Shoot to kill

[Jokerman]

"By far the most controversial claim comes from a number of witnesses who have cast doubt on police statements that they shouted a warning or identified themselves to the suspect before opening fire.

Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout “police” or anything like it. Mr Ruston, a construction company director, said that he saw two of the officers put on their blue baseball caps marked “police” but that the frightened electrician could not have seen that happen because he had his back to the officers and was running with his head down.

Mr Ruston remembers one of the Scotland Yard team screaming into a radio as they were running. Mr Ruston thought the man that they were chasing “looked Asian” as he tumbled on to a waiting Northern Line train.

Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.

Again, Mr Ruston says that no verbal warning was given." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1707480,00.html


They'll probably use six degrees of separation to demonstrate that this guy was connected to the bombers - somehow. It'll go like this - he knew someone who walked by a mosque, who had an uncle who once ate a falafel, whose cousin plays on a rugby team that a Muslim watched play in 2001, and this Muslim was from the same area of Bristol that two of the bombers took a bus thru and one of the bomber's aunts ate fish and chips - the same meal the person shot had two weeks prior to being offed.

I think the British backlash against Arabs and Pakistanis is beginning.

 

[Illuminattile]

Apparently he was attacked by a gang of people a few days or weeks prior to the incident, which is a possible reason for him running away.

Like I said, I don't think the police need to shoot the guy once, let alone five or eight times. He was already on the floor when the officer shot him. However, had the man been a terrorist and the police had failed to stop him, and he then went on to blow up the train, the police would have been severely criticised.

 

[EDouble]

Holy fuckin shit. they pinned him down and shot him 7 times in the head??? ??

 

[Glockmatic]

suicide bombers are like zombies, you can only take them out with a headshot.

 

[EDouble]

Apparently he was attacked by a gang of people a few days or weeks prior to the incident, which is a possible reason for him running away.

Like I said, I don't think the police need to shoot the guy once, let alone five or eight times. He was already on the floor when the officer shot him. However, had the man been a terrorist and the police had failed to stop him, and he then went on to blow up the train, the police would have been severely criticised.

I dont think thats good point tho man if u think, theres lot of cases of explosions or bombs suicide bombers n shit, where police they couldnt get to em fast enough or didnt have time act on warnings and just seen it happen, just all this that. this shit here is far worse. And7 shots in the head? they couldnt jus drop him in one shot to the head? One shot to the leg? well im guessin they shot him in the shoulder while runnin, if not I'm guessin they just stood around, tag teamin shot him total 7 in the head and the guy on the side got off target and shot him in the shoulder.

They dont normally carry guns and shit?? Its either some ignorant ass trigger happy dudes that dont know shit about nothin that just thought they was gettin a terrorist, or theyjust picked his ass out n went at him for whatever reasons. Because 7 times?? that shit get suspect a little bit.....

If it was just Ignorannce, i think that would be even Worse than if they did pick dude out. and always same results its all sad shit..


But it gets me how all this defense shit goin,, from even people there in england. I know if shit like this, happened in america and for argument reason inserted ur pick of american minority in place of a man from brazil, There would be all riots and shit. as soon as the shit happen,, the police say it was a Direct result of anti terrorism ....news havin the reports Another foiled plot of a terrorist.......... before even the facts of the shit!! That jus part, of how u can tell what the fuck kind of people are runnin or Tryin to run the shit! after all this time this is where dudes at. that just bogglin me.

they turned from that, to Sorry about it, civilian etc etc. the reports of what happened. witness acounts and shit. But Now they sayin it wasn tNothin to b,, excuse me Nothing to blame on the police ". What the FUCK is this shit??? and does anybody know if these dudes are still on the beat ??
at least in america, with issues from police it usually a paid Leave shit, then they slide back in a week later.

but with all this defense shit goin on of em, i wouldnt be surprised if they was stil workin and followin, searchin more random ppls while ,, damn the 'real' terrorists are hookin up a bomb underneath the station.


edit: and shit, They didnt even say they was Police?? All they do is put the Caps on with police written , after they started chasin dude and he was tryin get away from these crazy motherfuckas?? Its like, they was puttin on these shits so they wouldnt be looked at Funny once they start unloadin a clip into dude head.

And the shit bout not bein, legally in teh country? What was this a media or police fed shit to justify and cast doubt on the man? Notice, it wasnt put as a defense cuz like posted up the family denied the shit n said he had more than enough time on the visa shit. Bet it was put out for reason and shit.

And then,, maybe could see a lil justification on part of the intents if they was shootin him in the head in case of a bomb strapped on or watever case (wouldnt explain the multiple shots) but even then... they just like gave em these guns and warrants 2 kill and shit, ,,, Why not no tasein shit like they do on motherfuckas here n america. i dont gues the london police would b tryin to use it on kids or anythin neither so should b set for them to use on ppl that not, u know, totally sure did a Damn Thing wrong jus wana; they was actin suspicious so lets get him down lets detain make sure no bullshit happenin or was gona happen etc. it just all


whole shit is just ridiculous

 

[Jokerman]

However, If you seriously and honestly believe that somebody is a suicide bomber, you do not "detain" him, you do not "arrest" him.

You kill him as quickly as you can. 5 to the head or 500, doesn't matter. One shot isn't always enough and might miss. You've decided he has to be stopped. That means stopped dead. That means as many shots to the head as you can till enough time has passed and no bomb has gone off.

Because, if the man really is a suicide bomber, all he has to do is trigger his vest or his backpack and BOOOOM!!!!!!

Once somebody crosses that line, or you think they have, you have no choice but to kill him. You cannot worry about his "rights" or the Geneva Convention or other things along those lines.

This was a man, running from plain-clothed armed Police (of which there are only two types - the Flying Squad, who deal with armed robbers, and the Anti-Terrorist Branch, who deal with terrorists), during a time when there have been four successful suicide bomber attacks (56 dead), and the day after four unsuccessful ones, during which the four suspects were seen and chased by members of the public. He then runs into a tube station and onto a train, wearing a big heavy coat in the middle of summer.

In such a situation, the good guys with the guns have about 2 seconds to decide what to do. They have about two seconds to process everything and make a decision. They decided this guy was a threat to everyone on that subway car, and they shot him in the head so he couldn't detonate a suicide vest.

This was NOT a case of trigger happy cops. Apparently it was cops following established procedure for dealing with suspected suicide bombers who are nearing a concentration of people.

This seems to be the logic: If you shoot a suicide bomber and the wound is not immediately fatal then he may trigger the bomb...shoot him multiple times in the head. If you tackle the man; he may have the trigger in his hand so your partner shoots him multiple times in the head.

Good policy? Yes, if it's a suicide bomber. Not so good in this case.

Given the facts that have come out, I must express my sympathies for both the victim and the cop.

It seems the cop adhered to his rules of engagement and that the poor Brazilian guy's appearance & actions fit an islamikaze's to a "T," in the cops' books.

Terrible things can happen between folks who on the one part have no intention of committing an act of evil; and on the other part, conscienciously seek to do their duty.

I would note that I was able to come to that conclusion given several days' worth of accumulated data and the benefit of responding at my leisure. Also, no great issue (such as scores of lives in a subway train or station) depends on me getting it right. The cop did not have the benefit of the full picture, days to make his decision, and being able to do so in a consequence-free environment.

All in all, a tragic combination of suspicious factors, hyper-alert police, and circumstances that virtually guaranteed a tragic result. Welcome to reality. Sometimes the choice isn't between the best and the worst, sometimes it's between the worst reality and the worst possibility.

 

[tupacmansion]

In such a situation, the good guys with the guns have about 2 seconds to decide what to do. They have about two seconds to process everything and make a decision. They decided this guy was a threat to everyone on that subway car, and they shot him in the head so he couldn't detonate a suicide vest.

Supposedly the police had followed this man from his home all the way to the train station. Why did they wait so long before deciding to act? why couldn't they attempt to apprehend him earlier?

 

[Duke]

I've had lengthy debates with Jokerman about "shoot to kill" situations where innocents got killed before, but this time i have to say i agree with him this time.

At that time, at that moment, the officers had to take a decision. They took the wrong one. That's very tragic. But given the circumstances, understandable.

Now the way he was stopped i disagree with. Eight times is just a bit too much. So what if suicidebombers are like zombies that keep going untill you riddle them with bullets? This man wasn't one. He went down at bullet #1. Why keep shooting?


THose are my sentiments at the time, but to really get into that we lack details, a lot of details.

 

[Preach]

this "shoot to kill" policy scares me. i mean i don't feel targeted since i don't even live in the uk.. but the development of it all is intimidating. if anyone has seen a movie called "the siege", i'm scared that the situation might evolve into somewhat a similar scenario.

with that being said, i sort of do think the policy is needed when there are suicide bombers involved. to me, this is a matter i can't really make up an opinion about, though. not enforcing a policy like this might lead to more bombings, but at least there won't be tragic episodes like the one with the electrician who got shot several times in the head while laying down on the ground occuring. on the contrary, enforcing this policy might prevent further terror and mass killing of innocent people, but ultimately might lead to more tragic episodes where innocent people are killed by the police. no matter what the british police decides to do, the outcome could be tragedy. it's a difficult situation.

 

[Preach]

And7 shots in the head? they couldnt jus drop him in one shot to the head? One shot to the leg? well im guessin they shot him in the shoulder while runnin, if not I'm guessin they just stood around, tag teamin shot him total 7 in the head and the guy on the side got off target and shot him in the shoulder.

not by any means do i wish to justify it. but i think their explanation was that if the suicide bomber had some sort of control in his hand with a button that would make the bomb go off, shooting him in the leg or shoulder wouldn't stop the bomb from going off. a straight shot to the head would put him out before he could react and push the button.

as for why there were several shots fired.. one bullet to his head might just graze his head. it doesn't neccesarily need to kill him. i'm thinking they didn't have the time to shoot him and check to see if he was actually dead before they decided to shoot him again heh. i guess the term "better safe than sorry" is fitting. but like i said, even if i sound like i am defending what happened, i am not.

 

[Jokerman]

Now the way he was stopped i disagree with. Eight times is just a bit too much. So what if suicidebombers are like zombies that keep going untill you riddle them with bullets? This man wasn't one. He went down at bullet #1. Why keep shooting?

Because there was no reason to not keep shooting! But there was a reason to keep shooting. "He went down at bullet #1." What does that mean? The cops had a brain read-out they could check after firing the first bullet to see that he was in fact brain dead at that point and didn't have enough consciousness to move his finger an inch and detonate a bomb? Even if such a thing were possible, it's not needed. Shoot him as many times as possible till enough time has passed and no bomb has gone off. "We wanted to kill him, but we didn't want to kill him too harshly, so we only fired once." If it turned out he did have a bomb, the cops there would probably have been reprimanded for only firing once or twice.

Duke, I understand your gun stance, I've heard the same arguments from many. I hate gun crime and gun accidents, too. But these arguments from antis are just not well thought out or realistic.

 

[xenogears]

Supposedly the police had followed this man from his home all the way to the train station. Why did they wait so long before deciding to act? why couldn't they attempt to apprehend him earlier?

yeah I was thinking the same thing. They've had plenty of time to act, I don't know why the police waited until they were forced to act in a "split second".
I feel sorry for the guy, he died over bs. The sad thing I know I would've acted the same way if I was confronted by people with guns and no uniform, how the fuck am I supposed to know they were undercovers.

 

[Jokerman]

yeah I was thinking the same thing. They've had plenty of time to act, I don't know why the police waited until they were forced to act in a "split second".

Because maybe they wanted him to lead them to his cohorts. Is that so hard to imagine? And they weren't certain he might be bombing anything at that time, until he headed for the underground. A place where 24 hours previously, terror bombers tried to bomb, but failed only because their bombs didn't explode with enough force to kill.

 

[EDouble]

i could probly reason with their split decision and shit n wat They thought was had to be done and everythin, but im just stil shady about Why he was followed in the first place and Why a witness said they never yelled & identified themselves as police?

its just all seems real ass amateur greatly over reacted. Yeah he could have been another suicide bomber, he could have had somethin under his jacket etc but so could practically any body else. u dont think there was any one other person that was walkin around with a coat out of thousands of ppl? was he followed initially because of the buildin was under survelliance? then he was obviously foreign, coat, etc.

and like all the other shit that transpired afterwards and everythin it just doesnt, it just seems not that simple to me. as they just had to unload thinkin he was a suicide bomber because he ran, not resisitin Authority but resisitin a couple guys in plain clothes with at least, one (i think) with a gun? and i dont like with included with wat i was just talkin about before, how they try and say there's no blame to fall on the police cause of it. he was still innocent but because he was killed with the assumption he was a suicide bomber, its aight because If he was, he coulda woulda blew up shit etc etc.
and with mentioned, how they normaally dont carry guns and shit etc etc and all the recent attacks, i doubt it was that elaborate of a followin and chase and all that shit. it just seems real amateur & just too quick assumptions, u know. and if they started chasin this unproper often, and shootin with this little information n everythin everywhere; its just gona be like a tyrant type of shit and it would be goin in the direction of the terrorists themselves, n how they do shit. u know? i think its much more complicated.

but with this, thats jus lookin at it, as the outcomes of it and looks etc. They could hav really thought they was doin one thing handlin one thing but that doesn't rly jus Automatticaly excuse it from bein foul. i gues the truth/or rights n wrogns of the shit etc is fallen in the middle of it all.

& its just all fucked up i think any of uswould agree on that shit.

 

[Duke]

Because there was no reason to not keep shooting! But there was a reason to keep shooting. "He went down at bullet #1." What does that mean? The cops had a brain read-out they could check after firing the first bullet to see that he was in fact brain dead at that point and didn't have enough consciousness to move his finger an inch and detonate a bomb? Even if such a thing were possible, it's not needed. Shoot him as many times as possible till enough time has passed and no bomb has gone off. "We wanted to kill him, but we didn't want to kill him too harshly, so we only fired once." If it turned out he did have a bomb, the cops there would probably have been reprimanded for only firing once or twice.

Duke, I understand your gun stance, I've heard the same arguments from many. I hate gun crime and gun accidents, too. But these arguments from antis are just not well thought out or realistic.

Ay, man, know this, i understand your stance fully as well. To watch some cheesy reality shows and the odd Discovery Channel documentary has showed me (long ago already, actually) that police officers risk their life everyday, and that deserves tremendous admiration and support.

Where things get hairy, is the very fine line (or very fat, big, gray area if you want) bewteen stopping crime-policies and protecting innocent-policies. There, we disagree, usually, albeit it even slightly. And i realize it's a very, very tricky area to navigate.