London Underground under attack? [merged thread]

Nuttzz

Hydroquinone wrote:

If anyone thinks an inquiry will do anything but vindicate the men who shot this Brazillian, they are fooling themselves.
This could be for a number of reasons, the one you believe depends where you sit on political spectrum.
1 - The police always look after their own
2 - The officers acted as they saw fit in the given circumstances
3 - Any suspicion that they are being made the patsy will mean no other armed policeman will ever pick up a gun again
4 - They're Brits. What do you expect?

you were doing so well until comment four....

Hydroquinone

Nuttzz wrote:

you were doing so well until comment four....

I didn't say I thought that.
I didn't say what I thought.

But do you really think that there are people, yea verily even upon these very boards who won't think it's absolutely, entirely and utterly because of reason 4?

rsynnott

Hydroquinone wrote:

But do you really think that there are people, yea verily even upon these very boards who won't think it's absolutely, entirely and utterly because of reason 4?

Yes, but those people are a bit silly.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

Sure about that?

I don't know about the table leg incident,but I did watch several news reports with witnesses stating they were told by police get down and get out- Web example

"Then about eight or nine police with shotguns boarded after him and started shouting to us all 'get out, get out of the station'.

The met have also stated that he was challenged.


And hydroquinone-if your 4 reasons hold true then no police officer would ever be in court or convicted of anything.
The inquiry should be transparent and at least there will be an independent one,it doesn't happen in the ROI (yet).

Hydroquinone

Earthman wrote:

And hydroquinone-if your 4 reasons hold true then no police officer would ever be in court or convicted of anything.
The inquiry should be transparent and at least there will be an independent one,it doesn't happen in the ROI (yet).

I think that the enquiry will be transparent - it was the likely interpretations to the result of the enquiry from Joe Public that I was commenting on.

In this country we have no room to comment about the actions of police and the consequences of their actions. Because as you say, we have no mechanism to bring our own to task, when necessary. In NI and GB, they have, so we should cop on and follow their lead.

pete

The Brazilian man shot dead by police in south London, who mistook him for a suicide bomber, had been in Britain on an out-of-date visa, officials say.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, may have run from police because of his visa situation, BBC correspondents say.

Mr Menezes was killed after fleeing armed police as he travelled to work.

He had been followed by police from his block of flats in Tulse Hill, which was under surveillance in the hunt for the group behind Thursday's attempted bombings.

Mr Menezes had boarded the number 2 bus to Stockwell.

Police said his padded jacket had heightened suspicions about his journey. He was shot as he ran on to a train.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

Nuttzz

Sparks wrote:

No, he was perfectly legal and innocent.

Sadly although prefectly innocent he wasnt perfectly legal so that would be the reason he ran.

pete

The man mistaken for a suicide bomber by police was shot eight times, an inquest into his death has heard.
Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, at Stockwell Tube station, south London, on Friday.

Det Insp Elizabeth Baker revealed the details at a hearing in London.

Security sources have said Mr Menezes had been in the UK on an out-of-date student visa, but his family deny this and are considering suing the police.

On Friday morning, Mr Menezes had left his flat in Tulse Hill and boarded a bus towards Stockwell Tube station to go to work.

He had been followed by police, who had his block of flats under surveillance in the hunt for the group behind Thursday's attempted bombings.

When he was challenged by police in the Tube station, he fled, reportedly leaping the ticket barrier.

Over the past year there have been an increased number of immigration checks at Tube stations - a policy widely reported in Brazilian papers in London.

Police chased him on to a Tube train where he was shot dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

Sparks

Nuttzz wrote:

Sadly although prefectly innocent he wasnt perfectly legal so that would be the reason he ran.

As pete points out, his family are contesting that.
And what doesn't seem to have been mentioned here is that there are reports that he was mugged a week earlier in the same spot by a bunch of thugs. Which would add to his motive to flee.

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

Thats a belief not based on the full facts, but I understand your concern. Well you see heres where my main beef with your stance is.The police are accountable in this instance, there will be an independent inquiry.
Your first comment on this thread was to call this terrorism.
Terrorists have no accountability.There is no transparency with them.

accountability is a relative term. People with power rarely have true accountability, since they get to write the rules. George Bush and Tony Blair haven't been held accountable for their countless crimes. And if you don't think this is terrorism your utterly wrong. Asians living in the UK are going to be TERRIFIED, for a long while to come. Not only do they have to fear being blown up by terrorists, not to mention the backlash from angry yobs, now they have also got to fear the police which is meant to be protecting them, from shooting them in the head.

They did identify themselves. I don't know.
Whats that got to do with the discussion?I have taken the view that running away from armed people on a public platform when they are shouting police stop and get down to everyone is a wreckless and dangerous thing to do, the day after a botched terrorism incident.
Thats a perfectly logical view to take.Equating the police to terrorists isn't in my view.

It's so easy after the fact for you to sit down and think about what the logical reaction to any situation might be. But the fact is that people don't always react logically and rationally under extreme situations, some people are calmer and have more presence of mind than others. Just because this guy panicked when he was challenged by a bunch of guys wearing civilian clothing with guns CLAIMING to be police doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered. And it does in no way excuse his murder or those that were complicit in it.

In my opinion the person from the top down who ordered this shooting should all go to jail. Their intentions in this are irrelevant. Good intentions shouldn't excuse murder of an innocent person. Or are these new double standards going to apply to the british police in this case because they represent "our" society and a judgement upon them is a judgement on the society they represent.

Memnoch

Nuttzz wrote:

we live in an imprefect world, that poor man wouldnt have been shoot if some loonies werent blowing themselves up for misguided reasons.

the cops may have pulled the trigger but the terrrorists "loaded the gun"

this kind of logic is horribly flawed. It is in fact no different from the logic that the terrorists use.

The terrorists may have planted the bombs but the british and american invasion of iraq "gave them the bombs".

Just because the misguided loonies as you put it are doing wrong and stupid things doesn't justify OR excuse the murder of an innocent man.

The cops shot him, without thinking, it was murder and calous disrespect for human life that they are supposed to be protecting. The terrorists are to blame for the people they killed with their bombs, no matter what the incitement.

And the people who murdered this man are to blame for it, regardless of THEIR intentions of that of any group of misguided loonies.

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

And if you don't think this is terrorism your utterly wrong. Asians living in the UK are going to be TERRIFIED, for a long while to come.

...and this is what I mean by diluting the meaning of the word "terrorism". If you take it to mean "anything that causes people to be terrified" then you would have to consider last December's tsunami a terrorist attack.

Memnoch wrote:

It's so easy after the fact for you to sit down and think about what the logical reaction to any situation might be. But the fact is that people don't always react logically and rationally under extreme situations, some people are calmer and have more presence of mind than others.

Taken in isolation, that statement could be used just as effectively to explain why the man was shot.

Memnoch wrote:

Just because this guy panicked when he was challenged by a bunch of guys wearing civilian clothing with guns CLAIMING to be police doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered. And it does in no way excuse his murder or those that were complicit in it.

Great - now we're redefining murder as we go along as well.

Memnoch wrote:

In my opinion the person from the top down who ordered this shooting should all go to jail. Their intentions in this are irrelevant.

So do you advocate that a state's defence forces should never kill anyone, under any circumstances, for any reason, ever?

Memnoch wrote:

Good intentions shouldn't excuse murder of an innocent person.

No, but perhaps they should mitigate an accidental tragedy.

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

The cops shot him, without thinking...

How do you know whether they were thinking or not?

Memnoch wrote:

it was murder...

I'd like you to explain how you came to that conclusion.

tomMK1

how can you say it wasnt? Armed un-uniformed men ruinning up after someone and then shooting him apparently 7 or 8 times without actually knowing if he was a civillian or not?

I suppose if the IRA, UVF, anyone not in a 'legal' armed force then it would be undoubtably murder.

growler

tomMK1 wrote:

I suppose if the IRA, UVF, anyone not in a 'legal' armed force then it would be undoubtably murder.

of course it would, as it would be if an off-duty copper shot someone, or if you or I did, however that's completely different to an armed response unit reacting as they were trained to do, in accordance with instructions from their superiors with force equal to the threat posed by a suspected suicide bomber.

"In my opinion the person from the top down who ordered this shooting should all go to jail. Their intentions in this are irrelevant. Good intentions shouldn't excuse murder of an innocent person. Or are these new double standards going to apply to the british police in this case because they represent "our" society and a judgement upon them is a judgement on the society they represent."

I cannot understand this attitude, you would obviously prefer the cops to jump on top of a potential bomber and use their bodies to shield the public , or simply ignore all terrorist suspects unless they have clearly stated their intention to commit mass murder ?

If the police involved in this are charged with any criminal offence then life for a UK Terrorist suddenly gets a whole lot easier, they can be pretty sure no one is going to shoot them en route to a bombing. Or else the security services will adopt a far worse strategy ( in terms of civil liberties) and dissappear such individuals outside of any legal framework.

I know I want to see armed police ready to act to counter these nutters, mistakes do happen and its regrettable but this chap made a choice to run, the police acted accordingly (imo) and he suffered the consequences.

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

how can you say it wasnt? Armed un-uniformed men ruinning up after someone and then shooting him apparently 7 or 8 times without actually knowing if he was a civillian or not?

The armed officers in question don't have the luxury of asking hypothetical questions devoid of context. Can you answer this question definitively, without finding out more about the facts of the case: if a person shoots another person and that person dies, is it murder?

tomMK1 wrote:

I suppose if the IRA, UVF, anyone not in a 'legal' armed force then it would be undoubtably murder.

Why do you have quotes around "legal"? Are you suggesting that the Met is an illegal organisation?

Memnoch

yes because in this case the murder was sanctioned by society.

The police are given a license to protect innocent life not end it.

There is no doubt that they have failed on both counts and thus should be held accountable. Were it your family member that had been so murdered you wouldn't be calling it "regrettable and tragic but couldn't be helped" you'd be asking for their heads on their plate.

Just because they are sanctioned by society to protect us doesn't pre-clude them from the basic laws of humanity. Well I suppose you don't mind if it does as long as it's not you or someone that you care about thats murdered by them.

tomMK1

i dont know. how cant you ask questions about someone getting shot in the head numerous times because he was wearing a coat in july, left a house the cops were (rightly or wrongly) watching and ran when strangers took out gunsd and started yelling? Thats a normally good sequence of events and no-one should ask what went wrong?

Obvioulsy I have to explain why i use quotes by the look of it. people seem to have this theory that if people with guns are given those guns by government, then its quite OK for them to kill people, whereas if anyone else does it, then its murder. I'd love someone to explain how they can (rightly) give out about say the mccarthy murder yet say nothing about this and quietly agree to it.

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

The armed officers in question don't have the luxury of asking hypothetical questions devoid of context. Can you answer this question definitively, without finding out more about the facts of the case: if a person shoots another person and that person dies, is it murder? ?

I would assume the officers in question would be trained to take down an armed suspect without necessarily killing him right away. The fact is they should have been able to capture him alive (especially considering he didnt have a bomb), find out he waws innocent and let him free. I agree with the poster about who suggested that if this was someone close to you, you;re attitude wouldnt be as nochalent

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

yes because in this case the murder was sanctioned by society.

I don't know what you're answering "yes" to here.

Memnoch wrote:

The police are given a license to protect innocent life not end it.

Clear this up for me: are you saying that the police should never shoot anyone under any circumstances ever, unless they are first convicted in court?

Memnoch wrote:

There is no doubt that they have failed on both counts and thus should be held accountable.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that they shouldn't.

Memnoch wrote:

Were it your family member that had been so murdered you wouldn't be calling it "regrettable and tragic but couldn't be helped" you'd be asking for their heads on their plate.

I'd be asking for accountability. Heads on plates don't help anyone.

Memnoch wrote:

Just because they are sanctioned by society to protect us doesn't pre-clude them from the basic laws of humanity.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that it should.

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

i dont know. how cant you ask questions about someone getting shot in the head numerous times because he was wearing a coat in july, left a house the cops were (rightly or wrongly) watching and ran when strangers took out gunsd and started yelling? Thats a normally good sequence of events and no-one should ask what went wrong?

I am asking questions. I'm not the one who has decided in the absence of all the facts that this was a criminal act.

tomMK1 wrote:

Obvioulsy I have to explain why i use quotes by the look of it. people seem to have this theory that if people with guns are given those guns by government, then its quite OK for them to kill people, whereas if anyone else does it, then its murder.

Who said it was quite OK? That aside, are you suggesting that police officers should never kill anyone, under any circumstances, for any reason, ever?

tomMK1 wrote:

I'd love someone to explain how they can (rightly) give out about say the mccarthy murder yet say nothing about this and quietly agree to it.

There's a difference between agreeing with something and hesitating to condemning it as murder without being aware of all the facts.

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't know what you're answering "yes" to here. Clear this up for me: are you saying that the police should never shoot anyone under any circumstances ever, unless they are first convicted in court? I don't recall anyone suggesting that they shouldn't. I'd be asking for accountability. Heads on plates don't help anyone. I don't recall anyone suggesting that it should.

oscarBravo, though you replied to that posters reply, theres nothing in your reply that answers anything.

Nuttzz

Memnoch wrote:

There is no doubt that they have failed on both counts and thus should be held accountable.

Who says they wont? at least the UK has an independent Police inquiry which is only answerable to the courts. They will decide based on the facts who is accountable for these events.

None of us were there, we can only base our opinion on the facts

Eye-witness reports from the scene said he was asian - he wasnt, he had a belt on with wires comming out of it - he didnt, both of these though were reported by the BBC.

We cant enter all the information into a table and click on result, these things take time, nor can we believe everything that is reported, some say he had an out of date visa, others say he didnt, some say he was mugged a week before others dont. To expect this to be sorted overnight is a bit daft...

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

I would assume the officers in question would be trained to take down an armed suspect without necessarily killing him right away.

So, you're making assumptions about their training.

tomMK1 wrote:

The fact is they should have been able to capture him alive (especially considering he didnt have a bomb),

...and now you're assuming they had some way of finding out whether he had a bomb without risking him detonating it if he did.

My point remains that it's very easy to sit here and condemn the actions of the police from the comfort of a computer, but without knowing the full facts, such condemnation is premature.

tomMK1 wrote:

I agree with the poster about who suggested that if this was someone close to you, you;re attitude wouldnt be as nochalent

Any chance of staying away from the personal stuff?

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

oscarBravo, though you replied to that posters reply, theres nothing in your reply that answers anything.

What are you talking about?

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

I am asking questions. I'm not the one who has decided in the absence of all the facts that this was a criminal act.Who said it was quite OK?

You seem to think that this act was fine

That aside, are you suggesting that police officers should never kill anyone, under any circumstances, for any reason, ever?

You are of the opinion we shouldnt question the idea of police shooting people (and then you ask me silly questions like : That aside, are you suggesting that police officers should never kill anyone, under any circumstances, for any reason, ever? )

There's a difference between agreeing with something and hesitating to condemning it as murder without being aware of all the facts.

You arent questioning this act whatsoever. The opinion you seem to have is that its fine for policemen to shoot innocent people multiple times in the head. I dont think thats OK.

Basically i believe you should get off the fence and decide if its right that the police are allowed to make the kind of mistake they made.

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

What are you talking about?

I mean you are replying, but what exactly are you saying? And no 'personal stuff' was intended. I just think you havent thought through the conseqences of what happened the other day when that guy got shot

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

So, you're making assumptions about their training. ...and now you're assuming they had some way of finding out whether he had a bomb without risking him detonating it if he did.

No i am not makeing assumptions. are you telling me the police arent trained to react to terrorist threats??

My point remains that it's very easy to sit here and condemn the actions of the police from the comfort of a computer, but without knowing the full facts, such condemnation is premature.

Its also very easy to sit here and realise that the people who are meant to protect people, just killed an innocent person. they made a whopper of a mistake.

if we dont question these things then will it happen again? if you sit on you hands and say nothing and it does happen again, wouldnt you wonder if things might have been different had enough people questioned the procedure of a shoot to kill policy? (which is what this was at the end of the day, like it or not)

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

You seem to think that this act was fine

Then, with respect, you're not paying attention. Just because I'm not posting OMG htey hunted him down and slaughtered him like a dumb animal the murdering pigs doesn't mean I think it was "fine". I don't think it was OK that it happened; I also don't think it was murder. Shades of grey, doncha know.

tomMK1 wrote:

You are of the opinion we shouldnt question the idea of police shooting people

Quote the post where I said that.

tomMK1 wrote:

(and then you ask me silly questions like : That aside, are you suggesting that police officers should never kill anyone, under any circumstances, for any reason, ever? )

Well, are you suggesting that?

tomMK1 wrote:

You arent questioning this act whatsoever.

There are two inquiries questioning this act. What do you think I should be adding?

tomMK1 wrote:

The opinion you seem to have is that its fine for policemen to shoot innocent people multiple times in the head. I dont think thats OK.

Neither do I. But they didn't know whether or not he was innocent, and had to make a judgement call. Maybe they should have waited a couple of days and discussed it on an Internet forum, before arriving at a conclusion.

tomMK1 wrote:

Basically i believe you should get off the fence and decide if its right that the police are allowed to make the kind of mistake they made.

"Allowed" to make a mistake? You think they applied for and received permission to make a mistake? Do you understand what the word "mistake" means?

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

No i am not makeing assumptions.

Right. What exactly did you mean by "I would assume", so?

tomMK1 wrote:

are you telling me the police arent trained to react to terrorist threats??

No, I'm not telling you anything of the kind.

tomMK1 wrote:

Its also very easy to sit here and realise that the people who are meant to protect people, just killed an innocent person. they made a whopper of a mistake.

Yes, they did. Who said they didn't?

tomMK1 wrote:

if we dont question these things then will it happen again?

Who said we shouldn't question them?

tomMK1 wrote:

if you sit on you hands and say nothing and it does happen again, wouldnt you wonder if things might have been different had enough people questioned the procedure of a shoot to kill policy? (which is what this was at the end of the day, like it or not)

If they hadn't shot him and he had had a bomb, what would have happened? See, we could play the "what if" game all day.