[Japedo]

Sorry but the police are their to Serve and protect society, not gun them down.

The guy took a bus ride 15 mins to the Sub way station, bullshit on the "split second decision". He could have been stopped before he got on the bus, after he got off the bus, before he entered the Subway station, He wasn't stopped until he was tackled and shot in the face. for what fkn crime may I ask? He was being followed the entire time. The police have put out so many bullshit stories, it's hard to keep records of it

Also please remember, the victim also had a "split second decision" and he wasn't fkn trained in the Police force. I am just beside myself with the lack of "OUTRAGE" and blame the victim this case is getting across the political spectrum. Gone are the day's of freedom, liberty, accountability from our government, here are the day's of 1984 police state where its the innocent victims that shoulda coulda, didn't. I detest it.

FYI for those interested:

Times Online UK

Quote

  I am a hardliner on the War on Terror and remain a hawk on the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.   But if al-Qaeda has created an atmosphere in which an ordinary person can have five bullets pumped into him by the police, and society shrugs its shoulders, then the terrorists have already won a modest victory.

The inconsistency bordering on callousness of Scotland Yard has been breathtaking. It was initially suggested that Mr Menezes was under surveillance and had been approached after he walked from his residence in Stockwell to the Tube station. It is now clear that he started his trip from Tulse Hill, where he had stayed at someone else’s home, was watched, was noted wearing bulky clothing, yet was allowed (despite the slaughter at Tavistock Square on July 7 and the attempted blast on a double-decker at Hackney last Thursday) to board a bus for a 15-minute journey and was challenged only when he sought to buy an Underground ticket. Why was someone whom the police continue to insist was a “potential suicide-bomber” no menace on the No 2 bus, but an urgent threat who had to be taken out when moving in the direction of the Northern Line?

And then there was the attempt to “spin” this situation to suit the police immediately after the shooting. 

[Ouroboros]

It's hard to put the blame on one or the other.

We can not really put the blame on the victim (except he could have stopped, and not run away etc).

We can not put the blame on the police, they're stressed out by the situation, and make decisions that will be faulty.

The blame is only on the terrorists.

Security and routines can always be improved, but I heard that they now are talking about removing the weapon from the police force. What a stupid move, that won't solve the problem. They'll just get into a situation where a gun could have saved hundreds of people, and they get them back.

[Vixentrox]

HanSolo, on Jul 24 2005, 09:16 PM, said:

The blame is only on the terrorists.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. Very true. The very people some want to sing kum-bay-ya with and of course, not place any blames what so ever on them. It's obviously the west and US's faults.

[Japedo]

over on the NY times, it said that a few weeks ago the victim was taunted by English Gangs, and could be why he was so fidgety and had the fight or flight response. I suspect there will be a lot more to this story as investigations go.

Asking for Police to be accountable for their actions isn't "blaming the US or England". To Defend liberty means you hold accountable those that cross lines and break laws. No making excuses for the loss of innocent life. The police Could have calmly got him before he even got on the bus, they didn't, there were many opportunities before the subway station, why are these things being ignored by people and questions put out as being 'blaming America first'. that's side stepping the issue and not addressing the question at hand.

Seeking JUSTICE is not singing KUMBY YA. Asking For Information and making sure we really do get the bad guys by going thru the JUSTICE system and not some vigilante Shoot out over a might be is not Singing Kumby ya with terrorist or their fkn supporters. Excusing brut force and the murder of an innocent victim under any circumstances is not giving Aid or comfort to the enemy, it's empowering a police state.

[Cerise]

Saviorforsale, on Jul 24 2005, 09:35 PM, said:

What is it with some people and cops?! Its just another job. I have known a few guys that were cops...they are no different than anyone else.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you meet some inept and prejudiced cops, get interrogated for eight hours in a tiny room, lied to, and have your mind fucked with just so they can avoid doing some work and making an actual arrest, then you'll know "what's up with some people".

[Checkmate]

Hi all.

Sorry if I'm coming in late on this whole issue, but I've been trying to craft a somewhat "delicate" response. (Still don't know if I've managed it, but here goes nothing.)

I am nothing short of AMAZED at how many people on THIS forum are defending the actions of the police in this case!

A man was HUNTED and GUNNED DOWN, vigilante style, by "law officers", for the crime of what...? "LOOKING suspicious AND RUNNING AWAY?" WTF?

Terrorism be damned! I don't give a flying f*^k if this dude was Osama Bin Laden himself! UNTIL it is PROVEN beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he poses an IMMEDIATE AND CREDIBLE THREAT TO LIFE AND LIMB, then ALL the police can do is DETAIN AND QUESTION. NOT GUN DOWN IN COLD BLOOD!

This is the dilemma and handicap of being THE GOOD GUYS. We MUST wait for PROOF of a crime BEFORE we can act.

I say "WE" because I'm a retired military cop. 21 years of carrying a gun, enforcing the law, apprehending suspects AND serving on Terrorism Advisory Committees. I think it's safe to say I KNOW something about law enforcement, Rules of Combat and Engagement, and "Shoot/Don't Shoot" scenarios.

And let me tell you something, if this had happened to ME when I was in the service, I would currently be facing a Courts Martial for the crime of MURDER, by use of Excessive Force!

This "Suspected Person" had NO weapon that anyone could discern. He had no back pack (within which they could SUSPECT he had something). He had nothing that any REASONABLE OFFICER could even quanitfy as a "weapon". So where was this "threat"? In his "look"?

Once they ran this rabbit "to the ground", the very NEXT move a REASONABLE OFFICER MUST MAKE is to APPREHEND THE SUSPECT. NOT put FIVE ROUNDS INTO HIS SKULL!

The "suspect" NEVER produced a weapon. He never made a threatening gesture. He had no detonator in his hand. There was nothing that any REASONABLE OFFICER could mistake to be DANGEROUS. Thus the usage of DEADLY FORCE was NOT authorized.

This was NOT a "righteous shoot". This was a lynching and an execution conducted in hysteria by a frightened mob masquerading as "police officers".

Fear of "terrorism" is no excuse to make excuses for police "vigilantism".


*sigh* Remember back in the 20th century, in Los Angeles there was this fellow by the name of Rodney King? He too, made the mistake of fleeing the cops. And when he was "caught", rather than simply cuff and stuff him, the cops beat him unmercifully.

People made excuses for the police then too. And some people (mainly the black community) were outrgaed that such shit would be allowed.

Now here we are in the 21st century. And police are KILLING people for the "crime" of running away.

And YOU people want to make excuses for it?


Amazing. Simply, amazing.

And people wonder WHY I don't go outside my house much.

This post has been edited by TK421: 25 July 2005 - 01:10 PM

[Vixentrox]

Rodney King wasn't a suspected terrorist making a run for the public transit system wearing a coat that easily could have concealed explosives days after several other transit sytems had been attacked.

[Checkmate]

Vixentrox, on Jul 25 2005, 01:06 PM, said:

Rodney King wasn't a suspected terrorist making a run for the public transit system wearing a coat that easily could have concealed explosives days after several other transit sytems had been attacked.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And THAT makes it OKAY?

And has no one ever heard of a "dead man switch"?

And what of simply setting off explosives or releasing chemicals by weapons fire?

I'm sorry, but paranoia is NO excuse for killing someone because you THINK he MIGHT be a "bad dude".

I'm certain that any of you would see my point IF it were someone YOU loved lying dead from a hail of bullets under these same circumstances.

Law enforcement officials MUST err on the side of caution. That's the nature of the beast.

[Ouroboros]

TK421, on Jul 25 2005, 12:38 PM, said:

And THAT makes it OKAY?

And has no one ever heard of a "dead man switch"?

And what of simply setting off explosives or releasing chemicals by weapons fire?

I'm sorry, but paranoia is NO excuse for killing someone because you THINK he MIGHT be a "bad dude".

I'm certain that any of you would see my point IF it were someone YOU loved lying dead from a hail of bullets under these same circumstances.

Law enforcement officials MUST err on the side of caution.  That's the nature of the beast.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

TK you have some experience with explosives, couldn't a shot in the bomb cause it to explode? I mean, shooting a bomb suspect could set off the bomb, even without the death-man trigger. And regardless of if the suspect was innocent or not, the police acted careless and beyond reasonable measures of caution.

[Checkmate]

HanSolo, on Jul 25 2005, 01:43 PM, said:

TK you have some experience with explosives, couldn't a shot in the bomb cause it to explode? I mean, shooting a bomb suspect could set off the bomb, even without the death-man trigger. And regardless of if the suspect was innocent or not, the police acted careless and beyond reasonable measures of caution.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Precisely. That is what I said.

IF this joker HAD a bomb on his person, weapons fire COULD cause a detonation, just as well as any trigger.

(Granted, they were SUCH excellent marksmen, they ONLY shot him in the head. Pretty hard to miss a head shot from a few feet away, though!)

Also, in military training I received (I can't speak for ALL law enforcement), another factor in "Shoot/Don't Shoot" scenarios is consideration of civilian bystanders in the line of fire. Bullets have the nasty habit of NOT stopping after they penetrate the intended target.

No, my friends, being a cop is NOT an easy line of duty. Too many things can go wrong, much too quickly.

I was lucky never to be placed in direct combat, nor of having to draw down on a suspect. But the military NEVER let us have any illusions about how fucked we'd be if we made the wrong call.

[Vixentrox]

And niether do second guessers and those with a political agenda. Of course, would be fine and dandy for cops to get killed if they second guessed themselves and made the wrong choice....as long as thier hesitation didn't result in the death of some innocent by an assailent. In which case, the second guessers with hindsight crucify the cops again.

[Checkmate]

Vixentrox, on Jul 25 2005, 03:31 PM, said:

And niether do second guessers and those with a political agenda.  Of course, would be fine and dandy for cops to get killed if they second guessed themselves and made the wrong choice....as long as thier hesitation didn't result in the death of some innocent by an assailent.  In which case, the second guessers with hindsight crucify the cops again.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So...the solution is "shoot first and ask questions later"? I'm not comfortable with that philosophy.

Nor am I happy about cops getting blown away, or being second guessed for doing their jobs. I have sympathy for them. In fact, I WAS ONE OF THEM!

However...They HAD the dude ON THE GROUND. They were a mere few FEET away from him. At this point in time, ALL cops are trained to shout, "FREEZE! GET YOUR HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!"

THIS is when those crucial life/death "split second decisions" get made.

The subject, if he doesn't want to get shot, keeps his hands where they can be seen, and the cops apply cuffs to him and begin a search. Nobody dies. IF he has a bomb, then Explosive Ordinance is summoned to defuse it.

IF he's incredibly stupid OR a terrorist, he keeps moving AND goes for the inside of his "jacket" or what have you, AND the cops then blow several holes in him. They would indeed be justified in killing him. (I know I'D fucking freeze with several pistols in MY face!)

But just to begin blazing away at FALLEN prey, who is probably confused as all get out at what is going on...?

No. I'm sorry. This does NOT seem right to me.

However, you are right. We ARE second guessing the cops. I wasn't there. I haven't recently been bombed. And I remember the heightened security/paranoia after 9/11. Our view of "right/wrong" got severely skewed in the months that followed.

But the solution CANNOT be that we gun down people just because we SUSPECT them and they run. Isn't that taking security a little TOO far?

As I said in another post, this whole thing reminds me of the movie, "The Siege".

Or better yet, maybe "Minority Report" where people are arrested for "future crimes".

Or better still, that movie starring Sylvester Stallone and Billy Dee Williams, with Rutger Hauer as "the Terrorist". (I forget the name. Someone help me out.)

The cops in THAT movie had to undergo re-training to prepare them for dealing with a different breed of criminal--the terrorist. NYC cops were conditioned to "arrest" offenders. But dealing with terrorists would require a cold-blooded ruthlessness to kill at a moments notice, with no mercy, nor hesitency.

I'm sensing the same paradigm shift occurring here in the real world. Only it's happening on a global scale.

Fucking terrorists. It seems that no matter what we do, it seems as though they "win".

Do I have a solution? Nope. Not now and didn't have one when I was in the service. The consensus was, "There is no effective solution to defeat terrorism." And that assessment hasn't changed one bit.

We're in DEEP trouble.

[Vixentrox]

TK421, on Jul 25 2005, 05:39 PM, said:

We're in DEEP trouble. 
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No argument here. We can't just do nothing. But we cant go overboard either. It's walking on a tightrope and there is bound to be many falls to either side of it.

[RedPillAddict]

TK421, on Jul 25 2005, 01:07 PM, said:

Fear of "terrorism" is no excuse to make excuses for police "vigilantism".
*sigh*  Remember back in the 20th century, in Los Angeles there was this fellow by the name of Rodney King?  He too, made the mistake of fleeing the cops.  And when he was "caught", rather than simply cuff and stuff him, the cops beat him unmercifully.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if YOU will remember correctly, he was also on crack and was asked to lay down several times. Watch the WHOLE video. They kept telling him to get down and he just kept on getting up and swinging at the cops. Are they supposed to stand there and let him punch them? Rodney King was a damn moron. When a cop says get on the ground...Get on the fucking ground! Dont try hitting the cops...of course they are going to hit you. He just wouldnt stop trying to get back up. I hate it when people try to act like Rodney King was some innocent man that was beat for no reason. Such bullshit.

This post has been edited by Saviorforsale: 25 July 2005 - 07:08 PM

[chohan]

TK421, on Jul 25 2005, 07:39 PM, said:

So...the solution is "shoot first and ask questions later"? 

The cops in THAT movie had to undergo re-training to prepare them for dealing with a different breed of criminal--the terrorist.  NYC cops were conditioned to "arrest" offenders.  But dealing with terrorists would require a cold-blooded ruthlessness to kill at a moments notice, with no mercy, nor hesitency.

Seconds to decide if suspect is suicide threat
Special armed squad first to use tactics developed with Israeli aid

Vikram Dodd
Saturday July 23, 2005
The Guardian

A senior Metropolitan police source with knowledge of firearms procedures said of the shooting at Stockwell: "This was an intelligence led operation, within the parameters of Kratos." Officially the Met will not talk about Kratos, but the tactics have been in place for a year and were developed after British officers learnt from their Israeli counterparts how best to tackle suicide bombers...Officers from Kratos or following their tactics are reported to be authorised to shoot to kill, and aim for the head to avoid triggering explosive devices attached to the chest or waist. Suicide bombers targeting public transport present a unique challenge. As July 7 showed, if they succeed the result is mass murder.

www.guardian.co.uk/attack...53,00.html

cheers,
cho

[Checkmate]

chohan, on Jul 25 2005, 06:28 PM, said:

Seconds to decide if suspect is suicide threat
Special armed squad first to use tactics developed with Israeli aid

Vikram Dodd
Saturday July 23, 2005
The Guardian

A senior Metropolitan police source with knowledge of firearms procedures said of the shooting at Stockwell: "This was an intelligence led operation, within the parameters of Kratos." Officially the Met will not talk about Kratos, but the tactics have been in place for a year and were developed after British officers learnt from their Israeli counterparts how best to tackle suicide bombers...Officers from Kratos or following their tactics are reported to be authorised to shoot to kill, and aim for the head to avoid triggering explosive devices attached to the chest or waist. Suicide bombers targeting public transport present a unique challenge. As July 7 showed, if they succeed the result is mass murder.

www.guardian.co.uk/attack...53,00.html

cheers,
cho
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but did I miss something? Has it been established that this dead man was in FACT a suicide bomber?

[chohan]

TK421, on Jul 25 2005, 08:49 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but did I miss something?  Has it been established that this dead man was in FACT a suicide bomber?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not unless someone has something more current:

Quote

UK Police: Man Killed Unrelated to Probe
Saturday July 23, 2005 6:46 PM

By JILL LAWLESS
Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - The man shot and killed on a subway car by London police in front of horrified commuters apparently had nothing to do with this month's bombings on the city's transit system, police said Saturday in expressing their ``regrets.''
A day earlier, the police commissioner said the man was ``directly linked'' to Thursday's attacks, in which bombs on three subway trains and a bus failed to detonate properly. No one was injured.

``For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets,'' a police spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity.

www.guardian.co.uk/worldl...62,00.html

Also you might wish to dress light for awhile:

Quote

UK police say more innocents could die in bomb hunt25 Jul 2005 02:21:01 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Peter Griffiths

LONDON, July 25 (Reuters) - British police say more members of the public could be shot in error as they escalate their battle against terrorism and hunt for four men who tried to set off explosions on London's transport system last week.

The warning comes after police, who are engaged in one of the biggest manhunts in British history, mistakenly shot dead a Brazilian man on Friday, thinking he was a suicide bomber.

Sorry, I misplaced my link on that one but it's was Reuters so I grabbed it.

cheers,
cho

[Checkmate]

Just want to make sure everyone can make an informed opinion. Don't want any more "rush to judgments". Here's a recent news item found on Wikipedia.
London Tube Shooting

Here's an excerpt about how he was treated after being pursued by TWENTY officers:

"He was pushed to the floor of the carriage. Two officers pinned him down, while a third shot him seven times in the head and once in the shoulder with a handgun. He died at the scene."

Yes, he sure SOUNDS like he posed a credible threat at the time. No way they could have cuffed such a ruffian.

The thing I found/find interesting is the constant mentioning of his wearing clothing that was "too warm" for the weather.

The man was a native of South America. It's VERY hot down yonder.
The temperature in London that day was recorded at 62 degrees.
To someone who's body is accustomed to HOT temperatures, 62 degrees FEELS cold to them. So to THEM it would NOT be "odd" to him.

I knew a young woman who was of hispanic descent and raised in Arizona. She always bitched about it being too cold when the temp DROPPED below 70! She'd wear sweaters, and crank up the heat in the truck. (I never once saw her use the AC!) It drove everyone around her nuts. She wasn't happy unless the temp was near or above 100 degrees.

I suppose she'd better stay away from London too?

This post has been edited by TK421: 26 July 2005 - 12:11 AM