[I wrote this over at my blog on first light yesterday, and have amended it to include commentary from around the Ozblogsphere. Clearly this is a tragedy. There is a lot of commentary on why the young man ran from the police and their actions in response, so I’d like to point you to this link within the piece that I see as an extension of what I’ve written. Go there to see the world as it is for many others like Jean Charles de Menezes, I think it explains his reaction and the direction we are in danger of going]
Now we know why we’ll need identity cards, it’s so authorities can identify the corpse of some poor bastard that has been killed in our over zealous and irrational reactions to the War on Terror.
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday’s London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed. The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27.
Jean Charles de Menezes was undoubtedly a man of colour, so he now automatically comes under suspicion because of circumstance and the tenor of the times, and of course Jean Charles de Menezes will just be considered collateral damage as far as those who wish to tighten a noose around our civil liberties. They’ll say “but if he had nothing to fear he would still be alive”, but Jean Charles de Menezes as a man of the global south probably knew better than any of us that police with unlimited powers are something to be feared.
Mayor Ken Livingstone, a man I respect greatly, gets in first and gets it very wrong.
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, 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.”
Let’s remember the facts, the police caught Jean Charles de Menezes, held him down, and to the horror of many bystanders, shot him five times in the head. So, no Ken, the police killed him, not the terrorists. How can we trust any police force with unlimited powers if at the first hurdle they get it so wrong?
Let’s also remember that not too long ago Brazil was a country that has had its share of police statism and life under the Generalissimos, and is a country that has also seen vigilante police kill street kids in the fight against street crime and vagrancy, so maybe Jean Charles de Menezes’ cultural history had rightly taught him to be afraid of the very thing that we should also be afraid of. The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes sends a signal to all of us that eventually, under these unrestricted conditions of shoot first and ask questions later, our police will be a law unto themselves.
Elsewhere
On that basis, it’s hard to fault what the police did. He wasn’t picked out of the crowd because he was wearing a big coat, he had been followed from a house that was under surveillance as part of the anti-terrorist investigations. There was no way they could have let him get on that train, and there was no way they could have given him a chance to detonate the bomb he might have had. Jean Charles de Menezes is, sadly, another victim of the terrorists.
Terrorism is essentially a criminal activity, and the only way to beat it in the long run is through effective police work. The terrorists of the radical left and right who operated in the 1970s and 1980s were beaten in the end, and the same will be true of the jihadists. But so far at least, the response to the London attacks seems to have more failures than successes. Let’s hope there’s better news soon.
The community employs the police. They are expected to put their lives on the line for us. In my opinion. it takes great courage to chase and catch someone who you believe is carrying (and about to detonate) a bomb. In their minds, these police were risking their lives to save others. The real problem here is the fear created by the bombers. In the end, it is war. In war, mistakes are made. Unfortunately this man was killed by his own side in the battle. Tragically, this happens. The real bombers must be laughing today.
The police are damned if they kill an innocent person (although in this case there seems to be more to the story than that), but they’re even more damned if they give the suspect the benefit of the doubt, only to see him blow up on a train full of people. “Jumpy and nervous”? That the Muslim community in Britain might well be. But so was the suspect. So are the police. And so are all of us. I’m only glad that I’m not the one having to make those split second life-and-death decisions.
We are seeing the birth of extra-judicial killings in the heart of Western cities. No longer hidden or kept secret by shadowy government officials, but committed under the mantra of “blame the terrorists.” London mayor Ken Livingstone misses the point entirely: “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.” Tom Engelhardt reports on the logical extension of this new ideology, the kidnapping of “terrorism” suspects in various countries around the world by American authorities and then spirited away to dictatorships for torture. There have allegedly been over 100 of such missions since 9/11, but it’s a figure impossible to clarify.
Another innocent life wasted. A moment of madness experienced by just another police officer, to be sure. But how then do we classify the many moments of madness that lead four young men to kill themselves and the lives of tens of others just weeks earlier? Is the police officer who committed this act a terrorist too? A murderer? None of the above? A mistaken moment of violence, however mistaken, has contributed to the same result, with another innocent person shoved forcibly off their mortal coil.
It’s important that we debate all of the angles on this, now more than ever these kinds of incidents define and decide the kind of society we are/will be living in under the specter of terrorism. We need to choose carefully.
From a practical perspective, I guess the question that the British police are going to have to consider is whether or not there could have been something else they could have done. Surely the answer is yes.
Something like holding de Menezes and frisking him without firing five rounds into his head.
I’m waiting until the evidence is clearer, I’m assuming an investigation is already underway. Making decisions on justification based on reports from confused and terrified witnesses is jumping to conclusions imho — and I thought that when he was a would be bomber and it hasn’t changed now he’s a Brazilian electrician.
Brazilians of any colour don’t really look like Pakistani’s!
Events such as this show that the terrorists are winning!
I’d like to know where Robert Corr gets his information when he states that “he had been followed from a house that was under surveillance”. From the Sydney Morning Herald I only get that he came out of a block of flats that police had under surveillance (while looking for someone else). Very big difference between a house and a block of flats. Can anyone have more information?
My earlier post should end: “DOES anyone have more information?”
A few relevant reports:
The Guardian reports such tactics are modelled on those of the Israelis:
Why shoot the head? (according to a former London Police Commissioner)
And just updating people, according to the News of the World, it’s the “War on Evil” now.
the shooting in the head strategy makes perfect sense.
still, assuming this guy is innocent it’s worrying. like amanda i’d wait for more findings before jumping to conclusions - as amanda said, the fact that he’s brazilian doesn’t mean jack all. fact is he was fluent in english and would have understood when the plainclothes policemen clearly identified themselves as such unless they didn’t. that bit is still unclear
I’ve revised my position. The police didn’t see him leave a house, they saw him leave a block of flats. That ought to lower the level of suspicion significantly, unless terrorists lived in every single flat.
And they let him catch a bus to get to the tube station. If they really believed he was a suicide bomber, and given that previous bombers have targetted buses, surely they would have incapacitated him at that point?
But it’s too early to make a final judgment. I’ve altered my position several times now as new facts have emerged, and I don’t think we know the full story yet.
Naomi, put it this way. Phil makes a point about people of colour and their experience with police. How many Aborigines might run from police in Australia even if they’re guilty of nothing?
Another post by saint, btw.
(If Dave followed the link to my post, he would know that I got the information about a “house” from the British Daily Mail. But he’d also know that a commenter pointed out it was a block of flats, and that I’d updated my post accordingly.)
mark
brazilians are not aborigines. look at a picture of the guy, he’s virtually indistinguishable from an italian and i know at least one brit who looks more meditteranean than that.
I know that, Jason. My point is to make an analogy between darker skinned people in different countries (and for that matter those that look to the police as “foreigners”) and the way that cops often act towards them.
Guy suggests he might have run from the police because he was working illegally in Britain. Makes sense to me.
That ought to lower the level of suspicion significantly, unless terrorists lived in every single flat
It was Stockwell…there is a slight chance that every flat had a terrorist. Also, News of the World and Daily Mail are not great sources of reliable information. They normally have headlines as rhetoric so they can get around defamation laws.
Example:
Photo: Young man who killed a paediatrician thinking he was a paedophile.
Headline: Is this the most dangerous man in Britain?.
Er…No
It’s hard to speak to the question of what his individual experience might have been, of course, Naomi. Who knows why he ran? Perhaps he had some different legal troubles? Perhaps he’d had a bad experience with the cops in the past, in London or in Brazil. Lots of people in Australia have had.
“But it is curious he was allowed to get on a bus.”
# He would have been tagged as a suspect rather than someone with intent. The police would have followed him using, say, four guys, who keep a running commentary via radios back to base and between each other.
If the suspect’s behaviour didn’t change once he was on the bus, then he would still be treated as a suspect, not as a bomber, and tailed. If his behaviour had changed on the bus, then he would have been challenged, and possibly shot, there.
Once the suspect started moving towards a tube station the ’suspectedness’ of his behaviour increased and he would go from being a normal suspect to a being a possible bomber. Bear in mind that there would be radio chatter between the controller at base and the guys on the ground while all this was going on. The tailing police would relate all the suspects movements and the controller would acknowledge and indicate to continue as is, or intercept. (The police on the ground would, of course, have over-riding directives should the guy suddenly yelled ‘Allah’u akbar’ or done something extraordinarily suspicious.)
Once the guy entered the tube station any behaviour change would be seen as indicative of something bad. The controller would have handed over complete control to the guys following at this point. They would have full independent authorisation to shoot after challenging the suspect from that point.
The suspect was challenged with ‘Armed Police! Stop or I will fire!’ or similar.
He ran, which was of course interpretted as intent to do something very bad and he was run down and shot.
Whether he ‘needed’ to be shot is open to interpretation in much the same way as that schizophrenic Frenchman was shot on Bondi beach a few years back.
The intelligence gathered by using a taser rather than a gun would be more useful.
If, on the bus, he’d reached into a pocket, or sat/stood in an unusual spot (eg standing in the middle instead of going to the rear) he would have been challenged then.
“Another question I have, is that even if the cops did think he was a terror suspect, surely it‚Äôs good investigative procedure to question suspects?”
# Well, yes.
What people seem to have completely conveniently forgotten is that the UK security services dealt with the bombings and shootings of the IRA for a couple of decades. It’s not as if these recent bomb attacks are that different in operational terms.
The British SAS got into all sorts of trouble when they shot dead two known IRA bombers in Gibraltar in the late 70s(?). One IRA member made eye contact with oen of the SAS, realised who the soldier was, and reached into his pocket. He was shot, and the female IRA member who was within hearing distance was also shot.
The point about the IRA experience, harry, reinforces the point about the questionable need to adopt Israeli tactics. And we should also differentiate between the military rules of engagement proper to the SAS and police protocols.
Mark,
I agree absolutely.
It gives me the iggits that people think that the terrorists of today are some never before experienced ‘evil’ that requires new and unprecedented laws/resposes/disruption etc.
They’re not.
And what do you know: you give security forces the same powers as before and the same problems will crop up again. Why are people acting all surprised?
The rhetoric I’ve been seeing by email and on the blogs is, as you would expect, revenge based rather than actually dealing with the problem.
Phil’s post is a really good one. The War on Terror is one of the biggest shit sandwiches I have ever seen. I shouldn’t be surprised that so many people are eating it whilst smiling, but I am.
So, now it’s a War against Evil, rather than against Terror.
Wake me up when someone launches a worthwhile ‘War’ that they throw billions of dollars at and write imposing laws for that actually helps a large number of people, like, ooh I dunno, ‘The War on Cancer’.
The other thing going on is the paradox that Bush/Blair/Howard talk up the efficacy of Al-Qaeda - and thus create fear - they need to to justify these sort of measures - at the same time as they call on us to “live our everyday lives” despite the threat.
The Israeli tactics are from a revenge-based policy.
I fail to see what was wrong with the original British tactics.
“The other thing going on is the paradox that Bush/Blair/Howard talk up the efficacy of Al-Qaeda - and thus create fear - they need to to justify these sort of measures - at the same time as they call on us to “live our everyday lives” despite the threat.”
Yeah. It makes me laugh bitterly.
“paradox” You are far too polite, Mark.
Howard even said ‘We shouldn’t let terrorists dictate our foreign policy.’ Um, that’s a funny comment to make considering we invaded a whole other country for the first time because of terrorists.
What Chrenkoff wrote above is a classic cop-out from a complete faux-intellectual. All he is saying is ‘It is easier not to think about it.’ But people think this is a valid comment and line of action! Give me a break.
On house vs block of flats. Blocks of flats in London are not necessarily like standalone blocks of flats here. They could be a converted multi storey house where each floor becomes one or more flats and everyone has a common entrance - making it harder to tell who is leaving from which flat. The latest report had ‘council flats’ - OK I tend to think of some of highrise project flats I knew as council flats when I lived there - but without seeing pics one doesn’t know. I wouldn’t be jumping into police conspiracy theories here.
I am not aware that the British SAS had to contend with suicide bombers when dealing with IRA. Many reports seem to be converging on the Brits learning their tactics (shoot in the head) from the Israelis who have had the most experience with suicide bombers after all.
The guy was not simply shot. It seems that he was challenged first - somwhere in the entrance to a tube station with a long descent down to the platform. Perhaps, if there were few people about, that was the safest place as opposed to a bus or a crowded train platform. Perhaps it would have been harder to tail him in a crowded train. Who knows why there and not earlier - there will be an enquiry as there always is with a police shooting. Good grief, Britain is not some lawless backwater in South America folks. And since when should we start fearing the police (OK I don’t live in Victoria)
If you can bear to read through all the comments in this thread, and ignore some of the Americans all angst driven about their rights, there are lots of bits of info amongst the dross (including one incident of smart arse Asian youths on the motorway)
On the info to date, it seems that the man running may - possibly jumping a turnstile - may have been the determining factor in deciding to chase and shoot. Why did he run? Did he hear the officers challenge him (assuming that they did)? Know it was directed at him? Just got startled by some commotion behind him while he was in his thoughts (after a late night working) and caught a glimpse of plain clothes men with guns and ran. We don’t know and we never will. So all we can do is wait on what observers saw (and some of the “eyewitness” accounts of him wearing a bomb belt have alreayd been discredited) pieced together with the policeman’s reports. And as long as they followed their procedure and had made a reasonable assessment, they will be exhonerated.
As an aside. Many years ago, I remember a New Yorker telling me that when the police was about and he heard shots in his neighbourhood, he didn’t run. Because it was almost a guarantee that you would be shot. I don’t know if it was good or bad universal advice, or a ‘done thing’ just in his neighbourhood. But for some reason that lodged in my head. Trouble is, how can you tell a cop in plain clothes.
On the shooting, and shooting to kill: NSW cops are taught to shoot only at the head, and to shoot to kill. They are not meant to draw their guns unless that is their intention, ie no “warning shots” or body shots, the idea being that you should only draw your gun in the belief that shooting someone dead is the only available option in the situation.
Not sure what the situation is with armed UK police.
Zoe there’s some comment on that in the long thread I linked to (and I can;t remember details) but the terms of engagement under Operation Kratos may be different from normal procedure i.e. shoot in the head. And no warning shot perhaps?
This report has a time line (and map) which suggests he jumped the barrier before being challenged.
Operation Kratos. Here, here and google away for more.
err no the israeli tactics are not a ‘revenge-based policy’. the gist of it is that unless he’s braindead the suicide bomber might still find some way to detonate the bomb if shot elsewhere.
the question of whether or not shooting suspected suicide bombers in the head is a separate one from whether the police implemente the policy appropriately in this case or whether they jumped to conclusions. the latter is still moot, the plainclothes factor may have contributed to the guy acting as strangely as he did if the police’s warnings were not audible. but re the policy itself, I think it’s justified. suicide bombers are basically like mad dogs, and there is no choice but to put them down decisively because the alternative is worse.
They are on absolute red alert, they are going to be trigger happy, but we also need them to be.
I can’t agree with that, Naomi.
“err no the israeli tactics are not a ‘revenge-based policy‚Äô.”
That’s right - they are FROM a revenge based policy, which is what I wrote. Palestinians shoot/mortar israelis, the israelis send gun ships in response ie tit-for-tat that does nothing to actually solving the problem. Israeli troops are frequently involved in gun battles, mortaring, driving through the territories etc, which is a world away from police action in London.
“the gist of it is that unless he‚Äôs braindead the suicide bomber might still find some way to detonate the bomb if shot elsewhere.”
# Which won’t help if (a) he is remotely detonated as the original four London bombers were; or (b) if he has an anti-tamper device fitted to his bomb.
Shooting him doesn’t make sense if he is already pinned by three policemen and therefore is unable to move any part of his body.
It’s not about shooting him elsewhere, but about shooting him at all if he has already been apprehended.
The only new thing the Brits have added is the shooting-them-in-the-head-when-he’s-apprehended thing.
“suicide bombers are basically like mad dogs, and there is no choice but to put them down decisively because the alternative is worse.”
Yeah, that’s great Jason. First you have to know they are a suicide bomber. Also you seem quite happy to destroy any intelligence the guy might carry in his head which can prevent the next bombing - very short-sighted of you. You’re an economist: you know all about cost/benefit analysis, right?
“and there is no choice ”
There was a choice! The suspect was already apprehended, and, going from the MO of the previous bombings, shooting wouldn’t have done any good.
And since when should we start fearing the police (OK I don’t live in Victoria)
Maybe “we” shouldn’t, saint. If we means white people who look middle class and behave predictably. But from what I’ve observed of police-Aboriginal interactions in Brisbane (and the reports of several CMC inquiries), and from the research on how street kids generally are treated - and for that matter, racial profiling in the US, it’s clear that among many minority groups there are rational reasons to be nervous about being approached by police.
Some years ago, and this was again a subject of a CMC enquiry, an Aboriginal teenager was ordered to lie on the ground by police with guns drawn in Brisbane’s King George Square. It was never clear quite why. The case probably wouldn’t have attracted any attention had it not been that his mother was a university Professor.
I’ve personally seen cops kicking a young Aboriginal boy in the ribs in Queen Street mall on a Friday night with nary a sidewards glance from late night shoppers.
Any policy, however justified, that gives increased powers to police to act without effective due process needs very serious thinking indeed.
“They are on absolute red alert, they are going to be trigger happy, but we also need them to be.”
What we need them to be is extremely well trained.
Furthermore to Jason’s post: the Israelis can get away with killing more innocent civillians during counter-terrorist operations than the Brits can. I don’t think the Israeli experience is neccessarily directly transferrable to England.
As I wrote before: The Brits dealt with the IRA. The dead IRA on Gibraltar were conceivably reaching for remote bomb detonators (Intelligence had suggested so, which is why they were being tailed in the first place). That is the reason they were shot. In previous instances remote detonators had been frisked from the clothes of IRA guys who’d been over powered.
This is no different to dealing with a suspected suicide bomber: if you don’t have a chance of overpowering him then shoot him. Shooting him after you’ve overpowered him seems like a waste - particularly when it turns out to be someone else. Shooting as a matter of course doesn’t seem like the way to go, as has just been amply demonstrated.
The point is, the Brits have done this before (and won), so why change the tactics?
I’d venture it is revenge/hard-arsed based, rather than for sound operational reasons.
harry
even the muslim council of britain has said shoot to kill can be justified. i thought your argument was against shoot to kill policies generally rather than shoot to kill when he’s otherwise incapacitated? but even in that case we don’t know what options the police thought that guy might have had to detonate, we weren’t there. otherwise i don’t think we disagree.
perhaps if there were some special poison darts the police could be equipped with to induce temporary paralysis this would be a better option. in this case i would not regard shoot to kill as necessary.
I suspect harry’s right.
On saint’s point about not running from police in New York, that’s good advice. Giuliani’s term as Mayor was marked by a number of shootings of young black men who were “suspected of being about to pull a weapon” just after they were warned by police. They were without exception later found not to have been armed. Guiliani defended these shootings as “righteous” and the general effect was to have put the fear of God (or rather the cops) into young black men. Some commentary on this suggested that it would be a useful deterrent to crime. That is, if you are black in some areas in New York, and you don’t react as predicted to police orders, you will be shot dead, and this should make you think hard.
Of course, suicide bombers are not responsive to rational deterrence, but an effect of this incident will be to put the fear of God into a lot of people in London.
A similar point arises as with the US troops in Iraq - what if the person being ordered to stop does not understand English? I’d have thought not totally uncommon in London. In Iraq, the US soldiers are clearly identifiable as such, but what margin for error exists in a noisy and crowded Tube station when the police are plainclothes?
That’s the tragedy Kim, and we will now never know what he thought and why he ran. (He also lived for a while is Sao Paolo slums…running might have been instinctive..and if he jumped the barrier before being challenged as the latest reports indicated…did he think he was being done for fare evasion? Augh.)
On police training etc. We don’t know exactly who shot him - just plain clothes police. British Met police still generally remain unarmed except for certain areas, protective duties etc. but if you are dealing with plain clothes you may be talking specialists like S019 or similar ….some of the best trained cops in the world.
A Guardian report from way back suggests shoot to kill has always been a policy for armed officers. They are trained to double tap the torso or aim for the head in instances where instant kills are preferable. I’d say under Kratos it would now always be go for the head, if suspicious of a suicide bomber (dead man switches etc.)
These are not pretty facts. But these are not pretty times.
Mark - I know what you are saying. I grew up inner city with migrants, old people and an Aboriginal hostel a few doors down the street (and sometimes some of the very olive skinned dark haired Europeans would be mistaken for Aboriginals and vice versa, especially the kids). I live in a pretty ethnically diverse suburb now (suggest you lock your doors always). But it cuts both ways. Good cops bad cops. Good public, bad public. Give and take.
I have an Aboriginal friend who doesn’t drive any more because he got sick and tired of always being pulled up by the cops - he always had a relatively new car - they probably thought it was stolen. And yes he has a job, *owns* his own home, dresses like you and me, too bad if he was taken from his parents when he was three and raised by a white family so is more ‘white’ in speech and manners and dress and outlook. He just has the skin colour and facial features of someone who is “one generation from the desert” as he says. Does he get pissed off about it? Yes sometimes, although he jokes that he’s now taken up trainspotting for a hobby. But he’s not stupid and he’s pragmatic and understands cops attitudes: he himself will tell you that they are not always racist or baseless. And as he just wants to get on with his life he finds a way through it, absolutely determined that whether he is a black man or a white man in black skin - it doesn’t matter what others think. As long as he doesn’t look in the mirror and see a redneck.
One of my heroes.
I am amazed that ppl find it strange that you would run from blokes coming after you with a gun - you either freeze or you flee - it’s instinctive and until you are in the position you have no idea how you will react.
This shoot to kill policy has clearly been rushed in and the cops are not trained - panic by all - sad and less than i’d have expected from a UK police force - but that just demonstrates my naivety.
The over-reaction to the the bombings while understandable needs to be addressed. It also requires people like our Prime Minister not to rush around the world breathlessly reciting all the exciting law enforcement lessons he thinks he’s learning.
But he’s not stupid and he’s pragmatic and understands cops attitudes: he himself will tell you that they are not always racist or baseless.
I know that’s the case, saint, I’m just trying to point to why people might be scared of cops.
“even the muslim council of britain has said shoot to kill can be justified. i thought your argument was against shoot to kill policies generally rather than shoot to kill when he‚Äôs otherwise incapacitated?”
# Ah! No. I think the two IRA in Gibraltar was the right call, because overpowering them was not an option.
Similarly shooting the suspected bomber while he’s running away could be defended - regrettable though it would be. I don’t think the shooting of an apprehended person can be defended. And irrespective of the moral position, it does waste an intelligence source.
“but even in that case we don‚Äôt know what options the police thought that guy might have had to detonate, we weren‚Äôt there.”
# Sure, but the police haven’t said what that mystery detonation method was. I certainly can’t think of any other way of setting the bomb off except by remote methods. The only defence that I have read of the shooting is them saying ‘this is what the Israelis have recommended’. Of course, the thing for suicide bombers to now do with be to fit an extra trigger based on the heartbeat: if the heart stops, the bomb goes off. Pretty easy to rig up if you are already techno savvy enough to make a bomb.
“otherwise i don‚Äôt think we disagree.”
# Agreed.
“perhaps if there were some special poison darts the police could be equipped with to induce temporary paralysis this would be a better option. in this case i would not regard shoot to kill as necessary.”
# There must be a very good reason why tasers aren’t used more often instead of guns. Does anyone know? I have seen them demonstarted and they aren’t that much slower than a gun, though their range is a bit less. (And not just for counter terrorism work, but for normal policing. I know several US State police use tasers as well as guns, but they have had problems with over/inappropriate use because of their non-lethal nature.)
I was once chased by two plainclothes in Melbourne - they ran at me with pistols poiunted at me - they shouted something about being cops but my first thought was that they were bad guys of some description - I froze. They arrested me. It was their mistake - I had been driving a taxi that had been on the stolen car list for two years - it had been returned soon after the theft but never removed from the police’s stolen list.
There is no mystery to why the guy in London ran - he was scared for his life. Not because he was coloured but because men were chasing him - very simple.
Kim,
“Of course, suicide bombers are not responsive to rational deterrence, but an effect of this incident will be to put the fear of God into a lot of people in London.”
That is my gut feeling. I reckon that the directive was issued to the Met, not so as to put the fear of God into would-be terrorists, but to reassure the public that the government was ‘doing something’.
This is much the same deal as putting drug-detection dogs on patrol in Newtown and defending it as a way of catching dealers. Only dipshit no-nothings would believe that this was an effective way of finding drug dealers: it’s politics pure and simple.
You don’t show terrorists that you’re better than they are by shooting them and bragging about it. That is counter productive, especially when they already have a place in Heaven set aside for them. Capturing them and giving them gaol terms etc and only killing them as a last resort is much better. That way it is clear that the Good Guys only kill as a last resort whereas the Bad Guys kill as matter of course.
The terrorists, after all, WANT an escalation. The more the government reacts, the more effective the terrorists have been.
We’re losing the war, aren’t we? When we sanction this sort of cold blooded killing as the consequence of terror, they’ve really made some headway. What other rights can we jump up and ditch with enthusiasm?
wbb - likely. It’s what I thought when I posted about it on my blog. Plain clothes, guns. But we will never know.
harry - a british commentor on a blog (sorry can’t remember where) mentioned a bbc news program which said detonation of july 7 was via a wire that ran down the arm and which was to be connected to a battery - and that the news program showed one of the batteries found…). Another report I read said tazers can inadvertently detonate a bomb.
I know nothing about bombs or how to detonate them. But really do we think the police have not thought about all this too? And let’s say tazers were an option. Got enough to to go around?
Augh. And what could stop this?
“A Guardian report from way back suggests shoot to kill has always been a policy for armed officers. They are trained to double tap the torso or aim for the head in instances where instant kills are preferable. I‚Äôd say under Kratos it would now always be go for the head, if suspicious of a suicide bomber (dead man switches etc.)”
saint raises a really good point here. I firmly agree that when police open fire they should do so with the express intent of killing. No warning shots either.
The problem with the idea of ’shooting to wound’ or ’shooting to stop’ is that it doesn’t work. There are any number of instances of assailants withstanding four or more police bullets - even to the chest. Legs are simply hard to hit a vital point on. As I understand it, the NSW police firing guidelines are based on FBI training which says that a knife armed assailant can stab a policeman starting from 15 metres away, which is why cops shoot knife armed people rather than trying to disarm them with batons.
The police are paid to stop us being killed but the most important person they have to prevent being killed is themselves.
So, yes you give police guns but you base their use around the expectation that police are shooting only to kill. Less grey area, more transparency, less confusion in the heat of the moment etc.
Then you give cops capsicum spray and tasers.
saint,
“detonation of july 7 was via a wire that ran down the arm and which was to be connected to a battery - and that the news program showed one of the batteries found…).”
Really? I was under the impression they were the same as the second set of bombs that were all remotely detonated. Okay.
Either way, my argument remains the same: I can’t see how a pinned man can touch a wire to a battery.
“Another report I read said tazers can inadvertently detonate a bomb.”
# Well, that’s why you don’t use tazers then!
“I know nothing about bombs or how to detonate them. But really do we think the police have not thought about all this too?”
# Sure, but I would also have thought the police would have thought about the likelihood of a non-terrorist running from police, being held down and then shot in the head!
My worry is that in the current hysterical climate they can simply get away with it. Agian, contrast this with Victorian Police from a few years back.
“And let‚Äôs say tazers were an option. Got enough to to go around?”
# Yes. There are enough guns to go round. England has had since ooh the original Irish rebellion on 1919 to work it out. Terrorism has been in England for ages! Shooting people by the Israeli method is new.
My only problem with this whole thing is this new Israeli method and what it will actually mean.
“Augh. And what could stop this?”
[saint has linked to an article in the LA Times reporting a truck bomber in Baghdad driving into a line of recruits before detonating and killing many people.]
The only thing that could stop this is a police state, with random and frequent roadside checks by security forces pointing guns.
Do you, saint, want to live in such a police state?
Maybe I have harry. Or maybe my family knows something about police states up close and personal.
More details in this NZ Herald report. This is really a tragedy for both the family and the police.
Reports also of another unexploded and discarded bomb found, suggesting fifth bomber.
OK I’m outta here for today.
I also agree with Guernica’s point, Naomi.
I’m not saying that the police should never under any circumstances shoot people, either.
Thanks for the link, saint. It’s really tragic.
Mobile phones generally don’t work on the underground. Now I am really really out of here.
Without touching on the wider issue, a narrow point: Shoot to kill policies should not be an option in the case of plain clothes police. Too little certainty that the person (who is likely to be from a racial minority) isnt running just because a bunch of big white guys are yelling and chasing him.
Apologies Nic, I should have included you in the round up, must have missed it in my RSS feed.
So we’ve come to this. Arguing about the possibilities and justifications the organs of the State might bring to shoot people in the head, innocent or guilty, while they’re busy running away.
Fantastic. Makes me proud to be a reader.
what Liam said ten thousand times
Just a teeny bit o’ the $300 billion poured into the Iraq caper would make instantly incapacitating nonlethal technologies like sticky foam and stun bunnies reliably workable under such conditions.
Saint also has a good point about the internal layout of many London houses converted to flats.
Yes, it’s true the Brits are very experienced at dealing with urban terrorism. However suicide bombers are a pretty new thing for them, I suspect a lot of their practical knowledge is being lost through generational change, and I reckon Brit police/domestic security operations at their most effective are quite a different kettle of fish to the Israeli model.
Slightly OT, I was in London last year and ambling down Millionaires Row on beautiful summer’s afternoon (soundtrack courtesy of someone in the Romanian Embassy blasting out Eminem) and there standing in the shade dappled sunlight on this glorious day in one of the world’s most piss elegant streets was an ordinary bobby in helmet and shortsleeves but sporting a bullet-proof vest and submachine gun. I caught his eye and he looked distinctly embarrassed and sorta shuffled around to make the gun look less conspicious.
And now as Liam points out, we’re discussing the pros and cons of woodentops shooting people in the head.
Strange days indeed.
Lateline is reporting that Mr de Menezes’ visa had recently expired, that he had recently been mugged and that witnesses have stated that the police didn’t identify themselves as such clearly and that their shouts could not be heard.
A couple of thoughts on the wider question of the ‘policy’ itself:
a. I suspect its currently under review, despite official ploddisms to the contrary.
b. the episode points to the near futility of policing terrorism that late in the piece (some guy is now on a train, looking like a million other guys on train). This will rarely produce an outcome different to this extra-judicial execution of a bystander. Its got to be intelligence based.
Yep - just like million brown-skinned people in London. Something to fear from large yelling men in plain clothes.
Good point LE. London and New York are the world capitals of guilty secrets - from the top end getting occasionally busted for insider trading to the creative/demi-monde end getting occasionally busted for drugs to the bottom end getting occasionaly busted for illegal immigration.
You don’t have world-class cities without world class dirt that rubs off on everyone that makes ‘em such cities. Throw some some crazed Irish or Islamic bombers into the mix and who isn’t hustling, strolling and dancing on razorblades?
Fuck it. One bombing there and I’m moving back to London. That’s a city which does its best work on the edge.
“So we‚Äôve come to this. Arguing about the possibilities and justifications the organs of the State might bring to shoot people in the head, innocent or guilty, while they‚Äôre busy running away.
Fantastic. Makes me proud to be a reader.”
As Liam says. I have found it hard to believe that I have been reading leftist blogs/commenters.
Once again:
“So we‚Äôve come to this. Arguing about the possibilities and justifications the organs of the State might bring to shoot people in the head, innocent or guilty, while they‚Äôre busy running away.
Fantastic. Makes me proud to be a reader.”
We’re all being challenged by events Cowpat, sure there are certain things that are inviolable for us but they still exist out there for the greater masses, we must understand and debate, this helps us to build strength into our position.
I’ve got guys at work who believe that this shooting was all OK and all the victims fault without them canvassing the greater issues, I’ve pointed out to them the civil rights aspects and a bigger picture and now they are wavering, especially as new info comes to light.
The police followed this man for some time.
I am finding it hard to think any trained policeman would shoot at a brazilian whom looks nothing like a Paki, Egyptian et al.
Who has ever heard of a brazilian muslim?
Homer, I understand that it is a ritual requirement for Muslims to have brazilians.
This UK blogger has a personal recollection of Jean Charles.
It should be noted that in the early stages of investigation that the police shot him eight times, seven head/one shoulder and did let him board a bus to the tube.
Presumably not in that order, Phil.
brazilians are nuts!
Obviously Griff. Now stop being pedantic and get back to enlightening us with your comments on brazilians of the waxy kind as opposed to brazilians who get waxed.
I heard on the news tonight that the man was shot EIGHT times!!!
Can’t people see that England and Australia are becoming police states and we are letting it happen.
Is this how totaliarian govts get control?
Oh … now more than ever we need a vigilant and questioning press and we just don’t have it.