for any good reason let their credentials expire... as he did. Also, what about his name being found in one of the other bombers notes / backpack? I could be wrong, it happens a lot! But I still think he was a terrorist or at the very least a cooperating sympathizer. PS - Good to hear Razela's OK... I would be curious to hear her opinion of this incident though as she is pretty much in the same boat as he...
Gutza	Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 \| 08:15 AM I feel that the police acted the right way. We all know the facts by now (including the fact that the man did speak English), so let me ask a question to all the people who think the police was wrong: What would your opinion be of the British Police at this moment in time if they took the actions you suggest, and the man had detonated a bomb under these conditions (and, of course, provided that we'd still know everything we know now, which would've been unlikely with all the cops involved killed by the explosion)? Wouldn't you still jump the police for being STUPID TWATS who don't have the BALLS to pull the trigger and shoot a KNOWN GODDAMNED TERRORIST? (Because of course, if he would've had a bomb, and detonated it, the exact same evidence we have now would've been turned around to show that the police KNEW he was a terrorist, so why the HELL didn't they just SHOOT him BEFORE he BLEW UP the GODDAMNED TRAIN!) We all act on the data we have at hand. We can feel guilty if we made the wrong choices in respect to the data at hand, OR if we didn't bother to collect enough data before acting -- the police made neither of these mistakes, therefore I think they acted the right way. Don't get me wrong, of course it's very unfortunate that an inexplicable chain of events ended up killing a man who didn't deserve it, but that's bad luck, not police abuse IMHO.
Mort in Just left of centre Member	Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 \| 08:45 AM Yes they acted correctly, yes it's terrible this guy was killed, NO us English people are not worried about this. We've been subjected to bombing campaigns in the past (from 1916-1996) and the Police generally get it right. The main point to make is that our police don't often carry weapons and so this instance rarely arises, unfortunatley they got it wrong this time, but i'd rather they got it wrong once if they can go on to get it right time and time again. Removing the right for individual police action will only cost lives in the furure.
bloggs	Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 \| 08:22 AM The police made a mistake. Their snap judgement was the wrong one. For those who wish to know how humans can make a snap error in milliseconds read 'blink' by Malcolm Gladwell. Its almost the same result as the manslaughter of Amadou Diallo 3rd Feb 1999 N.Y. The Police made a string of errors because they were either not qualified to carry out this task or they got so hyped up that they forgot all training they had and took the path that leads to manslaughter. For the complete time line with links go to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4184924 Lets hope its not you next time...

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.