Man shot dead by police on Tube

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop i tried to get an answer to a hypothetical situation before and nobody gave me an answer.. here's another try... being that it isn't debateable that this guy was wrongly killed - hypothetically, what if the cops had killed a terrorist - i.e. someone with real connections to other terrorists, bombs on himself or in his domicile, etc? if the person killed was a terrorist rather than a poor, unlucky illegal immigrant - would your position remain the same?

My problem is that the police seemed to have killed a man based entirely on his ethnicity and his jacket. They shot him five times in the head after he was pinned to the floor. If indeed they had been trailing him from his house yet allowed him to get on first a bus and then into a subway, as claimed by police reports, they clearly have a problem with their "rules of engagement." Very little about this tragedy makes sense.

If indeed a terrorist was wearing a bomb vest, allowing him on mass transit, not once but twice, would be highly irresponsible, if in fact, he was under survellience as was claimed by the police in this case. I suppose the policy of shooting a suicide bomber in the head could make sense, but as was shown here, how does one distinquish between a suicide bomber and guy with a baggy coat? Or just Pakistani high schoolers with backpacks, which is how the other suicide bombers transported their bombs? As is usually case, there aren't a lot of easy answers. Trigger happy cops authorized to shoot people in the head are most likely not among them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop said:
being that it isn't debateable that this guy was wrongly killed - hypothetically, what if the cops had killed a terrorist - i.e. someone with real connections to other terrorists, bombs on himself or in his domicile, etc? if the person killed was a terrorist rather than a poor, unlucky illegal immigrant - would your position remain the same?

I say:
YES, my position would remain the same. Killing on suspicion is never right! If that were the case, Bush, all his cronies, and most of both major parties in the U.S. would already be dead.

[Chalk]

Quote by: |Chris| A heavy coat on 22 JUL?

This is the UK, it's been grey and cold in my bit of the country for the past 5 days, what's to say it wasn't in London? An irrelevant quip. And please don't dismiss the concerns I have about the state of MY own country, where I have to LIVE, as bullshit.

[bishop]

Quote by: RickSp My problem is that the police seemed to have killed a man based entirely on his ethnicity and his jacket. They shot him five times in the head after he was pinned to the floor. If indeed they had been trailing him from his house yet allowed him to get on first a bus and then into a subway, as claimed by police reports, they clearly have a problem with their "rules of engagement." Very little about this tragedy makes sense. If indeed a terrorist was wearing a bomb vest, allowing him on mass transit, not once but twice, would be highly irresponsible, if in fact, he was under survellience as was claimed by the police in this case. I suppose the policy of shooting a suicide bomber in the head could make sense, but as was shown here, how does one distinquish between a suicide bomber and guy with a baggy coat? Or just Pakistani high schoolers with backpacks, which is how the other suicide bombers transported their bombs? As is usually case, there aren't a lot of easy answers. Trigger happy cops authorized to shoot people in the head are most likely not among them.

good points, i have to agree with you. they should never have allowed him on the train in the first place.

i keep trying to propose an unrelated, hypothetical, situation though.. i have a feeling that there are certain cases where you would actually want the police to be able to kill - this brazillian's death is not such a case obviously.

personally, i like the idea of reforming the points of entry in subways so that you can get more people to screen oncoming passengers without disrupting the flow of traffic. putting metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs at the points of entry could be one worthwhile way to increase safety on the subways.

[Chris]

Quote by: RickSp My problem is that the police seemed to have killed a man based entirely on his ethnicity and his jacket.

I think I was reading that he left a house under surveillance. So they just didn't walk up to him, "Hey mate, your black, I think I am going to shoot you."

In all fairness, I didn't know a lot about this story, then I went and researched it and learnt more about it. Maybe you need to do so as well.

EDIT: Well It appears you have known about it, so Why would you make a stupid statement like ?

Quote by: RickSp My problem is that the police seemed to have killed a man based entirely on his ethnicity and his jacket.

[Chris]

Quote by: Chalk This is the UK, it's been grey and cold in my bit of the country for the past 5 days, what's to say it wasn't in London? An irrelevant quip. And please don't dismiss the concerns I have about the state of MY own country, where I have to LIVE, as bullshit.

I spent a month in Birmingham in July. It got hot -yes even for me.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Killing on suspicion is never right! If that were the case, Bush, all his cronies, and most of both major parties in the U.S. would already be dead.

Nice analogy, but in the wrong direction. After all, Bush is the one who launched a ton of killing in Iraq, based on erroneous suspicion. And like Bush, those Bobbies should have, at the very least, pinned down and searched the guy first.

However, I am going to admit, at the bottom of my gut, a certain sympathy (not an excuse) for the London police and, in the case of terrorism, to racial profiling. As Muslims in the west have been asking their own souls, why is it that Muslims may not all be terrorists, but all terrorists seem to be Muslim?

To quote some guy on a political talk show a couple of years back, responding to an anti-racial profiling advocate who had suggested that a terrorist could just as easily be a grey-haired white grandmother, "LOL... no, it couldn't!"

.

[Chris]

Quote by: Sonart And like Bush, those Bobbies should have, at the very least, pinned down and searched the guy first.

I do agree.

Don't really get me wrong, I am not one of those who says "Fuck yeah the cops did the right thing.."

[RickSp]

Quote by: |Chris| I think I was reading that he left a house under surveillance. So they just didn't walk up to him, "Hey mate, your black, I think I am going to shoot you." In all fairness, I didn't know a lot about this story, then I went and researched it and learnt more about it. Maybe you need to do so as well. EDIT: Well It appears you have known about it, so Why would you make a stupid statement like ?

So now you call me stupid. Well, Chris I will defer from expressing my views of your wit, or lack thereof. I do note that when Chalk commented that is has been cool, you reply with a non-sequitor about how you once visited Birmingham in July. You seem to think you know more about the weather than someone currently in England. Bizarre. Amusing to be called stupid by you, come to think of it.

And you obviously think it is better to allow someone suspected of being a suicide bomber to board two different forms of mass transit, then shoot him five times in the head after being pinned to the floor of a subway carriage, rather than say, stopping him on the street for questioning. Amazing.

[Chris]

Quote by: Sonart As Muslims in the west have been asking their own souls, why is it that Muslims may not all be terrorists, but all terrorists seem to be Muslim?

I heard that the Tamil Tigers (a Marxist group, completely secular) in Sri Lanka are the world leaders in suicide bombings based on a study from 1980-2004

[Chris]

Quote by: RickSp So now you call me stupid. Well, Chris I will defer from expressing my views of your wit, or lack thereof.

No I called your remark stupid, not you. There is a difference.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said:
However, I am going to admit, at the bottom of my gut, a certain sympathy (not an excuse) for the London police and, in the case of terrorism, to racial profiling. As Muslims in the west have been asking their own souls, why is it that Muslims may not all be terrorists, but all terrorists seem to be Muslim?

I say:
And that is exactly the hopes of the establishment. Offset the costs(loss of libertry, loss of rights) to evoke the sympathy we feel for those who are forced to uphold the laws.

People have got to understand there IS NO ANSWER to terrorism.

Free society, or police state, they will both be plagued by the same problems as long as people are willing to die to acheive their goals.

Terrorism was created as the only possible answer for the wrongs they believe were committed against them. It is a huge case, but the point being, most of our foreign policy in the past has led to what we have today..... A MAJOR PROBLEM.

The way to fix it is NOT to remove the freedoms of law abiding free people. The only answer is to start taking more caution in foreign policy, observe and admit our faults, and attempt to rectify the situations we have caused. Our borders are a joke, our national security is a farce.

I could prove this tomorrow, but I won't. I don't think people realize that the only way fear works as a deterrent is if people fear death.

Terrorists don't fear death, imprisonment, or scare tactics.

Police have the right to be pissed, their government is asking them to enforce unconstitutional law.

If they die in that mission, they have only themselves to blame for not standing up when they could have.

[Chris]

Quote by: RickSp And you obviously think it is better to allow someone suspected of being a suicide bomber to board two different forms of mass transit, then shoot him five times in the head after being pinned to the floor of a subway carriage, rather than say, stopping him on the street for questioning. Amazing.

Obvious to only one who jumps to conclusions, mate.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready And that is exactly the hopes of the establishment. Offset the costs (loss of libertry, loss of rights) to evoke the sympathy we feel for those who are forced to uphold the laws.

That's a tad too conspiratorial for me, Osborn. After all, it wasn't the government feeling that twinge of sympathy in the gut, it was me, Joe Citizen, and it was because of my own empathy, not some government message. I don't see democratic governments saying, "Gosh, what can we do to justify taking away some liberties today?" It's the citizens screaming, "Save us, government! Do something!", and what we don't want to hear is our government telling us we just have to cowboy up and accept terrorism as a way of life.

Having said that, I refer to "us" in the conglomerate. Personally, despite whatever twinges I may feel in the gut, I think that's exactly what our government should be telling us. Cowboy up, folks, cuz freedom ain't free. But I suspect I'm in the deep minority on that and democratic republics don't exist by ignoring their constituencies.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would love to see these "constitutencies" that are crying for things like the Patriot Act from someone other than a "CNN poll" or a "FOX poll". So far, the overwhelming majority of people I actually talk to are against the notion of more government induced security over the populace, and more concerned with border security, and airport security.

Also, I understand what you are saying about personal empathy, and that you feel my response was somewhat conspiratorial.

I am somewhat conspiratorial, for good reason.

Show me a point in our past since 1900, when our government relinquished power it had, by dissolving those bands of power, or giving that power back to the people.

The old saying, I would rather see 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man put to death. That meaning has been lost due to the gluttony of luxury, and the disease of mis-information of the facts.

Lately, too many innocent people have been being put to death or hardship......

.....Iraqi civillians, people caught in the crossfire of government suspicion, news reporters being put in jail for leaking TRUTH, people being locked up under suspicion in places like Guantanimo for SUSPICION of acts of terror or people THOUGHT to POSSIBLY induce acts of terror, government provoking citizens to report anyone or anything they see that looks REMOTELY suspicious.

When you zoom out and focus on the big picture, it is to me obvious, but to many, still conspiracy theory.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart That's a tad too conspiratorial for me, Osborn. After all, it wasn't the government feeling that twinge of sympathy in the gut, it was me, Joe Citizen, and it was because of my own empathy, not some government message. I don't see democratic governments saying, "Gosh, what can we do to justify taking away some liberties today?" It's the citizens screaming, "Save us, government! Do something!", and what we don't want to hear is our government telling us we just have to cowboy up and accept terrorism as a way of life. Having said that, I refer to "us" in the conglomerate. Personally, despite whatever twinges I may feel in the gut, I think that's exactly what our government should be telling us. Cowboy up, folks, cuz freedom ain't free. But I suspect I'm in the deep minority on that and democratic republics don't exist by ignoring their constituencies. .

The government does not try to justify removing liberties in any way other than for their own peice of mind.


I have yet to see any non-paid opinion screaming to be saved from the terror attacks.


We all know that freedom is not free, but since when is the cost measured in restricted freedoms? I always thought it required a totally different kind of sacrifice.


I understand that many of are willing to rationalize this away as wartime restrictions, but the government itself has said this is going to be a very long, and perhps unwinnable war, and thus all these restictions you lose, will remain lost for the duration of your lives. Personally, I cannot rationalize away this type of mentality.

[rcne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713753.stm

Police shot Brazilian eight times Mr Menezes had been in London for more than three years The man mistaken for a suicide bomber by police was shot eight times, an inquest into his death has heard. Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, at Stockwell Tube station, south London, on Friday. Det Insp Elizabeth Baker revealed the details at a hearing in London. Security sources have said Mr Menezes had been in the UK on an out-of-date student visa, but his family deny this and are considering suing the police.

Once it was reported that no bomb was found on the subject, I wondered just what would have made anyone jump the turnstile and run. It was a foolish thing to do - better to be deported. With the backlog in processing it could have been years of appeals and such before he was actually deported.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rcne I wondered just what would have made anyone jump the turnstile and run

Fact: He was shot dead at point blank range while without any means of defending himself.

Fact: Menezes was running away from his approaching death. His fear was well founded.

Fact: The London police have executed an innocent victim in public.

Now we hear various justifications of the police murder of an innocent: "He shouldn't have run. How could the police know?"

Where is the forthright accusation of police murder? Should we trust police after an incident like this? I can't see why...

[ibm]

what if the man did have bombs on his body? well, too bad, they’re gonna explode and some londoners would likely die – by the mistake of london police not having stopped and questioned the man earlier before he went into the subway.

i don’t know how the police would have reacted if the man was a caucasian, so i am not gonna to play the race card. but shot 7 times at close range after the man had been pinned down? are we gonna to be shot from now on just because we wear a thick coat in july (even when the weather is said to be cool)?

to me, this is typical terrorism – as i feel terrorized by this horrible public execution.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Milton Bradley We all know that freedom is not free, but since when is the cost measured in restricted freedoms? I always thought it required a totally different kind of sacrifice.

I absolutely agree, Milton. But you and I both know there are many Americans willing to trade freedoms to advance their agendas, both from the left and the right, and for issues alot less significant than the threat of terrorist attacks. I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I have yet to see any non-paid opinion screaming to be saved from the terror attacks.

Then I don't think you've been looking. I think 9/11 genuinely terrified most Americans. Just look at the irrational post-9/11 collapse in airline travel. The fact that folks like me and you may have been booking seats to anywhere simply out of jaw-jutting defiance couldn't reverse that.

Quote by: Patrick Henry Fact: The London police have executed an innocent victim in public. Fact: Menezes was running away from his approaching death. His fear was well founded.

The first fact, absolutely. The second I doubt very much. Folks run from the police all the time and for considerably less. Just watch any episode of "Wildest Police Chases". Expired licenses, fer gawdsake. It's just that none of them expects to get shot. It seems entirely reasonable that he was running because of an expired visa. He just picked a really bad time to run from police into a subway station wearing an overcoat. (No, I'm not justifying it)

.