whos the police shot?

killed him by shooting FIVE times.. that even gets to me more..

oh.. but wait.. I wasn't going to discuss this.. hehe.. but since we agree it's not really a discussion so.. nevermind

 

Ble m'aer Llaeth? Am i right in thinking "I'm/We're shitting ourselves/self", hmmm, it's not good is it?

 

Apparently Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, spoke "very good" English and "had nothing in his past which would give him a reason to run from police". He was Catholic.

Why did he run? What warning was given? Did he know these plain clothes officers were police? Why was he shot at point blank range while apparently "pinned down" on the floor of the tube train? The police have a lot of explaining to do, but until these questions are answered I think it best to reserve judgement as to why he ran and why he was shot, whether it was a proportianate response or dereliction of duty. A lot of the story just doesn't fit together at the moment; it's quite possible we don't yet know some key aspects of what happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm#

Edit:

This "challenged police" thing seems to be a mistake, possibly originating from CNN. I believe Ian Blair actually said he was "challenged by police".

 

So now they say the guy is Brazilian and not asian. They have admitted that they shot an innocent man and not a terrorist. He is a bloody electrition for christ's sake.

 

They said it was undercover police who shot em.. followed em from his house.. so he prolly must have sensed that and got all paranoid so when they told em to stop.. he jus didnt know how to react and ran.. i mean they were prolly dressed as civilians and during these times.. im sure hes aware he looks asian n all and jus wanted to run for his life.. not the smartest thing to do but its a human reaction... too bad foer him, it leaded to his death.

 

He had also lived in the slums of Sao Paolo ... gun crime and gang culture is rife there

 

I don't know about everyone else, but this has gutted me.

 

its a sad business, but we all die .
lots of innocent people get killed in wars and in dumb accidents.

Id feel worse if the intention behind his death were worse, but I think the people who shot him shot him because they thought he was likely to be as suicide bomber.

in world war two we destroyed the french fleet, the french had been our allies and we knew that lots of the people we killed were on our side. but the admirals in charge looked like giving the fleet to the nazis and then they could have invaded and won the war .
so we did a very ruthless thing

again we bombed ships carrying heavy water these ships were full of our friends women and children, but we couldnt risk the nazis getting the atom bomb ...on both these occasions we did very ruthless things , and innocent people got killed

but less than would have been killed if the nazis had won , for those people it was a tragedy but I think it was worthwhile , the same I think applies in this case .

if you shoot people you think are suicide bombers in the same circumstances as this even if you make some mistakes your still likely to save more lives overall .

 

I'm sure the non-white population will be heartened to discover that more of them are expected to be sacrificed in order to save the rest of us from would-be terrorists who may or may not exist. Now that's what I call freedom!

The subtleties of utilitarian philosophy aside, this was a mistake plain and simple, and if there's a chance it was the result of negligence then criminal charges should be brought - that's what we do in civilised societies.

I think we also have a right to know what the secret "Kratos" rules of engagement are. Are they required to give clear warnings? So far all we have is that plain clothed police "challenged" this man, which for all we know may simply mean they drew a gun on him. Eyewitnesses report hearing no warnings. The Israelis, with whom Kratos was developed, are required to give no warnings on the grounds that a warning might encourage a bomber to detonate himself. Fair enough, but this isn't Israel. What constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion? Race? Clothing? Panicking when someone draws a gun on you?

This is a significant change to UK police policy effected in secret ... it needs to be democratically scrutinised.

 

The end does not justify the means in this case
Using your justifications would imply that stepping over a few people just to get to some greater good is acceptable

just really think of what youre saying, shooting first then asking questions later is going to lead to more incidents similar to this one, where the innocent die due to paranoia and unreasonable suspison.

this man had no direct link to possible terrorist bombings, only the fact that he lived in the same building as a suspected terrorist. There have been so many indescripencies with newsreports and statements, I find it hard to beleive that their only choice was shooting him
Even according to eye witness accounts,the police had him pindowned and physcial tackled. why the need to shoot him 5 times, one of which is reported to be a shot in the head!
Kill the innocent for some greater good....that is a dangerous ideology to go by

 

"I'm sure the non-white population will be heartened to discover that more of them are expected to be sacrificed in order to save the rest of us from would-be terrorists who may or may not exist. Now that's what I call freedom!"

looking at pictures of the guy he looks white so I dont they shot him because of his colour ....
also he had worked in london for 3 years so I dont think it was a language problem.

he was challenged by up to twenty plain clothes police, he had vaulted the barrier before this i think ,so he could be a fare dodger or he could have just paniced .

"The Israelis, with whom Kratos was developed, are required to give no warnings on the grounds that a warning might encourage a bomber to detonate himself."

this seems pretty wise the isrealis have a lot of experience with suicide bombers so listerning to them seems a pretty good idea

Im not sure What constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion, but I could see circumstances if you had the right intelligence where not giving any warning would be a good idea .

everyday we make decisions that cause the death of innocent people take the way we finance hospitals and health care .
if we were prepared to spend more money on health care we could save more lives but because we have a limited budget we spend some money on health care and some on education lets say .

by doing this we are causing the deaths of innocent people we could save .

I still think its a good idea to shoot people who you think might be bombers and dont stop when challenged .
during the last war we shot people who were challenged by the home guard and ran away lots of those people were innocent

 

and lets say you tackle someone down and they are a suicide bomber he could still set off his charge .
you could come up with some form of contact that was operated by your big toe and it would be easy to conceal a contact in the arm or the wrist .

its not like someone armed with a gun who has to pull the gun out and point it at you .

I think by running for whatever reason he signed his own death warrent .

 

right the lastest on the person who was shot, he from another country but i cant remember what one. he was innocent as well - what the fuck is this world coming to. basically he went out i dont think he spoke english and they gunned him down, and his mate was ment to meet him and kept phoning him at home and eventially the police pciked up and said sorry hes dead. Thats what you call bollocks.

the joys of being british a

 

They also have a lot of experience with shooting innocent people and failing to stop terrorism ... arguably making the situation worse. So caution would probably be advised when taking their advice...

I won't be drawn into a debate on utilitarianism and precisely how many innocent people it is tolerable to slay. Suffice to say that in this particular instance the mistake cost an innocent man his life and saved nobody. As such we need to examine the reasons behind this mistake, discover what lessons can be learnt in order to minimise the risk of it happening again and hold to account those responsible.

It would be a sad day when something like this did not cause shock and outrage.

 

I don't think there's much point speculating about this incident until all the facts are know. Clearly, there's potentially justification for shooting suspects if there's a sincere and well-informed belief that they pose an imminent threat to life. Until the inquiry reports, we won't know whether that was the case in this instance or whether the police perpetrated a right royal fuck-up.

 

you said it dok

yea this is true, especially also if he had the fear of gangs in the past. maybe jumping into a tube station seemed like a safe place to go

 

Yeah, London's well known for the large gangs that roam its streets in broad daylight, leaping out on unsuspecting citizens, pointing submachine guns at them and shouting "stop, armed police." Happens all the time

 

.

 

Yeah, and this is why we don't speculate and wait until we have all the facts

 

I know the inquiry is still pending and that there may well be criminal charges brought, but I am absolutely stunned that we don't yet know any more about it, particularly since the issue directly relates to public anxiety over our safety and over the new armed police rules of engagement. There has still been no simple description of what actually happened. I wonder if we ever will have the full facts.

With the police happily suggesting that this may well be standard practice in the war on terror, we should apparently consider ourselves lucky that this has only happened once:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4719551.stm
"There are suicide bombers there and we have a job to do. It is a tragedy that should not divert us from the main issue"

If the purpose of terrorism is to create fear and panic, it looks like the police are letting that handful of individuals win quite spectacularly on this one.