quote:
The man was being pursued by three men, one carrying a black handgun, Whitby said. When he tripped, he fell down, and one of the pursuers dropped onto him while another fired five times.
So the cops tackled him and held him down so they could shoot him five times while he lie helplessly on the ground.
No wonder they don't let the British have guns.
There are other eye witness reports, saying that he was shot was several from feet away. The most poplular theory is that that guy was a suicide bomber, and the cops wanted to prevent him from blowing himself, and them, up.
Wait and see, I guess. Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 07-22-2005 at 08:07 AM.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
Man Slain by London Police Was Late For Train
quote:
Snoota had this to say about Tron:
So the cops tackled him and held him down so they could shoot him five times while he lie helplessly on the ground.
"No ticket."
It's not something people hear about.
If he was resisting while on the ground and the police feared thier lives or the lives of civilians around them were in danger they were right in shooting him. No telling what would have happened if he did have a bomb on his person and he got to detonate it. One dead body > multiple deaths IMO.
quote:
The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public, he said. This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility.
That's right, folks--it's not the cops who screwed up by holding someone down and executing him on the spot, but the terrorists' fault for making the cops afraid to do their jobs correctly!
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Kaiote gently hums:
They havent yet declared that the guy was innocent of everything.. they just said he isnt connected to the bombing attempt thursday..
So, tell us. . .what could he have been guilty of that would justify being held down and executed? 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Bloodsage wrote:
So, tell us. . .what could he have been guilty of that would justify being held down and executed?
Stealing tacos?
quote:
Bloodsage painfully thought these words up:
So, tell us. . .what could he have been guilty of that would justify being held down and executed?
Heavily padded coat on a hot day; obviously a violation of fashion code.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
So, tell us. . .what could he have been guilty of that would justify being held down and executed?
Now I aint say they didnt screw the pooch here.. Just that they never said he was innocent..
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael gently hums:
I thought bobbies weren't allowed to carry guns anyway.
There are special units that are armed.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Azizza had this to say about dark elf butts:
THey have now said that he was completely innocent. No ties to any of the attacks and he was not involved in any criminal activity. These officers are going to be hung out to dry.
Where do you draw the line between being houng out to dry and being prosecuted in just fashion for executing a man?
quote:
Dr. Gee has the right stuff
Where do you draw the line between being houng out to dry and being prosecuted in just fashion for executing a man?
I think you're reading too far into it.
The cops are going to be hung out to dry by their fellow officers to salvage the entire organization's reputation. When a finger becomes diseased, you chop it off.
Also, according to Fark, the man shot had an expired visa. I'd link the article but it's in the process of getting Farked so it's not loading.
Here's the article. It will load. Eventually. Dr. Gee fucked around with this message on 07-25-2005 at 11:34 AM.
quote:
Dr. Gee said this about your mom:
Also, according to Fark, the man shot had an expired visa. I'd link the article but it's in the process of getting Farked so it's not loading.Here's the article. It will load. Eventually.
So wait, it's okay because he had an expired visa?
quote:
Dr. Gee was naked while typing this:
No, but it's more information about the topic.
My best friend had to go back to Mexico last year because her visa expired. When I go on vacation and see her I'll shoot her in the face.
I can't see any justification for what the cops did. There had to be another way to ensure he wasn't going to "blow up" besides shooting him in the head five times. How is he going to set off a bomb if he's pinned down anyway? Suddar fucked around with this message on 07-25-2005 at 11:58 AM.
quote:Handheld detonator. Heel detonator (see: wizard of oz). Voice-activated detonator (a bit more risky). I'm sure there are others, some of which I probably don't want to think about. The problem is not knowing what part of a person to restrain.
Suddar needs to hitch a ride with a Vogon constructor fleet.
How is he going to set off a bomb if he's pinned down anyway?
quote:
Verily, `Doc doth proclaim:
Handheld detonator. Heel detonator (see: wizard of oz). Voice-activated detonator (a bit more risky). I'm sure there are others, some of which I probably don't want to think about. The problem is not knowing what part of a person to restrain.
Was there only one person on top of this guy? Would it really be hard for them to make sure he doesn't tap his feet, or have a remote in his hand, or anything?
On the other hand, according to the BBC feed, this guy wasn't exactly all aces. Let's follow the story as I understand it from the BBC's feed on NPR:
Deceased was living in Britain on an expired visa in a house with a bunch of other people. Said house (and individual) were under surveillance related to possible crimes. The guy was wearing questionable attire, and when challenged by officers who identified themselves, the guy took off.
Let's analyze this so far. Suspect is in fact in violation of a (relatively minor law), is under surveillance, when challenged by police, the guy does the second-to-worst thing he possibly do: He runs. The only thing he could have done worse would be to attack the cops. Still with me? good.
So the guy takes off, and apparently the police holler for him to stop several times. He then bolts into a tube station, vaulting the turnstyle, and ends up getting tackled. He and the tackling officer are brawling, he resists, and is shot.
This gent had lived in England for a while, apparently. Had his visa, had a job, etc. He would understand the concept of "STOP" when shouted by a police officer. It's not like he didn't understand the language (much less the general concept of human communication) that a police officer shouting at him shouldn't have clicked to something. And he runs into a tube station.
Further, all of the country knew about the attempted bombing the day before. We across the ocean knew about what was going on with the bombing attempt. What we as the public know now days later is not what they knew the day after the bombing attempt, but it wasn't exactly a minor fact that London was, two weeks to the day, targeted for another bombing.
So let's pull it all together. A suspect in unrelated crimes who was under surveillance fled wearing suspiciously heavy attire when challenged by police. They hollered for him to stop several times, and he fled into a tube station the day after a second bombing attempt (which by and large failed) occurred. When he was tackled and wrestled to the ground, he failed to give up and instead fought back, and it was at this point that eight rounds were emptied into him at close range (I've yet to hear anything that said he got five shots to the head, much less eight).
I think the cops in question overreacted. On the other hand, a former member of the IRA, the IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY, the guys who used to BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF BELFAST, has been quoted as saying that if the guy was a threat, and the cops hadn't put him down, then there could have been countless other lives lost. So if they did overreact, I think their overreaction is understandable. They're not military. They're cops.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, there was another undetonated bomb discovered in a flower arrangement in one of the parks in London over the weekend after the incident. So the possibility of future bombings is entirely real.
Frankly I think that the cops should get a reprimand, if anything, and be allowed back to work. This guy should be covered under the "stupid criminal" clause of the Darwin Awards for being a moron to police during a time of crisis-thinking.
I guarantee you that if after the OKC bombing or 9/11 a cop got jumpy and shot a suspect he felt was potentially a danger, we wouldn't think twice.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
If they'd shot him as he ran, I'd almost buy it. But they held him down and executed him. "They were afraid," just doesn't cut it. If the cops are so poorly trained they react out of fear and stupidity, they need to be fired. And then charged with murder, because that's exactly what they did.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
The reasoning behind this is that a suspect with no head (which, interestingly, is the exact wording of various training documents I've seen regarding counter-terrorism training techniques for police around the world) is less likely to be able to trigger a weapon such as a bomb, compared to one that is "fatally or mortally wounded" (whoever wrote these things needs to stop fscking around with his thesarus) in the chest, or has been shot in the arm, leg, or other extremities.
Thus, technically, in answer to Bloodsage's post: Yes, there is a directive that effectively gives police who are working in counter-terrorist operations permission to shoot anybody at any time.
One would hope, however, that all police agencies would have a policy in place to investigate ANY shooting to determine whether in the end there was jusitifible cause, and could therefore punish an officer (by charging with murder, etc) that took undue liberties with such a directive in place. (I know we here in the Victorian Police have an INCREDIBLY strict policy in this regard.. and having seen and assisted in an investigation, I have no hesitation in saying that it is conducted in a completely neutral manner).
quote:
Dr. Gee had this to say about Robocop:
My beef is with the term "hung out to dry" then i guess. That seems to say that the officers in this instance shouldn't be disciplined/prosecuted, but they are just to save face.Also, according to Fark, the man shot had an expired visa. I'd link the article but it's in the process of getting Farked so it's not loading.
Here's the article. It will load. Eventually.
Actually I feel exactly the opposite. These guys need to be prosecuted fully. What I don't want to see happen is all the blame being dumped on them. This is a case where the system failed on numerous levels from training to these guys making the final decision. There should be repercussions all the way up the ladder to the Chief of police or whatever the British equivalent is.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Cavalier- absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
From the reports I've heard here (both in the general news, and also coming down the wire from "intelligence".... and I'll pause here for people to snicker) there was reasonable suspicion that the fellow was armed with a suicide bomb, and the officers involved had been trained and instructed to go for the headshot if they felt their lives, or the lives of civilians are in danger. (I'll debate the whole "shoot for the head" vs. "shoot for the main body of target" when using a pistol scenario at a later stage).The reasoning behind this is that a suspect with no head (which, interestingly, is the exact wording of various training documents I've seen regarding counter-terrorism training techniques for police around the world) is less likely to be able to trigger a weapon such as a bomb, compared to one that is "fatally or mortally wounded" (whoever wrote these things needs to stop fscking around with his thesarus) in the chest, or has been shot in the arm, leg, or other extremities.
Thus, technically, in answer to Bloodsage's post: Yes, there is a directive that effectively gives police who are working in counter-terrorist operations permission to shoot anybody at any time.
One would hope, however, that all police agencies would have a policy in place to investigate ANY shooting to determine whether in the end there was jusitifible cause, and could therefore punish an officer (by charging with murder, etc) that took undue liberties with such a directive in place. (I know we here in the Victorian Police have an INCREDIBLY strict policy in this regard.. and having seen and assisted in an investigation, I have no hesitation in saying that it is conducted in a completely neutral manner).
Two things:
1) There's a difference between a directive to shoot (regardless where) someone suspected of having a bomb, and actually holding someone down in order to shoot them. In the latter case, the suspect is actually in custody and it's no longer permissable to shoot him
2) There's a difference between a suspician and probable cause--one can't go shooting people on the off chance that you might get a bomber or three amongst the hundreds of innocents injured or killed; there needs to be reaonable cause to believe the person is a bomber, and "dark-skinned man wearing coat" doesn't qualify
If it were just a case of someone being shot while fleeing the police, I'd be more on their side, but once he's tackled, "You hold him; I'll shoot," isn't one of the options.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Optimus Prime:
1) There's a difference between a directive to shoot (regardless where) someone suspected of having a bomb, and actually holding someone down in order to shoot them. In the latter case, the suspect is actually in custody and it's no longer permissable to shoot him.
But what if he had the detonator in his hand, huh? Huh? What if he blew himself up and took the policemen holding him down with him, huh? Huh? HUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!
At least, that's the justification I hear from the talk radio people.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Bloodsage said this:
Two things:1) There's a difference between a directive to shoot (regardless where) someone suspected of having a bomb, and actually holding someone down in order to shoot them. In the latter case, the suspect is actually in custody and it's no longer permissable to shoot him
2) There's a difference between a suspician and probable cause--one can't go shooting people on the off chance that you might get a bomber or three amongst the hundreds of innocents injured or killed; there needs to be reaonable cause to believe the person is a bomber, and "dark-skinned man wearing coat" doesn't qualify
If it were just a case of someone being shot while fleeing the police, I'd be more on their side, but once he's tackled, "You hold him; I'll shoot," isn't one of the options.
Agreed on both counts. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say the the directive pertains to suspects not already in custody.
However, from the information coming through channels here that I am hearing, the suspect was not being held down or pinned. Additionally, of all the news reports etc that I've seen about the incident, there's only one person claiming that the man was ""pinned by police, who then shot him point-blank".
The vast majority of reports I have viewed have the officer involved shooting the man from at least 15 yards away, and most have the suspect as still running at the time.
HOWEVER, there certainly seems to be some contention as to the circumstances surrounding the shooting.
Having trained in pinning and 'cuffing a suspect, I can say that it depends on how much the suspect struggled as to how easy it would be to prevent him detonating an explosive device. If they are particulary difficult to restrain, the likelihood of them activating a device is high, unless some means of additional restraint, or incapacitation is used. That would still not be any excuse to shoot. A faceful of pepper spary gives someone plenty of other things to worry about than groping for a detonator.
My only comment is that (having been in the position of "do I fire vs. do I not fire" when there have been lives other than my own at risk), it is not really until you get into such a situation that you will know definitively one way or the other.
Had I been the officer, and the circumstances been similar (fleeing suspect ignoring multiple calls to stop, knowing that there were bomb threats in the vicinity, given recent bombing in the city, and yes, even the suspicious clothing of the suspect [unusually for the weather, easier to conceal an explosive device, etc]), then probably yes, I would have fired.... as per my training and instructions.
(Note: The above pre-supposes that the suspect was indeed still fleeing... not pinned or in custody. Also pre-supposes that the officer involved was aware only of the above mentioned information. Opinion given is personal only.)
