Complain all you want about the Patriot Act

[RedskinsDave]

It beats the hell out of the brits decision:

Since the shooting, police have confirmed that two years ago they secretly changed operational guidelines allowing officers chasing suspect suicide bombers to shoot them in the head.

Innocent until proven dead I guess.

source (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1fa4fec8-fc79-11d9-8386-00000e2511c8.html)

[CNYSkinFan]

Wow. Is that how the Brazillian got killed? Brits are hard core man.

[Spence]

What happened to that man is tragic, but hardly surprising when you consider that he came out of a building being watched by police for terror links, was wearing an overcoat and a backpack, ran thru the station, jumped over the turnstiles to get into the trains, and refused to stop when called upon to do so by police. All this while the London police were still finding body parts in the Underground. This guy would have been shot by the DC Metro police, too.

[RedskinsDave]

What happened to that man is tragic, but hardly surprising when you consider that he came out of a building being watched by police for terror links, was wearing an overcoat and a backpack, ran thru the station, jumped over the turnstiles to get into the trains, and refused to stop when called upon to do so by police. All this while the London police were still finding body parts in the Underground. This guy would have been shot by the DC Metro police, too.

Is he really all that innocent then?

[Spence]

Is he really all that innocent then?Well, he apparently had nothing to do with any sort of terrorism. Why he ran is something we will probably never know with absolute certainty, but it is certainly possible that he fled the police because he was in the country on an expired visa. Had they picked him up he probably would have been deported. He knew this so my guess -- and that's all it is -- is that he fled the police without considering the consequences in light of recent events. Tragedy ensues.

[Minnesota Mike]

Since the shooting, police have confirmed that two years ago they secretly changed operational guidelines allowing officers chasing suspect suicide bombers to shoot them in the head.

Don't be fooled. The British security forces have operated under a "shoot to kill" policy for a lot longer than 2 years.

[BurgundyNGold]

This guy getting shot was a tragedy? Please.

Wearing a heavy coat into the subway and toting a backpack on a summer day is, in and of itself is odd, but not illegal. The results of running when the police identify themselves and tell you to stop repeatedly are usually not very good. Hopping turnstiles while being pursued just makes you look that much more desperate. Put thiese all together and you've got a recipe for disaster. Add in the fact that this was 1 day after a failed terrorist attack, and the police did exactly what they should do. If I were their captain, I'd tell them to do the same thing tomorrow.

This guy reacted like either a terrorist or a friggin' idiot. If the former, then great; they got him. If the latter, I think you have to chalk that up to culling the herd, as harsh as that sounds. Some people are just too stupid for society to have to account for and it sounds like this guy was one of them.

[Dexter72]

This guy getting shot was a tragedy? Please.

Wearing a heavy coat into the subway and toting a backpack on a summer day is, in and of itself is odd, but not illegal. The results of running when the police identify themselves and tell you to stop repeatedly are usually not very good. Hopping turnstiles while being pursued just makes you look that much more desperate. Put thiese all together and you've got a recipe for disaster. Add in the fact that this was 1 day after a failed terrorist attack, and the police did exactly what they should do. If I were their captain, I'd tell them to do the same thing tomorrow.

This guy reacted like either a terrorist or a friggin' idiot. If the former, then great; they got him. If the latter, I think you have to chalk that up to culling the herd, as harsh as that sounds. Some people are just too stupid for society to have to account for and it sounds like this guy was one of them.
I don't blame the police -- I defer to their judgement in the heat of the moment. Lord knows if I was in their shoes, I would have my weapon drawn when pulling over an 80 year old grandmother on a routine traffic stop. If he was indeed on an overstayed visa, I hope there is an investigation of the politicians and officials who blindly ignore and allow people to illegally stay in/enter the country.

I would say it clear qualifies as a tragedy; The job of a civilized society is to protect its members, regardless of intelligence level, race, etc.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't blame the police -- I defer to their judgement in the heat of the moment. Lord knows if I was in their shoes, I would have my weapon drawn when pulling over an 80 year old grandmother on a routine traffic stop. If he was indeed on an overstayed visa, I hope there is an investigation of the politicians and officials who blindly ignore and allow people to illegally stay in/enter the country.

I would say it clear qualifies as a tragedy; The job of a civilized society is to protect its members, regardless of intelligence level, race, etc.
I disagree with the assertion that it is the job oa any society, civilized or not, to protect anything based on a person's intelligence. Once you try to start protect people from themselves, it's all over. The civil liberties of the many erode away to ensure the propagation of the stupid few.

There is no way society can account 100% for people who do stupid things. The sheer folly of the endeavor is why we should not even bother to try. 10,000 years ago, this guy probably would've been trampled to death doing something stupid like trying to put nail polish on a mastadon.

We are more "civilized" now, but there should at least me some semblance of personal responsilitity. He was the only who (allegedly) was on an expired visa. He wore the winter coat and the back pack into the tube in July the day after a terrorist bombing. He evaded police. He chose to ignore them and to keep running. He chose to jump the turnstile. And, ultimately he was the one who got shot for that series of stupid decisions. That's not a tragedy and there was little if anything that society could've done differently.

[CNYSkinFan]

I am a civil liberterian to the tenth degree, but when the cops tell you to stop....you do it. Authorizing lethal force for no reason is one thing but when a major terrorist attack just happened and there is several justifications that you could think he is a suicide bomber...you have to side with the police on this one.

However BNG the guy was stupid, but it is a tragedy. And not just to the friends and family of the victim. The officer who shot this person will undoubtedly second guess this till the end of time. Ask any cop who accidently shot a kid with a toy gun the same thing. They will tell you that they replay this horrible day over and over and many can not function as law enforcement officials again.

[BurgundyNGold]

I am a civil liberterian to the tenth degree, but when the cops tell you to stop....you do it. Authorizing lethal force for no reason is one thing but when a major terrorist attack just happened and there is several justifications that you could think he is a suicide bomber...you have to side with the police on this one.

However BNG the guy was stupid, but it is a tragedy. And not just to the friends and family of the victim. The officer who shot this person will undoubtedly second guess this till the end of time. Ask any cop who accidently shot a kid with a toy gun the same thing. They will tell you that they replay this horrible day over and over and many can not function as law enforcement officials again.
If you're suggesting that it was a tragedy in the literary sense, I can see that. His tragic flaw was that he was stupid. Then there is the fact that all of this could've been avoided if he had just handled the situation better.

To me, the tsunami was a tragedy. The WTC attacks of 9/11 were a tragedy. These people had no warning, no options and no chance. To me, this shooting isn't a tragedy -- in the modern sense of the term at least -- precisely because it WAS avoidable. Had both parties followed protocol, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As for the cop who shot him, I feel for him. However, that's part of the job and your country and your community is depending on you. Get over it or get a new job.

[Spence]

As I noted above, the man was in the country on an expired visa. Had he been stopped he probably would have been deported. That's why he ran. Had he run one day before the first London bombings he likely would have escaped unharmed because the police -- whatever their official policy might be -- wouldn't have shot him under those circumstances. He ran after two London bombings in the transport system. Bad time to run. I consider it a tragedy because I don't think someone should die because they are in the country illegally. I don't see how the police can be blamed, though. They did what any normal officer of the law would have done under those circumstances.

[Dexter72]

I disagree with the assertion that it is the job oa any society, civilized or not, to protect anything based on a person's intelligence. Once you try to start protect people from themselves, it's all over. The civil liberties of the many erode away to ensure the propagation of the stupid few.

There is no way society can account 100% for people who do stupid things. The sheer folly of the endeavor is why we should not even bother to try. 10,000 years ago, this guy probably would've been trampled to death doing something stupid like trying to put nail polish on a mastadon.

We are more "civilized" now, but there should at least me some semblance of personal responsilitity. He was the only who (allegedly) was on an expired visa. He wore the winter coat and the back pack into the tube in July the day after a terrorist bombing. He evaded police. He chose to ignore them and to keep running. He chose to jump the turnstile. And, ultimately he was the one who got shot for that series of stupid decisions. That's not a tragedy and there was little if anything that society could've done differently.

I'm not suggesting society (or the police) should have done anything differently, nor am I suggesting that society should protect people from themselves...but when someone makes a somewhat minor dumb decision, albeit at a really bad time, and ends up paying with their life, I would hope society would look to see if there is a simple solution for preventing it from happening again; and society should show sympathy for those involved, as opposed to chalking it up as "culling the herd"; you make it sound like it was a positive event.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm not suggesting society (or the police) should have done anything differently, nor am I suggesting that society should protect people from themselves...but when someone makes a somewhat minor dumb decision, albeit at a really bad time, and ends up paying with their life, I would hope society would look to see if there is a simple solution for preventing it from happening again; and society should show sympathy for those involved, as opposed to chalking it up as "culling the herd"; you make it sound like it was a positive event.
If nobody was at fault, how could there be a simple solution to it happening again? Here's one: listen to the police, dude. There, we've fixed it. And as for whether this was a positive event or not, I do not know. Who knows what will stem from it?

However, as insensitive as it may seem and whether positive or negative, from a Darwinistic perspective, he won't be passing on the "ignore the police when they tell you to stop" gene.

[akhhorus]

I disagree with the assertion that it is the job oa any society, civilized or not, to protect anything based on a person's intelligence. Once you try to start protect people from themselves, it's all over. The civil liberties of the many erode away to ensure the propagation of the stupid few.

There is no way society can account 100% for people who do stupid things. The sheer folly of the endeavor is why we should not even bother to try. 10,000 years ago, this guy probably would've been trampled to death doing something stupid like trying to put nail polish on a mastadon.

We are more "civilized" now, but there should at least me some semblance of personal responsilitity. He was the only who (allegedly) was on an expired visa. He wore the winter coat and the back pack into the tube in July the day after a terrorist bombing. He evaded police. He chose to ignore them and to keep running. He chose to jump the turnstile. And, ultimately he was the one who got shot for that series of stupid decisions. That's not a tragedy and there was little if anything that society could've done differently.

And He was held down by the police and shot five times.

[BurgundyNGold]

And He was held down by the police and shot five times.
He should've stopped resisting.

[flave1969]

Lets get a few things straight here because you are getting swept up in a lot of conjecture. What I write here is from the Police themselves and eyewitnesses on the time Menezes was shot.

Firstly Jean Charles De Menezes came from Brazil where it is roughly 80 degrees plus all year round. The day he was shot it was down in the 60's so not at all surprising that he may have been wearing a big coat, it was not a warm day. As it turns out he may have actually been wearing a denim jacket not a heavy coat, and he had no bag on him.

Secondly the Police had ample opportunity to stop this man before he ever got to the place of his death. He left the block of flats one of which he was living in through three quiet back streets before waiting five minutes for a bus. QUESTION ONE: If you think he is a terrorist do you let him on a packed bus? I would say not especially as you have been tailing him for ten or fifteen minutes. He then takes a two mile bus journey to Stockwell station where the Police decide to take action.

Contrary to reports and it is not verified yet it seems his visa was in order, Jack Straw said as much this evening, so it is conjecture as to why he ran when challenged. The key seems to be whether police identified themselves correctly or not. I completely disagree with plain clothes officer carrying guns in this country, you cannot rely on them in the heat of the moment to clearly identify themselves. Just as in the heat of the moment Menezes jumped a barrier when he had a pass that would have got him through a lot easier if he thought about it.

In the next 25 seconds of chase any would be suicide bomber could have set of his bomb and killed 10-15 people. The station was that busy, however he did not and that should have at least placed doubt in the police minds, what better than to take some police with you. Why would a suicide bomber run?

If you are in fear of a suicide bomber setting of his bomb would you pin that man down by getting on top of him when you can make a circuit to set of a bomb by simply joining your thumb and forefingers? Lastly is it necessary to fire seven shots into the mans head and one in his shoulder? Were they making doubley and tripley sure he was dead?

This is not about the Shoot to Kill policy that our Police would never openly admit until today because in the current situation this policy is probably necessary. This is once again about faulty intelligence and bad operational advice. All the conjecture does not help but what I am telling you comes from eyewitnesses and the Police themselves. They could have stopped him at any point before he got on the bus especially in the three back streets he took which were deserted or near enough. Why if it was not adrenaline and lack of clear thought would you fire eight shots into a man at point blank range.

I am extremely uncomfortable about this, the more I learn the more I hate it. This is a desperate tragedy that good intelligence could have stopped. Why when they had this address the day before did they not get a list of the people living in the flats, they could probably have gotten the list from the local council easily. Why would you wait to raid an address that was found in a back pack anywhere between 12-24 hours before Jean Charles De Menezes died? The Police raided eight or nine addresses very quickly. Why not one that was found in an unexploded back pack? You think they would have been on that like a rash.

No I am not anti police, my best friend works for the Met Police and he goes through and sees *** ******* ******* ******* **** on a daily basis that would make us all cringe. However I am completely against armed plain clothes policeman, who act like the SAS soldiers who train them. This was a mistake the Police could not afford to make IMO.

Thankfully we have an Independant body who will investigate this thoroughly and in the minutest detail. I feel sorry for the Police officers becauser it is clear they were acting mainly on intelligence given to them. But most of all I feel for the man who made one mistake, he ran away from three threatening men, whatever that reason was be it an expired visa, fear from muggers or plain stupidity it cost him his life. Yet another family has lost a son to a gun, exactly what the bombers wanted.

http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=adimarticle&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=1070956&d=20050724&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

[akhhorus]

He should've stopped resisting.

Do we know whether he did or he didn't? If I'm in a foreign country(as a tourist or an illegal immigrant) and in a country where:
A-The cops are rarely publically armed
B-the cops are almost always in uniforms
And I'm being chased by a bunch of guys with guns-I RUN FROM THEM.

[BurgundyNGold]

Lets get a few things straight here because you are getting swept up in a lot of conjecture. What I write here is from the Police themselves and eyewitnesses on the time Menezes was shot.
http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=adimarticle&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=1070956&d=20050724&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm
If it turns out that they shot a guy in a jacket, not carrying a bag and they may or may not have identified themselves to him, then it is a far cry from what was at first reported. If this is indeed the case, then I would have to retract calling this guy stupid, which pretty much invalidates like 4 or 5 posts.

However, amazingly, I'm still right.



j/k
:D

[BurgundyNGold]

Do we know whether he did or he didn't? If I'm in a foreign country(as a tourist or an illegal immigrant) and in a country where:
A-The cops are rarely publically armed
B-the cops are almost always in uniforms
And I'm being chased by a bunch of guys with guns-I RUN FROM THEM.
Like you said, we don't know if they identified themselves as police officers. If they didn't I might run too. If they did, well, he should not have resisted whether they were toting guns or not.

[Dexter72]

If nobody was at fault, how could there be a simple solution to it happening again? Here's one: listen to the police, dude. There, we've fixed it. And as for whether this was a positive event or not, I do not know. Who knows what will stem from it?

However, as insensitive as it may seem and whether positive or negative, from a Darwinistic perspective, he won't be passing on the "ignore the police when they tell you to stop" gene.

Have you ever made a stupid decision? Gotten into a fight you shouldn't have, tried to do something slightly dangerous while intoxicated, run from the police while at a party that is being broken up - I know many smart people guilty of that one. Dumb decisions are hardly the dominion of the dumb but, fortunately, most of us never end up paying a severe price, like this guy did.

Maybe there isn't a simple solution, but maybe there is, or maybe something could be done to make it slightly less likely to happen in the future. If the cops apprehend him before he gets inside the subway station, does he maybe not get shot? If this guy was a white guy, does he get shot? Maybe, maybe not, but I'll take the odds on the white guy not getting shot...If the cops could have identified this guy as hispanic (may or may not have been possible), does he maybe not end up with 8 bullets in the head?? Again, I don't blame the police, but maybe things could have been done a little differently and a tragedy avoided.

[flave1969]

If it turns out that they shot a guy in a jacket, not carrying a bag and they may or may not have identified themselves to him, then it is a far cry from what was at first reported. If this is indeed the case, then I would have to retract calling this guy stupid, which pretty much invalidates like 4 or 5 posts.

However, amazingly, I'm still right.



j/k
:D

My mum was born in Central Portugal and lived there for only the first seventeen years of her life, she to this day after 37 years living in the UK wraps up warm if the sun is not out. Whenever my family comes over from Portugal they are always in a sweater or coat when I am in a T-Shirt. Last week was not a good weather week. I am telling you now 99% of Brazilians and Portuguese wrap up warm in summer in this country, this is a fact. So him wearing a big coat should not have been a crime in itself and is not stupid.

We are also not talking about the Police identifying themselves three or four times before he ran, he ran almost immediately. Eyewitnesses said that the commotion was extremely confusing so much so that the Police had to carry out the deed in front of people who had been told to get off the train. What is clear that from the moment he ran it was chaos. Chaos causes fear and it is not unreasonable to think that this man was out of his mind with fear. This is not an everyday thing in this country.

[BurgundyNGold]

My mum was born in Central Portugal and lived there for only the first seventeen years of her life, she to this day after 37 years living in the UK wraps up warm if the sun is not out. Whenever my family comes over from Portugal they are always in a sweater or coat when I am in a T-Shirt. Last week was not a good weather week. I am telling you now 99% of Brazilians and Portuguese wrap up warm in summer in this country, this is a fact. So him wearing a big coat should not have been a crime in itself and is not stupid.

We are also not talking about the Police identifying themselves three or four times before he ran, he ran almost immediately. Eyewitnesses said that the commotion was extremely confusing so much so that the Police had to carry out the deed in front of people who had been told to get off the train. What is clear that from the moment he ran it was chaos. Chaos causes fear and it is not unreasonable to think that this man was out of his mind with fear. This is not an everyday thing in this country.
Obviously not. And neither are terrorist bombings, so the fear and chaos is certainly justified.

As for the stupid bit, I rolled off a combination of factors that I believed to be true at the time. Many of these are being questioned now, so that's understandable. I never thought that wearing the heavy coat was stupid, just odd. Apparently, wearing a winter coat (which it turns out may not have been) in London in July is quite common.

[BurgundyNGold]

Have you ever made a stupid decision? Gotten into a fight you shouldn't have, tried to do something slightly dangerous while intoxicated, run from the police while at a party that is being broken up - I know many smart people guilty of that one. Dumb decisions are hardly the dominion of the dumb but, fortunately, most of us never end up paying a severe price, like this guy did.

Maybe there isn't a simple solution, but maybe there is, or maybe something could be done to make it slightly less likely to happen in the future. If the cops apprehend him before he gets inside the subway station, does he maybe not get shot? If this guy was a white guy, does he get shot? Maybe, maybe not, but I'll take the odds on the white guy not getting shot...If the cops could have identified this guy as hispanic (may or may not have been possible), does he maybe not end up with 8 bullets in the head?? Again, I don't blame the police, but maybe things could have been done a little differently and a tragedy avoided.
I'm not going to argue the virtue of second chances. I've never run from the cops though. I don't play around with loaded guns either. Same difference.

As for the ethnicity of the guy, he was initially identified as of "Asian descent". Apparently, to improperly trained police officers, that means "darker than white, but not quite black". Perhaps some training in ethnic recognition might've helped. Who knows? I sure don't, but it's sure not politically correct to introduce that one. At least it should be another thread.

[flave1969]

Obviously not. And neither are terrorist bombings, so the fear and chaos is certainly justified.

As for the stupid bit, I rolled off a combination of factors that I believed to be true at the time. Many of these are being questioned now, so that's understandable. I never thought that wearing the heavy coat was stupid, just odd. Apparently, wearing a winter coat (which it turns out may not have been) in London in July is quite common.

It is only common for those from warmer countries, for us Brits 65 degrees constitutes a summers day here. It has not been a bad Summer actually the day before was a beautiful bright sunny day.

I can understand your initial point of view because all the things you were thinking were things I thought. On Saturday we were told that this man was directly linked to the failed bombings, then the next day we find out that he was innocent. It just goes to show that the intelligence being used is far from watertight and on that basis we should all be worried.

[BurgundyNGold]

Have you ever made a stupid decision? Gotten into a fight you shouldn't have, tried to do something slightly dangerous while intoxicated, run from the police while at a party that is being broken up - I know many smart people guilty of that one. Dumb decisions are hardly the dominion of the dumb but, fortunately, most of us never end up paying a severe price, like this guy did.

Maybe there isn't a simple solution, but maybe there is, or maybe something could be done to make it slightly less likely to happen in the future. If the cops apprehend him before he gets inside the subway station, does he maybe not get shot? If this guy was a white guy, does he get shot? Maybe, maybe not, but I'll take the odds on the white guy not getting shot...If the cops could have identified this guy as hispanic (may or may not have been possible), does he maybe not end up with 8 bullets in the head?? Again, I don't blame the police, but maybe things could have been done a little differently and a tragedy avoided.
BTW, I'm still dumbfounded as to why it took 5 of them to tackle him and hold them down while, I suppose, one of them unloaded 8 rounds into his head. If you're tackling him, you cuff him. If you can't get to him, then you fire.

[PyroGenic]

Like you said, we don't know if they identified themselves as police officers. If they didn't I might run too. If they did, well, he should not have resisted whether they were toting guns or not.

I only have one beef with your way of thinking: You're telling me that you're not gonna run away from a group of guys carrying guns? He was foreign, maybe he couldn't understand them. Angry british guys shouting wouldnt exactly be crystal clear to me. Throw in the guns with that and you'd have a scared pyro getting the hell outa there.

[BurgundyNGold]

I only have one beef with your way of thinking: You're telling me that you're not gonna run away from a group of guys carrying guns? He was foreign, maybe he couldn't understand them. Angry british guys shouting wouldnt exactly be crystal clear to me. Throw in the guns with that and you'd have a scared pyro getting the hell outa there.
I sure wouldn't run if they identified themselves as police. I'd just stop in my tracks in an attempt to ascertain what the heck was going on.

[PyroGenic]

I sure wouldn't run if they identified themselves as police. I'd just stop in my tracks in an attempt to ascertain what the heck was going on.


you're ignoring my point that the brazillian might have had problems understanding what they were saying in the first place.

[swheeler]

you're ignoring my point that the brazillian might have had problems understanding what they were saying in the first place.
"Police" in Portueguese is "polícias". That sounds pretty similar to me.

But that's just a minor part of this issue. From what I've read the police may have been at fault, they may have acted exactly as they should have. I don't know. But I do think the system needs to be examined. If he was shot purely because he was stupid, that is still terrible. The government should not kill people simply because of stupidity. It may be unavoidable sometimes, but it should definitely be minimized.

[BurgundyNGold]

you're ignoring my point that the brazillian might have had problems understanding what they were saying in the first place.
Everybody in the modern world knows what the word "police" means. If they identified themselves and he still ran, then he was wrong. If he was deaf, then that's another issue.

[Axegrinder]

As far as I'm concerned....... they can search this!
[points to mammoth object]

[sherry the moron]

Thursday, July 28, 2005
July 27, 2005
Patriot Act Imperfect, But Desperately Needed In Time of War
By Ed Koch

“The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is a danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

That is what Justice Robert H. Jackson said in his dissent in a free speech case in 1949 when according to Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia, “the majority opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas, overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago’s breach-of-the-peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.”

Yet, in Congress last week, when the Patriot Act, dealing with a far greater danger to this country, was reauthorized by a vote of 257 to 171, 17 members of the House of Representatives from New York voted against it. They are: Ackerman, Bishop, Crowley, Engel, Hinchey, Israel, Lowey, Maloney, McCarthy, McNulty, Meeks, Nadler, Owens, Serrano, Towns, Velazquez and Weiner, all Democrats.Last week in London, an innocent man, by admission of the London police, was shot to death by a police officer and, according to The New York Times, that has “revived and fueled an already tense debate over the arming of British police officers.”

Most London police officers are unarmed. Most of the English underworld has apparently responded by not carrying guns themselves.Terrorists don't play by the same rules. They have no respect for western laws or traditions. They carry explosives and are prepared to and have, in fact, blown themselves up in a number of incidents worldwide, killing on occasion when stopped by a security officer, themselves and the officer

* * * http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_27_05_EK.html

[Agrawog]

I don't know about England but police officers in the U.S. are taught to shoot to kill at all times (usually center of mass and usually two shots). Focusing onthe head to avoid possible explosives taped to the guy's body is only a tactical shift not a strategic one. If a police officer fires at you he IS trying to kill you.

Now the question of guilt of the officers in shooting too soon or without provocation is a different issue entirely. No one has explained it but the question around the number of bullets seems to be very similar to the Louima (sp?) case in NYC where the guy was shot something like 40 times. The adrenaline clearly affects the officers who never seem to fire only a few rounds.

I think at the very least you have a police force on the ragged edge of emotions and a suspect acting suspiciously. The onus, however, is always going to be on the polic to make the safer call. Unfair and possibly dangerous but that is the job.

[dukeuch]

While he does not actually say it in his article, Koch seems to imply that the occasional killing of an innocent person is an acceptable cost of the war on terror.

Anyone agree?

[CNYSkinFan]

While he does not actually say it in his article, Koch seems to imply that the occasional killing of an innocent person is an acceptable cost of the war on terror.

Anyone agree?

Only if it is Koch.....or Sherry

[CNYSkinFan]

I don't know about England but police officers in the U.S. are taught to shoot to kill at all times (usually center of mass and usually two shots). Focusing onthe head to avoid possible explosives taped to the guy's body is only a tactical shift not a strategic one. If a police officer fires at you he IS trying to kill you.

Now the question of guilt of the officers in shooting too soon or without provocation is a different issue entirely. No one has explained it but the question around the number of bullets seems to be very similar to the Louima (sp?) case in NYC where the guy was shot something like 40 times. The adrenaline clearly affects the officers who never seem to fire only a few rounds.

I think at the very least you have a police force on the ragged edge of emotions and a suspect acting suspiciously. The onus, however, is always going to be on the polic to make the safer call. Unfair and possibly dangerous but that is the job.

I totally siden with the police in tyhis case. HTe other case was a little different as the accused was reaching for his wallet to get indentification and it was not right after a terrorist attack and it was not taking place where conceivably another atack could come.

The world gets riled up over the number of bullets. But most cops have never fired a gun at a live human being. And when it happens adrenaline will take over and cause you to empty your clip. The question should not be how many bullets fired but whether the first one should of been fired.,

In this case the first bullet in hindsight should not have been fired but only in hindsight. In the heat of the moment with bombs going off across London it was reasonable that the suspect was a suicide bomber. A bullet to the head is the only way to stop such a bomber.

[BurgundyNGold]

I totally siden with the police in tyhis case. HTe other case was a little different as the accused was reaching for his wallet to get indentification and it was not right after a terrorist attack and it was not taking place where conceivably another atack could come.

The world gets riled up over the number of bullets. But most cops have never fired a gun at a live human being. And when it happens adrenaline will take over and cause you to empty your clip. The question should not be how many bullets fired but whether the first one should of been fired.,

In this case the first bullet in hindsight should not have been fired but only in hindsight. In the heat of the moment with bombs going off across London it was reasonable that the suspect was a suicide bomber. A bullet to the head is the only way to stop such a bomber.
That shouldn't be true. These folks are highly trained law enforcement professionals, not some 18 year old draftee running through the rice paddies of Vietnam with little training and scared half to death.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't know about England but police officers in the U.S. are taught to shoot to kill at all times (usually center of mass and usually two shots). Focusing onthe head to avoid possible explosives taped to the guy's body is only a tactical shift not a strategic one. If a police officer fires at you he IS trying to kill you.

Now the question of guilt of the officers in shooting too soon or without provocation is a different issue entirely. No one has explained it but the question around the number of bullets seems to be very similar to the Louima (sp?) case in NYC where the guy was shot something like 40 times. The adrenaline clearly affects the officers who never seem to fire only a few rounds.

I think at the very least you have a police force on the ragged edge of emotions and a suspect acting suspiciously. The onus, however, is always going to be on the polic to make the safer call. Unfair and possibly dangerous but that is the job.

Police are NOT taught to shoot and kill at all times. Quite the contrary.

I think you are thinking about the Diallo case. In that one though, most of the shots came from officers who stormed in after the initial shots because they thought their fellow officers were being shot at.

[CNYSkinFan]

That shouldn't be true. These folks are highly trained law enforcement professionals, not some 18 year old draftee running through the rice paddies of Vietnam with little training and scared half to death.

Highly trained or not adrenaline will take over. I can't believe I am defending the police here on this issue. There are many cases where highly trained soldiers in their first firefight keep pulling the trigger and not reloading.

I thank god I am not in a position where I have had to take someone's life. Police have it rough. When they cross the line they should be punished. But the number of bullet thing can easily be explained away. Now if they walked over calmly and put 40 bullets into the back of someone's head, that is a whole other thing.

[BurgundyNGold]

Highly trained or not adrenaline will take over. I can't believe I am defending the police here on this issue. There are many cases where highly trained soldiers in their first firefight keep pulling the trigger and not reloading.

I thank god I am not in a position where I have had to take someone's life. Police have it rough. When they cross the line they should be punished. But the number of bullet thing can easily be explained away. Now if they walked over calmly and put 40 bullets into the back of someone's head, that is a whole other thing.
Controlling your adrenaline is a HUGE part of being highly trained. Trained soldiers -- highly trained or otherwise -- almost never just spray rounds indiscriminately. In fact, they're much more likely not to fire a single round at all due to the surreal nature of the events.

I don't accept an "easy" explanation from the London's tactical response team member, which I think they were. Unless there were 3 of them shooting simultaneously (2-3 rounds each), there really if no justification. BTW, I do think multiple people fired simultaneously.

[Agrawog]

Police are NOT taught to shoot and kill at all times. Quite the contrary.

I think you are thinking about the Diallo case. In that one though, most of the shots came from officers who stormed in after the initial shots because they thought their fellow officers were being shot at.

I was thinking of the Diallo case but my comment about shoot to kill came from a conversation with a police officer about traiing and tactics. He said quite clearly that they never 'shoot to wound' like in the shoulder or the leg if they think or know the suspect is armed and/or dangerous. Hmmm, I will have to ask him again.

[RedskinsDave]

I was thinking of the Diallo case but my comment about shoot to kill came from a conversation with a police officer about traiing and tactics. He said quite clearly that they never 'shoot to wound' like in the shoulder or the leg if they think or know the suspect is armed and/or dangerous. Hmmm, I will have to ask him again.

You said "at all times". If they are using lethal force to counter a lethal attack then, of course, they shoot to kill.

[dukeuch]

Police are NOT taught to shoot and kill at all times. Quite the contrary.

I think you are thinking about the Diallo case. In that one though, most of the shots came from officers who stormed in after the initial shots because they thought their fellow officers were being shot at.

Not that the Diallo case is the point of this trhead, but not even the official police reports included anything about "storming in" after the initital shots. All of the officers in question were outside of the building, in place and aiming at Diallo. Once one shot was fired, they all opened up at once. All were looking at the same thing when the shooting started.

[RedskinsDave]

Not that the Diallo case is the point of this trhead, but not even the official police reports included anything about "storming in" after the initital shots. All of the officers in question were outside of the building, in place and aiming at Diallo. Once one shot was fired, they all opened up at once. All were looking at the same thing when the shooting started.

Actually, officer Carroll yelled "gun" and McMellon fell backwards and the two standing down, Kenny Boss and Rich Murphy ran up firing. They were closer to the street and thought that the shots came from Diallo by the door.

[Keino]

He should've stopped resisting.

WOW.

[dukeuch]

Actually, officer Carroll yelled "gun" and McMellon fell backwards and the two standing down, Kenny Boss and Rich Murphy ran up firing. They were closer to the street and thought that the shots came from Diallo by the door.

Right, but when you said "storming in", it sounded like you meant they rushed into an area, or entered an area where they could not see what was going on. My point is that they all saw Diallo and never lost sight of him before they started shooting. It is not enough to say "he reached for something which I thought was a gun", you must see a gun. Bottom line, Diallo was considered a criminal by the police at the time becuase of the neighborhood he lived in.

I'll side with whoever here said that a cop must be sure they are in danger before opening fire. That is part of the job because if not innocent people get killed. It may seem unfair, but by taking the job the cop must assume addiitnal risk of injury to help ensure that they do not mistakenly kill an innocent person. It's not like Diallo was the victim of a stray shot aimed at an actual criminal. In my book, the person must be actually aiming the gun, or actually have shot the gun, before a cop can shoot.

[RedskinsDave]

Right, but when you said "storming in", it sounded like you meant they rushed into an area, or entered an area where they could not see what was going on. My point is that they all saw Diallo and never lost sight of him before they started shooting. It is not enough to say "he reached for something which I thought was a gun", you must see a gun. Bottom line, Diallo was considered a criminal by the police at the time becuase of the neighborhood he lived in.

I'll side with whoever here said that a cop must be sure they are in danger before opening fire. That is part of the job because if not innocent people get killed. It may seem unfair, but by taking the job the cop must assume addiitnal risk of injury to help ensure that they do not mistakenly kill an innocent person. It's not like Diallo was the victim of a stray shot aimed at an actual criminal. In my book, the person must be actually aiming the gun, or actually have shot the gun, before a cop can shoot.

They could not see everything. Diallo was standing in the vestibule and Boss and Murphy were standing by the street. If one officer yells "gun" and another falls backwards, I see no fault in the other two officers coming up and firing.

You seem to think the cops would be better off taking a few bullets first. Diallo was a victim because he matched the description of a serial rapist and because he walked away from the cops and then reached into his pocket.