View Full Version : Shoot to Kill Policy-Right or Wrong?
joeSoap
25/07/2005, 8:51 AM
Sky News are running a poll, and at the moment, 74% agree with the policy to shoot to kill when reasonable cause is to be derived from a suicide bomber. I personally agree with this too, given the recent events.
The questions that need to be answered are:
1). Why did this Brazilian chap flee the estate that was under surveillance in a panic?
2). Why did he so desperately want to make that particular train?
3).Why did he not surrender himself with his hands up when cornered?
4). Could the police have handled it better?
5). What other options did they have open to them?
6). If he did turn out to be a terrorist, and detonated a bomb after they had an opportunity to take him out, would people be so humane and understanding of their inability to prevent loss of life?
I'm sure there are many other questions that need answering too. I can see why they did it, but can understand peoples dismay also....it is a lose-lose scenario for all involved I think. :mad:
I'm sure there are many other questions that need answering too.
Here's one - why let him leave the estate, get a bus, then a attempt to get on a train if they genuinely thought he was a suicide bomber?
Why not take him out in an area not full of civilians?
joeSoap
25/07/2005, 9:32 AM
I find it odd that he wasn't intercepted outside his house or away from the public.
Apparently....and I'm only repeating what some eye witnesses reported on Sky News this morning, so don't anyone go jumping down my throat over this....he ran from a house, and did a really good job of dodging his way out of the estate.Perhaps the actions of a man who did not want to meet the police for a reason....we now know it was not because he was involved in any terrorist activity, but nonetheless, he really did not want to get caught by them, and may well have been hiding something. These actions aroused suspicion in the cops minds, and justifiably so, in my mind.
anto1208
25/07/2005, 9:39 AM
i totally agree with there policy but i can also understand why the guy ran , this area isnt really the best of area there has been a lot of drug dealing and gun voilence in the area , so maybe he noticed these guys waiting out side his house then following him to the train station , he doesnt know who they are ( undercover ) they start shouting at him to stop and pull guns so he panics and runs , its a normal reaction when people with guns are chasing you
There have been NO CREDIBLE reports of this man dodging, fleeing or running from his flat.
NONE.
He left his flat, caught a bus and then entered the Tube station. At no time during this journey is there any evidence that he knew he was being watched, or made ANY attempts to dodge, evade, or any other word you want to use, the Police.
Why he ran at the Tube station is anybody's guess, but the conduct of the Police is highly questionable here.
If they were so sure that he was a possible suicide bomber, why did they let him on to a bus with many passengers?
The Police must do what they feel is best in such a situation, and if they believe that someone is about to detonate a bomb, they most probably need to use lethal force, but the way they handled this incident, long before they even shot the man, shows a staggering level of incompetence.
anto1208
25/07/2005, 2:12 PM
its coming out now his visa had ran out , and he must have noticed guys hanging around the flat / following him and ran .
strangeirish
25/07/2005, 2:14 PM
From what I understand, he was in the country illegally and his english was not the best. That in itself may answer a lot of questions.
Now that's what I call justice..... 2005.
joeSoap
25/07/2005, 2:25 PM
Macy, I understand your sentiments, but before you've occupied all the moral high ground out there, just put yourself in the shoes of those cops. They had to obey orders, had to give pursuit to a person acting very strangely in an estate they had under surveillance, they had a judgement call to make, and when he didn't respond in the way a purely innocent person would, ie hands in the air, on your knees kinda stuff, that call was made so much harder. I don't for one minute think that this was a cold blooded killing like its being insinuated, but I do acknowledge that there were mistakes made.
If they took no action and he happened to detonate something that killed a lot of innocent civilians then I'm sure you'd be slating them for not doing their jobs correctly.
Try and be objective.
WeAreRovers
25/07/2005, 2:38 PM
There is ZERO justification to what happened to this totally innocent man. If running away from the police constitutes an offence that leads to being shot 5 times in the head then we are fcuked as a society and may as well pack it in now.
This man was lying on the ground and the cop that shot him was sitting on him as he shot him. That's murder people, plain and simple. The Met took their new shoot-to-kill/aim for the head policy from the Israelis and that says it all. Taking advice from forces that murder 4-year-old girls for the same "running away" offence is crazy.
KOH
I wouldn't feel sorry for Police that have to make these decisions as thats their job - make decision on what appropriate action is. Its up to their superiors to issue the appropriate orders.
One things for certain - not going to be many people watching around London with rucksacks on these days especially if have non-white skin. :eek:
Try and be objective.
I am being objective. There's a reason why we have a justice system, imperfect as it is. Here's an example why we have judges and jurys and don't let cops decide innocence or guilt or punishment.
There could've been a host of other non-terrorist reasons that he could've run, like fear of deportation, shop lifting, an 8th in his back pocket...
fosterdollar
25/07/2005, 3:06 PM
This demonstrates why i do not want to see the Gardai armed over here. I find it hard to hold anything against the cop who killed that man. It's terrible that this happened but don't blame the cops, blame the rules of the system they work in I say. They were given a shoot to kill instruction and the policeman followed orders. Incidentally, i believe the reason the man was shot in the head at close range was because he ran away. A long range shot was out of the question given the possibility he was carrying explosives and they only caught up with him at the Tube station. I'm not excusing it but if you're wondering why it happened then that seems to be the reason. Maybe they messed up a bit in not planning on him running away but I would be wary of accusing them of incompetence.
As mentioned above, we cannot allow men and woman who are no less prone to err as you or I assume the role of judge and jury in these instances.
anto1208
25/07/2005, 3:21 PM
There is ZERO justification to what happened to this totally innocent man. If running away from the police constitutes an offence that leads to being shot 5 times in the head then we are fcuked as a society and may as well pack it in now.
This man was lying on the ground and the cop that shot him was sitting on him as he shot him. That's murder people, plain and simple. The Met took their new shoot-to-kill/aim for the head policy from the Israelis and that says it all. Taking advice from forces that murder 4-year-old girls for the same "running away" offence is crazy.
KOH
zero justifacation how about 2 weeks atfer london got bombed ,and a day after an attempted bombing someguy , jumped the turnstyle into the tube raun with a backpack towards the train when cops told him to stop he kept running at the train ,what are the cops to think , are they suppossed to risk the lives of every one on that train just in case this guy isnt a bomber .
they had seconds to react , this guy was living in london so i reckon he new it got bombed and everyone was on edge and the city was being attacked daily , he should have know not to run through a tube station with a bag on his back for god sake .
how can you covince some one that is willing to blow themselfs up to stop and give themselves over to the cops instead !!. head shot is the way to do it
I thought he wasn't wearing a back-pack? And are we to assume now that only white people are allowed to jump the turnstiles in tube stations?
WeAreRovers
25/07/2005, 3:55 PM
I thought he wasn't wearing a back-pack?
No pack pack but even if he had it would be way OTT. It's lucky for the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 that this new shoot-to-kill policy wasn't around in the seventies. Come to think of it it's lucky for the general Irish community in the UK.
There was a shoot-to-kill policy in the north but that's a whole other ball game. Friday's killing does show how far we've come in relation to the eroding of basic civil rights.
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=399
KOH
Metrostars
25/07/2005, 4:12 PM
You know it is very difficult for the police in question here, they're damned if they do and damned if they dont. So the next time they are watching a building and a suspicious person comes out, eludes the police, runs from them and jumps on a train, they are faced with a difficult question. Do they try and take the guy out or do they guess that it is maybe the wrong person?
There will be a lot more questions if that person is an actual terrorist and blows up a train. Listen, the police were put into this position by these terrorists.
Metrostars
25/07/2005, 4:14 PM
I thought he wasn't wearing a back-pack? And are we to assume now that only white people are allowed to jump the turnstiles in tube stations?
I don't think anyone is allowed to jump the turnstiles.
Troy.McClure
25/07/2005, 4:29 PM
suicide bombers dont have back packs, they typically have bilky looking jackets AFIK.
I feel sorry for the guy, but in the circumstances, he should really have known better :o
anto1208
25/07/2005, 4:38 PM
I thought he wasn't wearing a back-pack? And are we to assume now that only white people are allowed to jump the turnstiles in tube stations?
am he is white !!
A report leaked today reports the police officer watching the flat was releaving himself when DeMenezes left the block of flats, and said he couldn't identify the suspect another plain clothes officer followed DeMenezes untill he got on the bus but he couldn't confirm or deny the idenity of the suspect.
More here
http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1677571
Some one needs to be held to account for this cover-up
WeAreRovers
16/08/2005, 6:58 PM
According to the Observer, he wasn't wearing a big coat, he didn't jump over any barrier, he used his railcard to get into the station etc etc. He was murdered plain and simple.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1548808,00.html
KOH
Shoot to kill still right?
From The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html)....
It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:
· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;
· was unaware he was being followed;
· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;
· never ran from the police;
· and did not jump the ticket barrier.
But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder
Merged Neish/WAR thread with the original thread...
drinkfeckarse
17/08/2005, 8:18 AM
It's funny but the day it was on the news that he wasn't a terrorist, I said to Mrs Drinkfeckarse that the British would put a lot of spin on this to try and save a bit of face. All this " he had a padded jacket etc" on sounded a bit fishy at the time and I'm delighted they have been exposed again to be the corrupt lying toerags that they are.
The Commissioner Iain Blair should resign after this but no doubt he has been locked in talks with the Home Secretary about how to avoid a public outcry.
The Commissioner Iain Blair should resign after this but no doubt he has been locked in talks with the Home Secretary about how to avoid a public outcry.
Helped by sky news no doubt...
tiktok
17/08/2005, 9:11 AM
The more I hear about it, the more it stinks.
Eleven shots fired at the mans head ffs, Eleven. There was a clip emptied into his face.
Seven head shots, one shoulder and three missed.
ciaran76
17/08/2005, 9:18 AM
The more I hear about it, the more it stinks.
Eleven shots fired at the mans head ffs, Eleven. There was a clip emptied into his face.
Seven head shots, one shoulder and three missed.
Not 100% but the impression i got was that 2 police officers shoty off 11 bullets between them ? Might be wrong but thats the way it was told on ITV news this morning.
The thing is you are totaly 100% correct "it stinks" another farce from the police force. :mad:
suicide bombers dont have back packs, they typically have bilky looking jackets AFIK.
I feel sorry for the guy, but in the circumstances, he should really have known better :o
What do you mean he should of known better you never ran to catch a bus or train?
According to this report this is all he done,apart from living in the same block of flats as a suspected terrorist(which he probably was unaware off)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.