Man shot dead by police on Tube

[Nono]

Quote by: Zeeb "You have a guy you think is a suicide bomber", so, "the headshot". If you don't see a problem with shooting someone you "think" is a bomber, then no analysis is necessary. I guess a little collateral damage is acceptable in your view.

OK, looks like I have to cross all the Ts and dot all the Is here. You think this because he's just exited a house you have reason to believe contains them and has refused your order to freeze. So yes, in a subway system that has had two attacks in two weeks, that's what you think and there's no time for analysis.

If it eventually turns out that the guy in fact wasn't challenged or given an adequate opportunity to comply with police instructions, I'll join you in your condemnation. At the moment, though, it looks like they did what they could in no-win circumstances.

Well, I would assume that you'd want to take the guy alive so he could be "rendered" ...

Don't try to tar me with the Bushista brush, Zeeb, cause it won't stick. Haven't you ever read any of my posts on this board???

I'm not sure how to handle this kind of issue, but I don't think shooting people that turn out to be innocent is going to help much.

I wholeheartedly concur. Problem is these danged split-second decisions. I repeat the remark I quoted from one of the London papers: if he'd turned out to be wearing a belt of explosives, these cops would have our undying gratitude. Since he didn't, they are, for people like you, guilty of carrying out an execution policy.

[Sisyphus]

Quote by: RickSp So much needs to be explained. If the police were indeed following him, why was he allowed to get on mass transportation not once but twice? If the "shoot to kill" policy makes sense, it would be good to clarify what it means. "They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him. He's dead," witness Mark Whitby told the British Broadcasting Corp. "He looked like a cornered fox. He looked petrified." Right now it appears that anyone with swarthy skin and a baggy coat or a bag pack could be considered an appropriate target for multiple bullets to the head.

Of course somebody with swarthy skin and a baggy coat or a back pack is going to be deemed suspicions. How many Casusians have blown themselves up? The fact is we need racial profiling. We know what they look like. If a murderer is on the loose we don't look at everybody. We look for a specific face. Thats racial profiling and it seems to work and nobody complains. I know must Muslims are peaceful praticing human beings. But at least were not herding them into camps like the Japanese during World War II. If they came to live in America apparently they are looking for security and money. They should be glad police are profiling them. It keeps them and everybody safe. Peaceful Muslims shouldn't be mad at America if we racially profile them. They should be mad at the people of their religion that force us to do something like that.

[Matt W]

The fact is we need racial profiling. We know what they look like

Right. A Jamiaican, some East Africans, some Pakistanis. Do you KNOW how many of them there are in the UK? Get a grip. Shall we make them wear yellow crescents too, just in case??

[ibm]

Quote by: Matt W Right. A Jamiaican, some East Africans, some Pakistanis. Do you KNOW how many of them there are in the UK? Get a grip. Shall we make them wear yellow crescents too, just in case??

brilliant idea! that's not "just in case", that's a must. matt, you should win the nobel peace prize for the year 2005.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Matt W Right. A Jamiaican, some East Africans, some Pakistanis. Do you KNOW how many of them there are in the UK? Get a grip. Shall we make them wear yellow crescents too, just in case??

Come on - you want to do it, do it right. Camps. Camps are the answer. Round up anyone with a swarthy or dark complextion and lock them up in camps. Sure, that's the answer. And the yellow star thing too. Nice touch.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Zeebedee I guess a little collateral damage is acceptable in your view.

Tossing around inflammatory rhetoric is easy, Zeeb... and cheap. Here, let's turn it around... let's imagine that it wasn't Mr. Menezes but rather... say... Hasib Hussain who, having outrun police and reached his target, triggers his bomb as police try to humanely subdue him, killing 25 and wounding even more. I guess a little collateral damage is acceptable in your view?

It's real easy to toss around phrases like "summary execution", but an execution is about punishment. They weren't trying to 'punish' Jean Menezes. As you state yourself, Zeeb... "I think the purpose is clear, they want to prevent a suicide bomber from detonating his device."

You then go on to state... "I'm not sure how to handle this kind of issue, but I don't think shooting people that turn out to be innocent is going to help much." Operative phrase, 'I'm not sure how to handle this kind of issue...' Yes, it was tragic that Mr. Menezes was killed, but not nearly as tragic as the dozens that died due to subway bombs. So unless you have a sure-fire way to avoid such tragic mistakes while at the same time assurring that dozens don't die as "collateral damage" due to police over-caution, perhaps we could all dial down the accusatory rhetoric a tad and try to comprehend what an incredibly difficult situation this is for everyone involved, including the police.

.

[Matt W]

perhaps we could all dial down the accusatory rhetoric a tad and try to comprehend what an incredibly difficult situation this is for everyone involved, including the police.

Absolutely. The important thing to note is that this 'summary execution' is obviously a cock-up - the police failed to stop the suspect from getting on a bus, they failed to stop the bus, and it would appear (to judge from the suspects' reaction) that they failed to properly identify themselves. As a result, they had to assume the worst - but it's incredibly important that these things don't go wrong next time.

[ibm]

i don’t claim to know all the details about this, as i don’t. but regardless if the police failed to identify themselves, if the man didn’t pull the trigger while on the bus, what made them think he was gonna do it in the tunnel? mysterious.

if the man indeed was a bomber and the police shot him to death, the police wouldn’t have been my hero, either. my questions will still stand. the way they handled this is criminal. that is, failure to stop and question the man early is incompetence and negligence; killing a man who was merely a suspect with 6 shots in the head is barbaric. i have no doubt of the police’s good intent btw.

the only way to stop terrorism is to change the foreign policies and stop the interference to the arab world. as long as this doesn’t change, the terrorists who blow themselves up, the casualties caused by the bombing, the u.s. and brit troops died in the war along with those iraqis, and retrospectively, those who died in 9-11, etc., are all victims of the awfully wrong and imperial foreign policies that have been promoted for decades by the governments of the u.s., brit and others.

[PatrickHenry]

Listen. Jean Charles de Menezes was NOT "swarthy!" He was a white guy who looked a lot like any other european.





And execution by repeated gunfire to the head of a suspect that is arguably in custody is police murder. That is why the Brazilians are staging widespread protests. Not because he was killed while a fugitive from police. No, he was shot to death while cornered, down on the ground and surrounded by police.

You who would excuse this murder are complicit.

An independent investigation is coming. How "independent" will it be?
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3987f6be-fe...00e2511c8.html

[PatrickHenry]

John Gardner is the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, and occasional Visiting Professor at Yale Law School. Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police’s Mossad-style execution of a ’suspect’ (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one’s friends than by one’s enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7189

[Chris]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Listen. Jean Charles de Menezes was NOT "swarthy!" He was a white guy who looked a lot like any other european.

Thanks for backing my opinion.

[RickSp]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Listen. Jean Charles de Menezes was NOT "swarthy!" He was a white guy who looked a lot like any other european.

He was mistaken for a Pakistani. The police said as much. From the photo he looked "foreign" and, to my eyes at least, would qualify as "swarthy". Quibbling about skin tone is getting silly.

The underlying point remains, the London police shot an innocent man eight times in the head based primarily on his appearance.

[rcne]

RickSP

The underlying point remains, the London police shot an innocent man eight times in the head based primarily on his appearance.

Lets not gloss over his actions immediately preceding the shooting. I wasn't there, but did he run?

Was there a potential threat, circumstantial, but still there, from his place of residence, his clothing and finally his actions.

Why did he not just put his hands in the air and say "I give up".

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rcne RickSP Lets not gloss over his actions immediately preceding the shooting. I wasn't there, but did he run? Was there a potential threat, circumstantial, but still there, from his place of residence, his clothing and finally his actions. Why did he not just put his hands in the air and say "I give up".

Suppose you were walking along in a middle eastern city. You notice some guy following you. You look around, there's more people obviously following you. All are in civilian clothes. The faster you try to move away from them, the more obvious it becomes that they are trying to hem you in. Are you going to run, or are you gonna give up?

[Nono]

None of us was there, and many questions remain unanswered. I've heard (as stated) that he exited a house under police surveillance (and suspicion) and headed straight for the Underground. This made him suspect enough to be followed by armed cops.

Quote by: Rick The underlying point remains, the London police shot an innocent man eight times in the head based primarily on his appearance.

Were you present, Rick? Did you count the number of discharges? No? Then how do you know? And how do you know on what basis they fired?

The facts will presumably come out in due course. And (since unlike the circumstances surrounding the Hutton and Butler inquiries, Tony the Tooth need not fear for his political hide either way) those facts will probably be reliable.

Then we can all start ranting.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono Were you present, Rick? Did you count the number of discharges? No? Then how do you know? And how do you know on what basis they fired?

So are you suggesting that we can only believe what we see with our own eyes? We can no views on any topic to which we were not witnesses? Yah, right. Sure.

The initial report was that the police only shot de Menezes five times in the head. The more recent reports say he was shot eight times in the head and once in the shoulder.

Of course, the initial reports also claimed that de Menezes was definately tied to the Tube bombings. Much of the initial reporting has been wildly inaccurate, or so it seems based on press reports. Fortunately the Brazilian government involvement may marginally improve the chances of the truth eventually coming out.

I would think that any Londoner should feel threatened by trigger happy plain clothes police who can legally imitate 007's "license to kill" with point blank shots to the head, apparently based on fashion and ethnicity.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rcne RickSP Lets not gloss over his actions immediately preceding the shooting.

Yup, when in doubt blame the victim. Sure.

[Nono]

Quote by: Rick Are you suggesting that we can only believe what we see with our own eyes? We can no views on any topic to which we were not witnesses?

No.

Any other strawman questions while you're at it?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono No. Any other strawman questions while you're at it?

Strawman? Hardly. Merely responding to your specific questions and their obvious implications.

[Nono]

My question was whether you had complete and absolute knowledge of the circs. Like the rest of us, you don't. Yet unlike some of us, you formulate judgements as if you did have that knowledge.

For my part, I'm reserving judgement. PatrickHenry seems to doubt the reliability of the inquiry. I see no reason to. If it turns out that this poor guy was the victim of trigger-happy cops, the Brits will have (once again) some tough questions to ask themselves about their police force. If it turns out that he was jumping turnstiles or otherwise acting in a reckless manner, it will have to be chalked up to Just One of Those Things And There but for the Grace of God...

In the meantime, a little less conclusion-happy judgementalism woulndn't go amiss.