Sad but understandable
-
Johnny ² wrote: But we don't have armed thugs in London on the underground. Really? I think you mean to say you 'rarely' have armed thugs. Also, consider that in Brazil armed thugs are not unusual or rare. Johnny ² wrote: And why would armed thugs threaten one guy, out of a whole station, and then proceed to chase him? I can't think of any city where that would happen, let alone London. I don't know what to say to this. That is exactly how thugs work the world over. Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta) My Grandkids
No, I said exactly what I meant to say. It doesn't matter if they do have armed thugs in Brazil, because the event happened in the UK. The police are not going to stop and think 'oh, he looks Brazilian therefore he may think we're armed thugs and so we should approach him with caution'. Thugs generally corner you away from people, in the dark. A busy underground station is not a typical place for armed gangs to lurk, and especially not one consisting of about 20 people. If this is typical in your neighbourhood I suggest relocating pretty quickly. This is all irrelevant anyway as it doesn't matter what the guy was thinking to cause him to run away. The fact is he did.
-
David Wulff wrote: Given the circumstances on Friday there were only two possible outcomes: kill the suspect or have the suspect kill another train full of people. This is nonsense. We now know that the second was not a possibility. The actual options were kill an innocent man or not kill him. I am not saying that the police were wrong; based on the evidence available to them at the time, they may have acted reasonably. Then again, they may not have. Presumably there will be an inquiry; I will await its conclusions. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
John Carson wrote: This is nonsense. We now know that the second was not a possibility You said it yourself perfectly. We *now* know. We didn't know at the time. Hindsight is great isn't it! It takes only a fraction of a second to trigger a detonator. If the guy had killed more people the world would be up in arms over why the police didn't shoot him in the tube station, let alone trying to aprehend him first. And considerably more lives and families would have been destroyed. It is a tragic accident nothing more. FWIW, when you have a sucide bomber there is no 'not to kill him' option. He is already there to die so do you really think he'll stop to negotiate? That is utter nonsense. The MET have been very quick to announce that they will not loosen their strict shoot-to-kill policy for suicide bombers after Friday's events. It's either that or SO19 will go on strike, and then we'll start issuing tickets to the front line bombs.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
peterchen wrote: Maybe he was just without train ticket. He ran into the station, and jumped the ticket barriers while being chased by the police.
A slight correction - according to the MET statement yesterday he was followed into the station and was using a ticket machine at the time he was approached and started running.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
I posted this below, but I will post it again here so more people will see it. The news of this shooting has been twisted and spun so much over the past two days that there is an alarming amount of misinformation out there being treated as fact: - Mr. de Menezes, the man who was shot, spoke perfect English. There was never any missunderstanding over what was being said to him. Friends and family have confirmed this. - He was heard by an eye witness to say "I'm doing it" after being told to "get down" by the armed police officers, then he jumped up and started running into the tube station. - He was running onto a crowded train when he was tackled by the first of three officers. When he was on the ground, less than a second later, another officer started shooting because Mr. de Menezes's actions and clothing gave the direct impression that he was carrying explosives on his body. There was no time to stop and ask 'it looks like he might be but is he?' - when you have a man struggling and possibly preparing to detonate a bomb on a crowded train you disable him as quickly and as safely as you can. - Mr. de Menezes was not in custody at the time he was shot. He was being tackled by officers and resisting heavily. An officer opened fire because he had genuine reason to believe the man was attempting to detonate an explosive device. - The reports in the U.S. media that I have seen all talk about an officer shooting 'five high velocity rounds into his head'. This is untrue, the rounds carried by our few armed police officers are low velocity (they are desgined to bring people down by shooting in the chest but to try not to kill them), hence the need for mutliple shots to bring the man down. Head shots are sadly necessary through policy when dealing with suicide bombers. - He probably ran because he was an illegal alien. He didn't deserve to die for that but that is his likely reason. (Despite early rumours, this has now been proven.)
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: When he was on the ground, less than a second later, another officer started shooting because Mr. de Menezes's actions and clothing gave the direct impression that he was carrying explosives on his body. There was no time to stop and ask 'it looks like he might be but is he?' - when you have a man struggling and possibly preparing to detonate a bomb on a crowded train you disable him as quickly and as safely as you can. How about bashing the poor sob in the head with the gun real hard?, at least there would be a chance of survival. And, if they were that many at the scene, it should be fairly easy to fix his arms, and unless terrorists has invented bombs triggered by will of mind, then I'd guess they could abuse the guy in many ways that would render him unconscious. Shooting him while other holds him seems disturbingly like an execution. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
David Wulff wrote: When he was on the ground, less than a second later, another officer started shooting because Mr. de Menezes's actions and clothing gave the direct impression that he was carrying explosives on his body. There was no time to stop and ask 'it looks like he might be but is he?' - when you have a man struggling and possibly preparing to detonate a bomb on a crowded train you disable him as quickly and as safely as you can. How about bashing the poor sob in the head with the gun real hard?, at least there would be a chance of survival. And, if they were that many at the scene, it should be fairly easy to fix his arms, and unless terrorists has invented bombs triggered by will of mind, then I'd guess they could abuse the guy in many ways that would render him unconscious. Shooting him while other holds him seems disturbingly like an execution. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
jan larsen wrote: How about bashing the poor sob in the head with the gun real hard?, The officers would be charged with assault. We can kill our criminals if the threat is great enough, but we aren't allowed to beat them up. (That's far easier to abuse too.) Even so, that wouldn't be effective unless you could guarantee to knock the person unconscious in one blow. Something which is hard to do when you are next to someone let alone chasing them. jan larsen wrote: if they were that many at the scene, it should be fairly easy to fix his arms You've never been in a violent struggle with other men have you? It's not that easy. The man was struggling hard, they had fractions of a second in which to end the threat and clearly judged that it would not be possible to protect the other people on the train without using lethal force. jan larsen wrote: unless terrorists has invented bombs triggered by will of mind There are numerous ways to trigger a detonation that require very little concenrated effort. Pager, cell phone on speed dial, a contact on his body. I've played with home made explosives as a kid when I lived in a more rural area than this and we would detonate with a 9V battery just by touching two striped wires together. If I wanted to go onto a train and kill people I would probably choose to sew the wires into my clothing and use a brake-to-make circuit in my armpit. I just lift up my arm and we have detonation. My point here being that it is not possible to tell these things from a distance, you need to be able to examine the person and that requires them to be incapacitated. I propose that next time we are faced with a likely sucide bomber we stop and ask him nicely how he plans to detonate his bomb so we can take more targeted actions. Problem solved. jan larsen wrote: Shooting him while other holds him seems disturbingly like an execution That wasn't how it happened. The man was not in custody when he was shot, he was struggling fiercely.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: No you definitly look back. A tragedy has happened, a life lost. At least what can we learn from it so we reduce the probably of a repeat. I have to disagree. As a society I think we are overcommitted to a utopian concept of justice which virtually hamstrings our ability to defend ourselves from people who have no such commitment and are all too aware of how we chain ourselves to that concept and easily dance around us just out of reach. If I am to look back I will do so all the way back to the Texas frontier where my (and yours?) ancestors very effictively dealt with far more serious threats to their immediate welfare. At some point you have to be able to convince the bad guy that you are capable of being badder than he ever dreamed of being. You have to make him scared of you. Hmmmm, can't think of a good 'slap in the face' final sentence... "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: I have to disagree. Then fine, we have both expressed our opinions. Stan Shannon wrote: As a society I think we are overcommitted to a utopian concept of justice As I read this I feel you are missing my point. Justice is not a part of what we analyze in this case. It is any lessons learned so next time we just may do a better job. Stan Shannon wrote: If I am to look back I will do so all the way back to the Texas frontier where my (and yours?) ancestors very effectively dealt with far more serious threats to their immediate welfare. Agreed and following the action of citizen posses that were found to have improperly handled innocent persons, the community found better ways for the future. Same thing applies IMhO. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that I can think of.
-
I have read through the previous threads and am amazed at the reactions of some of the people here. A man rushes is pursued into a tube station by police officers the day after 4 bombs are planted on public transportaion in London. He refuses officers orders to stop and hurdles the turnstiles to enter a train car full of civilians. The person is wearing clothing that many witnesses described as heavy... When he trips on the floor, the officers face a decision, do we try to grab him while he could trigger a possible explosion? Or do we take the chance react to what how the suspect has been behaving (by fleeing into a crowded train car) and use lethal force to stop him? If you were walking through an airport and several people rushed towards you with weapons drawn would you run down the nearest skyway onto an airplane? What would the same people who are criticizing the police using lethal force have said if the man had been carrying a bomb and managed to trigger it because the cops had not stopped him? What would the same people say if the London police had somehow managed to stop every commuter and subject every person to a search before allowing them to continue on their way? If people want to be upset, be angry at the people (the terrorists, or bombers, or whatever politically correct name you want to call them) who are trying to force a change in the way we all must live our lives. What happened is awful, for the man who died, his family and undoubtedly the officers involved. The officers involved in this have to live with the mistake they made, realizing they killed an innocent man who acted foolishly. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
I agree with you, it's a tragedy all around. It's also easy to decide what others should have done when you're sitting safely in front of your PC. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
OMG, every time someone question the action of a police officer thatr person must obviously be anti-police. How silly. I guess one could say that you're fawning over these officers makes you a lick-spittle, but that would be just as untrue as your accusation. Mistakes happen. Yes. But making lame excuses or posing false justification will not correct the mistakes or protect the next poor dumb bastard. It will not help prevent it from happening again. Asking the hard question will. Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta) My Grandkids
Toasty0 wrote: But making lame excuses or posing false justification will not correct the mistakes or protect the next poor dumb bastard I haven't made any lame excuses or false justifications..... but let me ask you this who deserved the most protection, the innocent commuters on the train the guy ran into, or the fool who ran from the police? There is no way the guy couldn't have know what had been happening over the last 2 weeks. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
John Carson wrote: This is nonsense. We now know that the second was not a possibility You said it yourself perfectly. We *now* know. We didn't know at the time. Hindsight is great isn't it! It takes only a fraction of a second to trigger a detonator. If the guy had killed more people the world would be up in arms over why the police didn't shoot him in the tube station, let alone trying to aprehend him first. And considerably more lives and families would have been destroyed. It is a tragic accident nothing more. FWIW, when you have a sucide bomber there is no 'not to kill him' option. He is already there to die so do you really think he'll stop to negotiate? That is utter nonsense. The MET have been very quick to announce that they will not loosen their strict shoot-to-kill policy for suicide bombers after Friday's events. It's either that or SO19 will go on strike, and then we'll start issuing tickets to the front line bombs.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: FWIW, when you have a sucide bomber there is no 'not to kill him' option. He is already there to die so do you really think he'll stop to negotiate? That is utter nonsense. You said it yourself perfectly. *When* we have a suicide bomber. On the other hand, when we don't have a suicide bomber, there is no problem. However real the threat posed by suicide bombers, there is still a requirement 1. for adequate evidence that the person is indeed a suicide bomber. 2. for an appropriate professional response in the event that it is determined that the person should be treated as a suicide bomber. As I previously indicated, I will await the results of an inquiry on these points. No country that imagines itself to be free can give the police a blank cheque to kill. It is just as foolish to automatically assume the police where justified as to automatically assume they weren't. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
David Wulff wrote: FWIW, when you have a sucide bomber there is no 'not to kill him' option. He is already there to die so do you really think he'll stop to negotiate? That is utter nonsense. You said it yourself perfectly. *When* we have a suicide bomber. On the other hand, when we don't have a suicide bomber, there is no problem. However real the threat posed by suicide bombers, there is still a requirement 1. for adequate evidence that the person is indeed a suicide bomber. 2. for an appropriate professional response in the event that it is determined that the person should be treated as a suicide bomber. As I previously indicated, I will await the results of an inquiry on these points. No country that imagines itself to be free can give the police a blank cheque to kill. It is just as foolish to automatically assume the police where justified as to automatically assume they weren't. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
John Carson wrote: On the other hand, when we don't have a suicide bomber, there is no problem. Eh? Up until the minutes after his death the man who was shot was *still* believed to be a suicide bomber. Were is the issue here?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
John Carson wrote: On the other hand, when we don't have a suicide bomber, there is no problem. Eh? Up until the minutes after his death the man who was shot was *still* believed to be a suicide bomber. Were is the issue here?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: Eh? Up until the minutes after his death the man who was shot was *still* believed to be a suicide bomber. Were is the issue here? The issue is whether the belief was reasonable and whether, if it was, the police used no more force than was necessary to stop him. The answer may well be yes on both counts, but I would not rely on media reports in making that judgement. It is true that getting it wrong in shooting a suspect only kills one person whereas getting it wrong and not shooting a suspect can result in the death of many more. On the other hand, of all of the people who can be viewed as acting "suspiciously" (by wearing unseasonal clothing, for example), relatively few are actually suicide bombers. Accordingly, a reckless shoot to kill policy can produce as many victims as a suicide bomber over the long term. I am not claiming that we are close to the situation where the police actually are that sort of a threat. I merely remark that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance (I think someone has said that before) and so we should not be cavalier about police killings. I don't dispute that the judgements that police are required to make in the heat of the moment are extremely difficult and I am certainly not advocating crucifying the police if they happen to get it wrong. All the same, their actions need to be reviewed. Anyone who kills needs to be accountable. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
-
I want to win. Whatever it takes to do that is what I'm for. I don't want to find myself, or my children, some day bowing and scraping to Mecca while consoleing myself with the pathetic notion that I didn't betray a bunch of new-age leftest values that have been pretty much forced on me to begin with. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
So, now the Bill of Rights is a new age value? You mean the idea of executing suspicious people out of hand doesn't bother you? Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta) My Grandkids
-
So, now the Bill of Rights is a new age value? You mean the idea of executing suspicious people out of hand doesn't bother you? Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated--Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons Toasty0.com Ladder League (beta) My Grandkids
Toasty0 wrote: So, now the Bill of Rights is a new age value? Modern interpretations largely are. The only Bill of Rights my family ever agreed to respect was written specifically to limit the broad powers of the federal government, i.e. to provide for State's Rights, and certainly not to serve as an impediment to the physical defense of we the people. I'm certainly aware that as a citizen I am obliged to at least pretend to respect the new hippy version, but you'll excuse me if I'm not too damn religious about it. Toasty0 wrote: You mean the idea of executing suspicious people out of hand doesn't bother you? Oh, I suppose "out of hand" might be a little on the extreme side. But then, I don't think that has happened. I just hope that every responsible citizen realizes that we can't be too squimish about shooting first and asking questions later. Shit happens (too borrow a hippy expression). "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
John Carson wrote: On the other hand, when we don't have a suicide bomber, there is no problem. Eh? Up until the minutes after his death the man who was shot was *still* believed to be a suicide bomber. Were is the issue here?
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
Hey, Dave, welcome to my world (trying to explain simple reality to liberal true believers). "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Toasty0 wrote: But making lame excuses or posing false justification will not correct the mistakes or protect the next poor dumb bastard I haven't made any lame excuses or false justifications..... but let me ask you this who deserved the most protection, the innocent commuters on the train the guy ran into, or the fool who ran from the police? There is no way the guy couldn't have know what had been happening over the last 2 weeks. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Thanks, David, for clearing up some of the misinformation. Reports I've heard say he was in the country legally, but given the hasty and rumor laden reporting, that could also be untrue. As you said, the man did not deserve to die, but he left the police no good choices considering the surrounding circumstances. As Stan points out, that is another bad aspect of terrorism: the fear and confusion created narrow everyone's choices. On any other day, in ordinary circumstances, he would likely still be alive. The ultimate blame for this lies squarely with the terrorist that created the environment that lead to the police making what was, in my opinion, the only choice they could. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Just a small update, the official word from the MET this morning was as I had heard originally - the man was an illegal.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
Just a small update, the official word from the MET this morning was as I had heard originally - the man was an illegal.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
the fool who ran from the police What if he is deaf? Untill we know the exact events behind this lets not condemn either the police man or the Brazilian. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: What if he is deaf? He was not. His relatives have said he spoke and understood perfect English. -- LuisR
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix - Chihuahua, Mexico Not much here: My CP Blog!
-
I have read through the previous threads and am amazed at the reactions of some of the people here. A man rushes is pursued into a tube station by police officers the day after 4 bombs are planted on public transportaion in London. He refuses officers orders to stop and hurdles the turnstiles to enter a train car full of civilians. The person is wearing clothing that many witnesses described as heavy... When he trips on the floor, the officers face a decision, do we try to grab him while he could trigger a possible explosion? Or do we take the chance react to what how the suspect has been behaving (by fleeing into a crowded train car) and use lethal force to stop him? If you were walking through an airport and several people rushed towards you with weapons drawn would you run down the nearest skyway onto an airplane? What would the same people who are criticizing the police using lethal force have said if the man had been carrying a bomb and managed to trigger it because the cops had not stopped him? What would the same people say if the London police had somehow managed to stop every commuter and subject every person to a search before allowing them to continue on their way? If people want to be upset, be angry at the people (the terrorists, or bombers, or whatever politically correct name you want to call them) who are trying to force a change in the way we all must live our lives. What happened is awful, for the man who died, his family and undoubtedly the officers involved. The officers involved in this have to live with the mistake they made, realizing they killed an innocent man who acted foolishly. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: What would the same people who are criticizing the police using lethal force have said if the man had been carrying a bomb and managed to trigger it because the cops had not stopped him? They'd complain about how easy it should have been to notice that the man had a bomb. What were the cops thinking?! Doug Goulden wrote: What would the same people say if the London police had somehow managed to stop every commuter and subject every person to a search before allowing them to continue on their way? They'd complain about being unnecessarily harassed. Face it, people will always complain. They'd complain if hung with a new rope.
"Ideas are a dime a dozen. People who put them into action are priceless." - Unknown
