# U.K Police Shoot to Kill......



## Bammx2 (Jul 22, 2005)

Greetings y'all.....

  I just woke up to the news here in the UK of the police chasing,shooting(5x's) and killing a suspected suicide bomber in a tube station.....just under 2 miles from me.
 As was one of the tube station bombs yesterday.
  The news is saying the armed response unit apparently has been given the OK to shoot to kill now as far as this "terrorsit" stuff is concerned.
  An east london Mosque has been surounded by armed police as well.
 But this seems the hot spot for recruiting these people.
  The muslim community is in a MAJOR uproar right now and already talking about marching on london in protest.
 THAT will get nasty.
  There's some things that have happened that won't make the news.
 The image the UK is giving the rest of the world is NOT the image of whats going on here inside.
  It's going to get worse.


----------



## Kane (Jul 22, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Greetings y'all.....
> 
> I just woke up to the news here in the UK of the police chasing,shooting(5x's) and killing a suspected suicide bomber in a tube station.....just under 2 miles from me.
> As was one of the tube station bombs yesterday.
> ...


 Well at least the police are finally using guns despite the ban on guns for civilians and police if I'm correct.

 Yes this will probably get nasty (especially considering you made two threads about it, but I think police action like this is necessary other wise these few radicals will try an attack like this again. Actually about a month or two ago their was a huge anti-american and anti-british rally happening in a radical muslims group. They were chanting stuff like "bomb bomb Pentagon" or "death to Tony Blair". With these type of people we need to crack down on them quickly and hopefully escape the politically correct mumbo jumbo as well.


----------



## jonah2 (Jul 22, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> .....The muslim community is in a MAJOR uproar right now and already talking about marching on london in protest.
> THAT will get nasty.....


My opinion is that the muslim comunity have to do something within their own midst. I've seen numerous religious leaders from the muslim community comming forward denouncing these terrorist elements saying they are not followers of the true islam. If that is so, why are these elements not being exposed by the true muslim peacful society.

If it is proved that this person was a terrorist then justice has prevailed - but of course its just more loss of life

Jonah


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 22, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Well at least the police are finally using guns despite the ban on guns for civilians and police if I'm correct.
> 
> Yes this will probably get nasty (especially considering you made two threads about it, but I think police action like this is necessary other wise these few radicals will try an attack like this again. Actually about a month or two ago their was a huge anti-american and anti-british rally happening in a radical muslims group. They were chanting stuff like "bomb bomb Pentagon" or "death to Tony Blair". With these type of people we need to crack down on them quickly and hopefully escape the politically correct mumbo jumbo as well.


 Oops......

  Sorry bout that.I have no idea how I made 2 posts on the same thing.
 Thanks for pointing that out.
  One thing that is being harped on quite heavily now and publicly,
 is if the muslim community doesn't want to recognise western laws,then they should police thier own and stop this stuff from within and the westerners won't get involved....as much.
  BUT...you live here,you abide here!
  I could care less what your beliefs are and your opinions on the world,but in a sense,any government is like your momma and daddy.
  When you live under thier roof,you abide by thier rules.
 You don't like them....move.


----------



## Gemini (Jul 22, 2005)

I agree that Muslims, being mostly peaceful, need to intervene in their own affairs. To some degree, I think this may well be happening. I just heard (CNN) that they have had serveillance on this individual for some time, just waiting for him to make his move. That information came from somewhere, right? :idunno: How many more tips are coming in? How many more individuals are being watched?


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 22, 2005)

*Mod Note*:

 Duplicate thread tossed.  

 -Dan Bowman-
 -MT Moderator-


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 22, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> *Mod Note*:
> 
> Duplicate thread tossed.
> 
> ...


 Thanks for that.
 I have no idea how it happened.


----------



## kenpochad (Jul 22, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Oops......
> I could care less what your beliefs are and your opinions on the world,but in a sense,any government is like your momma and daddy.
> When you live under thier roof,you abide by thier rules.
> You don't like them....move.


Amen brother 
I hop every thing works out


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Greetings y'all.....
> 
> I just woke up to the news here in the UK of the police chasing,shooting(5x's) and killing a suspected suicide bomber in a tube station.....just under 2 miles from me.
> As was one of the tube station bombs yesterday.
> ...


One dead Terr killed...now that's at least a good start. And here I thought British cops could only chase people and blow their whistle. Lets hope their first dead Terr, won't be their last. I think it's telling how the "peaceful" islamic community is talking about marching for a dead terrorist and a surrounded terrorist recruiting depot. Kind of telling about where their loyalties and sympathies lay.  I guess it's un-PC to call any group of even the most radical muslim extremists anything but "mostly peaceful" huh?  Follow the money.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 22, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think it's telling how the "peaceful" islamic community is talking about marching for a dead terrorist and a surrounded terrorist recruiting depot. Kind of telling about where their loyalties and sympathies lay.


I wish politicians wouldn't be so cowardly. 
 If it walks like a duck,  violently prosthylitizes like a duck, commits coweredly acts of mass murder like a duck, it must be a muslim duck.
        Islam is not a "peaceful" anything.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> I wish politicians wouldn't be so cowardly.
> If it walks like a duck, violently prosthylitizes like a duck, commits coweredly acts of mass murder like a duck, it must be a muslim duck.
> Islam is not a "peaceful" anything.


Many western politicians are so afraid of being labelled some sort if ...ist that they can't effectively deal with certain realities. The enemy has no such weakness. It's a self afflicted weakness of western societies. 

We have blinded ourselves through our own pretentous "sophistication" to the point we can't even see what is directly in front of us.  It's a sick, twisted version of the "Emperor's new clothes".  To actually see the threat, is to be labelled an unsophisticated, war-mongering bigot.  You have to be willfully blind to be considered sophisticated and worldly.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 22, 2005)

that should be spelled: proselytize
I have an education...really, I do. 

edit funtion isn't showing up for some reason.


----------



## Kane (Jul 22, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> I wish politicians wouldn't be so cowardly.
> If it walks like a duck, violently prosthylitizes like a duck, commits coweredly acts of mass murder like a duck, it must be a muslim duck.
> Islam is not a "peaceful" anything.


 I agree with you that it is very obvious that all these attacks are done by muslims. However I wouldn't condem the religion as being totally violent, because there are a lot of muslims who hate these radicals that using their religion for their means.

 It seems though many politicians are obsessed with politcal correctness more than the security of the people. For example the only thing Tony Blair talks about is muslims effected by the attacks, not ALL Britons.


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 22, 2005)

One of the problems that the brits are facing is that they have weak anti terrorist laws . Tony Blair is trying to get a law passed that is similar to the US anti patriot act , so they can atleast arrest these people before they act . According to the experts , they know who these people are & what their up to , but they have no legal leverage to arrest these people , until they act . Basically , they just follow them around until they act . Atleast they are finally shooting them , but I think the more logical answer is to have better anti terrorist laws


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 22, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I agree with you that it is very obvious that all these attacks are done by muslims. However I wouldn't condem the religion as being totally violent, because there are a lot of muslims who hate these radicals that using their religion for their means.
> 
> It seems though many politicians are obsessed with politcal correctness more than the security of the people. For example the only thing Tony Blair talks about is muslims effected by the attacks, not ALL Britons.


 The problem isn't just the muslims committing the acts, but the large number of muslims that are showing more support for the terrorists and those that recruit them, than they are for the victims of terrorism. I don't see large numbers of muslims marching to oppose terrorism in their name. I do see the threat of large scale marches in response to the surrounding of terrorist recruiting depots commonly called madrasas. That's the problem. 

Until I see a large scale movement among muslim groups in places like the US and Europe to castigate and condemn those who not only commit these acts, but those that fund, support and endorse these acts, in their name, it's hard to buy the claim that "it's not most muslims". It seems just as likely at this point that those who condemn, whole-sale, the acts of these terrorists are themselves the minority in the muslim community.  I am starting to wonder if the luke warm condemnation that we have heard is nothing more than window dressing.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The problem isn't just the muslims committing the acts, but the large number of muslims that are showing more support for the terrorists and those that recruit them, than they are for the victims of terrorism. I don't see large numbers of muslims marching to oppose terrorism in their name. I do see the threat of large scale marches in response to the surrounding of terrorist recruiting depots commonly called madrasas. That's the problem.
> 
> Until I see a large scale movement among muslim groups in places like the US and Europe to castigate and condemn those who not only commit these acts, but those that fund, support and endorse these acts, in their name, it's hard to buy the claim that "it's not most muslims". It seems just as likely at this point that those who condemn, whole-sale, the acts of these terrorists are themselves the minority in the muslim community. I am starting to wonder if the luke warm condemnation that we have heard is nothing more than window dressing.


I disagree - I have seen quite a good deal more of Muslim discussion and demonstration against acts of terror than for, or lukewarm platitudes.

Holding the majority, who may practice in different sects, responsible for violent extremists is just not possible.  Were all Christians held accountable when David Koresh did his whole hostage-holding thing?  Are all Catholics personally responsible for the Spanish Inquisition?  



> One dead Terr killed...now that's at least a good start. And here I thought British cops could only chase people and blow their whistle. Lets hope their first dead Terr, won't be their last.


Was the person who was chased and shot to death a terrorist?  I didn't see any reports on who he was or what he was wanted for.  I didn't realize that shooting a suspect was better than taking him or her into custody and hopefully finding out what it is that they know - unless they are ready to blow themselves up, of course.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I disagree - I have seen quite a good deal more of Muslim discussion and demonstration against acts of terror than for, or lukewarm platitudes.


 Name a few.



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Holding the majority, who may practice in different sects, responsible for violent extremists is just not possible. Were all Christians held accountable when David Koresh did his whole hostage-holding thing? Are all Catholics personally responsible for the Spanish Inquisition?


 They are responsible whenever they provide funds for those organizations. They are responsible when they show support for those institutions. They are whenever they do their best to shield and protect the recruiting centers for those institutions. Far from being a few nuts operating in a generally good group, islamic terror groups are recruiting among the youth of these very same muslims. Perhaps if they spent a good deal of time convincing their children that these terror groups are satanic, and do not represent the ideals of their faith, then the local mosques and religious schools wouldn't be able to operate as recruiting centers. It's no small wonder that many of the terrorists operating in Great Britain are home grown.

Your analogy about Koresh and Catholics would be applicable, if large numbers of christians were supporting those activities and an even greater number were remaining quietly ambivalent. In that case, they would be responsible. 

I hope i'm wrong.  I really wish that many muslims would STRONGLY condemn, not only the terrorists themselves, but the madrasas and the clerics that produce and incite them.  That's something I don't see nearly enough. 




			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Was the person who was chased and shot to death a terrorist? I didn't see any reports on who he was or what he was wanted for. I didn't realize that shooting a suspect was better than taking him or her into custody and hopefully finding out what it is that they know - unless they are ready to blow themselves up, of course.


 lol. Sorry, but I really don't feel to sorry about one dead terrorist. It's a good start. The only, and I mean ONLY down side, is the loss of whatever minor intelligence information this person might have possessed. Of course the way these cells operate, this low level operative's information would probably have been negligble. 

I do regret that the officers who shot him didn't risk their lives further to capture him alive....or something. In all seriousness, i'm sure that if the police shot him, he created a situation where it was not feasible to take him alive. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not mourn for a dead terrorist.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jul 23, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I disagree - I have seen quite a good deal more of Muslim discussion and demonstration against acts of terror than for, or lukewarm platitudes.
> 
> Holding the majority, who may practice in different sects, responsible for violent extremists is just not possible. Were all Christians held accountable when David Koresh did his whole hostage-holding thing? Are all Catholics personally responsible for the Spanish Inquisition?
> 
> ...


I have too. It's ironic, but a week after a Muslim group in the area protested against the Madrid bombings, a local talk show host demagogue railed the he "... wanted, one, just one Muslim group to come out against Islamic terrorism".

Feisty Mouse, regarding the subject shot; it depends upon the context. You don't always have the option of taking a person into custody. Apparently he was given multiple opportunities to surrender to ARMED officers and refused, then went into a train wearing heavy clothing that may have concealed a suicide belt. His actions dictated the outcome, I'm afraid. I can't fault the police here.

Nevertheless, you are the Lady, Feisty Mouse. I love your posts. You always sound very intelligent and your comments are always well considered.

To the UK members; I am so thankful that you escaped injury or death in this attack. I'm a portrait artist and I love British art. Sir Thomas Lawrence, Reynolds, Raeburn, Gainsborough, etc!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I have too. It's ironic, but a week after a Muslim group in the area protested against the Madrid bombings, a local talk show host demagogue railed the he "... wanted, one, just one Muslim group to come out against Islamic terrorism".
> 
> Feisty Mouse, regarding the subject shot; it depends upon the context. You don't always have the option of taking a person into custody. Apparently he was given multiple opportunities to surrender to ARMED officers and refused, then went into a train wearing heavy clothing that may have concealed a suicide belt. His actions dictated the outcome, I'm afraid. I can't fault the police here.
> 
> ...


 I hope you are correct that the vast majority of muslims strongly condemn these types of attrocities. If that is the case, then they will surely be able to throttle back the young men in their midst who have delusional fantasies about martyrdom and committing attrocities to achieve it.

I came across this article in my research http://www.detnews.com/2001/editorial/0110/12/a11-315728.htm
It's an interview with Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani.  He makes some interesting points, but it is clear that he believes that while the majority of muslims are peace loving people, he see's a significant minority of muslims who support radical activities.

The issue I take exception with isn't the idea that the majority of muslims are peace loving people, I agree with that, the majority are peace loving people.  But many people attempt to paint that statement as proving only a small, very minor minority of muslims support the types of radical agendas espoused by the terrorists, and I believe that thinking is dangerous, it underestimates the threat.  I believe a clearly large minority of muslims in the US and Europe support an extremely radical agenda and support the extremely radical measures to get that agenda through.  We need a clear voice from the silent majority of muslims making it clear to this large minority that they don't speak for Islam.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 23, 2005)

I am doing my best to keep an eye out for these protests the muslim community are talking about,mainly becuase I want to see just exactly what they are protesting about.
  The most common thread I have seen these people is,and I am quoting word for word the most common reason given so far,:

 "Terrorists are completely wrong in there endeavor.The killing of innocent people is not the way of islam and it is making the rest of us look bad.
 BUT......
  we will NEVER sellout our muslim brothers to a western society".

 Ok.Fine.
  Then police your own.
 Oh wait......
  Muslims are not allowed to "turn against" other muslims,especially for something as minor for killing the "infedels". caws it sez so in da ko'ron!

 If WE can police our own,they damn well can do the same thing!


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 23, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> I am doing my best to keep an eye out for these protests the muslim community are talking about,mainly becuase I want to see just exactly what they are protesting about.
> The most common thread I have seen these people is,and I am quoting word for word the most common reason given so far,:
> 
> "Terrorists are completely wrong in there endeavor.The killing of innocent people is not the way of islam and it is making the rest of us look bad.
> ...


It sounds to me that many of these Muslims who are protesting against the terrorist are missing the big picture . On one hand they want to clear their good names by saying the terrorist acts are wrong , but on the other hand they consider these scum bag MUSLIM TERRORIST their brothers & they won't sell out their MUSLIM BROTHERS !!! If these so called MAJORITY MUSLIMS took their heads out of their asses for five minutes they would realize that the minute these scum bags kill innocent people , thats when they sould be DISOWED by the honorable MUSLIMS & sold out to what ever athorities are trying to stop this nonsense !!! weather it be westerners or any other decent HUMAN BEING !!!! CHILDREN NEED DICIPLINE! Not instructions on how to build a BOMB ! Everybody is entitaled to their opinions , but we really need to stop making excuses for these FREAKS ! The Muslim community is going to have to use alot more imagination & common sense & forget about the political agenda for five minutes ! Total disregard for the lives of your HUMAN brothers & sisters is the issue here ! So either start selling out or shut the "F" up ! Oh yeah , one more thing . If I hurt anyones feelings or offended anyone , that is not my intention . Look on the bright side , nobody got killed  .


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 23, 2005)

*Mod Warning*:

 The generalizations occurring in this thread regarding Muslims are unsupportable, erroneous, and may be considered offensive by some. Please refrain from racial or religeous generalizations, as they will not be tolerated.

 -Dan Bowman-
 -MT Moderator-


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 23, 2005)

Understood . Could you please remove my post ? I lost the edit . My apologies to all who take offense to my comments .


Thanks .


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 23, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> *Mod Warning*:
> 
> The generalizations occurring in this thread regarding Muslims are unsupportable, erroneous, and may be considered offensive by some. Please refrain from racial or religeous generalizations, as they will not be tolerated.
> 
> ...


If the insinuation is as stated above , I am requesting for the second time that my post in question be removed from the board or give me the edit option back & I will do it . I had not intended it to be either a racial or religeous generalization . I do admit that my post was over the top & done in poor taste . More of an angry & insensitive reaction .

Thanks again .


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

I apologize if I discussed an apparently tabboo topic in a non-politically correct manner. It will not occurr again.  To anyone who was offended, my most sincere and humble apologies.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 23, 2005)

From any group, there are good examples and bad examples. Without statistics, generalizing is very difficult! I appreciate *sayoc FF* reconsidering his statement. While there are surely people to whom those comments apply, there are also others being tarred with too broad a brush.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 23, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Was the person who was chased and shot to death a terrorist? I didn't see any reports on who he was or what he was wanted for. I didn't realize that shooting a suspect was better than taking him or her into custody and hopefully finding out what it is that they know - unless they are ready to blow themselves up, of course.


You asked the right question, and sadly it now looks like you were right to have done so. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

Dan


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 23, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> You asked the right question, and sadly it now looks like you were right to have done so.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
> 
> Dan


  There's another thread on that topic in and of itself.  The mistake in that situation appears to have been on the part of the guy who got himself shot.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jul 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> There's another thread on that topic in and of itself. The mistake in that situation appears to have been on the part of the guy who got himself shot.


Yes, it appears so. The loss of life is very unfortunate, but, given the circumstances, I don't know what the UK Police could have done differently. Whatever caused this young man to panic - his death is on the TERRORIST'S heads not the London Police's or even his own. He is one more casualty of these murdering criminals (the terrorists).

I have Muslim aquaintances who are horrified at the acts of the Islamic terrorists. In fact, one friend pointed out that a terrorist victory would be a disaster for the Muslim world as they (the terrorists) mean to subjugate first the Muslim peoples and return their societies to the darkest days of the Middle Ages. If you follow the Middle Eastern situation in general and the situation with the foreign fighters in Iraq in particular - the first people killed by these terrorist thugs are moderate muslims. Many Muslim doctors are being murdered right now in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. So, as the Moderators pointed out, generalizations are GROSSLY UNFAIR.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Yes, it appears so. The loss of life is very unfortunate, but, given the circumstances, I don't know what the UK Police could have done differently. Whatever caused this young man to panic - his death is on the TERRORIST'S heads not the London Police's or even his own. He is one more casualty of these murdering criminals (the terrorists).
> 
> I have Muslim aquaintances who are horrified at the acts of the Islamic terrorists. In fact, one friend pointed out that a terrorist victory would be a disaster for the Muslim world as they (the terrorists) mean to subjugate first the Muslim peoples and return their societies to the darkest days of the Middle Ages. If you follow the Middle Eastern situation in general and the situation with the foreign fighters in Iraq in particular - the first people killed by these terrorist thugs are moderate muslims. Many Muslim doctors are being murdered right now in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. So, as the Moderators pointed out, generalizations are GROSSLY UNFAIR.


As I pointed out earlier, it is not my belief that all muslims are terrorists.  I merely pointed out that a large minority have allowed themselves to be hijacked by radical religious scholars and terrorist recruiters.  This is not an indictment of the worlds 1 Billion muslims, but it is clear that more of a problem exists than we are prepared to handle.  There are several muslims that agree that their voices have been hijacked by the minority of extremists.  Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani stated as much himself. Though his explaination that most peaceful muslims don't want to be political activists, but simply want to be left in peace to pray and live their lives, is a revealing and understandable one.  

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear from the beginning.  My issue is with the minority of muslims who are spreading wahhabist rhetoric within the US and Europe, and recruiting young muslims as cannon fodder in a holy war.  They exist, and they exist in greater numbers than we are willing to accept.  The peaceful muslims of the world are our friends.  But they need to take back their voice from this dangerous minority.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jul 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As I pointed out earlier, it is not my belief that all muslims are terrorists. I merely pointed out that a large minority have allowed themselves to be hijacked by radical religious scholars and terrorist recruiters. This is not an indictment of the worlds 1 Billion muslims, but it is clear that more of a problem exists than we are prepared to handle. There are several muslims that agree that their voices have been hijacked by the minority of extremists. Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani stated as much himself. Though his explaination that most peaceful muslims don't want to be political activists, but simply want to be left in peace to pray and live their lives, is a revealing and understandable one.
> 
> Perhaps I didn't make myself clear from the beginning. My issue is with the minority of muslims who are spreading wahhabist rhetoric within the US and Europe, and recruiting young muslims as cannon fodder in a holy war. They exist, and they exist in greater numbers than we are willing to accept. The peaceful muslims of the world are our friends. But they need to take back their voice from this dangerous minority.


Agreed.

My heart goes out to the family of this young man who was killed. Again, his death is on the head's of the terrorists. He is one more victim of their murderous rampage. It is an UNMITIGATED tragedy not only for his family but also the United Kingdom as a whole and the police themselves who, apparently, had every reason to believe that they were acting to save lives.

My prayers go out to the people of the United Kingdom.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 24, 2005)

I wouldn't put this man as being innocent yet, something is fishy about this entire thing! I was watching the media responses to what he was, 
Firstly = Terrorist shot
Secondly = May have not been Terrorist (inquiring investigations)
Thirdly = Resting on apparently innocent
Fourthly = Probably terrorist
Fifthy = Innocent

Ok maybe I'm wrong but I've never seen the media chop and change so much, I cannot really explain it but it was the way that different channels presenters where merging the stories and then changing their facts back and forth changing them every update, but not in the usual way or discovering new facts and evidence but it a way to me as though the were not sure, even if they have been manipulated!

Well, if he is innocent it is a great tradegy as from the police point of view I would have done the same thing (from a distance), there is man running away from you, towards a tube station wearing a bulky coat (bomb maybe?) (two choices, is he running to escape on the tube, or to detonate a bomb), you call for him to stop or you will shot (two choices the man either stops, or not, he should if he heard the warning, if he was running for a minor offence or if he was innocent he would have known that it was not worth being killed, countering this if he was truely scared he would not have listened), you give chase,
he heads towards the tube, you have a last chance with two choices, you either,
Do not shoot, the man could be saved if innocent, or he could detonate killing many people as previously done the day before OR
you can shoot, killing maybe an innoncent man (who is running???) and saving many lives.

What would you choose?

Ok that was quite a biased example and could maybe used however there is one serious problem that needs to be examined!

The 'innocent' guy was shot 5 times in the head with an automatic pistol whilst being supposedly pinned down. He fell before he was shot, but I doubt anybody can shoot a falling body from a distance with a pistol so what the hell happened? Being the media and some aspects hidden what was going on? The police kill a man at point blank with a pistol, five times in the head? Thats what puzzles me?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2005)

The news reports I have heard ....

A Brazilian National was shot to death by plain-clothed police officers. On another thread, someone said that if a police officer tells you to ... blah, blah, blah.

I wonder if Mr. Brazil spoke any English at at all? Someone starts yelling at you in a foreign voice, waving a gun, I might run away too?

Of course, it's all speculation on this end.


P.S. ... just read a bbc news report. Apparently, Mr. Brazil jumped the turnstyle gain entrance to the Tube; that must justify everything.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The news reports I have heard ....
> 
> A Brazilian National was shot to death by plain-clothed police officers. On another thread, someone said that if a police officer tells you to ... blah, blah, blah.
> 
> ...


  Of course, again, your premise rests on the psychic ability of the London police to read the gentleman's mind and figure out that he isn't running because he wants to blow up large numbers of innocent people, he's running because he doesn't speak english. 

Now, lets put this in perspective.  You and your family are a hundred yards down the subway line, watching this event transpire.  The gentleman in question is running TOWARD you, currently in a lightly occupied area of the station, but he's heading toward a crowded area and you.  The police are chasing him.  They believe he is a suicide bomber.  At what point do you want  the police to make the decision to shoot him?  100 yards away, 50 yards, 10 yards, or never?  Do you want them to give every suicide bombing suspect acting this way the benefit of the doubt?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

Easy answer for some people who like to armchair quaterback. Hard choices for those who's job it is to make them.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 24, 2005)

Hard choices for anyone who has only seconds to make a decision.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 24, 2005)

I also think insinuating that these officers felt justified in shooting a man because he jumped a turnstyle typical passive aggressive liberal ********. But Im sure the poster has nothing but the highest regard for law enforcement. :shrug:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I also think insinuating that these officers felt justified in shooting a man because he jumped a turnstyle typical passive aggressive liberal ********. But Im sure the poster has nothing but the highest regard for law enforcement. :shrug:


  I'm sure you're right.


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I also think insinuating that these officers felt justified in shooting a man because he jumped a turnstyle typical passive aggressive liberal ********. But Im sure the poster has nothing but the highest regard for law enforcement.


The cops are the good guys here aren't they ? Or is that status lost because of a case of mistaken identity . Under the circumstances which exist & the reaction of the unfortunate victim , the officers may have had no choice & therefore are justified . Their job is to protect & to serve . The way that i see it is that these officers are acting & leading their lives based on a high moral code . Thay go to work day in & day out putting it on the line trying to help people . They deserve the benefit of the doubt & respect for there efforts . weather they made a mistake or not & I'm not so sure that they made a mistake regarding the way that they carried out their duty . I believe they carried out their duty to the best of their abilities under the worst conditions . Obviously the loss of an innocent young mans life is the worst kind of tragedy , but these things aren't always black & white . Terrorism creates a deep phsycological effect on all of society .

:asian: FF


----------



## Marginal (Jul 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I also think insinuating that these officers felt justified in shooting a man because he jumped a turnstyle typical passive aggressive liberal ********. But Im sure the poster has nothing but the highest regard for law enforcement. :shrug:


Expressing concern over a blatant bungle means you hate law enforcement? Smacks of nonsense similar to that of "If you criticize the Iraq war or the president, then you are happy to see US troops have their heads sawed off." Baseless vitriol. 

Do you think all cops really deserve a blank check? That any hint of demanding accountability means you despise anyone in a uniform?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Expressing concern over a blatant bungle means you hate law enforcement? Smacks of nonsense similar to that of "If you criticize the Iraq war or the president, then you are happy to see US troops have their heads sawed off." Baseless vitriol.
> 
> Do you think all cops really deserve a blank check? That any hint of demanding accountability means you despise anyone in a uniform?


Doesn't sound like the only baseless vitriol going around.  The insinuation that Tgrace was responding to was that the police had somehow been at fault in this situation.  The mistake made was the fatal mistake on the part of this gentleman to run.  That it might be an understandable mistake on some level does nothing to wrench the source of that mistake on him.  

Now, that having been said, lets get back to the issue.  If you believe the officers are somehow culpable, then illustrate that point.  Lets not make wide ranging blanket statements, such as talking referring to US troops, when we are talking about a single incident.  Stick to that incident.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 25, 2005)

Strange situation.

 It would seem pretty tough to blame the cops though. They are looking for terrorists, and when they confront this guy he takes off running, jumps a turnstyle and heads toward a crowded subway car.

 You really hae to wonder why he was running in the first place though. Maybe he was guilty of something minor and just figured he could outrun the cops who would normally not have guns anyway?

 I have also read reports that he was shot 5 times in the head at point blank range. That wouldn't seem to me to be normal police procedure. I can't fault them for shooting him in the first place, but this sounds a little more like an execution that subduing a suspect.

  It really is easy to bring up lots of questions when looking at something like this in hindsight.


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

 Shot seven times in the head and oncein the shoulder.  Thats pretty good shootin', especially with handguns and a running target.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Expressing concern over a blatant bungle means you hate law enforcement? Smacks of nonsense similar to that of "If you criticize the Iraq war or the president, then you are happy to see US troops have their heads sawed off." Baseless vitriol.
> 
> Do you think all cops really deserve a blank check? That any hint of demanding accountability means you despise anyone in a uniform?



"Concerned over a blatant bungle"?  First the quote was "well he jumped a turnstile so I guess they were justified" (more or less), where is that a fair statement? Second, while unfortunate, "bungle" implies some sort of fault on the officers part, which hasnt been proven yet.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "Concerned over a blatant bungle"? First the quote was "well he jumped a turnstile so I gues they were justified" (more or less), where is that a fair ststement? Second, while unfortunate, "bungle" implies some sort of fault on the officers part, which hasnt been proven yet.


  Further the term "blatant bungle" would insinuate that it was not only a mistake, but that it should have obviously been a mistake before it was made.  hmmm.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

Of course...the attempt at switching the topic to Iraq and the President wasnt suprising either. Again, Im sure the poster has nothing but the "highest regard" for law enforcement, knowing how tough the job is and...yadda yadda.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Of course...the attempt at switching the topic to Iraq and the President wasnt suprising either. Again, Im sure the poster has nothing but the "highest regard" for law enforcement, knowing how tough the job is and...yadda yadda.


 I'm sure you are correct.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 25, 2005)

Very questional police procedure!!!

 Somebody's going to tell me now that British Police are not used to firearms therefore it justifies their mistake huh?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/032237ea-fca9-11d9-8386-00000e2511c8.html


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 25, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Expressing concern over a blatant bungle means you hate law enforcement? Smacks of nonsense similar to that of "If you criticize the Iraq war or the president, then you are happy to see US troops have their heads sawed off." Baseless vitriol.
> 
> Do you think all cops really deserve a blank check? That any hint of demanding accountability means you despise anyone in a uniform?


Concern ? Yeah right 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 . Blatant bungle ? I think that you need to stop fantasizing & get in touch with reality . If the officers thought he was a terrorist & they followed procedure how is that a blatant bungle ??? So far this is what I'v heard .#1 He was told numerous times to stop & he refused to . I'll award this bungle to the victim . #2 He was dressed in a suspicous manner (wearing winter cloths in the middle of the summer ) will call this one a toss up . #3 He jump the turn style . Just alittle suspicious ah ? I think he deserves at least a bungle for that one . #4 Wearing a back pack ! hum , why on gods green earth would the cops be suspicious under those curcumstances ?????????????? It's not like they should have been on high alert for any reason 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . Also I heard that he was an illegal alian & maybe he ran because he didn't want to be deported ? I really don't know . None of us do , but to call it a blatant bungle by the police ? The police don't deserve a blank check , but they don't deserve blatant bungle either . How about unfortunate accident with the unfortunate victim getting some of the blame . Isn't that probably more accurate ? Try & take your ego out of it .


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

Latest news story is that he understood English.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I also think insinuating that these officers felt justified in shooting a man because he jumped a turnstyle typical passive aggressive liberal ********. But Im sure the poster has nothing but the highest regard for law enforcement.


I wonder how the poster can be sure of anothers thoughts.

Of course, under pressure to make an instant decision, being 'sure' certianly helps.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "Concerned over a blatant bungle"? First the quote was "well he jumped a turnstile so I guess they were justified" (more or less), where is that a fair statement? Second, while unfortunate, "bungle" implies some sort of fault on the officers part, which hasnt been proven yet.


 
Hey, he broke the law. He entered the subway without paying his fare. In this black and white world (you're either with us, or your with the terrorists), any law breaking is grounds for immediate adjudication and summary execution. 

Go Judge Dredd!


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

A guy with a backpack jumps a turnstile in London knowing the current atmosphere and wont follow police instructions? What do people think the Cops should have done? 

As to the number of shots fired. That just goes to show the publics ignorance regarding the immediate lethality of bullets (particularly handgun bullets) . If you are trying to stop a man carrying a command detonated device, you shoot until the guy stops moving. Even twitches mean he could probably press that button.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=17077



> But the investigation was dealt a blow and the reputation of British police severely tarnished when a Brazilian man was shot dead by mistake on Friday by detectives hunting the bombers. Despite the concerns of human rights activists, police say that they will not abandon what they called their "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" policy with suicide bombers. They have warned that more people could be killed during the investigation.
> 
> *An opinion poll yesterday showed that 71 percent of Britons defended the policy, under which police marksmen have been told to aim for the head rather than the chest to kill a suspected bomber. *
> 
> Interior Minister Charles Clarke defended the policy, saying: "A mistake was clearly made which will be regretted forever. But I don't think that means that they are wrong to have a policy [to deal] with these appalling circumstances."


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Latest news story is that he understood English.


I saw an interview with his roomates the other night & they were Brazilian & also spoke pretty good english .


----------



## arnisador (Jul 25, 2005)

The fact that he failed to follow police instructions is very telling to me. That's always a bad idea.

I say again, it's the terrorists who are to blame for putting everyone in this situation. They aimed to create terror and affect morale...it's working.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Of course...the attempt at switching the topic to Iraq and the President wasnt suprising either. Again, Im sure the poster has nothing but the "highest regard" for law enforcement, knowing how tough the job is and...yadda yadda.


It was a comparison between similarly useless vitriol. Wasn't a topic switch. Just two similar lines of logical fallacy. 

Don't like the phrase "blatant bungle"? Oh? *Now* overemotional garbage is forwned upon?


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 26, 2005)

I've thought about this for a long time before weighing in.  I've decided that my opinion doesn't count.  Because there are so many unknowns,  my instincts tell me to trust the people who are responsible to administer the law.  More specifically, I have faith in the British justice system to determine for themselves whether or not this shoot was good.  There are processes in place - checks and balances - to ensure that police execute their duties appropriately.  They're in a better position to pass judgement than I, as they have better access to information.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I wonder how the poster can be sure of anothers thoughts.
> 
> Of course, under pressure to make an instant decision, being 'sure' certianly helps.


About the same way that these officers can be sure of the thoughts of another. Thanks for helping make that point.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hey, he broke the law. He entered the subway without paying his fare. In this black and white world (you're either with us, or your with the terrorists), any law breaking is grounds for immediate adjudication and summary execution.
> 
> Go Judge Dredd!


Way to distort reality, and detriorate in to histrionics there partner. It really helps when people do that.

Now, it's time for a little intellectual honesty test.  Since no one answered my question, i'll repeat it.  

Now, lets put this in perspective. You and your family are a hundred yards down the subway line, watching this event transpire. The gentleman in question is running TOWARD you, currently in a lightly occupied area of the station, but he's heading toward a crowded area and you. The police are chasing him. They believe he is a suicide bomber. At what point do you want the police to make the decision to shoot him? 100 yards away, 50 yards, 10 yards, or never? Do you want them to give every suicide bombing suspect acting this way the benefit of the doubt?

Please, your honest response.  Pick an option.


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Now, lets put this in perspective. You and your family are a hundred yards down the subway line, watching this event transpire. The gentleman in question is running TOWARD you, currently in a lightly occupied area of the station, but he's heading toward a crowded area and you. The police are chasing him. They believe he is a suicide bomber. At what point do you want the police to make the decision to shoot him? 100 yards away, 50 yards, 10 yards, or never? Do you want them to give every suicide bombing suspect acting this way the benefit of the doubt?
> 
> Please, your honest response.  Pick an option.


Let me see if I have this correctly.  There's some guy running toward me, and behind him there's a cop ready to open fire?  and there's the possibly of my child getting shot?  Never.  Whether or not it was some stupid kid, or a real bomber, I'd be moving my family and myself to a safer area.  If the cop shot and killed my child because he/she thought the person evading was a bomber...  I guess I have to wonder who's the bigger danger, in the end.


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 26, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> It was a comparison between similarly useless vitriol. Wasn't a topic switch. Just two similar lines of logical fallacy.
> 
> Don't like the phrase "blatant bungle"? Oh? *Now* overemotional garbage is forwned upon?


"Blatant bungle" ? Marginal at best . Overemotional garbage is frowned upon? just like the efforts of law enforcement to keep society safe ? ah ?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 26, 2005)

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3636610



> British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he's "desperately sorry" about the killing, but said the police were working in "very, very difficult circumstances." Blair says it's every Briton's duty to come forth with any information on those behind two waves of bombings in London, and says *if police hadn't acted and the man turned out to be a terrorist, authorities would have been criticized for not doing enough.*



Ain't it the truth?


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 26, 2005)

So true & well put by prime minister Blair . One thing that I think we are learning from this is that like the victims of the terrorist attacks , the athorities are also easy targets . Although I think that the pendulem has finally swung in favor of any potential future victims of terrorism, thanks to the tireless efforts of the authorities . Now it's the authorities who are walking on egg shells . Funny how things change when a real human being makes a mistake . I'm glad that at least some people can see the differance .


----------



## Marginal (Jul 27, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> "Blatant bungle" ? Marginal at best .


That was the point. If you don't get it, you're a terrorist and a traitor to the US. Who wants cops to die.


> Overemotional garbage is frowned upon? just like the efforts of law enforcement to keep society safe ? ah ?


Same overemotional garbage. If you question a cop, then you *hate* all law enforcement officers enganged in an effort to keep a society safe.... 

English may not be your first language, but please recognize how mindless your statement is. All you're really saying is, "I disagree with your point of view. Shut up."


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

Theres a difference between saying "The policy used by the London police needs to be changed" and saying [sarcasm]"well he jumped a turnstile so I guess its OK to shoot him" [/sarcasm]. Which as a supervisor is the diffrence between calling a person into my office and talking about a mistake they made and yelling at them about it in public. One shows reason, the other makes you look like an ***.

The "im sure he has respect..." shot is just a sarcastic expression about how the people who seem to want to convict the police as wrong instantly always seem to try to use that expression. The Cops here werent wrong IMO. The policy may have been, but if they were within policy they werent "wrong".


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2005)

I'm certain that knowing the police weren't "wrong", in your opinion, will be tremendously meaningful to the family of the dead guy. 

And good call in recognizing sarcasm. My sarcasm may make me look like an ***, but no more so than the idjit who said "you're either with us, or your with the terrorists".

I wonder if this Brazilian Nation is going to be the last victim in the "global war on terror" of the first victim in the "global struggle against violent extremism".

I wonder if that will make a difference to his family, either?


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 27, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3636610
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly. With the anti-Bush/Blair crowd, danged if ya do, danged if ya don't.

That's why I rank most of them right up there with the ranks of lemmings.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

So.... should those cops be fired or perhaps tarred and feathered for doing what they were expected to do? Will that make the family feel better? What oh law enforcement swamis do you all say should have been done in that situation? Will all "real" bombers stop and follow police orders? What leads you to believe that these officers acted negligently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/international/europe/25london.html



> The commissioner also raised the possibility that more potential suspects could be killed in the mass transit system, as armed officers are forced to make split-second decisions on whether a suspicious person who does not heed police warnings represents an immediate lethal threat and should be shot in the head.
> 
> "It wasn't just a random event, and the most important thing to recognize is that it is still happening out there," Sir Ian said Sunday in an interview with Sky News TV. He added, "Somebody else could be shot."
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

The whole "why did they shoot for the head" thing is silly in and of itself. In any "shoot" situation you are acting to stop the threat as quickly as possible. The only reason we dont routinely aim for the head is because its damn tough to hit.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

First of all this guy was a suspect under survelliance by the Police. He left his house and got onto a bus. At that point back-up was called - logical as he's on a bus with a large number of people on it. He was then seen leaving the bus and going onto the Underground. At that point, it was necessary to stop him as this posed a threat. When confronted by police he ran(?), jumped over the ticket barriers, down the escalator and on to the platform, then on to a train. 

This guy was wearing a winter coat, yes, on a hot and humid day on an underground system which is like a sauna. The guy didn't stop, he's a suspect, over the past two weeks he knew major incidents have occured on the tube, he's in a tube station running desperately for a train...if this guy was trying to protect himself he's done it in the most irrational way possible. To anyone it would seem obvious that this guy had something to hide and a desperate need to get on a train - which are the hallmarks of someone operating with an agenda and above the law. This guy also knew English. 

I genuinely believe that the Police act to protect the public and do not get up in the morning wanting to shoot anyone.


----------



## BushidoUK (Jul 27, 2005)

There was a lot of argument about this guy may have reacted because plain clothed officers could have been anyone with guns.
It has now been confirmed by several witnesses that the police officers in question were wearing POLICE baseball caps and shouted  'stop armed police'

This gentleman, who spoke excellent English, decided to vault a turnstile and run towards a known terrorist target, namely a tube train. He forced the police's hand.

I believe the police made the right choice, the lesser of the 2 evils.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 27, 2005)

Police shoot to kill and that is final! Its always a headshot no matter who the person is! If its a child with a gun that they cannot tell if its fake or not and points it at an officer, you do realise that that officer has to shoot? No to wound, but to kill? That is the measure of their resolve. Its a harsh world out there. 

Going off topic a bit, but in essence whats done is done, everything was implimented and the police DID THEIR JOB as they had been trained to, unfortunately at the cost of an innocent mans life. There is nothing to be learned here, IMO I see no reason to change policy.

It is no the family that I feel the most sorrow for, it is the Police Officer who shot the guy. He/she will be under investigation, probably kept in a cell due to regulations with alot of time to think about what has happened.
That officer knows that even though they did their duty they shot an innocent man, that cannot be be comprended with by anything. To have that hanging over your head for the rest of your life is going to change you.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 27, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Let me see if I have this correctly. There's some guy running toward me, and behind him there's a cop ready to open fire? and there's the possibly of my child getting shot? Never. Whether or not it was some stupid kid, or a real bomber, I'd be moving my family and myself to a safer area. If the cop shot and killed my child because he/she thought the person evading was a bomber... I guess I have to wonder who's the bigger danger, in the end.


 While I respect your attempt to alter the question, you didn't dodge it very well. The police didn't miss. Do you want him to allow the bomber to get close enough to detonate his device or not? Shoot/No Shoot. 

Also, when a situation like this does really happen, and your at home sitting on your couch watching your TV you hear that the police had a clear shot at the bomber, but didn't shoot, allowing the bomber to detonate his bomb killing 30 people, are we going to here how the stupid, incompetent cops can't do their job? Of course we are.

Arm chair quaterbacks are called that for a reason...because the closest thing they usually get to these type of decisions is their arm chair...in front of the TV...watching some fantasy program.  They're usually the people who start a sentence like "well they should of..." or "well I would've"...would've what?  Been sitting on your couch when this went down?


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 27, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> While I respect your attempt to alter the question, you didn't dodge it very well. The police didn't miss. Do you want him to allow the bomber to get close enough to detonate his device or not? Shoot/No Shoot.
> 
> Also, when a situation like this does really happen, and your at home sitting on your couch watching your TV you hear that the police had a clear shot at the bomber, but didn't shoot, allowing the bomber to detonate his bomb killing 30 people, are we going to here how the stupid, incompetent cops can't do their job? Of course we are.
> 
> Arm chair quaterbacks are called that for a reason...because the closest thing they usually get to these type of decisions is their arm chair...in front of the TV...watching some fantasy program.  They're usually the people who start a sentence like "well they should of..." or "well I would've"...would've what?  Been sitting on your couch when this went down?


I wasn't trying to dodge the question at all.  In your hypothetical "arm chair" example, it wasn't a clear shot.  

Now in the real-life example of what happened, I've seen mention in this thread about how surveillance saw him getting on a bus, then to the train station.  Why wasn't he pulled aside _before_ he could get to the station?    If he was wearing a heavy parka in the middle of summer, why didn't anyone else take notice?  Wouldn't that seem strange to you?  I guess as martial artists, we tend to take notice of strange occurances in our surroundings, and perhaps we take that for granted.   :idunno:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 27, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I wasn't trying to dodge the question at all. In your hypothetical "arm chair" example, it wasn't a clear shot.
> 
> Now in the real-life example of what happened, I've seen mention in this thread about how surveillance saw him getting on a bus, then to the train station. Why wasn't he pulled aside _before_ he could get to the station? If he was wearing a heavy parka in the middle of summer, why didn't anyone else take notice? Wouldn't that seem strange to you? I guess as martial artists, we tend to take notice of strange occurances in our surroundings, and perhaps we take that for granted. :idunno:


  Your status as a martial artist doesn't give you insight in to counter-terrorist practices anymore than my status allows me to fly the space shuttle.  I am confident that what the officers did, they felt was immediately necessary to save human lives.  I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I learn otherwise.

As for my question about whether you'd prefer the police to shoot in my scenerio, it didn't seem that difficult.  I asked a direct question about whether you'd prefer the police to shoot the suicide bombing subject before he reached you and your family and detonate his bomb.  A simple yes or no would suffice.  If you'd like to add a qualifer, by all means do so, but provide a direct yes or no answer.


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 27, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Your status as a martial artist doesn't give you insight in to counter-terrorist practices anymore than my status allows me to fly the space shuttle.  I am confident that what the officers did, they felt was immediately necessary to save human lives.  I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I learn otherwise.


I never said it did, but I do give more scrutiny to my surroundings than many people I talk to.  In this instance, I'd try to make sure my family was safe by getting out of there.  If you consider that "counter-terrorism", so be it.  I call it "common sense".  

As far as what transpired with the officers, I too am sure they did what they felt was best, and I am glad to hear no innocents were injured.  I guess I'm just curious where the line between judicious(sp?) action and reckless endangerment gets fuzzy, and if it will disappear?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As for my question about whether you'd prefer the police to shoot in my scenerio, it didn't seem that difficult. I asked a direct question about whether you'd prefer the police to shoot the suicide bombing subject before he reached you and your family and detonate his bomb. A simple yes or no would suffice. If you'd like to add a qualifer, by all means do so, but provide a direct yes or no answer.


The only absolute I know of is the fact that I'm going to die someday (and i'm not entirely sure of it ).  Past that, everything else is shades of grey.  I'm sorry, but without being in that train station first hand, I can't answer with a heavy-handed yes/no.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

Dodge....

Again, all the critics crying FOUL...what would you have preferred the police had done in this situation?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I guess as martial artists, we tend to take notice of strange occurances in our surroundings, and perhaps we take that for granted. :idunno:


Someone who takes martial arts classes 1-2 times a week has more "awareness" than a cop who has to be concerned for his safety and be alert for others commiting crimes as a full time job? Please.


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 27, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> That was the point. If you don't get it, you're a terrorist and a traitor to the US. Who wants cops to die.
> 
> Same overemotional garbage. If you question a cop, then you *hate* all law enforcement officers enganged in an effort to keep a society safe....
> 
> English may not be your first language, but please recognize how mindless your statement is. All you're really saying is, "I disagree with your point of view. Shut up."


 English is my first language 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 . Nothing wrong with questioning a cop or anyone else for that matter , but the way I see it people want it both ways . You want to throw your little sarcastic remarks out there without really anything to back it up . you want to push ,but when somone starts pushing back you don't like it . Let me give you a new example . One of your profound quots in your last post was ,[ quote] "English may not be your first language , but please recognize how mindless your statement is . All your really saying is , "I disagree with your point of veiw so shut up." So lets break it down : #1 saying that english may not be your first language ... we have the sarcasm (are you saying that I am stupid or may not understand somthing because english is not my first language )? We also have the lack of facts to back up your sarcastic remark . (how could you possibly know this , you don't know me) ? #2 "but please recognize how mindless your statment is " . All your really saying is , "I disagree with your point of veiw so shut up". (Thanks for letting me know how mindless my statement is , I know your not trying to be sarcastic )? Marginal, I wasn't really saying I disagree with your point , so shut up . (What I was really trying to say was , I disagree with your point of veiw ,because of your lack of understanding & facts ) ! Wow! I think we finally understand each other now ? BTW , I really think that everybody is entitled to their point of veiw , I just think under the circumstances we should give the good guys a break & the benefit of the doubt . Wheather you like it or not , it may be the time to take a side & make a stand for whats really right . The police are not perfect , but like soldiers , they are fighting for us & putting their lives on the line .


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dodge....
> 
> Again, all the critics crying FOUL...what would you have preferred the police had done in this situation?


I don't know.

But, we have one supposition and one fact before us.

The Police policy is 'correct'  (supposition)
An innocent man is dead (fact)
If the police policy is 'correct', then we can expect to have more corpses on our hands; corpses not belonging to terrorist. 

How many corpses are acceptable before the policy can be questioned? 

How many corspes are required before we demand a change in policy?

Seems to me, that the terrorists have already won. Our society is not terrorized from within. We are so afraid of what 'might' happen, we are willing to take an irreversible action.

It saddens me. It angers me. 

But, it doesn't surprise me.


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 27, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Someone who takes martial arts classes 1-2 times a week has more "awareness" than a cop who has to be concerned for his safety and be alert for others commiting crimes as a full time job? Please.


I thought we were talking from the standpoint of a bystander, not a LEO...


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't know.
> 
> But, we have one supposition and one fact before us.
> 
> ...


You got a better idea? or policy? because I sure as hell would like to hear it?!


----------



## Dan G (Jul 27, 2005)

See the link below. One of the (rather unsuccessful) "suicide bombers" was arrested using a tazer. He had a rucksack with him, but he was in a house not running madly down the tube. Whoever performed the arrest must have felt that they were risking their lives, however as the public was not in danger they took a chance.

Judge it how you like, I for one respect the courage shown by those involved in the arrest.

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

Dan:asian:


----------



## Dan G (Jul 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't know.
> 
> But, we have one supposition and one fact before us.
> 
> ...


I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "*our* society" I don't understand what you mean when you say "*We* are so afraid of what 'might' happen, *we* are willing to take an irreversible action."

Are you from the UK?




			
				Reuters July 24 2005 said:
			
		

> I think we are quite comfortable that the policy is right, but of course these are fantastically difficult times, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair told Sky Television.
> 
> Asked if the instructions were to shoot to kill if police believed a suspect was a suicide bomber, he said: Correct. They have to be that.
> 
> Its still happening out there, there are still officers having to make those calls as we speak. ... Somebody else could be shot, Blair added.


*We* have been informed of the potential consequences of the current policy (fact)

An innocent man has been killed (fact)

It may happen again (possibility)

Point is *we* have been given a choice, and *we* will make a decision about policy.

It is highly likely the current Police policy will be supported (supposition)

I respect your right to question UK policy, and I think it valuable that you do so, but from your profile it seems you live in New Hampshire USA, not Hampshire UK. The solidarity is appreciated but please be careful when you speak for others! 
Sounds rather "Imperialist" which kind of freaks me out here as until recently at least that has been something of a British speciality. (BTW We still have the best villains in Hollywood!)

Keep posting and keep criticising, you are clearly an intelligent man with his heart in the right place - just don't speak for us over here please!

Respectfully,

Dan


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> You got a better idea? or policy? because I sure as hell would like to hear it?!


Hollywood, in a similar situation had a suggestion to take under advisement: *more body bags*.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hollywood, in a similar situation had a suggestion to take under advisement: *more body bags*.


errrm... having spent the past 6 months working outside of the usual legal stuff putting together a contingency plan for my employer in the event that a large scale terrorist incident hit London, my research tells me that we are rather well supplied.

Thanks for the concern though.

Dan


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "*our* society" I don't understand what you mean when you say "*We* are so afraid of what 'might' happen, *we* are willing to take an irreversible action."
> 
> Are you from the UK?
> 
> ...


Got it.

Of course, there is some speculation that one of the causes for the rise in these type of attacks is because of the war formerly known as 'Global War on Terrorism'. You may have heard that the citizens of New Hampshire are involved in that activity; as are the citizens of Great Britain. 93 of your fellow citizens have died in Iraq over the last two years. While I usually attempt to be very careful about linking causalities, I do not think it is unreasonable for the free people of Great Britain, and the free people of the u.s. of a. to think of themselves as 'one people', in this instance. Certainly, the Prime Minister has often been closer to the President than the President's shadow over the last 4 years. 

Odd, I am offended whenever an innocent dies. So, take it as a show of unity, if you will, but under that definition, I also share unity with more than 25,000 Iraqi's (according to Iraqbodycount.net). 

Or, if you prefer, you might look to Star Trek: The Next Generation - 'The Drumhead' - where Captain Picard tells Mr. Worf, that constant vigilence is required to maintain our freedoms.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 27, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> English is my first language
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not really. I'm just calling BS on folks who say, "If you question a cop, then you want cops to die."



> So lets break it down : #1 saying that english may not be your first language ...


That's just because you tend to use odd syntax. It's an international forum, so I try not to presume. 



> Marginal, I wasn't really saying I disagree with your point , so shut up .


You were. All you were doing (from what I could tell at least) was making a bad attempt at mocking my post. Your followup doesn't disabuse me of this notion. 



> Wow! I think we finally understand each other now ?


Not really.



> The police are not perfect , but like soldiers , they are fighting for us & putting their lives on the line .


So in other words, never question anything they (the police of soldiers) do. If you do, you've irreparably undermined the efforts of the protectors.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Got it.
> 
> Of course, there is some speculation that one of the causes for the rise in these type of attacks is because of the war formerly known as 'Global War on Terrorism'. You may have heard that the citizens of New Hampshire are involved in that activity; as are the citizens of Great Britain. 93 of your fellow citizens have died in Iraq over the last two years. While I usually attempt to be very careful about linking causalities, I do not think it is unreasonable for the free people of Great Britain, and the free people of the u.s. of a. to think of themselves as 'one people', in this instance. Certainly, the Prime Minister has often been closer to the President than the President's shadow over the last 4 years.
> 
> ...


Not too good on Star Trek - but I've always liked the quote:
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."
First person to use it was an Irish politician called John Philpot Curran - although Andrew Jackson and Wendell Philips used it later. (I always thought it was Jefferson came up with it - but thanks to the power of broadband I stand corrected)

I entirely respect your beliefs on the war in Iraq and your right to express them - and I acknowledge that our government has been closely involved with the war since the outset.

I entirely respect your feelings about loss of life with all factions in that war.

Both issues are entirely distinct from the way in which the UK chooses to deal with an immediate domestic terrorist threat carried out by UK citizens.

My views on UK foreign policy are entirely distinct from my views on domestic security. Even if there is a causal link, it is immaterial to the resolution of immediate problems.

My personal belief is that it is absolutely vital for dissenting views to be expressed in extreme situations - it is fundamental to an informed and free society - whether or not I share those beliefs is immaterial to me.

However, active dissent is best served by careful and intellectually rigorous argument. The more unpopular a view is the more important it is to articulate it with accuracy and eloquence. Many of your arguments are more widely supported than you may realise. I suspect that careful and persuasive presentation may achieve interesting results.

I think you'll like the way Jackson used the eternal vigiliance line:

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

For me the quote I like is another one by Curran:

"assassinate me you may; intimidate me you cannot!"

Keep dissenting, it does serve a purpose.

Dan


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

Questioning is different from pillorying.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

Who are you "offended" at when the innocent dies? Whos "fault" was it in your opinion?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Who are you "offended" at when the innocent dies?


Just because it doesn't seem right, we are, after all, supposed to be a civilized society.

P.S. let me clarify.

I have always felt that Liberalism is the belief that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; the point of view that 'we are all in this together', 'together everyone achieves more', etc, etc.

So, the taking of one of the individuals that contributes to the whole, weakens us all.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2005)

From the Guardian:


*Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket* 

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier[/font] 

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]*Mark Honigsbaum
Thursday July 28, 2005
The Guardian* 

[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.[/font]​ 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html


----------



## Dan G (Jul 28, 2005)

Basically the article can be summarised as:

Newspaper reports that family says that police admit that X happened.

Or alternatively They say that they say that they say X.

Doesn't mean anything yet.

It will be interesting to see what develops.

Dan


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

non-answer.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> From the Guardian:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, this is a newspaper report, ok, just because it says in nice Bulky writing "*Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket* " does not mean automatically that he wasnt wearing a bulky jacket. I wasnt there though so I wouldnt know!!! 
What I do know (not for a fact though) is that newspapers like stories! 

"He did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police" his COUSIN (Cousin right? Yeah Cousin? Biased? Do you think? Was he there??? Tell me that?).
The fact he didnt jump it or did, the fact is he still ran, and he's still dead!

Regards


----------



## Macy5 (Jul 28, 2005)

I have to say, at least police is doing their real job, instead of giving out tickets and eating doughnuts.
Most become cops because the can't do anything else and have no brain for education. Not because they are brave, the research have been done.
We all know it. Sorry to say it, soldiers I deeply respect, police---nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

This whole situation reminds me of the unfortunately more and more common situation seen here in the US where a person points a cell phone at a cop after a chase and he gets shot down. Then the hue and cry of "Cops shoot (race of choice inserted here) man for pointing cell phone!" "Man shot X times for having cell phone!" etc. etc. Nevermind the fact that the guy lead a high speed chase, ran, refused to obey commands under gunpoint and reached into his pocket and pointed a black object at officers. It was only a cell phone and cops should be arrested, fired, abuse of power yadda yada. I (admittedly biased because I am one) tend to give the officer the benefit of the doubt unless evidence is presented otherwise that they were negligent. If they were negligent (or intentionally broke the law/policy) then have at them. 

The bottom line is, regardless of the bulk of his jacket or if he jumped a turnstile or not, if this man had obeyed the police (who from one source Ive read were wearing "police" markings and badges when they confronted him) and not ran this wouldnt have happened.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Macy5 said:
			
		

> I have to say, at least police is doing their real job, instead of giving out tickets and eating doughnuts.
> Most become cops because the can't do anything else and have no brain for education. Not because they are brave, the research have been done.
> We all know it. Sorry to say it, soldiers I deeply respect, police---nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.


Judging from your typing your brain for education appears to be lacking as well.


----------



## Macy5 (Jul 28, 2005)

OH boy someone with a cop picture is speaking.

Do you want to be a cop when your grow up?

Or you like men in uniforms?

or may be doughnuts?

Somehow I knew that you would reply to this,
so if you are a cop, do you keep your hands behind your back permenantly?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Im a police Sergeant with a mid-size department in NY. Troll.


----------



## Macy5 (Jul 28, 2005)

Uh we got into name calling "Troll?" 
What happened to C.P.R. ?
You would arrest me if you could, would not you?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Dont bother responding Macy..you are on the ignore list already.


----------



## Macy5 (Jul 28, 2005)

Hm, allot of time spend behind the computer by a cop,
well I feel very protected.
Serve and protect, sir, serve and protect.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

Macy5 said:
			
		

> OH boy someone with a cop picture is speaking.
> 
> Do you want to be a cop when your grow up?
> 
> ...


You know I agree with Tgrace on this, I think the only person that actually needs to grow up is you!
How old are you? Because you sound pretty young to me? Maintaining a childish attitude like that!



			
				Macy5 said:
			
		

> Most become cops because the can't do anything else and have no brain for education. Not because they are brave, the research have been done.
> We all know it. Sorry to say it, soldiers I deeply respect, police---nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.*"*


Most become cops because they cannot do anything else and have no brain for education? 
Soldiers you deeply respect, police nah????? 

Lol, kids these days! Honestly!


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

A troll is as a troll does...


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> A troll is as a troll does...


LOL


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Back on topic. What is the general feeling about this incident in the UK?


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Back on topic. What is the general feeling about this incident in the UK?


Well from somebody who's over here, the majority of people think that the killing was a tragic incident but whether policy should be changed or not is boarding upon the fact it shouldnt be!!!
The main thing people puzzle about however is that they dont understand why the person was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulders. People cannot understand the reasonality behind the action and therefore feel uneasy, as though that many shots was not justified.
Had the guy simply been shot once or twice then people may have dropped the subject by now!
There just seems to be a minority that seem totally opposed towards the policy!
Regards


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

They dont understand the reason for it. The goal is to stop the guy before he can detonate. One or two shots, even to the head, isnt a guarantee. When it comes down to it, one shot or 20..whats the difference? If the shooting was justified, you shoot until there is no longer a threat. Anyway, with a semi-auto you can fire 8 shots in 2-3 seconds.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> They do not understand the reason for it. The goal is to stop the guy before he can detonate. One or two shots, even to the head, isnt a guarantee. When it comes down to it, one shot or 20..whats the difference? If the shooting was justified, you shoot until there is no longer a threat. Anyway, with a semi-auto you can fire 8 shots in 2-3 seconds.


Unfortunately the public dont seem to understand that. The majority of their viewpoints come from a mental image. That is imagining a man being pinned to the floor, held there, somebody lowering a gun to his head and firing off 7 or 8 rounds, well thats the impression I get so far, especially when the media use such words as 'pinned' or 'physically restrained'.
Most see to many movies, thinking that one shot takes a person down, that one shot to the head is sufficient to stop all muscle movement and response. 
Majority hardly know anything about weapons either, since they are banned here! Ask the average person and I would say that they could not picture the difference between a semi-auto, or a single shot, as far as it seems, they picture about a 10 second gap of killing. In which a person stood there and literally took their time in firing into the head!
Thats the media for you!
In essence, most people = One shot (especially in the head) is enough?!


----------



## Macy5 (Jul 28, 2005)

I wonder if cops actually did ther jobs,

would so many people practise martial arts?

Who knows may be you are one of the very few good one's.

But I doubt it, seeing how much time you spend kissing the monitor.



Ok, I am done talking. Felt good.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> non-answer.


Well, then, maybe someday, I can hope to know everything. 'Til then, I'll just have to muddle through with imperfect knowledge.

The Police Policy is correct.
An innocent man is dead.

Something still doesn't seem right there.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

Macy5 said:
			
		

> I wonder if cops actually did ther jobs,
> 
> would so many people practise martial arts?
> 
> ...


Who you talking to? Cops in both countries do a fine job most of the time!
Why dont you go out and do something for a change? You know maybe you want to be shoved in a world without police, then your be coming back for security and the fact that they are there, if they are need (most of the time)!
Maybe you want to stop the pointless statements now? Maybe you should spend more time away from the monitor and learn to grow up.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, then, maybe someday, I can hope to know everything. 'Til then, I'll just have to muddle through with imperfect knowledge.
> 
> The Police Policy is correct.
> An innocent man is dead.
> ...


Nothing in this world is perfect. You seem to make it sounds as though the police just shot a random guy with no justification behind it!
As said before would you rather one innocent man dead and others protected or many others dead because the police hesitated to shoot. Not to mention the bomber dies as well. Dont get me wrong I'm not having a go at you, its good debating, you just have not given me an alternative policy that would be more suited?

Regards


----------



## dubljay (Jul 28, 2005)

OK here's how I see it.  

 After the initial bombings, there was a cry for better security.  Everyone seemed to agree that the best option was to fight fire with fire (I direct your attention to "we're not afraid").  

 In this situation the police had a decision to make in seconds.  If they had opted to not shoot, or simply wound the man and he was indeed a suicide bomber they would have been blamed for failing to do their duty to protect other citizens.  If the man had indeed been a bomber and the police had killed him before he had a chance to detonate they would be hailed as heroes.  

 A single innocent person being killed by the police is just as tragic as masses of people being killed in a terror attack.  Has anyone stopped to consider how the police officers feel having killed an innocent man?  How the officers feel at being criticized for doing as people wished (meeting force with force)?


 Michael you are right, an innocent man died and that isnt right.  However the opposite side of the coin is that many more innocents could be dead if the policy had been not to kill him, and he was indeed a bomber.  Would that be right?


 I haven't been following this thread, or these events too closely.  People of the UK are begining to understand the problems we are facing here in the US, we are losing our freedom under the patriot act.  Though the situations are different, as is our ways of life, but the question is still the same:  Was this the right course of action?

 Just my opinion.  

 -Josh


----------



## Bester (Jul 28, 2005)

Macy5 said:
			
		

> Uh we got into name calling "Troll?"
> What happened to C.P.R. ?
> You would arrest me if you could, would not you?


 Yo, Macy-Troll-Boy.
You're in the Study.  That means serious discussion. Not the juvilile pap you're spewing.

You have anything serious to add, or are you just going to continue to be a jackass?

If it's the former, then add it and stop being a jerk.

If it's the later, enjoy the ride on the boot-to-groin-slide.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

dubljay said:
			
		

> OK here's how I see it.
> 
> After the initial bombings, there was a cry for better security. Everyone seemed to agree that the best option was to fight fire with fire (I direct your attention to "we're not afraid").
> 
> ...


Good post! You pretty much summed it up again! 
So it seems you guys have lost your freedom, for security?

As its happening over here? Sorry but I dont think I fancy living in a totalitilarian society!
Regards


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Nothing in this world is perfect. You seem to make it sounds as though the police just shot a random guy with no justification behind it!
> As said before would you rather one innocent man dead and others protected or many others dead because the police hesitated to shoot. Not to mention the bomber dies as well. Dont get me wrong I'm not having a go at you, its good debating, you just have not given me an alternative policy that would be more suited?
> 
> Regards


I don't quite know why you think I am implying the police shot a 'random' guy.

I have stated, *I don't know* what the answer is. But the fact remains, that someone is dead, who shouldn't be. 

As I understand the story .... and I too am not following it that closely .... the police watched Mr. de Menezes come out of an apartment, some reports say he got on a bus, he travelled to the subway, where he may have jumped a turnstyle, he got all the way down to the platform, where he was shot to death.

Wouldn't a good alternative policy be to stop this young man sooner? Maybe when he came out of the building wearing (or not wearing) a bulky coat?
How about knowing more about who he is, before he comes out of the building ... he had to *go in* to the building at some point, didn't he? Couldn't some police work go on about Mr. de Menezes while he was in the building?

If the policy is correct ... and the policy leads to innocent people being dead, then something seems wrong. 

If we start killing people, as a matter of policy, because of what we are afraid of what they might do,  . . . . well, I don't know .... maybe you can fill in your own analogy here. 

I understand that some are supporting the position that Mr. de Menezes presented a *clear and present danger*, therefore the shooting was 'justified'. Except, evidence seems to indicate that Mr. de Menezes was *not* the clear and present danger the officers believed. I understand the officers had to make a decision on incomplete information. Was everything done to get as much information to the officers as was possible?

The supposition is the Police Policy is correct.
The fact is an innocent man is dead.

Seems there is something disconnected between these two statements.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 28, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't quite know why you think I am implying the police shot a 'random' guy.
> 
> I have stated, *I don't know* what the answer is. But the fact remains, that someone is dead, who shouldn't be.
> 
> ...


Now I understand your view, I'm sorry that I did not earlier!
Yes you have a fair point, especially with the fact that Mr. de Menezes could have possibiliy arrested earlier, but on what charge? Unfortunately I know hardly anything about the Police Tatics involved in this situation, maybe if we did understand everything then we can draw a logical conclusion. I dont know if the officers wanted or hoped he would lead them to more suicide bombers or potential suscepts or what, maybe they panicked when they realised he was heading into the tube and only caught up with him them.
As for a change in policy? Who knows? Some deem it not necessary? If I knew all the facts then I could really make my own mind up!
Nice debating, Kind regards
C.h


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 28, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, then, maybe someday, I can hope to know everything. 'Til then, I'll just have to muddle through with imperfect knowledge.
> 
> The Police Policy is correct.
> An innocent man is dead.
> ...



The Policy Changes

5000 innocent people die because a terrorist can do his will?

Is that right also?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

I have also heard that the officers were given a "green light" by they're supervisor when they observed the man heading to the station. As to why they didnt stop him when he got on the bus..like Hicks said, who knows what the assignment was. Perhaps they were hoping he would lead them to more terrorists. When he got off at the subway station they may have thought "damn hes got a bomb". They try to stop him and he runs just reinforcing their belief. Now its decision time. Be right and be a hero, be wrong and get lynched. This is the classic "take months to dissect (and lay blame) a police action that had to be decided in seconds" situation.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jul 28, 2005)

Maybe I have the story mixed up, but several reports metioned that the young man was "chased" down towards the tubes before being shot. Can anyone clarify this?

While I do not support shooting suspects who run from the police because we are depriving someone of life before they were given due process, I think the decision in this situation (if I understand it correctly) was right.

I don't care if I am innocent or guilty of something, if officers ask me to stop or "freeze", I stop. If it turns out they are wrong in their stop or they arrest me illegally, then I have the proper channels to fight it legally. Running doesn't solve anything, no matter the situation and if the police suspect something like a suicide bomber, then I am giving them a reason to shoot to kill.

A couple decades ago the United States and I believe the U.K. didn't have to worry so much about suicide bombers, thus the need to shoot fleeing suspects was not there. Now we have that need. I think shoot to kill is appropiate for fleeing suspects IF the police can prove they had enough evidence to have a reasonable suspision that many lives are in danger.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Do a google news search and you will get as much info as anybody not involved in the investigation can get. From what was put out, yes he ran when the police confronted him. The victim apparently knew english and the police (from one source Ive read) did have ID and markings displayed when they approached him. One theory is that his Visa had expired and he may have thought that they were trying to arrest him for that. I dont know the truth of that, but even then the logic of running into a subway being a London resident...one would think that the police would have been on edge about that.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> I don't care if I am innocent or guilty of something, if officers ask me to stop or "freeze", I stop. If it turns out they are wrong in their stop or they arrest me illegally, then I have the proper channels to fight it legally. Running doesn't solve anything, no matter the situation and if the police suspect something like a suicide bomber, then I am giving them a reason to shoot to kill.


IMO you are absolutely correct there. However some people seem to have a problem with the concept. If Im asking you something like "could you come here?" or "may I search your car?" or "can I see your ID" or "can I talk to you?", you have the option of telling me NO just like you can to anybody else. When Im ORDERING you to do something, you better do it because there is a reason for it and more than likely consequences if you dont.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 28, 2005)

_**Moderator Note._ 
   Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

   -G Ketchmark / shesulsa
   -MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 28, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> The Policy Changes
> 
> 5000 innocent people die because a terrorist can do his will?
> 
> Is that right also?


Rich, you are not 'really' asking me to tell you that a terrorists actions are 'right', are you? 

And I am not talking about what a terrorist does, or does not, do. I am talking about the actions of the state. If the state has a policy, in which its citizens die, I am proposing that the policy needs to be seriously reconsidered. 

Someone once said:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.​I guess my point is, I am looking at, perhaps, the first (or at least some early) event in what may be a 'long train of abuses and usurpations. 

Ahh, what the hell do I know about Mr. Jefferson's thoughts after all.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Perhaps we should declare independence from Britain...oh wait.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> They dont understand the reason for it. The goal is to stop the guy before he can detonate. One or two shots, even to the head, isnt a guarantee. When it comes down to it, one shot or 20..whats the difference? If the shooting was justified, you shoot until there is no longer a threat. Anyway, with a semi-auto you can fire 8 shots in 2-3 seconds.


I'm not really sure what the general feeling over here is to the incident, I don't think it has fully settled in yet. It's possible as has been said that the number of shots fired makes some people uneasy, but I suspect a lot of people take your view. The Police have been pretty firm in saying that the policy stands, and I believe this is generally supported, but it is not as if I have conducted an opinion poll. This link may give a rough indication of the range of views out there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4711189.stm

The fact that the man was pinned down may be viewed negatively, but for the life of me I can't see why. The officers would have been acting with phenomenal courage in the belief that they were literally holding onto a human bomb. I defy anyone to judge their decision negatively. It is not the tactics it is the intelligence and the suspects panicked response that seems to be the cause of the error.

There have been about 250 bomb scares since 7 July, so it puts the pressure the Police were under into some perspective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4719551.stm

One likely reason for the relative lack of Police response is the inevitable inquiry that will follow, and the need to give the officers involved the fairest hearing and avoid too much media pressure.

It comes at a sensitive time as the results of a previous inquiry into a fatal police shooting led to a large number of officers refusing to do firearms duty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3973261.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4086725.stm

More on the tazer arrest. The risks taken are outlined by the Met Comissioner. Personally I think they took a huge risk and I think it took great courage. I hope they were not pressured into taking extra risks because of the London mistake. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4726485.stm

It is a hypothetical question, but it would be interesting to know what your colleagues' professional opinions are on the Tube shooting and the tazer arrest, Tgace? Would their answer be different if they were working under UK conditions? Tough question, I know.

Interestingly last time there was a controversial fatal Police shooting it was based on flawed intelligence and a seemingly malicious tip-off. (The Harry Stanley shooting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

Any suggestion that the Police are unacountable is laughable, the pressure and scrutiny they are under is intense. Working in an armed response role or SO.19 (Met SWAT) is a huge responsibility and potentially a career or life ending task for an officer. 

What may be much less accountable is the possibly flawed intelligence sources they were acting on - don't hold your breath waiting for details there.

Dan


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Here (and probably in the UK as well as we are based on the same model) we work under the concept of "reasonable belief" when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force. Would a reasonable person under these circumstances believe that his (or anothers) life was in danger? All the Cops Ive talked to say, based on what they have heard, is that it was tragic but not negligent.

The "armed duty" concept is foriegn here. We LEO's are all armed. Many with shotguns and carbines in our vehicles as well. The Taser response in a home vs. shooting in a public venue...well there may have been fewer people at risk justifying the taser response. More risk for the officers thats for sure. Sucks to be a Cop sometimes.


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 28, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Not really. I'm just calling BS on folks who say, "If you question a cop, then you want cops to die."
> 
> That's just because you tend to use odd syntax. It's an international forum, so I try not to presume.
> 
> ...


I declaire a truce , because I believe you are sincere & are intitled to your POV . I'm think it's time to take a positive approach . I hope we understand each other a little better now .

FF


----------



## Dan G (Jul 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Sucks to be a Cop sometimes.


Better to be a cop than a lawyer... :jaws:  

Dan


----------



## Dan G (Jul 28, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich, you are not 'really' asking me to tell you that a terrorists actions are 'right', are you?
> 
> And I am not talking about what a terrorist does, or does not, do. I am talking about the actions of the state. If the state has a policy, in which its citizens die, I am proposing that the policy needs to be seriously reconsidered.
> 
> ...


Well argued post.

I imagine most people would agree that any action by the State that risks the life of a citizen deserves careful scrutiny, I certainly believe it important.

If there isn't scrutiny then I also agree there is the risk that a 'long train of abuses and usurpations' might ensue. 

Good well thought out starting point, pretty much everything that follows, if your opinion is accepted, becomes matters of implementation, interpretations of fact, discussion of level of public scrutiny required and so forth.

I think you have outlined the key underlying principle behind any discussion of a "shoot to kill" policy or similar. If someone does not accept that the actions of the State need some form of checks and balances then there is little to discuss in the first place.

This Jefferson person might have been onto something...:wink: 


Dan


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

Bottom line is, if he had been a bomber the cops would have been heros. The question is, were they acting reasonable under the circumstances?


----------



## Dan G (Jul 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Bottom line is, if he had been a bomber the cops would have been heros. The question is, were they acting reasonable under the circumstances?


With what little information is public the police did seem to be acting reasonably - and in the belief that they were operating in circumstances that posed great personal risk to themselves and the public.

I suspect that any inquiry will focus heavily on the intelligence they were relying on.  With the current situation it is highly unlikely that any of that can be examined publicly, and with very good reason.

Ultimately this is a situation which calls for considerable levels of trust in the executive - I personally don't believe this trust is misplaced, and I hope I am right to believe this.

I hope the officers involved don't end up getting scapegoated, and I hope that they are able to cope well with any personal impact the incident might cause them or their families.

Dan


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 28, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich, you are not 'really' asking me to tell you that a terrorists actions are 'right', are you?
> 
> And I am not talking about what a terrorist does, or does not, do. I am talking about the actions of the state. If the state has a policy, in which its citizens die, I am proposing that the policy needs to be seriously reconsidered.
> 
> ...




ME,

I am a constitutionalist, if anything. And I Agree about rights being infringed upon. I also think that many of the responsibilities of citizens have are also ignored, expecting the state to take care of them as well. 

And no I do not expect you to state the Terrorist is right. But when you use logic, in a zero sum game, and on both sides, their are deaths, it turns into a zero/zero ga,e with no absolute correct answer.

Is it wrong to want it to be better? no. You stated after, that you do not have the answer, and that is fine, but, we should be offering possible solutions, on how to use our responsibilities and also our rights, to make it better.

The only problem I see with that though is that, we are talking about England, where the general population is a subject and not a citizen. Big difference in what you can expect from the state in my opinion. I also think it is a failing the we the US has, and that we assume that everyone looks at the issue the same we do. 

Peace
 :asian:


----------



## Dan G (Jul 28, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> The only problem I see with that though is that, we are talking about England, where the general population is a subject and not a citizen. Big difference in what you can expect from the state in my opinion. I also think it is a failing the we the US has, and that we assume that everyone looks at the issue the same we do.


We are a constitutional monarchy so we are technically Crown subjects, although British or UK citizen is the more commonly used term now.

You do have a point, as we do not have a single written Constitution many of our rights as citizens are more vulnerable to change.

On the other hand we have a huge body of common law (much of which the US shares or has adapted) which gives us considerable personal freedoms, and cannot be easily tampered with. To a certain extent how a country implements it's laws is as important as how good the legal framework is in the first place. Ours has faults for certain, but with a lot of trial and error over the best part of 1000 years it works pretty well now.

As an EU Member State we are obligated by our treaties with the European Union to have laws harmonious with other States. Initially these were trade matters, but partly by design and partly by logical development these have extended to include a broad range of individual rights. Rulings by the European Court of Justice have from time to time forced the English Parliament to write new laws, and have considerable influence on the interpretation of law by the UK Courts. EU membership Acts as a very useful check should a state get out of hand - particularly on Human Rights issues. 

One result of EU pressure was the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. It does not come close to the US Bill of Rights as there are numerous exemptions e.g. moral, public health and security issues (imagine getting every EU country to agree on a common Bill of Rights - not a bad first effort but a long way to go.) 

On face value our common law is more than sufficient to protect the rights of a victim of a Police shooting. However, where there is a security angle the security sensitive evidential issues could cause real problems to an inquiry and much would not be made public. Disclosure would also rely heavily on the integrity of the executive, and those members of the legislature and/or courts conducting the inquiry. 

There were considerable advances by the courts in limiting the scope of the Official Secrets Act in the 70's and early '80's but this is probably still the area where the UK differs significantly from the US in approach. It is definitely an important difference.

I personally believe that the US has managed to achieve about the best legal structure to date (within the limits of a state and federal structure) - it preserves the strong points of the English legal system, which for much of history was one of the most free in existence, with the protection of a powerful Constitution and Bill of Rights (I'd like one!).:asian: 

I appreciating your pointing out that we may not neccessarily share the same views over here as in the US. I actually think the relevant differences in view here are relatively subtle, but nevertheless important. It is nice though when people keep it in mind - stops us getting needlessly prickly and "little Englander" in approach.:uhyeah: Thanks! 

Respectfully,

Dan


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 29, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I appreciating your pointing out that we may not neccessarily share the same views over here as in the US. I actually think the relevant differences in view here are relatively subtle, but nevertheless important. It is nice though when people keep it in mind - stops us getting needlessly prickly and "little Englander" in approach.:uhyeah: Thanks!
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Dan




All in being a system's engineer. I know it is wierd, but I solve system problems and process problems all the time, and to get a chance at a solution you have to look at the system and try to understand how it works. Not just from your assumptions, but from actual data points  

You are welcome and I hope more people express it, even though may have assumed the differences, just not stated them. 

Peace


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 29, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I never said it did, but I do give more scrutiny to my surroundings than many people I talk to. In this instance, I'd try to make sure my family was safe by getting out of there. If you consider that "counter-terrorism", so be it. I call it "common sense".
> 
> As far as what transpired with the officers, I too am sure they did what they felt was best, and I am glad to hear no innocents were injured. I guess I'm just curious where the line between judicious(sp?) action and reckless endangerment gets fuzzy, and if it will disappear?
> 
> The only absolute I know of is the fact that I'm going to die someday (and i'm not entirely sure of it ). Past that, everything else is shades of grey. I'm sorry, but without being in that train station first hand, I can't answer with a heavy-handed yes/no.


  What i'm suggesting is that officers actions may turn out to be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, even IF the man they shot was not about to commit a suicide bombing.  Your honest statement that you can't answer yes or no is a valid one.  By that measure, we can't say, without having been in that train station, whether the officers actions were objectively reasonable.  Further, without being the suspect, the officers had no way of knowing what his intentions were.  That's the problem with being a human being, we have to deal with objective reality.  

The only question necessary at this point were whether or not the officers answers were objectively reasonable given the facts that they knew PRIOR to making the decision to pull the trigger.  What facts weren't available to them or facts available only afterwards are completely irrelavent.  We tend to try to judge people on the information available to us in hindsight.  I suggest that is an entirely unfair method of deciding guilt.  We must judge these officers on the information and facts available to them at the time, and what course of actions these facts would cause the reasonable to make.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 29, 2005)

Surely its not the officers we are judging but the policy under which they were trained and the method it was carried out is that which we are questioning? 

I agree with *OUMoose *without all the facts, and simply that we were not at the station first hand, that we did not make (or have to make) a decision that could result in one innocent death through obeying policy, or a hundred possible deaths through lack of action... 

What was the point I was making?....nope its gone....blurgh! 

Damn...
:whip:
...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 29, 2005)

Oh..I do believe some people are in fact judging the officers.


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Oh..I do believe some people are in fact judging the officers.


I agree . I think the fact that the incident involved officers ,is one reason why it is being scrutinized so closlely . If it had been soldiers who were guarding the tube & made the same mistake , I think more people would have excepted the mistake . Maybe it's because people think soldiers are better prepared/trained ? In general I think it's a respect issue or lack of , to a certain degree . Just my opinion . On the other side I think that there are alot of people who really want to make sure procedures were followed & the fact that they were officers makes no differance .


----------



## Knarfan (Jul 30, 2005)

Macy5 said:
			
		

> I wonder if cops actually did ther jobs,
> 
> would so many people practise martial arts?
> 
> ...


Your an IDIOT !:whip: . When do you get off house arrest ?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 30, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> Your an IDIOT !:whip: . When do you get off house arrest ?


  Probably not for a while.  I think he violated his parole.  We won't see him again for another 6 months.


----------



## Bester (Jul 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should declare independence from Britain...oh wait.


 I read it was revolked.  Don't think too many noticed though, there was a football game on at the time.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

Guess I better start drinking tea. My wife loves the stuff. Blech!


----------



## Bester (Jul 30, 2005)

The police in question were in a "damed if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

Person is acting suspicious, ignoring or refusing to comply with police directions in a potentially dangerous situation. Past experience has indicated this individual to be a risk. Decision is allow them to continue and risk death and distruction for many, or take him out and risk shooting an innocent. Very hard choice.

If he'd been found to be packing a bomb belt, they'd be heros.

He wasn't. Now, they are bastards.


You know what?  I would have shot the guy in the same situation.  Better 1 innocent dead, than 20 innocents and 1 guilty dead.

I highly doubt these officers just picked him out at random, gave him a hard time, and then shot him all Dirty Harry style. I'm certain the choice to open fire was a hard one, weighed out against the recent attacks, and that these people aren't feeling good about taking a life, regardless of why.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Guess I better start drinking tea. My wife loves the stuff. Blech!


 Try the herbals, or other mixes.  Try Wegmans health area.  Lots of good ones there...though probably not "proper British" standards.  


The best cops I ever knew had a respect for life that simply amazed me. Might have come from never knowing if today was the day you put yours on the line and lose it. Dunno. But I agree with AB.  I think these guys were/are in no-win situations and did the best they could do, given the situation.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Try the herbals, or other mixes. Try Wegmans health area. Lots of good ones there...though probably not "proper British" standards.


For a "proper British" cuppa you'll need some bog standard breakfast tea bags, nothing fancy. Add one teabag, briefly to a large mug of boiling water, then remove (put teabag on sink and save for later) load up with milk until it is a pale washed out khaki colour. 

Chuck in couple of spoons of white sugar (for a truly British smile).:uhyeah: 

Revolting but authentic.

What's the tax on tea bags like these days?

Personally I only ever drink coffee.

Dan


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Aug 26, 2005)

Due to recent events regarding this particular thread it seems as those some new factors have come into play!

According to media (Stressing the fact its the media) now, the Brazilian was not wearing a bulky jacket and he did not jump the turnstyle at the underground.
Instead new evidence has come up that the Brazilian was living in the same residence as a known suicide bomber and was mistaken to be 'the one' when he left the building, they do bear a similar resembelence!
Not only that now the Brazilian authorities have got envolved, strange that maybe people are killed in other countries due to gang killings, murder (unintentional or intentional) by the countries police and governments dont seem to get involved but when it comes to be mediarised its suddenly so much more interesting. Police officers are killed every year in their line of duty but I dont remember seeing their faces on national television, they are innocent to, serving and protecting the public, but it seems as though they are not worth the time. 
It might be my warped view of things, but I think the media, especially in this country have got it wrong!
Regards


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2005)

Thank you for the update.

As I recall, the clothing and chase details were stated by the family several days after the death of Mr. de Menezes.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=418191&postcount=93

The Guardian had these details a month ago.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

What I find interesting is how the family is coming out stating details about the incident. How do they know?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What I find interesting is how the family is coming out stating details about the incident. How do they know?


 That old reliable source of information, "Word on the street" coupled with a healthy amount of supposition and embellishment.

All cops know how every suicide gets turned in to a murder conspiracy by the family before it's over, no matter how cut and dry, and there's always someone lurking around to provide the family with "inside information" to support their theories.


----------

