London Underground under attack? [merged thread]

Karl Hungus

In all fairness, I do believe the cops in question were right in the fact that they did not want to put the public at risk, and that potential suicide bombers should be taken down as quickly as possible, but on the same note I do believe they were very excessive... That is, unless someone can tell me why 5 gunshots to the head were nessicary to kill someone?

Arabel wrote:

If the terrorists had never done 9/11 Iraq wouldnt have been invaded. So thats back to the terrorists fault again. (I know we're gone to really indirect links, but, meh..)

Seeing as Afganistan was behind 9/11, I'd say that Iraq would've been invaded all the same.

county

if he cannot understand english ie [stop police] yes he is a muppet

jank

county wrote:

if he cannot understand english ie [stop police] yes he is a muppet

Do you understand Chinese? So if your over in China and some armed group come running over to you shouting commands you dont understand then its ok to put 5 bullets in your head!
Yep totally logical! :rolleyes:

Back to the main point here, this is exactly what the terrorists wanted! Yet more reason to spout there hate and get others to be martyrs.

Pepe LeFrits

There's still very little information about this yet so it's difficult to form a grounded opinion. A lot of information being circulated is hearsay. For example, a guy I was talking to last night said that the first shot didn't kill him as it passed through his cheek, and he reckoned that the other 4 shots were fired more or less at the same time. That certainly puts the police in a better light than say, an incapacitated man being pinned down and shot in the face repeatedly.

Not wanting to appear unsensitive, but it doesn't really matter what it looked like from the victim's point of view, because he's dead now. The police had to make a fast decision and given the manner it seems Mr Menezes acted in, I don't think they had a choice.

Karl Hungus

jank wrote:

Do you understand Chinese? So if your over in China and some armed group come running over to you shouting commands you dont understand then its ok to put 5 bullets in your head!
Yep totally logical! :rolleyes:

In all fairness, if you're living in a country for an extended period of time (He had a house, so it's fair to say he wasn't there on Holiday) you'd have to pick up some of the lingo, I'd imagine. So he probably did understand them.

Dub13

He also came out of a house the police had under surveillance

pete

Dub13 wrote:

He also came out of a house the police had under surveillance

and then got on a bus to the train station...

Carpo

county wrote:

what we know is he was a ****ing muppet for running away from armed police

Expecting perfectly rational behaviour from a civilian who had no reason to believe he was under suspicion and was surprised by ununiformed men with guns is a bit of a strech. People often dont make smart moves when they are put under sudden pressure and the old flight or fight instinct kicks in.

That being said I think some of the blame lies, indirectly, with Hollywood (and I am not entirely joking either). If you were to ask the public about what happens when confronted by armed officers you would likey recieve a lot of answers containing phases like "chasing down" and "shooting to wound" and stubbled cops with tough sounding names. I reckon a simple public awareness campaign along the line of "If armed police tell you to stop, you had better jolly well do it or you will be killed!" would do an awful lot to prevent something like this happening again. Particularly in the current climate of terrorism when there are a lot or armed coppers about.

(not that I am absolving the police from any responsability they bear in this incident)

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Everyone posting here thinks they are posting sensibly, you cannot just dismiss other peoples views as stupid

Well you are the one describing this death as terrorism when a man who speaks fluent English(His cousin said this on the radio this morning) and has been working in London legally for 2 years runs from the police and attempts to board a train wearing a baggy coat on a hot summers day is shot dead the day after some people tried to commit mass murder on the trains and 2 weeks after they did suceed in commiting mass murder.

Honestly Dub I am disappointed in your analysis and specefically your decision to declare a situation completely devoid of the extenuating circumstances.

In my opinion, yeah I'm really really sorry for the bloke thats dead and I have a lot of sympathy too for the poor cop that pulled the trigger and how he must be feeling today.

That said however,what that Brasililian did was in my view akin to being as stupid as walking out infront of a speeding truck on a busy road.

simu

Earthman wrote:

It's an inevitability unfortunately in the current circumstances where false islamists are trying to murder dozens or hundreds because of some crazed thinking they have.

Well, I'm willing to believe it was an accident but without wanting to jump on the tin foil hat bandwagon and claim that soon the police will be slaughtering hundreds to fight terrorism, I have to say that I find the killing of an innocent civilian by the police force of a democratic country - supposedly those who protect the public - to be more worrying that killings by terrorists who are already known to be deranged in their ways of thinking. It's better for the police to err on the side of caution, imo.

I'd hope that Sand of all people and all others excluding terrorists and especially posters here would have more common sense than the poor unfortunate man that was shot yesterday.

It's not that simple though - people don't always act rationally in situations like this.

BuffyBot

I think I will avoid London for now, there appears to be some gung-ho police on the loose.

:rolleyes: Over react much? It's not like they've randomly shout thousands of people. They shot one guy (rightly or wrongly), in a very specific set of circumstances.

It's better for the police to err on the side of caution, imo.

Problem is, if they err on the side of caution the next time and 20 people get killed in a bomb explosion, where does that leave them?

Sounds like a bit of a no win situation to be honest.

mike65

The dead man, Jean Charles de Menezes was a legal immigrant and worked for 3 years in London and had good English. So it looks like a terrible case of someone doing the "wrong thing" - panicking and getting killed for it.

from iol

The Brazilian electrician shot dead by anti-terror police at Stockwell Tube station in south London had no reason to flee from authorities, according to a relative today.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot at point blank range on Friday after officers wrongly suspected he was linked to Thursday’s attempted bomb attacks on the London Underground.

Today his cousin Alex Pereira, 28, said his cousin was “a 100% good guy who never did anything wrong and had no reason to run.

“I don’t think he ran from police. I don’t think he would do that. They can’t show anything that shows that he had.”

Mr Pereira said police had watched his cousin get on a bus. They followed him for about 500 metres.

“If he had a bomb he could have blown it off on the bus.

“Now what they (police) have shown is that they are incapable and stupid. There’s no explanation to what they have done.”

Mike.

simu

simu wrote:

Well, I'm willing to believe it was an accident but without wanting to jump on the tin foil hat bandwagon and claim that soon the police will be slaughtering hundreds to fight terrorism, I have to say that I find the killing of an innocent civilian by the police force of a democratic country - supposedly those who protect the public - to be more worrying that killings by terrorists who are already known to be deranged in their ways of thinking. It's better for the police to err on the side of caution, imo.

You do realise that horrible as any killing is, that this one is democratically accountable in front of an independent police body whereas terrorists run off to plan their next killings with no accountability unless they are caught.

It's not that simple though - people don't always act rationally in situations like this.

Well it would appear that everybody other than this guy did at stockwell thankfully.

murphaph

Earthman wrote:

Well you are the one describing this death as terrorism when a man who speaks fluent English(His cousin said this on the radio this morning) and has been working in London legally for 2 years runs from the police and attempts to board a train wearing a baggy coat on a hot summers day is shot dead the day after some people tried to commit mass murder on the trains and 2 weeks after they did suceed in commiting mass murder.

Honestly Dub I am disappointed in your analysis and specefically your decision to declare a situation completely devoid of the extenuating circumstances.

In my opinion, yeah I'm really really sorry for the bloke thats dead and I have a lot of sympathy too for the poor cop that pulled the trigger and how he must be feeling today.

That said however,what that Brasililian did was in my view akin to being as stupid as walking out infront of a speeding truck on a busy road.

Earthman, no matter how stupid his reaction (and I'm not convinced it was stupid given the circumstances, plainclothes bloke wielding guns at him etc.) what he did was nowhere near as stupid as what the cops did in letting him reach a fcuking tube station. If they genuinely believed he could be a suicide bomber he should have been tackled when he stepped outside his front door. They let him BOARD A FCUKING BUS and then shot him dead thinking he was a suicide bomber-why the fcuk did they let him get that far from home before tackling him?

The cops fcuked this up big time and I'm not usually one to side with those on the receiving end of a dose of law and order. The cops should have been in control of this. They had him or his home under surveilance. This is completely different to an armed cop who stumbles across a suicide bomber on a train just before he's gonna do the deed-he has no time to make the decision to fire. They had plenty of time BEFORE he got to the tube station to tackle him from a safe distance. The more that comes out on this the worse it gets for the Met. What Mike said earlier is very true-society in the UK is lucky that a poor Brazilian is dead than a young muslim. This whole business is incredibly sad.

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

Earthman, no matter how stupid his reaction (and I'm not convinced it was stupid given the circumstances, plainclothes bloke wielding guns at him etc.) what he did was nowhere near as stupid as what the cops did in letting him reach a fcuking tube station.

Why? There could have been several reasons for that including seeing whether he was meeting someone.

If they genuinely believed he could be a suicide bomber he should have been tackled when he stepped outside his front door. They let him BOARD A FCUKING BUS and then shot him dead thinking he was a suicide bomber-why the fcuk did they let him get that far from home before tackling him?

Easy for you or I to say that, we're not trained cops.

The cops fcuked this up big time and I'm not usually one to side with those on the receiving end of a dose of law and order. The cops should have been in control of this. They had him or his home under surveilance.

Again it's easy for us to say this, we are not in the business of investigating something like this.Given what little information we are being given(A tiny tiny fraction of the overal investigation) None of us are in any position honestly to judge what went on here other than to say it turned out to be a tragic mistake.I doubt for instance that the cops had this guys death as their primary objective unless they were of the view that he was about to board with a bomb. Remember it was in the station that he was running, and it was in the station that he could have stood still with his hands in the air.

This is completely different to an armed cop who stumbles across a suicide bomber on a train just before he's gonna do the deed-he has no time to make the decision to fire. They had plenty of time BEFORE he got to the tube station to tackle him from a safe distance.

Again you are assuming the unknown.

The more that comes out on this the worse it gets for the Met. What Mike said earlier is very true-society in the UK is lucky that a poor Brazilian is dead than a young muslim. This whole business is incredibly sad.

Again nothing has actually came out as regards whats going on(for operational reasons no doubt) bar a tiny tiny fraction in various police news conferences.

danniemcq

dunno if this was picked up on yet was offline all night but i just read a statement on the shooting by Ken Livingstone

"The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public.
This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility."
- Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London

surely the blame lies on the police force and their intelligence

murphaph

It seems Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair (from the interview I saw this morning) is more willing to accept the FULL responsibility, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, for that man's death than some of the folks on here. They're the words he used;"full responsibility".

I absolutely reject the idea that tailing him to a potential accomplice is accetable when he is suspected (as he was!) of carrying a bomb, this is so far beyond the pale as to be ridiculous-he wasn't suspected of carrying a half kilo of coke-he was suspected of carrying a suicide bomb! There is no excuse for playing with the lives of the public by allowing a suspected suicide bomber to walk around outside. He should have been taken down (perhaps even by shooting him!) as soon as he stepped outside his flat. They were right not to raid the flat given what happened in Madrid when they did that, but they should have tackled him outside.

murphaph

murphaph wrote:

It seems Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair (from the interview I saw this morning) is more willing to accept the FULL responsibility, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, for that man's death than some of the folks on here. They're the words he used;"full responsibility".

With respect you are speaking nonsense if you are referring to the type of view I have expressed.Of course they are accepting full responsibility, they shot him.
That does not take in any way though from the dangerous/wreckless thing that the dead man did in the circumstances.

I absolutely reject the idea that tailing him to a potential accomplice is accetable when he is suspected (as he was!) of carrying a bomb, this is so far beyond the pale as to be ridiculous-he wasn't suspected of carrying a half kilo of coke-he was suspected of carrying a suicide bomb!

You are entitled to accept or reject whatever you like, but you are doing so as a bystander in front of a pc with absolutely no knowledge of what led up to the shooting.
That quite frankly is a jumping up and down irrational approach to take in the circumstances.In my view it would be better to wait for all the facts and to take cognisance of the situation as a whole, ie the day before this, dozens of people miraculously escaped more carnage

There is no excuse for playing with the lives of the public by allowing a suspected suicide bomber to walk around outside. He should have been taken down (perhaps even by shooting him!) as soon as he stepped outside his flat.

Again thats all fine and dandy to say when you are not involved in the operation and not privy to what was going on.

They were right not to raid the flat given what happened in Madrid when they did that, but they should have tackled him outside.

Again another uninformed opinion.
I'll reserve mine for when I know more thanks.
In the meantime I'll take comfort from the fact that at least one good thing has come from this tragic mistake and that is those that are ready to be brainwashed into carrying out suicide bombings now know the police mean business when tackling suspects.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

That does not take in any way though from the dangerous/wreckless thing that the dead man did in the circumstances.

I'm curious as to how you can conclude that it was wreckless whilst almost simultaneously critiqueing another poster's point of view because they're making assumptions based on a lack of information.

Exactly how have you concluded that he acted dangerously/wrecklessly, as opposed to paniced or anything else, given that - as you correclty point out - we don't know enough details.

You are entitled to accept or reject whatever you like, but you are doing so as a bystander in front of a pc with absolutely no knowledge of what led up to the shooting.

Exactly what I'm driving at...how can you say he acted dangerously/wrecklessly with absolutely no knowledge of what led up to the shooting?

that is those that are ready to be brainwashed into carrying out suicide bombings now know the police mean business when tackling suspects.

The threat of being shot in the head whilst on your way to blow yourself to smithereens acts as a deterrant how? You've accepted a mission that will end in your own messy death....the threat of a messy death if you're caught doesn't seem to make it much different to me.

jc

Karl Hungus

Earthman wrote:

In the meantime I'll take comfort from the fact that at least one good thing has come from this tragic mistake and that is those that are ready to be brainwashed into carrying out suicide bombings now know the police mean business when tackling suspects.

In all fairness Earthman, I think this incident will have an affect moreso on the police themselves, I honestly think they'll start being overly cautious when it comes to dealing with similar situations where there's a possible suicide bomber. Who the hell wants another innocent body on their head, not to mention their career being destroyed? Sure, public safety is at risk, but as shown by this whole debate, the cops really do have a lot to lose.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

I'm curious as to how you can conclude that it was wreckless whilst almost simultaneously critiqueing another poster's point of view because they're making assumptions based on a lack of information.

simple I know from eyewitness reports that the guy was running from armed people shouting "police stop".
Police that were also shouting at the others there to get down/get out.
Whereas Murphaph has no knowledge of the police operation to conclude what he has concluded.
I'm not condoning what the police did,I'm just pointing out that they need a lot of the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances.They were only doing their job in tough circumstances and perhaps they will learn from this.

Exactly how have you concluded that he acted dangerously/wrecklessly, as opposed to paniced or anything else, given that - as you correclty point out - we don't know enough details.

To panick all the way to the train door if it was panick is in my view acting dangerously and wrecklessly.
Bear in mind that he is being chased by armed police shouting police.

Exactly what I'm driving at...how can you say he acted dangerously/wrecklessly with absolutely no knowledge of what led up to the shooting?

It would be my view that running to escape people pointing guns shouting police in the underground, the day after a botched attack and 2 weeks after a mass murder would be a wreckless thing to do.
I've stated it as a view and I think its a reasonable one based on the evidence/reports that have came to light on various news bulletins.

The threat of being shot in the head whilst on your way to blow yourself to smithereens acts as a deterrant how? You've accepted a mission that will end in your own messy death....the threat of a messy death if you're caught doesn't seem to make it much different to me.

jc

But the threat of being caught would make a big difference.The guy was wrestled down at the door of a packed train.So it's reasonable to assume that if he was a suicide bomber he could have ignited his bomb at that point to cause maximum casulties.
In other words it's reaonable to consider that were he a bomber, he was making every effort up to the point of being shot to get to his best point of ground zero.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

In other words it's reaonable to consider that were he a bomber, he was making every effort up to the point of being shot to get to his best point of ground zero.

I'm not questioning that.

I'm questioning how knowing that the police will shoot you dead if they suspect you're on your way to kill people by blowing yourself up will deter someone from making that decision.

These guys are making a decision to commit suicide. The threat of getting killed along the way isn't really gonna put anyone off it that I can see.

I think the best answer that I can give to that is to quote one of the analysists on Sky this morning as awfull as the ramifications are.
They said the police in this instance were shooting to save rather than shooting to kill though obviously they got it wrong.

I think what I meant when I spoke of detterent earlier I was thinking of two things: (1) That it will be even less likely in future that anyone who is an innocent bystander in such a situation wont get down or put their hands up in the air and (2) that future potential brainwashee's might be harder to find if they think that their death will come by shooting rather than in a spectacular like that of july 7th.
It's primary deterrant would be in the shoot to save aspect of it.

mike65

These guys are making a decision to commit suicide. The threat of getting killed along the way isn't really gonna put anyone off it that I can see.

More intersting, I think is the state of mind of the 4 failed bombers, they went out to die and did'nt so are presumably viewed as failures by themselves and maybe some others. Wil they have another go to save face?

Mike.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Ziggy I said potential brainwashee's.What I'm thinking of is the pool from which the brainwashers draw their brainwashee's from.

pete

Born 07/01/78, a Brazilian national
Originally from the city of Gonzaga, 500 miles northeast of Sao Paulo in the south-eastern state of Minas Gerais in Brazil
Moved to Sao Paulo at age 14
Lived in Brixton, London for three years, working as an electrician

The BBC's correspondent in Brazil, Tom Gibb, said Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police.

He said: "The murder rates in some of these slums are worse than in a lot of war zones and that could explain why, when plain clothes officers pulled a gun on him, he may have run away."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

He said: "The murder rates in some of these slums are worse than in a lot of war zones and that could explain why, when plain clothes officers pulled a gun on him, he may have run away."

Thats the best explanation I've seen yet as to his actions notwithstanding that it was the wrong thing to do in the circumstances.
RIP

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote:

If they genuinely believed he could be a suicide bomber he should have been tackled when he stepped outside his front door.

Given the second-guessing that's going on about the shooting of a man who ran away from police, I dread to think what would be said if they had shot him in the head as soon as he left the house.

"Genuinely believed" isn't a fair assessment of the type of judgement call the police have to make in a situation like this. It's fairer to assume that they had their suspicions, and that those suspicions were heightened greatly by his running away, onto a tube train of all places.

It's interesting also how people's perception of events is coloured by hearsay: how many posts in this thread have made reference to his being held down and shot? It sounds quite brutal, but from the reportage I've seen, it doesn't seem to have happened.

murphaph

Earthman wrote:

Whereas Murphaph has no knowledge of the police operation to conclude what he has concluded.

Bullsh!t I don't! The cops were keeping his flat complex under surveilance, yay or nay?
They thought he was a potential suicide bomber, yay or nay?
They LET him reach an Underground station BEFORE intervening, yay or nay?

This is all in the public domain.

The cops fcuked this one up. He should never have reached an Underground station. Earthman, you suggested earlier that the police were tailing him in case he met with 'accomplices'. That's not acceptable when they think he could be a walking bomb, which is why they shot him ultimately.