52% intelligent. 9% modest. More monkey than bear.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

just victims of the in-house drive-by

So it turns out that the guy that the police shot dead at Stockwell station in London on Friday was not in fact connected with the suicide bombers. No. In fact he was a young Brazilian man working in as an electrician, and it seems his only crime was to live in the same block of flats as some of the suspected bombers. For this he received 5 shots to the head on the platform.

Ken Livingstone, London's Mayor said:

"The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public. This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility."

No Ken, I think you are wrong. This death cannot be laid at the doors of the bombers. This death, terrible tragedy that it undoubtedly is, can only be blamed on the police. I understand that the officers are under an enormous amount of pressure and are desperately hunting the bombers before they can strike again, but they simply cannot afford to make this kind of mistake.

Terrorists may feel that they can kill indiscriminately, but that's what makes them terrorists. What can possibly justify a "shoot to kill" policy in a country where our justice system operates on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"??

19 Comments:

  • At 10:12 pm, Blogger red one said…

    Swiss - I completely agree with you. Great post.

    RedOne

     
  • At 8:40 am, Blogger LB said…

    me too.

    I don't see, if they are trained marksmen, why they can't accurately shoot people in a way which will disable them but not, like, "blow their brains out".

    Although, just for a second imagine the flip side. The guy was a suicide bomber carrying a belt full of explosives. The police only stun him, so he detonates the bomb and kills 15 people. Passers by recount tales of how the indecision of the police in not shooting him dead meant he was able to detonate his device and murder those people.

    That's not a call I would have to like to make, that's for sure.

     
  • At 9:25 am, Blogger swisslet said…

    I think I would agree with the idea of a shoot to kill policy for the reasons Lord B indicates if the police could guarantee that they would always get it right - which of course they can't, therefore it's not justifiable in my eyes.

    WHat's a single innocent life worth?

    ST

     
  • At 9:37 am, Blogger The Num Num said…

    but dont you think therefore, that EVERYEONE is connected to terrorism, and ANYONE that doesn't stand still and strip naked when confronted by the police is a suspected TERRORIST and deserves to be shot, JUST IN CASE they are carrying a bomb?

    Lets just forget we're different, give ALL the coppers GUNS, and then send them to NY or LA and they can come back as highly efficient TERRORIST-TACKLING Police Officers.

    Obviously our lot are not that good without guns. Best get them armed. And once they are armed, I'm becoming a Copper - coz you know, guns are cool. Plus you're allowed to shoot terrorists.

     
  • At 10:39 am, Blogger swisslet said…

    not just terrorists - apparently you are allowed to shoot anyone.

    As I've said elsewhere.... there was me, worrying about something like the ID card infringing my civil liberties, and it turns out that pretty much the ultimate infringement is already upon us, and it didn't even need to go through parliament.

    ST

     
  • At 11:16 am, Blogger Mark said…

    and how can you tell a terrorist froma non-terrorist without giving them an opportunity to blow themselves up?

     
  • At 12:05 pm, Blogger adem said…

    I'm never going to run for a train if I'm late ever again.

    Also, if you were watching the news on that day and heard some of the eye-witness reports, wasn't it strange how so many of them said that the man was "Asian or possibly a Pakistani".....jumping to conclusions....hmmm....where does that get us?

     
  • At 1:16 pm, Blogger weenie said…

    A tough call for the police to make in this situation but what a terrible mistake.

     
  • At 1:42 pm, Blogger John McClure said…

    "What can possibly justify a "shoot to kill" policy..."

    Ummm - someone with 50lbs of semtex strapped to their torso threatening to blow up the train I'm on? I reckon I'd be happy enough with a shoot to kill policy in that situation.

    It's tragic that they killed this guy, but I suspect (and hope) there's a bigger story involved in terms of what the police knew before they shot him. If they just ran after him and gunned him down because he was wearing a big coat on a hot day, then fair enough, bad call. But who's to say he wasn't deranged and ran from them screaming "I'm going to blow the train up!" or "You'll never take me alive, copper!"?

    You have to presume that we're not dealing with a random group of psycho cops here, and that therefore they had enough reason to believe the guy was wired up to a bomb. As Bargain said, if they'd believed that and then hesitated and he HAD blown up a train, they'd be getting flack from a different direction.

    As for shooting a suicide bomber elsewhere than in the head - it seems like that really is the only option - shooting them in the chest risks detonating the bomb, and shooting them anywhere else risks them being able to detonate the bomb themselves. It would seem that the blowing out of brains is all you're left with.

    I'm eager to hear what the police have to say about what exactly went on (once they get past apologising). They must have had more reason to suspect the guy than "He ran away."

     
  • At 3:28 pm, Blogger Mark said…

    the address they were monitoring was found on a slip of paper at one of the suicide bomber's houses.

    the suspect was wearing a heavy winter coat in the height of summer.

    he ran when they shouted "STOP! POLICE!" at him.

    that he was a suicide bomber was a pretty reasonable conclusion in the circumstances.

     
  • At 3:33 pm, Blogger swisslet said…

    no. it wasn't a reasonable conclusion. The poor guy had nothing to do with it. I understand the logic, but it's not much consolation for the mistake is it?

     
  • At 3:35 pm, Blogger Mark said…

    we have to differ there Swiss. I can't see how it isn't a reasonable conclusion in the circumstances. He knew what "STOP! POLICE!" means if he didn't, he wouldn't've run for it. The other option is them being wrong, and there being a crater on a platform in Stockwell.

     
  • At 4:17 pm, Blogger John McClure said…

    I suppose you can look at it and ask what would you do yourself if you were in Rio and some (as far as you were concerned) random guys (there were no uniformed officers involved that I know of) started waving guns at you, claiming to be police and telling you to stop. I suspect I might peg it too - particularly if I was already on edge from a spate of terrorist activity in the city. *shurg*

    It's fucking tragic that it happened, but I don't think it's as simple as saying "You don't shoot people, you take them into custody and give them a trial." - if you're sitting on a train and some loony bin jumps aboard and opens his coat and is wired to the moon, you're going to want the armed officer there to blow his head off, not the flourescent jacketed bobby on the beat to reason with him and pop some cuffs on him.

     
  • At 4:26 pm, Blogger HistoryGeek said…

    I want to err on the side of caution...but then my brain says, "Which side is that?"

     
  • At 4:32 pm, Blogger The Num Num said…

    Please please please remember this:

    The people holding the guns were in ordinary clothes - tshirts and jeans.

    So, men in Jeans with Guns.

    Does that change anything - other than the fact that you would most likely stop if a man with a gun pointed at you full stop. But then again, what if he didnt HEAR the police bit, and what if all he saw was men with guns chasing him. Cmon, we're not talking about a group of guys in black uniforms with SWAT written on it, or FBI or CIA. Just jeans...

    imho, that changes the scenario completely.

    If in uniform, and he ran, agreed. its odd.

    But otherwise, I too would run from suspected muggers...though id be mad to think i can outrun machine gun fire. But that is what we would do, its what soldiers do, hide or run for cover.

     
  • At 5:29 pm, Blogger red one said…

    1) The police were in plain clothes. That makes them men with guns not police with guns, as many others here have pointed out.

    2) the police were ON THE BUS with him before they shot him in the tube. If he was meant to be a suspected suicide bomber, it's sort of strange the police let him ride along on the bus without any problem. But no, he suddenly turned into Mr About-to-detonate later. Says the police.

    You'd think they might have used that bus ride more profitably - checking the poor man's name, for example...

    3) This particular lot of armed cops were so on the ball they held the tube driver at gunpoint too. Casual observers might think they were trigger-happy and didn't have a bloody clue what they were doing. And that's putting it mildly.

    RedOne

     
  • At 7:51 pm, Blogger Aravis said…

    I agree with RedOne.

    I would add that many of the South Americans I've met here in the US are terrified of the police and run from them. Their experiences with the police in their home countries were extremely unpleasant due to politics and corruption. So if this young Brazilian man did hear "police," and see them brandishing guns, he may well have run all the more quickly for it.

     
  • At 10:13 pm, Blogger LB said…

    on the basis the guy only ran from the ticketing barrier to the platform, that's what? 10 seconds? that doesn't strike me as an awful lot of time for the police to reason with him and determine what his motives were.

    Particularly, as Red says, when they had been following him for fifteen minutes on foot and on a bus.

    If the police think he's carrying a bomb, why let him onto the platform of an underground railway station, where presumably that is going to cause the most damage?

    Notwithstanding the fact that the police story has more holes than a piece of Gouda, I do have some sympathy for Mark's argument that the fallout for the police would be somewhat worse if their inaction had led to a carriage full of dead commuters.

    For what it is worth, I'd also be inclined to run from a mad bloke in jeans waving an automatic pistol at me, particularly in a country on the opposite side of the world.

    I still think a shoot to kill policy is wrong, though. We need a stun gun like they get Princess Leia with at the beginning of Star Wars.

     
  • At 10:21 pm, Blogger Herge Smith said…

    Good piece - thanks for visiting btw.

    I've heard the 'suspicious winter coat in the middle of summer' thing tons of times over the last couple of days - the guys was from Brazil!!! This isn't probably what he'd consider a summer.

    Also, why did the police wait until he was at the tube before engaging him?

    Surely there must have been a time prior to that they could have stopped him, where, if he had set of a bomb less damage would have been caused.

    It's more than interesting that the police are suggesting now that we should be prepared for this to happen again... oh great, thanks. Funny, they didn't mention that before it happened. That might have helped.

    'cause its gonna be piss easy for criminals to attack and mug us now - they just shout 'Police STOP' and we stop dead - rather risk having my wallet stolen than half a dozen plus 2 bullets plugged in the head.

    Final ranting point - funny how it's continuously referred to in the media and by government as a accidental shooting - he didn't fall on 8 bullets, did he? Plus he was executed. Simple as that... so lets stop mincing words and say it how it is... he was executed, he was murdered by the police,

    And you're are right Swiss - this is one for the UK, not one for the terrorists.

    I thought our way of life would never be affected by the actions of these terrorists.

    ...well to be fair we did manage almost week without going crazy.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home