Here is hearty FU to London Murderer (warning "colorful" language)

[Dead_Badger]

@Liberal

My point is that no matter what plan you put in place, if it is designed for protection of the public at large, then some individual or another is sooner or later going to suffer from it. And when that happens, you’ll find yourself right back in the spot of formulating some new plan that will inevitably have the same result.

And my point is that any given plan will afford a certain level of protection to the public, and inflict a certain level of risk as well. The question is whether this particular plan represents an optimum tradeoff between the two. Arguing that all plans are equivalent since they protect the public at the expense of the individual (who doesn’t matter) is silly, since by this logic one could argue that individually shooting everyone in the country is an equivalently valuable policing tactic. It plainly is not, just as complete inaction is not, at the other end of the scale of response.

The public/individual question is to my mind irrelevant, since the policy puts numerous people (i.e. the public) at an elevated risk of getting shot; de Menezes is the unfortunate individual on the wrong end of this elevated risk, in the same way the 56 individuals killed a fortnight ago were on the wrong end of the risk posed by the bombers. As far as I can see, if the police do not protect the individual, they do not protect the public; to accept arbitrary risk to any given “individual” is to inflict that risk on “the public” as well.

[Liberal]

I agree with your last statement. Unfortunately, government does not. Central planning works only for Borg drones.

[Tabby_Cat]

As I recall, normal, uniformed policemen in London “walking the beat” DO NOT have guns. It would be quite rare to have armed policemen around, much less plainclothes policemen.

[Walker_in_Eternity]

@Mangetout

Can someone explain why it would ever be necessary for a trained firearms expert to shoot a subdued suspect five times at point-blank range?

If the guy is already on the deck with a pile of policemen on top of him, I just can’t see why more than two shots would be necessary to deal with even the most severe threat. Of course, I don’t have all the evidence and I’m not a police officer etc. etc. but FIVE shots? I take this as an indication that at least one of the officers in question had gone over the edge.

As I understand this from a news report on Saturday, the high number of shots is required because the type of pistol used fires low velocity rounds. Therefore a number of shots are required to gurantee a kill. Somebody in authority when writing the instructions for this type of operation decided on five. I’m not an expert on firearms so I don’t know whether the Glock pistol used in the incident really fires low velocity rounds or not. Perhaps there are people here that do know their firearms and can explain this better.

I find it very scary that the police in this country can carry out this kind of action and have great sympathy with thye victim and his family. I can also understand the reason for the police actions in principle, but in practice they had ample time to capture him alive prior to allowing him on the bus. Once they let him get onto the tube their hands were effectively forced by their own actions (inaction).

At the latest reports this morning there seems to be some debate as to whether the police gave a warning or not. Several eye witnesses claim that no warning was given. If the police can shoot someone without warning then we have moved well beyond any form of justifiable homicide.

Under standard procedure, the officers responsible have been removed from active duty and are performing “office tasks”. An internal investigation takes place after all firearms incidents where fatalitites are caused by the police. The result of the investigation will determine whether the officer/s are free to return to active duty or whether they will face criminal charges.

Personally although I am worried by the incident I will wait for the results of the investigation before crying foul.

[Wallenstein]

If the police really thought this bloke was a suicide bomber why the hell did they let him board a bus and travel on it for 15 mins??

Given that the previous attacks hit london buses there’s every chance this would have been his target - if they were certain he had a bomb they could / should have stopped him well before he got near the tube station.

If a load of lads with guns starting shouting at me I’d run like fuck, no question, especially in that part of London and I’d try to head into a public place (like a tube train).

Something ain’t right here - a monumental fuck-up somewhere, either by the officers on the ground, or the controllers.

[Dead_Badger]

@Liberal

I agree with your last statement. Unfortunately, government does not. Central planning works only for Borg drones.

I had a feeling this was where you were going. However, showing that a court in another country holds an opinion is not the same as showing that the Metropolitan Police are held to the same standard. Having this discussion is all very well, but it’s nice to check whether the other person actually subscribes to a premise before foisting it upon them. I’m also far from convinced that a centralised system presumes primacy of the public over the individual, when you seem to be equating the two.

Rather than heading off into a debate about central planning, however, could I at least get you to agree that a) we (Londoners) are living in a society in which collective policing exists, that b) these police need policy to function by, and that c) the risk to the public (which you and I seem to agree is one with risk to the individual) varies depending on this policy? As a result, it seems reasonable to have a debate about the specifics of these policies, since they have such a direct effect on the lives of so many. The campaign to switch to a decentralised, reactive arbitration system can wait to a later day, I feel.

[clairobscur]

@Dead Badger

Now, have you been to Brixton/Stockwell? It’s not exactly Harlem, but let me tell you, if four guys start chasing me around there, I’m going to fucking run like the clappers, .

That remind me about an instance where I’ve been assaulted then chased. Following this event, I thought that I should have fled to the nearby subway station, rather than, as I did, in another direction, since the staff at the station would have most probably called the police.

So,now, if I were chased, that’s what I would do : running into a subway station if there’s one nearby.

[Baldwin]

Obviously there are a number of things we don’t know yet about what exactly happened, so I’ll reserve judgement on police actions in London (although it does seem really odd that they didn’t stop him before he got to the train platform).

However, from the posts in this thread, it’s becoming clear that a lot of us have no problem with the police doing this:

1. Chasing people at gunpoint without identifying themselves as police;
2. Putting the suspect on the ground, and then
3. Putting five in his head like a mob hit, instead of handcuffing him.

Note: this may not be how it happened in London the other day, but it’s clear that some of us don’t mind that scenario – all based on the justification that there are terrorists at large.

This adds up to:
Threat: Terrorism, in the form of suicide bombers. Response: Let the police be judge, jury and executioner.

There are lots of ways you could wire a trigger for a suicide bomb in a coat. It could be a handheld trigger that you can hit at any moment. So, if the suspect had stopped and put his hands in the air, he might still have triggered the imaginary bomb. A suicide bomber could trigger his device as soon as he’s even challenged by the police. In that scenario, why not just blow his head off while he’s standing there trying to surrender? In fact, why not just start having police snipers take head shots on anybody they think might be a bomber?

And would you mind that same policy in the U.S.?

[Wallenstein]

One news report suggests that the lad’s visa had run out - maybe he thought he was going to be in trouble if the police caught up with him.

He was (apparently) sending money back home to Brasil for his terminally ill father - I imagine he was rather desperate to keep his job and stay in Britain - I doubt he thought the police would shoot him in the head over a visa expiration.

It’s unlikely the police made it clear they thought he was a bomber - and you’d not expect them to - so he probably thought it worth the risk to take off.

[slaphead]

And like I said there, this looks like one of those things that just happens.
Innocent guy gets caught up in the middle of a high-pressure anti-terrorist investigation. Inadvertently raises a few extra red flags by his choice of clothing and by vaguely fitting a description or two. Goes to work as normal, followed by police and military anti-terrorist folks (who, it is worth noting, do not immediately execute him). Heads for tube station, presumably causing another few red flags to go up to the point where they decide to stop him.

In an entirely understandable reaction given his circumstances, he legs it, heading by instinct towards his intended destination. Seeing their suspected terrorist running after being challenged, towards al-qaeda’s number one target over the last few weeks, causes the authorities to switch into ‘stop the clock’ mode rather than ‘apprehend suspect’ mode and the poor sod is dead.

And regarding the 5 shots, I would point out that once the decision is made to kill somebody to prevent them setting off a bomb or shooting someone or whatever, the goal is to make them as thoroughly dead as possible, as fast as possible. Being dead once or five times won’t make any difference to Jean, but if he had some sort of trigger it might have made all the difference to the people around him. And from what eyewitness accounts I’ve seen, this wasn’t exactly an execution - everyone concerned was running flat out and the first instant the poor guy was stationary enough to take a shot at, he was dead.

So, while it’s all very tragic and so on and so forth, how exactly should it have been done? There are people wandering around with a demonstrated intent to kill themselves and as many other people as possible, and access to explosives. The authorities are, presumably, stretched to the limit watching as many suspects as possible. As a consequence, nobody is at all surprised if lethal mistakes get made.

Except you, apparently, who are determined that the “Stop!, or I’ll shout Stop! again” school of policing should be maintained. If it turns out the cops made some sort of egregious fuckup, then fair enough, give them a roasting. But shooting a terrorist suspect because he failed to stop when challenged, jumped a ticket barrier and ran onto a tube train is, in current circumstances, an understandable errror - it’s not like they’re randomly capping anyone who catches their eye. It’s also not standard police procedure, but anti-terrorism is a paramilitary operation, and until the current operational cells are confirmed to be closed down, things are likely to remain a bit twitchy. In fact, it’s just as much fun as when our friends in the IRA were blowing us up in the nineties. Plus ca change, and all that…

[slaphead]

And I forgot to add…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

The Times & The Sunday Times

for some varying perspectives on what happened. Anyhow, standard procedure is to take anyone involved in a shooting incident off active duty until a full investigation has been made. Anyone interested can check back in a year or two for the several hundred page report which will no doubt ensue.

[John_Corrado]

@Baldwin

Obviously there are a number of things we don’t know yet about what exactly happened, so I’ll reserve judgement on police actions in London (although it does seem really odd that they didn’t stop him before he got to the train platform).

However, from the posts in this thread, it’s becoming clear that a lot of us have no problem with the police doing this:

1. Chasing people at gunpoint without identifying themselves as police;
2. Putting the suspect on the ground, and then
3. Putting five in his head like a mob hit, instead of handcuffing him.

If that’s clear to you, I suggest you re-read the damned thread. So far, we’ve seen conflicting reports as to whether the police identified themselves and whether the suspect was knocked to the ground or tripped and fell to the ground.

Note: this may not be how it happened in London the other day, but it’s clear that some of us don’t mind that scenario – all based on the justification that there are terrorists at large.

This adds up to:
Threat: Terrorism, in the form of suicide bombers. Response: Let the police be judge, jury and executioner.

You’re right. God-damned police, shooting people. Why, just a week ago, some poor benighted soul was wandering around his front yard holding his baby at gunpoint. When he put down the child and began shooting at the police, the Nazi, Totalitarian, Fascist bastards had the nerve to shoot back! Thus, making themselves judge, jury, and executioner.

I agree that the situation was poorly handled. I agree that the police may well have screwed up in their initial approach of the suspect, and if so, should be roundly condemned, fired, jailed, or worse.

But once the situation passed that point- once someone who was considered a terrorist suspect, wearing a bulky coat on a warm day, jumped a turnstile and ran into a crowded subway system- what do you think should have happened? And no dodging the question by qualifying that it shouldn’t have come to that- what you’re being snitty and assish about is specifically the police response after that point.

[Stonebow]

@John Corrado

You’re right. God-damned police, shooting people. Why, just a week ago, some poor benighted soul was wandering around his front yard holding his baby at gunpoint. When he put down the child and began shooting at the police, the Nazi, Totalitarian, Fascist bastards had the nerve to shoot back! Thus, making themselves judge, jury, and executioner.

Not sure if you’re referring to the LA case, but there were in fact posters saying just that. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=324993

Now, I have no problem with the actual arrest/subsequent shooting. However, whoever set this up should lose their badge and perhaps serve time for the total lack of anything approaching common sense. If they’d been monitoring his for as long as we’ve been led to believe, why’d they approach him before they had total control of the area and his movement? What if he HAD been a suicide bomber? Then they put a lot of people’s lives in danger for nothing.

[John_Corrado]

@Stonebow

Not sure if you’re referring to the LA case, but there were in fact posters saying just that. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=324993

I don’t think I was referring to that case- I thought I heard something on the news about a similar incident in the DC area, down in Arlington or Alexandria. But I may be conflating events.

Now, I have no problem with the actual arrest/subsequent shooting. However, whoever set this up should lose their badge and perhaps serve time for the total lack of anything approaching common sense. If they’d been monitoring his for as long as we’ve been led to believe, why’d they approach him before they had total control of the area and his movement? What if he HAD been a suicide bomber? Then they put a lot of people’s lives in danger for nothing.

Agreed totally.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

–just need to vent–

Wholy shagging fuck, they got the wrong guy, what the shit. Looks like he was captured and then shot. Though I agree with such tactics against terrorists, how the hell did it end up used against a non-terrorist? There needs to be one hell of an investigation, and possible criminal action against both the police involved and those involved in the control of the opperation. Since we have reasonable photos of the bombers how comes no negative ID occured at the scene cancelling the shoot-to-kill directive.

[Giles]

The big problem that I see in this is using a group of plain-clothes officers to stop the guy. It’s fine for police to disguise themselves for surveillance and detective work, but how do you know that a bunch of guys chasing you with guns are police if they aren’t wearing uniforms? Yelling “Police” doesn’t identify you as a cop: you could be an ordinary citizen calling for police assistance. So, when the person in charge of the operation had decided that the Brazilian guy was a potential threat, he should have sent in uniformed police to stop him. Why didn’t he?

[Liberal]

@Dead Badger

Rather than heading off into a debate about central planning, however, could I at least get you to agree that a) we (Londoners) are living in a society in which collective policing exists, that b) these police need policy to function by, and that c) the risk to the public (which you and I seem to agree is one with risk to the individual) varies depending on this policy? As a result, it seems reasonable to have a debate about the specifics of these policies, since they have such a direct effect on the lives of so many. The campaign to switch to a decentralised, reactive arbitration system can wait to a later day, I feel.

Yes, I agree with all three: a, b, and c. But owing to the fact that no two people are alike in every way, every central plan is doomed to harm at least someone. This is not just some speculative musing. It has been analytically proved. All I’m saying is that the more time you spend on tweaking your policies, the more time you waste. All you will succeed in doing is shifting the greatest danger from one set of individuals to another. And that’s a fact.

[Orbifold]

@slaphead

…it’s not like they’re randomly capping anyone who catches their eye.

Is anyone else getting a sinking feeling in their stomach as they read this? Perhaps hearing a little voice in their head asking if this is the best standard to which we can hold police officers?

Perhaps you simply used that statement as a rhetorical device, slaphead, but still…yeesh.

[threemae]

@Orbifold

Is anyone else getting a sinking feeling in their stomach as they read this? Perhaps hearing a little voice in their head asking if this is the best standard to which we can hold police officers?

Perhaps you simply used that statement as a rhetorical device, slaphead, but still…yeesh.

What I absolutley can’t stand about this incident is that Mayor Livingston etc. are saying, “the terrorists forced our hand, he’s another victim of terrorism!” No, he’s not, numb-nuts. He’s a victim of your inappropriate and bungled response to terrorism.

[Scissorjack]

@slaphead

… the goal is to make them as thoroughly dead as possible, as fast as possible.

Hey! You owe me royalties for using that phrase! See post 26, and you’ll be hearing from my lawyers!