http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aU8DVCkNZzcc

Not again . . .

As of current reports, no one has been reported killed. Seems that three of the bombs were possibly duds...

My thoughts are that local english terrorist (not linked with far east terrorists) are using this to confuse and bring terror to the country, just like the anthrax attacks in USA. These kind of attacks are common after a great one, just like the replicas are common after a big earthquake.

I hope the police will catch them fast to stop this kind of stuff.

B*stards, give me 10 minutes alone with them and my weapon of choice.

Yes, this is probably a copycat of some sort trying to ride the bandwagon, or subway train as the case may be.

Earthquake... replicas? I suppose you mean aftershocks.

Oh, yeah. Forgot the (sp?) there.

Just a guess but possibly they were going to put the detinators in and the explosives later? Detinators don't do much, but they set off explosives, so why weren't any explosives present? In any case they didn't manage to do any damage, someone with the trigger probably got trigger happy... Ooops

Thank god the explosives didn't detonate. Now they can capture and interrogate the people responsible.

I'm in London now I didn't hear anything from where I am. I hope the police catch these guys too.

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=757903

Does this mean he'll accept murder charges? Because I can understand policemen using excess force in stressful situations, but this - this was an execution, pure and simple. Shot in the head. Five times. At point blank range. While lying down on the floor.

All hail the Plainclothes Ingsoc Death Squads.

I heard he said that he was sad because of this, but that he was happy he wasn't a terrorist. Geez, that is what I say ironic.

I love how cops can abuse their power and make the wrong choices but not get charged with anything in times like these.

"in times like these"?
I didn't get the impression of an officer abusing his power at all. I also missed the part about an officer shooting someone at point blank in the back of the head while they were lying on the ground. I have no idea which article that was in, but it wasn't in the article gnolam posted.

The officer shot him because there was a new protocol to kill terrorists on sight. He ran (for whatever reason) and was killed because he could have been a suicide bomber.

It's a tragedy, sure, but nobody should run from the police in any situation. ESPECIALLY when the police are looking for terrorists.

It was on BBC news though, as well as all other news items I've seen and taped eye-witness reports.

You are forgetting two things: the man was a tourist (I know, starts with a t and ends in ist) and the police officers were plain-cloths police men.
The last report I heard is that what happened is this: the man left a building the police was watching wearing a thick stuffed jacket. Fearing he might be carrying explosives, policemen followed him. The man realised he was being followed by people wearing plain clothes and tried to ignore them. One of them draws a weapon and the guy freaks out and makes a run for his life to a tube station. The police, fearing he intends to blow it up and detonate himself are in persuit and seeing no way to immobilise him decide to kill him to prevent him from detonating.

It's a very grave blunder but I can see from both sides how it came about. If he had been a suicide bomber (by the way, why are all bombers called `suicide bombers' nowadays?) and the police had hesitated or tried to disable him by shooting in his leg, he would have detonated. Tragic.

On a different issue, last week I've seen a couple of tourists freak out in Prague's trams when asked for their ticket. That was mildly amusing, but also somewhat painful in light of what happened in London.

Assuming this is an accurate report and not missing important details...

They follow a guy and pull a gun because he wears a thick jacket, and shoot him because he becomes scared for his life.. This just scares me. I have a thick winter jacket as my only jacket (so not only do I wear it in the winter, but even when it starts cooling off/warming up), and I freak out easilly around strangers. I certainly hope some people lost their jobs and are facing murder charges over this.

Eyewitness reports
Including this quote (which obviously turned out to be wrong, but can show the mistakes people make..)

If the anti-terrorist police thought the same and he ran onto the train they must have thought he was going to blow himself up. In accordance with this they followed israeli methods and shot him in the brain to stop him.

BTW: Jean Charles de Menezes (the victim) lived in London for 3 years and also lived in the slum area of Sao Paulo:

So, yes it was a serious mistake, but I can see both sides of what happened.

Ok. The fact that they were wearing plain clothes really changes things.

Wouldn't they shout that they are police and flash a badge, though? If two men came after me and revealed a firearm I would probably run, too.. but not if they flashed a badge.

Now I'm sort of scared to go to the UK, since it seems there is a huge problem with gun control.

PS: If two people drew guns on me, I'd throw my hands up in surrender. What's running going to do? Actually, as an American, I'd fire back with my semi-automatic machine gun.

Nice one Matthew!

It is still unclear whether they shouted they were police to the guy. He may have not believed them even if they did..

Depends on your options and how far away they are.

Either way, I see both sides of this now. Shooting people because they're suspicious seems a little crazy but if he had been a terrorist they would have saved (potentially) hundreds of lives.

That's easy to say from the nice comfort of your arm chair and glass of brandy. When in panic, not everyone will think this way. Especially, if as the article mentions, the guy has been in the slums of Sao Paulo.

After all, how hard is it to fake a police badge? ;-)

Marcello

And if he had been the anti-christ, waiting for someone to come along to murder him to cast judgement on the world, they would've put us all in jeopardy.

There were no indicators that he was the anti-christ.

What were the indicators that he was attempting to blow himself up? (hint: wearing a thick jacket and running from a weapon doesn't count ... plenty of people do that).

Yes, it does under certain conditions. (hint: recurring tube blast count)

Come on, if he had been a terrorist and he'd blew up everything, we (and the familys of all the dead) would now be blaiming the police for not having acted accordingly.

Not really. Last I knew, nobody was told to refrain from wearing a thick jacket or running from danger, or to even avoid the tubes because police might suspect you a terrorist. If the police really thought he was up to no good, they should've identified themselves as police and asked him to stop.. and if he became threatening, then pull their guns. Running away is not an admission of guilt to unspecified charges, so firing even after that (without proof of him putting others in jeopardy) would still be wrong. Why do you think there are foot and car chases?

If he had been a terrorist intent on blowing everything up, I'm pretty sure there would be some other telling factors. And if not... well, sometimes bad things happen and you can't always stop it.

It seems details on how thing actually went have not been released but, according to this:

It seems the officers stated clearly who they were and he run aways because it was the police. You have to admit that running away from the police in times like these is not a very smart idea.
I mean, i live in Rome and try to stay away from subway stations, i know there are risks. I certainly wouldn't go near a subway in London and even more certainly i wouldn't run away from armed policemen.

That does not say they told him they were police.

!= he refuses to obey orders from people who identified themselves as cops.

So you're letting them win!

Yeah, this is a complete god damn outrage. It doesn't matter if he ran from the police; they shot an innocent fucking man in the head five times, and they were authorized to do so! It could have been any of us. He just happened to live in the wrong part of town and wear a thick jacket. He wasn't even formally suspected of anything and had no known connection to anyone suspected for any bombings!

What would you do if a guy in plain clothes draws a gun on you and makes threats to you? Especially if you've happened to grown up in a situation where that happens all the time? Hell, in your probable state of panic you'll probably not even be able to hear them announce themselves as police, if they indeed choose to do so. Most likely, especially if you're panicking (and you will panic), and especially again if you've grown up in an environment where gang executions are a likelihood and "giving up" might very well get you killed with high certainty, you'll probably run. And then the law enforcement kills you stone cold with nothing but a suspicion that you might be a bomber. It's fucking unbelieavable. It's insane.

Long live Ingsoc...

It's not that unbelievable.

Besides terrorists and black market vendors, who wears thick jackets in hot weather and runs into trains without buying a ticket? It makes you a suspicious character for sure.

I can't think of a 'right way' to approach this person, but snipers with tranquilizers would likely have been more appropriate.

I usually do. Guess why?

Shooting a guy five times in the head while he was down on the ground, though. I mean, for crying out loud.

Marcello

Hmm... I pay for the tickets. But since I am still a darkie gothic at heart, I do usually wear full black clothes even in summer, plus my black glasses. I love walking in the night and seeing all the people cross to the front street just to avoid me

This is indeed a tricky one to call. On the one hand I dont like the idea of being shot because I look like a terrorist. On the other hand, I want to know that the police aren't going to hesitate in bringing down a bomber who is about to himself, me, and about 20+ other pedestrians.

A serious case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

But should dressing funny carry a death sentence? Because that's just what it means if you give policemen a carte blanche license to kill.

The logic is... interesting. "Terrorists might kill innocent people! Therefore, we should kill innocent people!"

And they think it's the terrorist attacks that are scaring tourists away...

As the police, if you are shooting someone only based on appearance and not off of any intelligence, then you deserve to be tried for murder. Cops in USA are tried (maybe not for murder, I dunno—but they can go to jail).

There are a lot of people who look like terrorists. If you kill all of them, then you've done much more damage than a real terrorist ever would have.

Here. It is said the brazilian had an expired visa, that is why he supposedly ran away.

Previous reports, besides saying the police was civil disguised, also say that two policemen were able to stop him, throw him to the floor, and that a third came and shot him five times in the head. That is murdering, plain and simple.

If things went like that, yes.
But why would policemen start acting crazy? Sorry, i propend more to believe that a witness made it up to get some attention.

Reasons the police thought he was a terrorist:
He came out of flats being watched due to a terrorist link. He refused to stop for the police (because he was essentially an illegal immigrant). Instead of staying in the train station he ran onto a crowded tube train. He was wearing a bulky jacket that could have concealed a bomb. And he was shot in the head because this was recommended as the best way to stop suicide bombers.

I'm not saying the police were right, I think they made serious mistakes, but they had reasons to believe this was a terrorist trying to blow up the train.

If he lived in Brazil most of his life, chances are he's used to much warmer weather than us Canucks and Brits. Wearing a jacket in summer isn't that far fetched.

Also, as far as I know, boarding a train without a ticket isn't a crime worthy of public execution in most countries (China is probably excluded). At worst, it's tresspassing (only if it's private transit system) or petty thievery.

Neither merit the death penalty, regardless of the "in these post-9/11 times" excuses.

Eh? What was his connection? Dark skin? I think I missed something here.

Marcello

Marcello: The building he was leaving from was under watch.

RP's last post summed it up quite nicely. An illegal immigrant leaves a building under watch for terrorist activities in a heavy coat in the middle of summer and runs into a train station and dashes away from police into a populated train. I don't know why everyone is so shocked that he was killed.

It was a mistake, and a tragic one at that, but it wasn't shocking.

No, it's not.. but, umm.. what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
He wasn't killed because he forgot to pay a fare or something. They thought he was a terrorist.

Vaulting over barriers, as quoted somewhere in this thread, while coming from a building linked to terrorism and running from police in a heavy jacket capable of holding massive amount of explosives is definitely extremely suspicious behaviour.

It is shocking, they could have stopped him as soon as he left his home. Instead they opted to WAIT till he got to the train and THEN pull their guns on him without( article doesnt say) saying they were cops causing him to run like ANY person would.

And like I said, they should have stopped him as soon as he left the building instead of waiting to find an excuse to kill him.

That doesn't make the killing a shock. It is shocking that the police would make a mistake like that, yes, but under the circumstances that actually occured the outcome is not shocking at all.

They probably should have, you could be right.

They didn't 'find an excuse to kill him'. What is with this paranoia?

They followed him from his flat and when he went into the station they challenged him. At which point he run through the station, vaulted a ticket barrier and ran onto a train.

People seem to want to believe they killed 'somebody' as revenge.

The fact that the only crime the police had anything resembling proof of was jumping the barrier. They had no evidence whatsoever that he was carrying a bomb (and no surprise, since he wasn't).

And what does that have to do with anything? They had no proof about the original 4 bombers or the new failed bombers either.

How would you like being accused of things that nobody had any proof of? I wouldn't like it at all.

That has nothing to do with anything, but the fact is that the police brutally murdered a man based on the following "evidence":

• He lived in a multi-storey flat where they suspected there might be terrorists living [in some apartment, certainly not all]

• He was wearing a thick jacket

• He ran when plainclothes police threatened him with firearms

• He jumped a ticket barrier

Now, we see that the only crime they could prove he committed was jumping a ticket barrier. That's the only crime they had a shot in the dark of proving he ever committed, and the only thing they even had any kind of evidence he had done. And they killed him. They shot him five times, having only evidence for something that's hardly even a misdemeanor. The rest was nothing but unfounded suspicions. Don't you think that, when the lives of innocents are at stake, they should get some more evidence before they kill suspects?

Imagine what it would be like to be accused of being a terrorist and shot on the spot when the only crime you had committed is jumping a ticket barrier. Is that justice? Is that proper policework? The man wasn't even violent! It seem pretty clear to me: It's nothing short of brutal, cold-blooded, government endorsed murder of innocent people.

Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?

Actually no. The day after a terrorist attack when he was challenged by police he shouldn't have ran. I think the police made a very difficult decision in extreemly stressful circumstances.

Mistakes like this have always happened and always will happen. You can't always wait for 'enough proof' when dealing with terrorists and suicide bombers.

Off to work now, so bye!

Excuse me X-G, but this is Britain we are talking about. We don't normally carry guns, we don't normally shoot people and our police firearms teams are very very highly trained.

Why don't you just go back to your Abba collection and stop criticising things you know nothing of.

The man in question spoke perfect English and was given numerous attempts to stop, yet he carried on running away from a sensitive area.

Neil.

And we do?

I'd like to say the evidence contradicts that statement. They - shot - an - innocent - man - in- the - head - five - times. That's a fact. Doesn't exactly sound like the behaviour of a "very very highly trained" group of people, does it?

An area he did not know was "sensitive". Is running away from the police an offense punishable by instant death without a chance of trial these days? Because that's what it seems like.

RP: You seem to ignore the fact that the cops were PLAIN CLOTHED. And no article states that they identified themselves as cops BEFORE pulling out their guns causing him to run.

It was not difficult, it was plain stupid. They could have stopped him before he got on the boss or anywhere NEAR the train station. You seem to think its ok to shoot a man based on no evidence but not stop him as hes walking out the house( thats what it sounds like).

I'm not saying you do. I'm saying we don't by normal course carry guns. Guns are used for very specific reasons.

The man has lived in London for years, was in the city when the bombs went off, he was running from a tube station and wouldn't stop when confronted by a team of armed police who told him to stop numerous times. Get the picture?

Neil.

Nothing coming out so far has the victim knowing they were police. You're not going to stick around to get assaulted by a group of strangers with weapons.

What, half a dozen men carrying automatic weapons with POLICE on their tunics (plains clothes polic show their badges) shouting 'police, stop'?

Even if they weren't wearing police uniforms and were wearing jeans a t-shirts, it might be normal in Vice City: San Andreas but not in the leafy suburbs of Stockwell tube station.

If someone pointed half a dozen guns at me and told me to stop I know what I'd do.

But why not wait until after the inquiry instead of spewing out crap about something you weren't a witness too?

Neil.

I guess that's ok then. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway

The articles did not state they identified themselves. Also he grew up in a place where police are hated and strangers with guns are common. Thats more than enough incentive to run.

If the guy had an expired visa, and thought that's why they were after them, that doesn't seem unlikely that he'd run. But, having an expired visa isn't linked to the death penalty, is it? In fact, doesn't the E.U. not have the death penalty or something clever like that?

Now here's a question about the tactics. If shooting them in the head is the standard practice to disarm suicide bombers, how many suicide bombers has it worked on? I question a practice if it kills innocents without any proof of stopping terrorism. I suppose it may be a detterant, but something gives me the feeling that the terrorists are going to be more aware of techniques for being dealt with than innocent people or petty criminals.

Marcello

Suicide bombers are a relatively new phenomenon. This tactic has really only been tried in Israel. If this happened in Israel we probably wouldn't be discussing it - I bet it happens far more often there then in G8 countries.

So anyway, what's the alternative to this method? Have the suicide bombers kill themselves? The police aren't going to know (without a doubt) they are suicide bombers in the majority of cases. According to the story, this guy seemed highly likely to be a suicide bomber.

He wasn't killed because he commited a crime. That's why those arguments have nothing to do with the discussion. His actions heavily suggested that he was a terrorist and (as far as I can see) there was nothing suggesting otherwise.

He was killed because of a protocol put into place to prevent terrorists from succeeding. Not because he commited a crime.

This situation is similar to a man reaching into his coat pocket while 30 police officers are aiming firearms at him, suspecting him of something. He's met with a barrage of bullets. It's a preventative tactic, and an effective one. They don't know what he's reaching for, but it is likely a weapon.

Terrorist activities are acts of war. You can't sit around and hope the guy coming from enemy territories in the big coat running from police and heading into a populated subway is innocent.

Again, it's not about the crimes being commited. You don't need to commit a crime to be killed if you seem to be doing something horrendously terrible like, say, blowing up a train.

Well, the guy they shot was damn good at pretending to be a terrorist. Besides the big explosion at the end he did everything quite well.

Could the guy have just been suicidal but didn't really want to blow stuff up?

If they weren't highly trained, they would have missed.

Then what was he killed for? Because other people got afraid of him? Since when can you be killed by police without commiting a crime?

Wearing a thick coat and running from would-be attackers heavilly suggests terrorism? And since when did it become guilty until proven innocent?

Sounds like the protocol is indication enough that the terrorists have already succeeded. You can legally kill people without a trial or hard evidence?

It is not similar. A man reaching into his jacket when police are holding him has been shown time and time again to be a scenario for trouble. A man running from unidentified people with guns has not been shown to have a strong link to suicide bombings. As you said, suicide bombings are relatively new occurance, so how could they even assume it?

When they see someone trying to blow up a train, I'll revisit this statement. But he wasn't trying to do anything close to blowing up a train, so obviously their methods for determining guilt of such, without a trial, are hideously flawed.

If he was under that much suspicion of being a terrorist they could've attempted a simple box-in procedure as he left his appartment. Get some people walking in front, some behind, and others to the sides. Slowly close in, and when you get close enough, announce yourself as police and calmy ask him whatever you need. He's surrounded and won't have many opportunities to get away.

But I do have a couple questions. Why did the police pull their guns in the first place? They should never draw unless there is obvious danger. And I'm hearing he ran into a crowded train before he was shot 5 times in the head. What the hell are police doing shooting into a crowded train at a compartively small (and thus missable) target?

By 'succeeding' I mean blowing themselves up and taking other people with them.

In this circumstance, I think so. The alternative costs many more lives and money.

In short, what he did is what a terrorist would do. Just because it's new doesn't mean that we don't know how they do it if that's what you're assuming. They go in and they blow themselves up. It's a pretty simple concept really...

Nope, and that's why it was a mistake.. but how could they know he wasn't going to blow up the train? He made it look like that's what he was about to do according to the story.

Then... Ka-Boom! He was a suspected to be a suicide bomber which means he's certainly not afraid to kill himself.

Ok, but my words were "seem to be". This guy seemed to be trying to destroy a train and it's passengers.

[edit]

A man running from people with guns is not a strong link to suicide bombings, no.. but once again... what does that have to do with this discussion?

His clothing (big coat in the summer. Did he have a backpack?) and his area (under terrorist watch) were the key factors. The fact that he ran from police (although I assume they did not identify themselves, which was the main mistake) was also an additional factor but the police obviously confronted him for a reason.

The point of terrorism is to terrorize people into changing their way of life. Killing other people is just one of the more effective methods of achieving that goal. The terrorists have succeeded if this is allowed to go on.

At the current cost of our safety around police and our liberties. What would you do if you had just scored a great amount of pot for an extremely cheap price, and you were on your way walking home with it (wearing a jacket to keep it concealed), when a group of people came walking up to you and pulled weapons? You'd probably do your best to get away since for all you know they're going to try and attack you for all the weed you just bought. On your way home you would've had to run through a crowd of people. Would it be okay for them to shoot you, as long as someone in your area was suspected of being a suicide bomber?

I was pointing out that this is what I was referring to. Them succeeding in killing other people.

I don't think so. Don't wear suspicious clothing and run from police (please don't say "but he didn't know they were police!" - that was already recognized as one of the flaws here and I hate reiterating over things that were already said). It's rather common sense, really.

If that situation actually happened (in the summer and with a big bomber-style jacket (pardon the pun )), yes. What kind of idiot goes into a populated area wearing a huge coat in a city known as a terrorist target with a bunch of illegal drugs on him and then runs from authoritive people who point guns at him in broad daylight? A dead kind of idiot. That's what kind.

Seriously, why would you run from close-range guns if all you had was pot? Unless you were guilty of murder there's no sense in running, and after that the point is moot.

[edit]
Of course, I don't know what pot possession is worth where you are from. Maybe something criminal would be a better example, like 2 pounds of coke. Risking your life over a small fine seems a little ridiclous

Lets see, I lived in New York( THE prime target) for all my life. And guess what, I wore big jackets/sweaters, does that make me an idiot for excercising my RIGHT to wear what ever the hell I want and not be shot for it?

You wore a huge bomber jacket in the middle of summer while carrying around a bunch of pot in new york city and then ran from police when they confronted you with guns in a heavily populated area!?

Why are you quoting out of context? How are you still alive?

I'm not quoting out of context. You make it seem as if its ok to shoot anyone whos an "idiot" and wears clothing most people would not normally wear.

Just trying to show that the police made a serious mistake in shooting him for no REAL reason. And as I said before, it seemed more as if they were looking for a excuse to kill him when they could have EASILY apprehended him before in an area of LOW population.

I didn't know new police protocol said to let "terrorists" get to populated areas and THEN shoot them. I always thought it was supposed to be, get them BEFORE they reach their target. Guess I was totally wrong!

Do you have a short attention span? I mentioned more than just clothing.. wait, lemme go back and check.

Yes you are

Terrorists are real.

Suppose to be. Hence why we've been saying that the police made some mistakes for the majority of this thread.

A thick jacket is not suspicious clothing. And he had a reason to run from the police, and it wasn't because of something that carries a death penalty.

Cultural differences strike again. Yes, getting caught with a good amount of pot around here would pretty much gaurantee a life sentence. And I live near Seattle, Washington.. another potentially prime terrorist target. And I like wearing my thick jacket even on warmer days.

So then, if I had scored a good amount of pot, had my thick jacket to conceal it (inside pockets are cool), and got confronted by armed plain clothes police.. I probably would try and run, to hide and get rid of the evidence, and hope the charges don't stick. If I just stood my ground I'd no doubt get caught, if if that happens, my life's pretty much over. Especially if I knew they were police, why would I think they would shoot me while I'm running away? That's one of the first things people are taught about self-defense with a gun.. never shoot a fleeing assailant, because that'll surely get you charged with murder.

Sorry, but I frankly think you're quite paranoid. It's from the start of the thread that you are repeating that the policemen were looking for an excuse to shoot him down: why?
Why would trained police officers want to shoot people in the head? We are not talking about a pedophile, the cops didn't have one single reason to want to kill him, they knew little of him. If they decided to shoot it means they judged it to be necessary.
A mistake in this case but please don't say they were just looking for an excuse.

[edit]

No...
If armed officers shout to stop, you stop.
I don't know if its the same where you live, but here in Italy if a cop shouts stop with his gun and you run away he is enabled to shoot you in a leg.
Now, in this specific case, if he had been a terrorist, a bullet in the leg would have done no good.

Running from people with guns is just plain stupid. Police or not.

I said I was not quoting out of context, not just quoting.

You mentioned drugs...which has nothing to do with this discussion so we can throw your point on that out the window.

Thats not a reason to shot a man who did nothing but wear a heavy coat.

Perhaps, but there is no other real reason to let a "terrorist" walk to a populated area when he has a bunch of cops following him. A lapse of judgement would be an understatement.

So you'd stay still and willingly be shot?

It is odd to wear thick jackets in the summer. That can be linked to other activities. Of course, you're not going to be shot on sight for wearing a thick jacket and that wasn't ever mentioned.

If they pull their gun on you before you even speak to them there is a very good chance that they are going to shoot you if you run.

I think it's important to remember that he didn't just run, he ran, jumped over a ticket turnstyle, then attempted to get on the train. Anyone with half a brain would no that doing so seeing whats been happening lately is just plain stupid.

Running from police is one thing, running from police, jumping a ticket turnstyle and trying to get on a train when trains are being blown up is just crazy.

Odd does not mean you are a terrorist and should be shot in the head.

I doubt the first thing on his mind was "Should I get on this train to save my own life even though trains have been blowing up lately? Or do I try to run away from these people with guns chasing me"

Wow, my sentance seemed to continue as well. Interesting how that works eh?

No. It's not. So?

KC and I were discussing a similar situation. KC mentioned pot, I responded, and you quoted my discussion with KC and joined the conversation. Don't quote me in another conversation and try to join when you have no idea what we're talking about, please.

Personally I trust my law enforcement officials not to shoot me if I am following their directions.

No, it doesn't. So?

He wouldnt have been shot... It was because he ran, and ran onto a train that he got shot.

Exactly. It wasn't because he ran, it was because it appeared that he was desperately trying to get on that train.

Your trust is sadly misplaced.

Any "Terrorist" would have detonated anyway had he stopped for the police if he knew he wouldnt live to do it on the train.

Yeah but the point here isn't what a terrorist would do, but why the man was shot.

As far as I would be concerned, my life would be ruined if they caught me. Chancing a shot in the leg would be nothing in comparison.

But no, here police are not allowed to shoot at all unless you're putting innocent people in obvious physical danger, and they wouldn't put innocent people in harm's way. If they shoot without proof of threat, they'd get charged with excessive force.. or worse depending on the outcome of the shooting.

Depends on the circumstance. Sometimes it's better to just take your chances and run as fast as you can, than to stand your ground.

You must live in a really crappy country. The police here are great We dont even have a death penalty, or a real "life" sentance, its like 25 years, and you can only ever get one at a time unlike some places where you can get multiple 80yr terms

A group of people all with fire arms ask you to stop. Not just one, but many? What do you do?

And as someone FROM England mentioned, plain clothed officers still have some form of identification (police is written on thier "tunics").

But the circumstances in that situation surely meant that you would stop? Running onto a train with a rucksack after whats happened lately? Madness.

Yes, I lived in a city where police brutality and shootings of innocent people was pretty common. So its not hard for me to think that "civilized" britain would never have rotten cops too.

I completely disagree and have not witnessed proof that I should ever consider my law enforcement officials to be against me.

No. Read back.

EXACTLY!!!!! So if he would have STOPPED they wouldn't have KILLED him. They probably would have questioned him, searched him and let him go. They didn't kill him for his coat or whatever you're thinking (I have no idea what you think they killed him for).

My point was, they should have known he wasn't a terrorist( or at least a chance that he wasn't) simply because he RISKED getting to the train. A terrorist would have thought he wouldn't get a chance and just detonated on the spot.

But I have, its not as if the US is the only country with bad cops.

Would he have? How the hell do you know that?

A deterrant? Threatening suicide bombers with death? Doesn't seem that effective to me...

Yes. You. Can. You can't go around killing people on loose suspicions. Despite what the world's politicians want you to believe, terrorism is no different from any other crime...

(Ran to get away from armed men. But we've been over that already.)
Oh, so laws and rights change depending on what day it is? Unless you declare martial law, you have the same right to be on the streets and act as odd as you like as you always have. No matter what happened the day before.

Once again, wearing "suspicious clothing" should NOT carry a death sentence.

And once again I wonder how anyone could think it's better to be afraid of being killed by the police for no good reason than being afraid of being killed by a terrorist for no good reason...

SSC: Bullshit.

I suppose we should give up all our liberties and will to survive since it means we're terrorists if we do anything odd and try to run to save ourselves.

Ok, I may have presented my case badly. I didn't mean to make it sound like he it was the future. I'm just saying the cops shouldn't have shot him because he tried to save himself and the cops were obviously incredibly stupid and not doing their job by stopping him before-hand. But you already agreed to that but still think its ok for cops to shoot random guys for being odd.

Once again, it doesn't. How are you two coming up with this? There is a lot more to it than that.

Why would someone be afraid of being killed by the police for no good reason?

I'm not afraid.. but then again, I don't do anything that would resemble terrorist activities.

I disagree. He didn't just run is the point, he tried to get on a train. If he had of run out of the station he probably wouldn't have been shot. Those cops were thinking "damn, he's run....OH SH*T, HE'S TRYING TO GET ON THE TRAIN TO BLOW IT....SHOOT HIM, QUICK"

Yes, like basic human instinct to RUN from people with GUNS. Wanting to live and being odd should not give cops the right to kill you.

Where would you run, towards the stairs where there are people with guns or to the train which is safe?

They didn't think he wanted to live. They thought he wanted to kill himself on the train.

It doesn't.

[edit]
No more feeding the troll for me

Basic instinct is to freze in terror

But since we are "enlightened" human beings, we actually do as the police say Or should anyhow. (again, britians plain clothed officers have identification showing)

I point you to my other post, I would wear heavy jackets in warm weather and I would run from strangers with guns. I'm pretty sure that doesn't constitute terrorist behavior.

Off to bed I go.

Ok, so a man wearing blue overalls and carrying a carrier bag walks into a cinema and blows up 100 people. The next day a normal everyday civilian wearing blue overalls and carrying a carrier bag is told to stop or be shot. He runs and tries to get into the cinema. What should happen next? What would you do if you were the cop telling him to stop? Let him go in?

Well if I was TRAILING him the whole damn day, you'd think I would stop him BEFORE he even left his block.

He's a dead man if I have the gun.

I wanted to go back to this one...

And what were they planning to do when they confronted him? If he was intent on blowing something up, he would blow something... whether it's when police box him in, when he stops when confronted, or when he got on the train. If they really believed he was going to bomb, they would've had to shoot him anyway. You're not likely to convince a suicide bomber to not blow himself up.

Well, if we go from the scenario I made before about me with a bunch of pot, I would run. If I stay, my life will definitely be over. If I get away, there's a chance I can save myself. I'd rather take the chance than give up.

SSC: I'm not talking about what you would have done earlier, I put you in that situation, what would you do?

Can you all explain to me how you think its ok to shoot a man when he reaches a populated area but not to stop him as soon as he leaves his home.

And if you don't think its ok, then why don't you think the cops should be tried for dereliction of duty and tried for murder?

The situation you put me in is NOT the same as what happened. They trailed him the whole day, LET him get to a populated area, which constitutes dereliction of duty which in itself is a crime.

But in that senario, what chance is there? Many highly trained officers with guns. (again, they had some form of police identificatin showing, and likely shouted "police" or something similar).

Here's my thinking, but this is sort of irrelevant unless we get a terrorist to tell us what he would do
The train is the goal. He would probably figure that the confrontation is not likely to stop him from getting to a better area (the train). However, if he is boxed in there are no more options. Boom.

Ok, lets say he was a terrorist. He leaves his home in the morning go and pick up his explosives.....but wait! He cant do that because the police nabbed him as soon as he stepped out of his house!

But then lets say they didn't stop him. They follow him. He doesn't pick up any explosives, but instead goes to the tube station.....damn! He must already have the device...."Stop!"......"Stop!"......he's trying to get on the train.....he must have a bomb......fin.

That is what we call cops not doing their job. I'm sure their job is to PREVENT him from getting anywhere, which they WILLINGLY did not do.

And please reply to this:

Look, they tried to stop him when he finally showed "suspect" behavior. Whacha goona do when they come for you!

I'm sure the guy thought the same thing.

Police protocol is to not shoot unless I'm being an obvious danger to innocent civilians or the cops themselves. Running away from the cops is obviously not going to put them in danger, and running thorugh a crowd is not an obvious danger, either. And knowing they're police is all the more reason to believe they wouldn't shoot.

But he was ALREADY a suspect. That doesn't hold up very well if they already saw him as a potential terrorist.

hmm.. running to a train (which was the target of several bombings) carrying a bag, wearing suspicious clothing, ignoring police instructions? Right. Lets all start doing that.

Wrong. After the last tube explosion policemen in britain can shoot in case of suspect terrorism and since he lived there he also knew it.

Perhaps we should, to show the terrorists we're not afraid of making fun of them. Oh wait...

Perhaps we should give the cops medals of honor for letting a "suspect" even get to a prime target area after trailing him.

Sorry if I sound sour but I have seen plenty of bad cops on the news, and this is just another case of cops not doing their job and an innocent person paying for it.

Is it also protocol to let the terrorist reach his destination before doing anything?

They did try to stop him once they knew thats where he was going

Oh yes, they tried when he got to the train. Bravo for police intelligence.

They tried to stop him BEFORE he reached it, then he ran.

When they could have stopped him as he left his house considering he was already a suspect? You're not presenting a very good argument for the actions of the cops.

I mean that I actually don't, though. Not that I think I don't

I live in a small city, I generally don't wear suspicious clothing although I have been known to wear all black. I always stop when confronted by police. I was born in the country I live in. I do not parcitipate in any criminal activities. I live in my house, which I own, with my family, in a middle class area. I have never left the country. I work for a local business. I do not have any criminal record. Even my winter coat is relatively thin, but I do not where it during the summer.

Did I miss anything?

They didnt have enough edvidince to stop him As you pointed out, odd clothing isn't quite enough

So they had enough "evidence" to see him as a suspect but not do anything. Especially when people are being held with no lawyer and with no charges, like I said, it isn't holding up.

They are alowed to think of you as a suspect before they have enough edvidence you know. In fact its comon practice.

It is also common now to hold a person on no charges if they are suspect of being a terrorist or helping one, but yet you think they didn't have enough evidence to do anything. Seems contradictory to me.

The police here are alowed to hold you for a day (or so) without any edvidince.

But they wanted MORE proof. And he gave it to them

Like I said before, thats an example of cops not doing their job. And in Britain, I think its 13 days that you can be held( I THINK, I know theyre going to increase it to 1 month).

So, in a country where you can be held on no charges if suspect of being a terrorist, they let him walk out of the house with a heavy jacket. Seems a bit odd for intelligent police behavior.

Now I really do have to sleep.

What I'm confused about is why people are so quick to defend the police without looking at the issue critically. I'm not sure how many of you non-americans are familiar with the Patriot Act, but it's the same crap. Just because it's the law, doesn't necessarily make it right.

Whether or not the police did the right thing, it is clear to me that something is very wrong here, and at the very least, it shouldn't be accepted as is.

Marcello

I didn't read through all posts here, but I'll just say what I think.

Is it ok for the police to kill an innocent man? Of course it isn't. Did someone bodge up badly here? Yes, absolutely.

Is it ok for the police to shoot a terrorist suicide bomber in the head before he blows himself up? Yes, because that's about the only way to stop him. Shoot at his body and you risk detonating the payload. Shoot at his feet and you risk him detonating himself.

Should the police try to arrest him first and only shoot him when he starts to run? Maybe, but they take the risk of having themselves blown up. Shooting a suicide bomber on-sight is the safest thing to do.

Now then, this guy wasn't a suicide bomber, but an innocent bystander. He was suspected and when confronted didn't act as an innocent man would have. Someone decided to take no chances and shot him in the name of public safety. With hindsight, this was clearly a big mistake.
But if the guy had been a suicide bomber, that officer would have been hailed as a hero who had just saved many lives.

Conversely, if the officer hadn't fired and the man had been a suicide bomber the death toll would have been very much higher and the officer would have been painfully neglicient.

It's a game of Prisoner's Dilema: if everyone had cooperated, no one would have died (best outcome). However, the suspect did not cooperate and the police had to take a gamble: risk killing one innocent man or who knows how many civilians. They made a split second decision to kill the man.

In a city that had just been shaken by four bombings and four attempted bombings, their reaction is understandable and maybe even appropriate.

That doesn't make it less tragic and it doesn't make it right, but remember it's always easier to judge with hindsight. I don't know how I would live with myself knowing that I accidentally shot an innocent man - quite frankly I think I could not.

Nice. I have a better preventive tactic: Kill everyone. Now you're sure not to have any more suicide bombers.

Link to the law? Was the entire population informed of this change of protocol? Was he read his rights?

Yup. And now, the cops should be held responsible for it, just like every other single person in the country would be if they murdered someone (suspect or not). You can't play play Prisoner's Dilemma with no consequences to yourself.

Agree 100%.

(Edited: By the way, I read Blair keeps saying the terrorist attacks in London were not caused because of the Iraq invasion. Plainly asked, is he stupid?)

Well said.

No, I think he knows full well that they are related. He just doesn't want to say so in public.

That is something politics have in common anywhere. They don't learn to admit their mistakes.

If you have a guy pinned to the ground, and cannot figure out a way to take off his coat to see if he has a bomb, then you are the most pathetic type of police man in the world. Most likely the bomb would have been strapped to himself and they could have removed the coat easily. But no, they weren't willing to even take a tiny chance of losing their lives in a noble fashion.

The state killing innocent people without a trial to deter crime is the biggest type of terrorism in the world, something that Hussein himself is being put to trial for at this very time.

Feel free to check back in six months after emotions have settled down and the "investigation" into the matter is completed. Right now, I think we can at least all agree that this is a tragedy that hopefully will not reoccur.