under the "oops" category:
Not involved with terrorism, but shot anyway AFTER police had pinned him down and were able to (but chose not to) restrain him.
http://home.netscape.com/redir.adp?_...flll2%5fu1%5f1
Printable View
under the "oops" category:
Not involved with terrorism, but shot anyway AFTER police had pinned him down and were able to (but chose not to) restrain him.
http://home.netscape.com/redir.adp?_...flll2%5fu1%5f1
The man just happened to be olive skinned and dark haired, its very wrong and unfortunate but profiling is more than likely why he was shot rather than simply retained.
I find the utter moral bankruptcy of London Mayor Ken Livingstone to be disgusting:
NO. They bear the responsibility for their own actions. They are responsible for the people they killed. They are not responsible for the actions of others. They do not bear responsiblity for the innocent victims of police violence.Quote:
Mayor Ken Livingstone said the killing was a ``human tragedy'' that was a consequence of the attacks.
``The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public,'' he said. ``This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility.''
The London police bear the responsiblility for their own actions. They are responsible for the death of this innocent victim, Jean Charles de Menezes. And Linvingsone as Mayor should have done the right thing and taken responsibility. His statement is disgraceful.
I can virtually guarantee that this will be the case. Just wait until the next election with the UK Independence Party winning a significant number of seats based on their platform of restricted immigration and determined deportation. Like America after 9/11, the UK is now very likely to swing in the conservative direction in terms of new laws and new police powers. And if the repeated bombings/attempts don't chill out damn fast, it's also very likely that some very nasty vigilante incidents will occur courtesy of the skinhead contingent.Quote:
It's a sad sad tragedy and yet my gut feeling tells me that this is only going to get more ugly.
Being a Brit, I guess I'm a little more familiar with the details than most.
The policy is called "shoot to kill to protect" and it has its origins in the experience of the Israeli's. Their advice, (which I gather is being followed by the police in London), is that shooting a suspected suicide bomber in the chest is not a good idea.
(a) It might detonate any explosives strapped round him.
(b) It might not kill him quickly enough to stop him triggering a bomb.
Their advice is to fire a number of shots to the head - which kills near instantly, without the risk of triggering the explosives.
It's a terrible dilemma - if he is a suicide bomber and you delay, you've got dozens of innocent pople killed. If he's not a suicide bomber, you've just killed an innocent man.
What I think happened in this case was that ordinary policemen under enormous strain, (don't forget 50 people have recently been killed, and there ahs been a failed attempt to plant more bombs), made a series of poor judgments. Add into the equation that the man who does panicked and ran into an underground station and you have something of an understanding of what happened.
Befroe we get too judgemental about this tragedy just think: I've got just a few seconds to decide if this is an innocent man or a suicide bomber - what should I do? How many of us would have made the right decision under that pressure?
And if he had been a suicide bomber, and the police wrongly hesitated, what would we be posting here?
This is not a black and white case - there are all sorts of shades of grey.
Phil.
Like I said before, these were plainclothes police waving guns at a person who probable didn't speak English as a first language and he hauled ass.
They should have a uniformed police officer present before implementing "shoot to kill to protect." The Israeli's definately will have uniformed people around before doing this.
I don't know the facts of this case, so I'm not qualified to comment. I'll just say it's tragic (rather than "well-deserved") when any innocent person is shot to death.
In all your postings that I've read, I have never seen you prove anything. No offense intended. It's just a statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
This is the bottom line, folks ! It's very easy for somebody living on the west coast of the USA to condemn the use of 'profiling' by London Police as being racist. Those opinions tend to change very quickly when the Islamic Terrorist bombs are exploding right down the street from you.Quote:
I didn't give an opinion on whether profiling is racist or not because at a time like this i couldn't care less...
We'll never know if that guy was really innocent or not.
The police should've added the word POLICE while they were shouting STOP.
The police might have avoided killing him had they tried to stop him earlier.
Had they stopped him earlier, maybe we'd be talking about how police are too busy harrassing "the dark brand" when they should be focusing on bigger things.
People always become more "innocent" AFTER they're killed.
The London police must understandably be under serious strain and pressure to ensure no more bombs go off. In a stressed situation it would be a difficult to choose between letting one guy live or risk letting MORE people die.
Does anyone really know what brand of terrorists are behind these recent bombings or what their motives are?
The authorities have an extremely difficult job trying to maintain balance between acceptable levels of targeting and profiling suspects vs ensuring public safety. More bombs explode and more people get killed - everyone says they're not doing enough. Some guy gets killed in the name of public safety, who looked suspicious at the moment but turns out not to be carrying bombs - everyone says they're too trigger happy. Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own actions but I tend to agree with Livingstone blaming this guy's death on the terrorists. If those assholes weren't causing trouble in the FIRST place, none of this would be an issue. Terrorists' main objective is to scare people and cause a public uproar. Obviously it's working.
I live in both Paris and London. There is without a doubt increased discrimination against people who look "Arab" in London now. Just a week or so ago some kids beat a Pakistani kid to death for ??? Despite the airs of stoicism, the Brits are on eggshells. The last bombing attempts, the passengers apparently "lost it" and went screaming out of the carriage....unlike in the first instance. People on the tube are looking at each other "sideways", and every person who looks Arab gets 2nd/3rd glances. Re: this cop killing: this Brazilian guy spoke fluent English and was an expatriate - why did he run when the police said stop, especially in a tube station? Apparently, the guy was running through the station away from the police and tripped as he was trying to jump onto a carriage. With all the lives at stake within the carriage, any reasonable cop might react the same...right? I've lived/worked all over the world in places where I didn't speak the native language as my first language. I'd never, ever, even remotely consider running from local police under any circumstances...why did this guy? It's all tragic and unfortunate.
Well, the police who killed him say that he was innocent.... I guess that's not good enough, eh? http://anarchy.soak.net/smileys/eyes.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Bridgette
Quote:
London Police Apologize for Shooting Innocent Man
By Michael Drudge
London
24 July 2005
London's police chief has apologized to the family of a Brazilian man shot to death during a police manhunt for suspects in a bungled bombing of the mass transit network.
The killing of a 27-year-old Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, has become an international incident, and has set back police efforts to reach out to disaffected British Muslims.
Police shot and killed Mr. Menezes on a subway train Friday during a manhunt for four suspects in the attempted bombing of three subway cars and a bus one day earlier.
Witnesses say Mr. Menezes was wearing an unseasonably heavy coat, and was running away from plainclothes police officers moments before he was fatally shot. Police sources say officers feared he had explosives hidden under the coat.
On Sunday, London Police Commissioner, Ian Blair, offered an apology during interview with Sky News.
Ian Blair offers apology during interview with Sky News
"The Metropolitan Police accepts the full responsibility for this. And to the family, I can only express our deep regrets," he said.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-07-24-voa11.cfm
I don't know about the UK, but in the USA, running from or appearing to run from police is not considered probable cause that you have committed a crime. (let alone grounds for summary execution) This is settled case law.
They sure will give you a hard time when they catch ya though!Quote:
Originally Posted by dlabtot
^^^If they do, and you have money to pay for a lawyer, you'll have solid grounds for a lawsuit. If you are poor, of course, the police can just do anything they want to you without any real fear of consequences.
Well, each country has its own system. Unfortunately in this case the UK system failed. Conversely, I'm sure that the UK system sometimes works where the US system fails. By the way, my question on why this guy was running was not a legal one...it's just mind boggling to me that someone would run from police in London near a tube station at this time, under any circumstances, whether it's their right or not.
The reason it's so puzzling to me is that every ounce of logic I have tells me that most likely, the guys chasing this guy probably didn't appear to be thugs or muggers who said absolutely nothing to him; i.e. dead silence, no words spoken at all, and just chased him down and shot him; i.e. to his death he thought he was being chased by thugs who wanted his wallet. Doesn't seem feasible to me. To me, that would be one of the least likely scenarios. The chase must have started somehow. Were there no words spoken during the entire chase? Isn't "Stop in the name of the law" or something like that Cop Basic Training 101 in pretty much any country? This whole thing sounds strange to me.
yeah, it really is bizarre. If it were me being chased by what I tought were thugs after my wallet, and I were anywhere near a tube station, I'd start screaming "help, police or somebody help", especially if there were alot of people around who could potentially help me. It's all just too wierd...something's wrong.
I really find the 'blame the victim' mentality a lot more puzzling than this clearcut and not at all confusing example of police incompetence and abuse of power.
Well, your "clearcut and not at all confusing" understanding should be very helpful to a large number of people in the UK who find this confusing. Maybe you should post a letter to the editor in the Guardian or Telegraph.
Shooting people without warning or identifying themselves as police? Sounds like the London cops are in a panic, to me.Quote:
Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket
Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier
Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday. Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.
"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...537457,00.html
Shooting to kill needs no warning
Police have been given permission to shoot dead suspected suicide bombers without any verbal warning, the Guardian has learned. The killing of an innocent Brazilian man in a London underground station on Friday has focused attention on new guidelines to defend against terror attacks.
Operation Kratos tactics say suicide bombers who are about to explode their devices can be shot in the head.
There is still confusion over whether Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot eight times, received a verbal warning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...536751,00.html
Well, they can just read this column by Gary Younge from Monday's Guardian... he doesn't seem confused.Quote:
Well, your "clearcut and not at all confusing" understanding should be very helpful to a large number of people in the UK who find this confusing. Maybe you should post a letter to the editor in the Guardian or Telegraph.
Even still...to quote the Guardian article you sent below...there still seems to be some confusion, and that's all I'm saying. Even the Guardian says the word. The truth, yes, the truth, is that there really is confusion on this issue right now in the UK...it really isn't as if 100% of the people believe one opinion about it.
"There is still confusion over whether Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot eight times, received a verbal warning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/s...1536751,00.html"
Yes, I agree with you, this is a horror...a confusing horror. The French are worse though. I feel much safer from police brutality in London than I do in Paris! I can see police abuse of power almost every single day within the Paris metro...not hidden...very open...anyone can see it...about every day. It's the French system, not the American system, and they've chosen it and believe it works for them. I've also lived in Singapore!
I don't think there's much confusion as to whether the police were incompetent, negligent, and trigger-happy which led to the killing of an innocent man. Whether that word is used in the different context of discussing the reconstruction of the minute details of the incident is totally irrelevant.
It turns out the the Brazillian who was so tragically killed was actually in the UK illegally. The stamp in his passport giving him indefinate leave to remain was apparently faked.
If so, that explains why he ran from the police. He thought they were after him because he was in the country illegally - they thought he was a terrorist. From his point of view, there was no reason to fear fatal consequences - if they caught him, the worst that could happen was he'd be deported. Unfortunately, the police were chasing him for a different reason to the one he thought.
Add in the nervousness of the police, (who also appear to have been trigger happy), and you have some of the factors behind this tragedy.
Phil.