UK Police shoot *Suspected* suicide bomber

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Re: Thought

Post by Pit » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:09 am

Magnotta wrote: Death != brain damage

Actually, I rather think that death is defined as the most severe form of brain damage there can be.

Other than watching Big Brother.
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

User avatar
Xamence
Registered User
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:08 am
Location: Tomorrow...

Post by Xamence » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:01 am

Magnotta wrote: If suspect was innocent, he wouldn't run from the police.


You have to respect the fact that some people in this world run from the police having done nothing wrong. It may be cowardice, but it doesn't mean they deserve to die.
Magnotta wrote: It's like somone putting a "kick me" sign on himself, and everyone later complaining "oh, it's mean to kick him".


The suspect obviously didn't know he would be shot 5 times though.

Pezzoni
Registered User
Posts: 706
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought

Post by Pezzoni » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:04 am

Magnotta wrote:
warmweer wrote:
Magnotta wrote:Besides, had the cop done something like that, the suspect could have developed brain damage or something like that, at which point, guess who get's sued?

yeah right, studies have shown that the risk of brain damage is definately lower when firing at the head ;)


It is, because a shot to the head means death. Death != brain damage,and quite obviously, someone who's dead can't sue the police, while someone who's alive and injured can. Seems stupid doesn't it, if a man was guilty of killing someone, and while apprehending the guy a cop bashes the guys head against a concrete ground to knock him out, and the guy develops brain damage, he can sue. Better off to make sure he's dead.

Fortunately the UK has a vaugely sensible legal system (although it's unfortunately getting increasingly more American style), so it's unlikely it would be too much of an issue - At least no more than it is with him being dead...

Yawner
Registered User
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by Yawner » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:53 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4407333.stm

This is an interesting article... Maybe there is a link between Policing in Brazil and what he expected from the police in London..
Alan Kay : "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Support the OpenDocument Format!

Riamus
Registered User
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:40 pm

Re: Thought

Post by Riamus » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:57 pm

Magnotta wrote:
warmweer wrote:
Magnotta wrote:Besides, had the cop done something like that, the suspect could have developed brain damage or something like that, at which point, guess who get's sued?

yeah right, studies have shown that the risk of brain damage is definately lower when firing at the head ;)


It is, because a shot to the head means death. Death != brain damage,and quite obviously, someone who's dead can't sue the police, while someone who's alive and injured can. Seems stupid doesn't it, if a man was guilty of killing someone, and while apprehending the guy a cop bashes the guys head against a concrete ground to knock him out, and the guy develops brain damage, he can sue. Better off to make sure he's dead.


Family members can sue. And, they can sue for *MUCH* more when the person was innocent of the "crime" they are being shot for.

I definitely do not like the idea that you shoot your suspects in order to prevent getting sued for hurting them while apprehending them. As far as what you say about cops not being trained to restrain and disarm a suspect... that's baloney. Movies *do* make things look much easier than they are and so on and so forth. However, real cops (i.e. not movie cops) do know how to disable and disarm and restrain suspects... at least in the US. I'd assume they'd be taught that in the UK as well, though I don't claim to know that for certain.

I do understand shooting for the head if you think they have a bomb (and if you're a decent enough shot not to miss -- A moving head is a very difficult target)... *IF* the suspect is not pinned down. I don't dispute that the cops may have acted correctly. I also won't state that they didn't act incorrectly. We don't have enough information to support one or the other.
Kakkoii Translation Team
格好いい 翻訳

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:57 am

Hmm, lots of posts over the weekend. I'm not going to bother trying to answer everything, so those who figure they got the last word can continue to be pleased. I'll just say this: those of you who are accusing the policeman in question of gross negligence causing death most likely are not police officers, nor are you privy to the information that the officers in question had. Bearing that in mind, I don't see much reason to find them guilty of negligence yet.

If a court finds them negligent, I would have no problem accepting that, but I have not pronounced sentence on them. Some of you have already done so; you should bear in mind that you bear the burden of proof, which would require not only thorough knowledge of the situation but also knowledge of police tactics and training (which many of you have demonstrated that you do not know).
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

p3980
Registered User
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:02 pm

Post by p3980 » Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:09 am

OK - My Opinion on This:

Yes, the police officer did end up shooting an innocent man. What would you have done if you were in his shoes?

It is a darned if you do darned if you don't type of thing. If he didn't shoot him, seconds later he could of pulled the ignition and blasted the station to bits, killing 100's of innocent people. What boat would the officer have landed in them, assuming he survived? Then again, the man could have just been stupid, and the officer shooting would be in the boat he is in now.

Would you rather 1 innocent person killed, or 100's?

That officer was in a tough situation. He had a split second to deicide what to do, and he deicided to take his chance and shoot the guy, who had disobeyed orders to hault and began running. He looked like the bombers, which sure as heck didn't help him any.

It turns out the man had been shot multiple times. That being the case, it is believed by some that multiple officers deicided to shoot him... No one knows if this is the case (that I know of) because not many London Police Officers carry guns... and none carry automatic weapons.

That is my two-cents-worth... Now, for your opinions on it :D!

the rat
Registered User
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: The UK

Post by the rat » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:22 am

p3980 wrote: Would you rather 1 innocent person killed, or 100's?


Errrr.... none actually.

You see, and I've said this earlier in the thread, it's situations like this that Al Qaeda will use to build up more hate, more fear and therefore, recruit more members. If you think that this death of "1 innocent" person is it then you are wrong. More will follow if only because AQ will have more naive and ignorant youth under their spell.

I've also said before that I don't know what the answer is but we have to learn from this and do our best to ensure that it won't happen again. All this situation has done is played right into AQs hands.

User avatar
Anon
Former Team Member
Posts: 7019
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Anon » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:31 am

the rat wrote:
p3980 wrote:Would you rather 1 innocent person killed, or 100's?


Errrr.... none actually.


But read what p3980 and others have said. p3980 is right, it is a very damned if you do and damned if you don't situation considering what's going on in london, and if you let him go you may well be taking the lives of hundreds. There's 4 options in a situation

1. He's a bomber and you kill him
2. He's a bomber and you let him go
3. He's innocent and you let him go
4. He's innocent and you kill him

Of all of thost situations, there are 2 that take one life, one that takes many, and one that's none at all. In this case, the person was innocent. However, because of his actions, how is the policeman supposed to know whether he's innocent. How would you know at that time in that split second?

Fletch79
Registered User
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 3:48 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Fletch79 » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:04 am

FFS boys (and girls)
None of us know anything ... in all honesty none of us will EVER really know what went on!!

I'm sorry but in the UK the armed police are VERY strict on they approach tactics for this very reason!!

Had i been running for my train and i heard somebody shout 'police' or 'armed police' i know my first reaction would have been to stop .. NOT to continue running, even if i had commited some other offence!!

From what the police have said (ie directly from the MET commisioners mouth on tv) i agree 100% with what they have done. As for the speculation in the media i don't bother with it, because what the media says usually turn out to be bollocks!

As for the amount of bullets used ... 20 armed guys and 5-8 bullets from semi automatic weapons i suppose its about 1 second.

I agree with psoFTX .. he has the right approach to this situation!

F.
PS i'm not coming back to this post as i'll just end up falling out with somebody over how they have taken one or more of my comments!

the rat
Registered User
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: The UK

Post by the rat » Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:30 am

Anon wrote: Of all of thost situations, there are 2 that take one life, one that takes many, and one that's none at all. In this case, the person was innocent. However, because of his actions, how is the policeman supposed to know whether he's innocent. How would you know at that time in that split second?


But you are dismissing the rest of my post.

Again, these actions are playing straight into the hands of Al Qaeda. These actions will be used to recruit more ignorant and naive youths. What no one seems to be saying here is that the security forces need to learn from their mistake. Because this man was innocent and it was a mistake to shot him. They need to learn so it doesn't happen again.

If it keeps happening then Al Qaeda will have more forces at their disposal and will cause more havoc and who wants that?

Riamus
Registered User
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:40 pm

Circles

Post by Riamus » Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:20 pm

I think we're going in circles here and not really convincing anyone of anything. Why don't we just wait and see what the official word is?

How many officers shot at the suspect? When did they shoot him?

These are the critical questions we need to know to really have any idea about how to form our opinions. Until we know these answers, we don't really know how the suspect was shot so many times. It could be legitimate or not, but we can't know without these answers.
Kakkoii Translation Team
格好いい 翻訳

User avatar
warmweer
Registered User
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 6:34 am
Location: Van Allen Belt ... well actually Belgium

Post by warmweer » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:16 pm

I couldn't help reading through this whole topic again and decided to post the following anyway.
Let me first state that the following is a summary of a fairly large column in a respected Belgian newspaper (weekend edition). Whether the facts stated are true or not is open to discussion. I've added some of my thoughts in between (relevant to previous parts in this topic)
A paper was found in the unexploded backpack (from the July 21 attempts) on which the address of a flat was mentioned, in the same block of appartments where the brzsilain was shring a flat with his niece and cousin.

Surely the background of the inhabitants (of the correct flat in the first place) could have been checked. Granted - it was only one day after the failed bombings.
The brasilian was called to go and repair some alarm system in Kilburn. On the bus he phoned his employer to explain that he would be later than expected because off the confusion caused the day before. The police officers who were following stated that they found it strange that he would make a call using his mobile while on the bus and that was when they started getting edgy and called for extra manpower.

I can't understand why phoning on the bus is suspect, I guess half of the bus occupants then must be suspect.
The brasilian was ordered to stop as he was entering a metro station (and many plainclothes officers were closing him in) and started running away after the call. According to his niece, he (probably) ran away because he feared being mugged (again, since he had been mugged by a group a couple of weeks before).
Eyewitness reports stated that he was wearing a thick coat with wires sticking out, these witness reports were later taken back, later reports state that he was wearing a plain jeans jacket.

Typical case of first moment witness reports being a bit unpredictable. Anyway, here you have a fairly acceptable reason why he would flee from the police (just accepting for the moment that the fright of being mobbed again prevented him recognising the plainclothes men as policemen). He was an electrician though so I also think it's fairly reasonable to suppose he had some electrical equipment with him - including wires perhaps.
Why does it take so long for the video images of the event, which have been confirmed present from the moment he started running into the metro station, to be made public. On the video it seems to show that the brasilian had been restrained before he was shot

This is a difficult one. First of all I don't think we can look at a video with those events without prejudice (at this time). I think it's wise to have the video studied by the investigation team so as to be able to show the video at a later stage, rather than allow public opinion to judge before all facts are known.
I seriously doubt the newspapers had access to the video so I won't bother to interpret the last statement.


Now in this topic we've read some "judgements" and read some opinions. I think I am correct in saying that there were basically two sides, one stating that the police could (under the circumstances) not have acted any differently, and the other stating that those circustances need some reviewing before acquiting (or condemning) the police or the brasilian.

I hope my report (of the newspaper article) will entice some to rethinking the question as to whether it was unavoidable in the circumstances.

Magnotta, you asked me a couple of posts earlier
"Innocent of what?". Does that even make sense in this context?

Yes it does, he was guilty of not reacting the way he would have, had he realised that it was in fact the police trying to stop him, but he was innocent of what he was suspected of and (accepting that the newspaper report isn't fiction) was actually trying to save himself (a theory which IIRC was even offered earlier in this topic).

I'm leaving this topic for now thinking that an innocent man is dead for nothing, a couple of police officers have been forced to hand over their weapons, are off duty or on forced leave, the officer who gave the order to shoot is almost having a breakdown (just think of the mental strain the events have caused), belief in our system of justice is (probably) tained, and no matter what everybody may say, many will probably feel slightly less comfortable walking on the street.

Shoot to kill policy? actually yes I am not opposed to that when it concerns undisputable terrorism, but I am concerned when proven and convicted murderers and rapists (or terrorists) get psychological help, a roof above their heads, an income, and after 3, 10 or 20 years walk away to start a new life (reintegration into society hasn't proved being all that succesfull up to now), but a suspect (in somewhat unjustified circumstances) doesn't get that chance.
My board's not broken, it just went peculiar

the rat
Registered User
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: The UK

Post by the rat » Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:00 am

Sorry to bump this thread but there appear to have been developments. IF this is true then it may be an idea to duck out of the way of the fan.

Source
Documents leaked to ITV News suggest Mr de Menezes did not flee from armed officers by vaulting over barriers before getting onto an Underground train, where the officers opened fire.

The Brazilian was not even seen leaving the flats in Tulse Hill which were under surveillance because one of the officers was "relieving himself."

...

The report also indicated the 27-year-old was wearing a light denim jacket and not the heavily padded coat as initially claimed.

the rat
Registered User
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: The UK

Post by the rat » Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:02 am

Another Source

Again, I say, if this is true...

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”