London Underground under attack? [merged thread]

tomMK1

well stop playing the what if then

---

Originally Posted by tomMK1
No i am not makeing assumptions.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomMK1
are you telling me the police arent trained to react to terrorist threats??

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

---

right, so you dont disagree with me in assuming the poice are trained for this, yet you're giving me crap for understanding that the police (especially these police) would be trained in such a way. what exactly are you saying then - would they have been trained or not? Stop sitting on the fence.

---

Who said we shouldn't question them?

---

well you certainly arent. your arguing against anyone who is quiestioning it . Again, what siode of the fence are you on? you are flitting from one side to another

---

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.

---

you play the what if game - the point is they DID shoot him and he DIDNT have a bomb. thats not what if.

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

right, so you dont disagree with me in assuming the poice are trained for this, yet you're giving me crap for understanding that the police (especially these police) would be trained in such a way. what exactly are you saying then - would they have been trained or not? Stop sitting on the fence.

But that's not the assumption you made: you specifically said, "I would assume the officers in question would be trained to take down an armed suspect without necessarily killing him right away." That's not the same thing as assuming they're trained to deal with terrorism.

tomMK1 wrote:

well you certainly arent. your arguing against anyone who is quiestioning it .

I'm arguing against those who don't seem to want to ask questions, but who want to jump straight to a conclusion without worrying about trivia like the full facts.

tomMK1 wrote:

Again, what siode of the fence are you on? you are flitting from one side to another

There is no fence.

tomMK1 wrote:

you play the what if game - the point is they DID shoot him and he DIDNT have a bomb. thats not what if.

They didn't know that. Are you saying they shouldn't have shot him even if he did have a bomb?

tomMK1

as i said .. you're playing with words not really debating. If they were trained (something which you havent expressed your view on yet despite being asked to) then one would only hope that they training was more than 'suspected terrorist - shot him multiple times in the head' - but then, i suppose you'll answer that with 'oh, 'hope' - so you dont know what their training is' or something as usinteresting and thought provoking.

i think the point is clear. You, regardless of your denials of it, seem to believe that its was OK for that guy to get shot. You seem in poists to deny that, but then you back it up again, then you seem to change your mind and when asked which side of the fence you are on, you tell me theres no fence ... so I take it that you disagree with those of us who think that this shooting shouldnt have taken place? can we pin you down to that one (pardon the pun)? Im just trying to get an idea of what exactly you are saying since you seem to be going from disagreeing with me to agreeing with me.

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

as i said .. you're playing with words not really debating.

I'm exploring the nuances of a complex and tragic situation. If you want to reduce it to a simplistic question of whether it was right or wrong, you'll have to "debate" with someone else.

tomMK1 wrote:

If they were trained (something which you havent expressed your view on yet despite being asked to) then one would only hope that they training was more than 'suspected terrorist - shot him multiple times in the head' - but then, i suppose you'll answer that with 'oh, 'hope' - so you dont know what their training is' or something as usinteresting and thought provoking.

Do you want a debate, or a slagging match?

I don't know what their training involves. If you want me to speculate, it would seem to involve training to shoot to kill if they have reason to believe it is necessary to prevent loss of life on a larger scale. You seem to think that shooting a suicide bomber in the leg will achieve that. I honestly doubt it, but I'm prepared to accept that the Met have a better understanding of the issues than I do.

I'm also aware of the fact that the Met are prepared to re-evaluate their procedures and training in light of this event, which is one of the purposes of the two inquiries currently underway. I'm not sure what you think my opinion (or yours) can add to that.

tomMK1 wrote:

i think the point is clear. You, regardless of your denials of it, seem to believe that its was OK for that guy to get shot.

I said it was a tragedy. What about that statement makes it seem like I believe it was OK?

tomMK1 wrote:

You seem in poists to deny that, but then you back it up again, then you seem to change your mind and when asked which side of the fence you are on, you tell me theres no fence ... so I take it that you disagree with those of us who think that this shooting shouldnt have taken place?

Given the facts as they are currently available, I think it's extremely regrettable that this shooting took place. I'm not going to be so unbelievably arrogant as to look at those facts in the cold light of hindsight and pronounce judgement on the actions of a police officer faced with about the most difficult judgement call imaginable.

tomMK1 wrote:

can we pin you down to that one (pardon the pun)?

That would be a pun on something that, as far as I have been able to establish, didn't actually happen, right?

tomMK1 wrote:

Im just trying to get an idea of what exactly you are saying since you seem to be going from disagreeing with me to agreeing with me.

I'm being pretty clear about what I think. I'm not going to jump to an equally rash conclusion on either side of your imaginary fence just to make you happy.

tomMK1

fair enough. you've every right to agree with somethings, then when the going gets tough say you didnt agree etc etc etc. whatever keeps you happy.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

Do you want a debate, or a slagging match?

tomMk1 wrote:

fair enough. you've every right to agree with somethings, then when the going gets tough say you didnt agree etc etc etc. whatever keeps you happy.

I guess that answers my question.

tomMK1

it seems to be a thing on here where people antagonise others but dont really seem to have an opinion of their own but make life hell for those who do actually express their opinion.

Certainly doesnt make me want to bother checking out the threads as I seem to meet these people a lot.

Memnoch

Oscar bravo - asking difficult questions doesn't justify this mans murder.

what if I knew for a fact that you were a suicide bomber and couldn't reach the police in time, would it be okay for me to shoot you to the head and kill you? assuming i had a gun.

I guess if I saved innocent lives that would make me a hero right?

but what if I was wrong? then I probably wouldn't be hailed as a hero but as a crazy guy with a gun

what if I was a cop?

would that make it okay if I was wrong? because that's what you seem to be suggesting.

because we give the police the right to protect innocent life. We do not give them the life to end it. Protecting innocent life does not and should not include sacrificing innocent people for the "greater good" whatever the cost may be.

but the thinking of people who are defending the police's actions is easy to explain in all this.

They think, what's the greater chance of me being killed in such an incident? Will it be police killing me erroneously or by a terrorist bomb. being WHITE most people here would conclude that they have a greater chance of being hurt in a terrorist attack, so they are happy to sacrifice the lives of other innocents (only asians after all or asian look alikes) because it provides them the margin of further safety. That is this so called nonesensical "greater good " people keep harping on about, which is a rubbish concept to begin with.

I propose that all these greater good people shoot each other for the greater good as that would save countless innocent lives as the people remaining could then enforce laws to stop the law enforcement authorities from executing innocent people.

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote:

would that make it okay if I was wrong? because that's what you seem to be suggesting.

I'm getting rather tired of people drawing their own conclusions about what I "seem to be suggesting". If you want a discussion, discuss what I'm saying, not what you think there's a slight chance I might be trying to indirectly imply.

Memnoch wrote:

because we give the police the right to protect innocent life. We do not give them the life to end it. Protecting innocent life does not and should not include sacrificing innocent people for the "greater good" whatever the cost may be.

OK. So is it your position that a police officer should never kill anyone under any circumstances ever, no matter what?

growler

Memnoch wrote:

Oscar bravo - asking difficult questions doesn't justify this mans murder.

what if I knew for a fact that you were a suicide bomber and couldn't reach the police in time, would it be okay for me to shoot you to the head and kill you? assuming i had a gun.

I guess if I saved innocent lives that would make me a hero right?

but what if I was wrong? then I probably wouldn't be hailed as a hero but as a crazy guy with a gun

what if I was a cop?

would that make it okay if I was wrong? because that's what you seem to be suggesting.

because we give the police the right to protect innocent life. We do not give them the life to end it. Protecting innocent life does not and should not include sacrificing innocent people for the "greater good" whatever the cost may be.

but the thinking of people who are defending the police's actions is easy to explain in all this.

They think, what's the greater chance of me being killed in such an incident? Will it be police killing me erroneously or by a terrorist bomb. being WHITE most people here would conclude that they have a greater chance of being hurt in a terrorist attack, so they are happy to sacrifice the lives of other innocents (only asians after all or asian look alikes) because it provides them the margin of further safety. That is this so called nonesensical "greater good " people keep harping on about, which is a rubbish concept to begin with.

.

Police are educated, trained and have to seek approval, authority and permission before dealing with such a scenario, they have approval at a governemental level to use such fatal tactics when dealing with these situations, a private individual does not have either the training or the express authority to shoot someone.

To insinuate that anyone defending this is an inherently selfish racist is ridiculous. I fully agree with the actions the police took in the given circumstances, and I personally, totally refute your theory that the reason I do so is because I'm not likely to mistaken for an islamic jihadi. The reason I can defend their actions in this instance is that given the circumstances, the information they were acting on and the subsequent behaviour of the suspect led to them making a choice which imo was correct, justifiable and acting to protect the general public. I even admire them for having the courage to take the decision to shoot, a decision rarely taken by the police in the UK.

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

what if I knew for a fact that ...

but what if I was wrong?

If you were wrong, or the possibility that you were wrong even existed, then you couldn't have known for a fact what you supposed you did. And while it might seem like pedantry, or more word-picking, its terribly important, because it means that you've misqualified the very first "setting the scene" comment you've made.

So now, the question has to be asked...how certain were you. What information did you have to be so certain. What other options did you have, that you discounted....

And so on and so forth...which is effectively asking those nit-picky statements that ppl making statements which are even slightly ambiguous may not want to deal with, but which are at the heart of the matter.

So which is it - was there the possibility of being wrong, or did you know for a fact that the person you were going to kill was a terrorist/bomber in this hypothetical situation? What other options (besides killing them as you choose to) were available to you?

In short...if you could supply all the detail that the followup investigation is going to look for in the real case, to the point where all possible factors are quantified and examined....then ppl might be in a position to decide if the action was correct or not. Anyone who decides before that level of information is available is doing exactly what the police in this situation did - making a judgement when all of the information was not known - but, unlike the real situation are doing so when there isn't a deadline imposed by the possibility of a bomb going off and killing innocents.

So what excuse have we for making our unnecessarily-rushed judgements? And why is it somehow wrong to insist on detail and precision?

jc

bonkey

growler wrote:

I even admire them for having the courage to take the decision to shoot

As do I, although I am still somewhat uncertain of the reasoning behind the decision and the actions which led up to it.

A Dub in Glasgo

growler wrote:

a decision rarely taken by the police in the UK.

Surely you mean 'in Britain' rather than 'in the UK'?

---

Not only have the people in London have to put up with these terrorist attacks, they also have to make sure they are not targets for the intelligence deficient police.

growler

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Surely you mean 'in Britain' rather than 'in the UK'?

---.

Let me qualify that, I meant the Met ( In britain) and you can add "recently".

growler

Police now using Tasers to take out suspects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4720027.stm

beats shooting to kill, but must be more risky as you have to be pretty close to get a shot off with those things.

BuffyBot

beats shooting to kill, but must be more risky as you have to be pretty close to get a shot off with those things.

From what I gather, this suspect wasn't someone they suspected of having a bomb on them. You can't really use a taser on somebody you suspect is carrying high explosives.

tomMK1

growler wrote:

Police are educated, trained and have to seek approval, authority and permission before dealing with such a scenario, they have approval at a governemental level to use such fatal tactics when dealing with these situations, a private individual does not have either the training or the express authority to shoot someone.

Precisely, so how come they killed an innocent man then? Obviously they hadnt got proper intelligence on what was going on, or else they panicked ... has to be one or the other

I fully agree with the actions the police took in the given circumstances, and I personally, totally refute your theory that the reason I do so is because I'm not likely to mistaken for an islamic jihadi. The reason I can defend their actions in this instance is that given the circumstances, the information they were acting on and the subsequent behaviour of the suspect led to them making a choice which imo was correct, justifiable and acting to protect the general public. I even admire them for having the courage to take the decision to shoot, a decision rarely taken by the police in the UK.

does that mean you fully agree with policemen shooting to kill before they know if they have the right man?

oscarBRAVO wrote:

OK. So is it your position that a police officer should never kill anyone under any circumstances ever, no matter what?

my god this question again? Ideally no they shouldnt, unless their life is actually in danger, and like anyone else, find they have to kill in self defense. that certainly wasnt the case in this scenario.

growler

Tom, if the cops had access to prescience and x-ray vision you think they should have then this wouldn't have happened, granted. However in the absence of such godly powers, they did their best , as human beings, acting in an extreme situation with potentially lethal consequences.

I cannot fault them for anything they did.

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

Ideally no they shouldnt, unless their life is actually in danger, and like anyone else, find they have to kill in self defense. that certainly wasnt the case in this scenario.

Finally, we're getting somewhere. So, your position is that an armed police officer should not be allowed to kill someone in order to protect the general public? In other words, if a police officer is faced with the choice of killing someone or letting that person kill someone else (and possibly lots of other people), it's unthinkable that the police officer should kill that person?

Jimboo_Jones

growler wrote:

Tom, if the cops had access to prescience and x-ray vision you think they should have then this wouldn't have happened, granted. However in the absence of such godly powers, they did their best , as human beings, acting in an extreme situation with potentially lethal consequences.

I cannot fault them for anything they did.

You can fault them for alowing the man to get onto the trian, if this guy had been a bomber and had a trigger device, they would have probably been too late as he would have dett'ed as soon as he got onto the train.

Or indeed on the bus they allowed him to ride on.

Rew

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

You can fault them for alowing the man to get onto the trian, if this guy had been a bomber and had a trigger device, they would have probably been too late as he would have dett'ed as soon as he got onto the train.

Or indeed on the bus they allowed him to ride on.

In fairness they didnt allow him in to the tube station, he ran and jumped over the barrier. They shot him as soon as they could at that point.

The bus was fairly questionable but AFAIK the cops following him were not armed and had clled in another unit who then attemted to arrest him out side the tube station.

Sparks

Rew, why do you think that the barrier he jumped was outside the tube station?
And why would the police being armed have much to do with it, when three or four of them rugby-tackled him anyway?

Rew

The barrier, im assuming, is the turn stile just inside the station. They tried to arrest him outside and he ran in. Thats from the details iv seen anyway.

They would be mad to arrest a terror suspect without armed police. Who was to say that he didnt have a gun. English cops have been killed in tha past by not being carefull enough durring arrests.

They only manged to tackel him after he had made it all the way on to the train and after he tripped. They jumped on him at that point fearing he would detonate a bomb.

Assuming they identified them selfs as armed police hwas mad to run what did he think was going to happen. I reckon if he had run down the street instead of on to the trian he would he would be alive. The police had to assume the worst when he went for a train.

pete

Rew wrote:

The barrier, im assuming, is the turn stile just inside the station. They tried to arrest him outside and he ran in. Thats from the details iv seen anyway.

Not according to the BBC report from the opening of the inquest.

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

He had been followed by police, who had his block of flats under surveillance.

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

(my emphasis)

They only manged to tackel him after he had made it all the way on to the train and after he tripped. They jumped on him at that point fearing he would detonate a bomb.

See above quote / link - he was tackled after he left a block of flats which was under surveilance, went to the bus stop, got an a bus, got off the bus & entered a tube station.

Rew

pete wrote:

See above quote / link - he was tackled after he left a block of flats which was under surveilance, went to the bus stop, got an a bus, got off the bus & entered a tube station.

So he was in the public side of the tube station, which isn't noramly much more then a few vending machines then the barriers.

As I said already I read that the surveilance team called in the armed officers to arrest him. Took them till that point to arrive and act.

They don't send armed police to arrest imigration dodgers, the guy has to bear some of the responsibility for running.

pete

Rew wrote:

So he was in the public side of the tube station,

So yes, he was allowed inside the tube station before being challenged, as opposed to being "challenged outside" and "running in".

which isn't noramly much more then a few vending machines then the barriers.

Don't forget about the potential shedload of people getting on and off the tube. You know - the targets?

I read that

where?

Memnoch

bonkey wrote:

If you were wrong, or the possibility that you were wrong even existed, then you couldn't have known for a fact what you supposed you did. And while it might seem like pedantry, or more word-picking, its terribly important, because it means that you've misqualified the very first "setting the scene" comment you've made.

So now, the question has to be asked...how certain were you. What information did you have to be so certain. What other options did you have, that you discounted....

And so on and so forth...which is effectively asking those nit-picky statements that ppl making statements which are even slightly ambiguous may not want to deal with, but which are at the heart of the matter.

So which is it - was there the possibility of being wrong, or did you know for a fact that the person you were going to kill was a terrorist/bomber in this hypothetical situation? What other options (besides killing them as you choose to) were available to you?

In short...if you could supply all the detail that the followup investigation is going to look for in the real case, to the point where all possible factors are quantified and examined....then ppl might be in a position to decide if the action was correct or not. Anyone who decides before that level of information is available is doing exactly what the police in this situation did - making a judgement when all of the information was not known - but, unlike the real situation are doing so when there isn't a deadline imposed by the possibility of a bomb going off and killing innocents.

So what excuse have we for making our unnecessarily-rushed judgements? And why is it somehow wrong to insist on detail and precision?

jc

thats kind of the point i was trying to make....

Wheely

Hasnt been any movement on this in a while but i read in today's sunday indepndent that he wasnt wearing a big coat as was described on this board and that he did not jump the ticket barrier as was previously reported. The article i read was actually commending the met for their change of tactics following the menez killing but i was just wondering has everyone elso forgotten about it?

BuffyBot

The article i read was actually commending the met for their change of tactics following the menez killing but i was just wondering has everyone elso forgotten about it?

I don't think so - a lack of new information really stymies the debate. When the investigation results come out, I'd imagine it will be very much back in the news.

pete

Wheely wrote:

Hasnt been any movement on this in a while but i read in today's sunday indepndent that he wasnt wearing a big coat as was described on this board and that he did not jump the ticket barrier as was previously reported. The article i read was actually commending the met for their change of tactics following the menez killing but i was just wondering has everyone elso forgotten about it?

the only 'new' thing i saw was an interview on a news recap, which was the first time i'd seen the much-quoted eye witness describe the shooting. I know some people were questioning this, but he seemed to make it pretty clear that the cops were literally on top of the guy (one of them with a knee in his back) when they shot him.