Kevin's Watch

Probably right in terms of the "damned if they do..." The only thing that you said that I'll point out from the article was that it was the block of flats under surveillance. And of course, (something I hadn't know), that they were plainsclothes officers. Given the climate, I can well imagine an "arabic looking" person being unwilling to halt.

That said, you're right about those expectations as well. In fact, the cops are maybe in a no-win situation. Don't envy them at all.

--A

Well, I'm mentally trying to put myself in the same circumstance as that man, though I don't know all the details of the scene. If I was somewhere minding my own business and I suddenly saw some strangers clearly approaching me in a not exactly friendly way, I would certainly be quite apprehensive. But would I immediately start running away? I'm not sure about that. I would want to get a better sense of their intentions first before I did anything rash. I compare it to being confronted by a potentially dangerous animal like a bear: they say one should never make a sudden movement in such confrontations, which might really trigger the animal into hostile action.

And maybe I'm a foolish type who would rather just face the danger and get it over with than run away and get into even more trouble. This is the diabolical SRD influencing me: it is bootless to try and avoid the Despiser's snares. Heh.

In any case, even if I did start to move away from the approaching strangers, common sense tells me that if they were to then call out to me to stop and that they were police officers, I would comply to their wishes and try to figure out what the hell was going on. So I wonder now: did the plainclothes officers identify themselves as police officers to the man before shooting him? I would certainly hope so.

Even if they did (surely they must have), I can all too easily see circumstances where it wouldn't matter. Apart from anything else, English wasn't his first language, and regardless of how well h spoke it, in times of stress, it's probably difficult.

While I understand your point about stopping anyway, I could hypothesise that being suddenly chased by a group of unfriendly looking men in a time and place where people have been attacked by civilians for being of "asian" origin, discretion may be the better part of valour.

Aah, we'll never know. A tragedy any way you look at it.

--A

Yes, it is a tragedy, and I care about this one a lot because it's a tragedy focused on one person, making it, well, more personally affecting--which is why I posted at inordinate length about this story.

Always nice to see you post at inordinate length.

--A

What really bugs me about the death of poor Jean Charles de Menezes was that he was shot, as I understand it, five times in the head.

Five times. In the head.

It seems to me that they might have captured him. If they were not able to capture him, they could have disabled him.

And if they suspected he was carrying a bomb, and had to be killed instantly before he could detonate it ... why let him go to a bus, ride a bus, get off of a bus, and enter an underground station - all the while aware he was being asked to stop - before taking the necessary action.

Turns out today that he was shot eight times. Talk about overkill.

I hadn't seen that he rode a bus to the uderground. Man. That does raise questions.

I mean, in principle, I have no problem with a shoot-to-kill policy, but you better be damn sure who you're shooting at.

Looks like Blair has effectively said that while he's sorry, things like this may happen in the name of the greater good. Of course, it's much more of an issue over there, because cops don't carry guns, except under exceptional circumstances, and even then, only a few have the training.

The family has threatened to sue the government.

--Avatar

1984 baby!
next Logan's Run...

Flipping this matter over and over in my head, it still comes out agonizingly balanced between the desire to support fully whatever drastic actions the police deem necessary in their fight against terrorism, versus the desire to punish/condemn those same drastic actions. I wish the police to be perfect, in other words: they should only ever kill the bad guys, even by accident, while innocents should always remain unharmed in the process. Which is, of course, a naive wish. Over the years of dealing with the IRA, I wonder how many innocent civilians must have been mistakenly targeted by the British government.

Still...nothing like the shooting of an innocent citizen to erode public trust and support in those charged with protecting the public. I'm not surprised that the family of the slain man would want to sue the government. If I were in their place, I guess I'd be damn angry, too.

Ah, well said MM. I have no doubt that every government has killed or abused people who were actually innocent, and probably more than we like to think about.

Perfection is impossible. Does this fall under the heading of "acceptable loss"? The needs of the many? I still don't like it.

--Avatar

If it went down the way the cops are saying, it's a sad, but, neccessary tragedy.

The excuse of English not being his primary language is unacceptable to me. His primary language is Portuguese, is it not? Is Portuguese not very similar to Spanish, so Police, would be similar in Portuguese (Policia or something close)? Plus, if you've lived in a Country for 3 years, and can't understand a simple command like "Stop, Police"(especially when that command would be quite similar in your own primary language), you're a moron, and I don't understand how you could possibly travel to a foreign Country on your own and survive in that Country on your own for 3 years.

In the USA, you know, the police are the enforcers of law, and they have guns, and are licensed to use them. If a gang of them tells you to stop, and you keep running, you're asking to be shot, especially in that environment a week after bombings in subways. When they tell you to stop, they are asking you not to make them shoot you.

I'd have a much easier time accepting the excuse that there was too much noise to hear the command, then that he couldn't understand the command due to his lack of English (Which, by the way, they are now saying he spoke fluent English)

On the other hand, if the guy was already down, and subdued, it definitely seems excessive, if he really didn't have a big heavy coat which could have hidden a bomb.

8 bullets may sound excessive, but think about it. Cops are trained to fire off two or three bullets at a time when having to use lethal force, to ensure you get the guy. You have a gang of them chasing the guy, 3 or 4 cops fire, their two or three shots, and they add up really quickly. Of course, this once again assumes that lethal force was deemed neccessary, that the guy was still resisting and not on the ground, or did have a big coat, and looked like he might be reaching for a detonator.

I agree with your assessment, sindatur.

The excuse of English not being his primary language is unacceptable to me. His primary language is Portuguese, is it not? Is Portuguese not very similar to Spanish, so Police, would be similar in Portuguese (Policia or something close)? Plus, if you've lived in a Country for 3 years, and can't understand a simple command like "Stop, Police"(especially when that command would be quite similar in your own primary language), you're a moron, and I don't understand how you could possibly travel to a foreign Country on your own and survive in that Country on your own for 3 years.

Yes, I also thought that excuse was rather flimsy (guess I was too polite to say so in my posts).

In the USA, you know, the police are the enforcers of law, and they have guns, and are licensed to use them. If a gang of them tells you to stop, and you keep running, you're asking to be shot, especially in that environment a week after bombings in subways. When they tell you to stop, they are asking you not to make them shoot you.

Exactly. The whole tragedy likely could have been avoided if the man had just obeyed the order to stop. Hello, there are guys with guns aimed at you, and they aren't messing around.

While the killing of an innocent life is a very sober matter, the police are, after all, engaging in such pre-emptive actions in the name of preventing further taking of innocent life by suicide attackers. I hope all the media and public pressure for an inquiry doesn't sidetrack or compromise the police's efforts to track down the 4 London bombers, or to prevent future attacks.

Absolutely Sindatur. I don't know how familiar everyone here is with firearms, but I know when I was trained I was specifically told to keep shooting until the person you're shooting at goes down. This is especially important with a small caliber weapon like the 9mm using a FMJ (full metal jacket) round. There were several cases back in the early 90s, back when the Baltimore police switched over from the .38 revolver, in which cops shot people 8-12 times before they went down. This is due to the fact that the FMJ is a non-expanding projectile that's moving at 1000-1200 fps. Unless you hit a bone, or a really vital organ, the bullet simply passes through the body and the wound seals itself (on the outside at least). It was because of this that many departments switched to the .40 S&W a few years later.

In addition, if I was a cop in London and someone was blowing up the subway there, I think I might have a wee bit of adrenelin running through my system if I was pursuing a suspect and would want to make damn sure he was dead before he blew something else up.

Cail,

In addition, if I was a cop in London and someone was blowing up the subway there, I think I might have a wee bit of adrenelin running through my system if I was pursuing a suspect and would want to make damn sure he was dead before he blew something else up.

Absolutely, but there is something to be said for the total overreaction here by the police.

Sorry, I don't see it as an overreaction at all. When you're told to stop, you stop. That's it, no excuses. I see no evidence whatsoever that the police acted irresponsibly.

Cail,

In hindsight I think it's a total overreaction. Perhaps not at the time, but think about it: They shot an innocent man 8 times.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Cail,

In hindsight I think it's a total overreaction. Perhaps not at the time, but think about it: They shot an innocent man 8 times.

Would it have made a difference if he'd only been shot once in the head?

'Cause he'd still be just as dead.

Edge,

As has been said, it just seems like pure overkill to me.

Kill... overkill... both just mean 'dead'.

sindatur wrote: 8 bullets may sound excessive, but think about it. Cops are trained to fire off two or three bullets at a time when having to use lethal force, to ensure you get the guy. You have a gang of them chasing the guy, 3 or 4 cops fire, their two or three shots, and they add up really quickly.

Mhoram, do you disagree with this line of thinking, m'Lord?