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

I haven’t found anything yet that confirms his Visa had expired. In any case, that hardly justifies killing him.

John Corrado, would it be possible to keep this to discussion of British police and their actions? It’s a different situation. General British police don’t carry guns here, and the illegal gun culture is tiny. Maybe I’m nitpicking, but I think bringing in police actions from other countries can cloud the issue.

Anyway … If a group of men pointed a gun at me and shouted - even if I could hear what they were saying, I wouldn’t be certain they really were police - well, I don’t know how I’d react. Maybe I’d run in terror. It would certainly be a natural reaction - especially since I know I’m innocent of any crimes, and especially if I were at a tube station where there had recently been terrorist attacks. Maybe he thought they were terrorists. How is he to know? What’s to stop non-police shouting ‘stop! police!’

Of course, if I were the police in this situation I’m not sure how I’d react either. But then, they - hopefully - have a Hell of lot more training than I do. I’ve heard lots of people say ‘well, what would you do in that situation, with the adrenaline pumping and all?’ That’s not the point. I’m not a cop whose been especially trained to handle weapons and deal with terrorists. These officers should not react like everday people.

I keep hoping that some new piece of information will come out and give the police more justification, but all the extra information just makes the police look worse and worse. ‘Living near the suspect’ (in the same building, not even the same specific address), having brownish skin (not even from an Arabic country), and wearing a big coat (not even carrying a rucksack), is not reason enough. I would rather the risk of terrorist bombers (who seem a bit incompetent anyway), than a new culture where its OK for the police to shoot to kill with so little evidence.

Two weeks ago, more than 50 people died.
The police of London are trying to prevent that, but whenever force is used, there will be errors, sometimes nightmarish ones.

However…

Orwell was hardly a champion of oppressive government, and even he knew the score–the cops can only do the best they can.

And I’m hoping that they did do the best they can, and a thorough investigation should occur to check for sure that they did. Possibly the poor guy who ran away then reached for his inner pocket when on the ground (maybe to show his id was the thought in his head). Such action would require lethal force from the police. Much like the cases when an American cop pulls over a motorist who then dives into their glove compartment to retreve a license where the cop must assume the motorist is reaching for a gun, and so opens fire.

That quote could certainly be used in defence of an armed police force, or support of a comprehensive army, as it seems to advocate the use of potentially distasteful measures against people planning harm.

You certainly can’t ‘sleep safe in your bed’ if you think the cops are going to bust the door down and riddle you with bullets 'cause they thought it was the 2nd door on floor 3, not the 3rd door on floor 2.

They fucked up big time, and the conditional apology I heard this morning is almost worse than none at all.

mmmmm,

Now that’s not right?
That would be the same as saying the terrorists are responsable for the bombings.

And the fact that this appears to be a normal occurence in the US is exactly the kind of culture we’d like to avoid over here.

Just out of curiosity, I was pretty sure that the phrase “It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than put one innocent man to death” had garnered near-universal support on this board in the past; is there anyone here who would agree with the above, but still thinks that the fatal shooting was an unfortunate, but ultimately acceptable trade-off in the fight against terrorism?

I suggest you reread my damned post. I said it wasn’t clear what exactly happened; then I said I was talking about a hypothetical scenario that apparently is acceptable to some of us. Please start reading the paragraphs you quote:

Like this one.

Don’t be an ass. The situations are entirely different. In the situation you describe, the police are facing somebody who’s definitely armed, threatening a child, and then shooting at police. Obviously they have to shoot back. The scenario I’m talking about is killing a man who may well be unarmed and not a threat (as was the case in London).

Snitty? Y’know, I’m getting good and goddamned tired of people on this board being called “snitty” or “whiny” or being told they have their panties in a bunch every time they express concern about civil rights. Putz.

To answer your question – what I think should have happened is that they should have cuffed the man, searched him and taken him downtown for questioning. Standard police work. And what if he had been a suicide bomber? Well, he probably would have set his bomb off before they could cuff him. That kind of danger is part of the price for putting limits on the power of the police. I’ll accept that (and I live in a city that’s been bombed, albeit by a Christian fanatic instead of a Muslim fanatic). (But then, a suicide bomber probably would have set his bomb off before he could be shot, too.)

Just to get get this into perspective for ya’ll, the only numbers which I could find quickly are ancient (2002) but if you check this article Grauniad from the oh-so-right-wing Guardian, you can see that the Met was accused of being ‘gung-ho’ with regards to having killed four people in eleven incidents where shots were fired. In a three-year period where armed officers were deployed 10,000 times. This in a city of several million people.

So I would respectfully submit that people in the UK have a slightly better idea of what standard to apply to this than people from, say, Brazil or the US where police shootings are a daily occurrence. We’re not used to having cops blowing people’s heads off (literally) in front of Joe citizen, and it’s not exactly being ignored, but I’m not living in fear of a police death squad either…

But you vaccilate, sir. Other poster state “If situation X happened, then I feel solution X1 was appropriate.” You respond with “Solution X1 was appropriate? Outrageous bastards! Situation Y doesn’t call for that!”

And may well be armed and a threat. Is the glass half-empty or half-full? So far he is: 1.) on a list of terrorist suspects; 2.) wearing a bulky coat on a hot July day; 3.) running from the police when they attempt to apprehend him; and 4.) heading to the subway system. Is this not enough criteria to declare him armed and dangerous, or do we have to wait for him to throw open his coat, show his bandolier of TNT, and start loudly praising Allah and threatening passers-by before he is considered “armed and dangerous”?

If you express concerns, I will treat them rationally. When you whine, I will call you snitty and whiny. Deal with it, bucko.

Great!

Now, what happens when the police attempt to handcuff him, but he breaks away and runs for a populated area? As in what happened exactly in this scenario? This isn’t a fucking hypothetical- this is what fucking took place.

If your answer is, “Well, they should have done a better job approaching him and trying to get him surrounded and calm before handcuffing him,” well, that’s fine, in fact, I agree. But that’s avoiding the question. The question is: once the suspect has fled, and is running through a populated area, what is the correct police response?

Great! Bully for you!

Now, convince 95% of the American or British populace that your response is the better one. G’wan. Try.

Erm - no thank you. I’ll take my mass transit with a side order of shot terrorist suspect, if you don’t mind. I’m quite fond of my civil liberties, but having lived in London since 92, I’ve come to terms with the following limitations of them:
-No public trash cans since people kept leaving bombs in them
-Not forgetting belongings in public places (they tend to get blow them up as suspected bombs and people get narky about the inconvenience)n
-No behaving like a potential terrorist during times of heightened security.
Like I said, while police in the UK are just as much a pack of arrogant incompetent knobs as other police forces, they do have a reasonably good record of not shooting people unecessarily (table legs aside). And one bloke blowing up one person doesn’t count for much - the equivalent UK loony killed three and is barely remembered nowadays. You haven’t lived until you’ve had bombs going off on a regular basis for a few months :smiley:

I will respectfully point out in my own defense that the point I was responding to was someone saying, “Would Americans be just as gung-ho for such a response to occur here?”

Ah, OK, didn’t see that. I stand corrected. In general though, I’d rather discussions of one country’s laws stuck to that country’s laws, unless specific comparisons were invited.

Not that it matters much what I think, as my membership runs out today and I can’t do a yearly membership - life will be way too busy in two months’ time and I don’t need the distraction of this very addictive board. Ah, for quarterly memberships! Will continue to lurk though. Been nice knowing you all. [/personal hijack]

Just to clarify, he was not on a list of terrorist subjects. He lived in the same multiple occupancy building (I believe 9 separate flats under one roof) as terrorist suspects. According to today’s Independent, the “bulky coat” was not a winter overcoat, but a fleece – and “hot July day” is a subjective judgement for which Brazilians have a higher threshold. It’s also possible that his skin tone was a factor in making him a suspect - I doubt my pasty face would have aroused suspicions. So he was flagged as dangerous because he was 1) living in cheap housing and 2) from a hot country. I don’t believe that these are good enough criteria to list him as armed and dangerous.

  1. He was on no list. He just happened to live in the same flat complex(building)
  2. Depends on what he finds hot
  3. He ran from plain clothes cops with guns in their hands. We don’t know how clear their warnings were.
  4. He was going to work IIRC.

Either way you look at this they screwed the pouch IMO. Instead of dealing with the suspect on the street just after he left the building they let a possible bomber on a bus and then into a tube station. They left it so long that by the time that they did take action they left themselves little option but to take the guy out. When they are on top of the guy who has actually managed to get on a tube they then put 7 shots into his head and one in his shoulder.

So they let a suspect onto a bus and station and then killed that suspect only to kind out he was just a poor innocent schmo on his way to work.

They need to do better. This fuck up has caused the police to rethink and can only help the attackers. FUBAR.

Totally agree, but…

The block was under surveillance. The guy was erroneously identified as being connected to the bombings, but he wasn’t actually one of the bombers. He was watched and followed rather than intercepted, presumably because it was hoped he would lead them to the actual bombers or to someone else important.

So when he leaves wearing a fleece, someone has to decide whether to blow the surveillance by intercepting him, or to follow him. Blowing the surveillance could cost lives. So they dither, or decide too late. By this time he’s on a bus.

They must have been having kittens. He was on a bus! You can’t storm a bus - if he’s a bomber he’d set off his device. You’d have to board as a passenger, sidle up to him, and then what? Suppose he’s sandwiched between two old dears on the back seat? Suppose his hands aren’t visible? Who gets to go on the bus and make a decision what to do? At worst, someone might have to decide whether or not to kill him with no warning at all.

And then he gets off the bus. Relief! And they’re not going through that again - they want to intercept him immediately. But it’s a spur of the moment operation - they didn’t know he was going to get off there. So, he is challenged by armed men but not properly surrounded. Their first priority would be to ensure he didn’t trigger a device, so they may have been shouting “show your hands!” before even thinking about shouting “armed police!”

He runs. And they can’t shoot him. Since 7/7 it was made abundantly clear to them that acetone peroxide is quite sensitive enough to be set off by a bullet, and he could have a load of it under that jacket. The head of a running man is not an easy target. So he’s away.

They give chase, and he runs into a tube station and jumps the barrier. And they’re 20ft behind a man who they are now 99% convinced is going to blow himself to bits any moment, and if it doesn’t kill them they’d probably wish it had, and he’s among lots of people. And he gets onto a train and trips and for a moment, just a moment, his head isn’t moving and they take no chances and kill him on the spot. Ten seconds later, nothing’s exploded. Ten seconds more, and still nothing’s exploded and these guys are thinking maybe, just maybe they’re not going to die today, nobody’s going to die today, and everything is going to be alright.

How long was it before they learned the man was not carrying explosives? How bad must they have felt? I can’t begin to imagine.

On a different day, maybe the guy would have been intercepted as soon as he left his apartment in a fleece, and everything would have ended well. And in the future maybe the police will intercept a known terrorist with a backpack that proves to contain only laundry. And as a result the terrorist won’t lead them to the bombers still at large and they make an attack and kill another fifty people. The job is impossible, the responsibility massive. Tragedies like this are going to occur, and I for one am glad I never have to make that sort of decision.

matt I too am under no illusions as to how hard the cops job is. I really feel for the guy/s who made the call on the ground. It’s a messed up situatiion, no question about it. Hopefully lessons have been learned by the police and the general public.

I bow to Matt- very well described and put.
Look, I’m not in any disagreement whatsoever that it was a FUBAR situation, and that bad decisions were compounded with bad decisions. I certainly agree that up to the point where the suspect bolted, the police may have acted poorly and/or incompetently.

But once the suspect bolted, I feel that the police action from that point was justifiable.

As is now being reported, the police did not identify themselves. Running from a bunch of casually dressed gunmen targeting you, particulalry under such fearful circumstances, is not a capital offence and cannot be, unless there are real, concrete grounds to fear an imminent threat. Living in the same multi-occupancy building as a suspect, looking a bit swarthy and wearing a jacket you don’t like does not and should not meet that standard.

Perhaps. But if the police were indeed plain clothes (which it appears everyone pretty much agrees they were) and they pulled guns on him without identifying themselves as police (there is evidence that this also is the case, but is certainly not clear), then you cannot really blame the man for running. I probably would, too, especially if there was a crowd nearby and I thought I could lose myself in it.

If my scenario is correct (and the evidence is leaning that way), then the police fucked up royally and the officers involved should lose their jobs, at the very least.

OTOH, if the police indeed identified themselves as police prior to the man running, then I have a bit less pity.