Controversial

[sesquipedality]

A man, possibly wearing bulky clothing, leaves a house under investigation in connection with terrorist bombings of the underground. When he enters the station he is warned by armed police to halt. He jumps over a ticket barrier and onto a train. He is shot dead.

Without knowing the full set of circumstances, it is impossible to know for sure what happened. What we do know is that the British police licensed to carry firearms operate under extremely paranoid firearms regulations and are all extremely rigorously trained.

I'd have shot under the circumstances as they appear to be. Proper process is a lovely idea in wishy-washy land, but it's almost certain they had good reason to believe he was about to blow up that train. He ran away from armed police who told him to halt. It is regretable that he died but his actions seem to have been pretty much indistinguishable from those of a suicide bomber. He was, it would appear, killed by his own stupidity.

This tragedy could easily have been prevented. All the man had to do was get down on the floor when the armed policemen told him to. I want to live in a world where we don't give the benefit of the doubt to people who appear to be about to commit mass murder. It's better than one where we have to explain to thousands of families and friends why the police saw the bomber getting on the train and didn't stop him.

Comments

[razornet.livejournal.com]

Well, perhaps you missed some facts.

The police firearms regulations are strict, it's fairly clear that they are putting this event outside those regulations under "prevention of terrorism". Conventional police procedure not involve shooting restrained subjects. In fact I'm sure thats covered in the Geneva convention not to mention human rights legislation.

He left a block of flats, not a house. Thats the entire block, which he's not aware is under observation. He was followed, and when he entered a tube station he was challenged by plain clothes police, with guns. He ran, they caught up with him, pushed him to the floor and shot him five times.

It turns out the good reason they had was the above, he left a set of buildings under suspicison in inappropriate gear and looked a bit foriegn. And he ran when they pointed a gun at him.

As it turns out he was a brazilian electrician, who had spent some time in an area rife with gun crime, gang warefare and dailiy murder, probably contributing to his reaction. The police may not have properly identified themselves. His english may not have been good.

While the police force is attempting damage limitaion with its "we aim to kill so they can't blow people up" statement, it's likely given the evidence of previous suicide bombings that shooting a bomber would do no good. The package could be on a timer or a dead mans trigger. In either case shooting him in the head, or anywhere else won't help a bit. Looking might do though.

You might also condsider that some people have bad personal experience of the police and would run on spec, even if they had done nothing wrong, ever.

Finally, there was no need for the police to let the guy go, but having restrained him (remember he was forced to the ground and held when he was shot), they might have taken the opportunity to look rather than shooting him in the face.

In any case they did stop him after he boarded the train, it's shooting bit I take issue with.

[angusabranson.livejournal.com]

According to his cousin the Brazillian in question had excellent English. Also being restrained can still give you use of your fingers and all he would have needed was a split second to press the detonator/click the battery into place for the whole carriage, police and civilians, to go boom.

It is a very unfortunate incident but in this case I'd actually support the police in their actions. The man ran when challenged (whatever his reasons) and the police involved had enough suspicion that he was a clear and present danger to life that they took the threat down before others could be harmed.

In the light of recent events I feel most people would have done the same. If he'd have detonated and it came to light the police were present there would have been a shitstorm bigger than the one now.

If there's one thing that I learnt from living in the States is NEVER run away from armed police - regardless of your innocence or guilt.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Even with poor English, policias is close enough to police to be intelligible either way, I feel. I've had 'polizei' shouted at me and the non-German-speakers with me understood it well enough to stand still for the Stasi(!).

My feelings on this one are roughly the same as sesquipedality's. I grew up around guns, which is unusual in Britain, and I know that the first thing to understand is that if someone is pointing a gun at you, they intend to use it if provoked. You don't run from armed men, whether they're criminals or police. It turns a possibility into a near-certainty, whatever their motive for shooting might be.

[razornet.livejournal.com]

So we're back to the man being killed because he was stupid. Which is a crass and compassionless way of looking at things, not to mention ethically unsound.

Growing up around guns *is* unsusual here, and people might run for a variety of reasons, not least out of basic fear.

Again it is unclear the police identified themselves clearly. It's been posited that they simply waved a gun at him anmd told him to get down.

If being either stupid or afraid is going to get you shot here, I'm even less happy with the state of affairs than I was before.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Or guilty, of course. (About anything, not specifically what they shot him for.)

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

Well, sounds like he was guilty of not buying a tube ticket...

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

If he'd have detonated and it came to light the police were present there would have been a shitstorm bigger than the one now.

This is the argument that Tony Blair is pushing, but I think it's completely bogus. It's the means we're interested in, not the ends.

If, for sake of argument, they had no reasonable reason for suspecting him, and failed to adequately warn him, then their actions would have been no more acceptable if they'd just happened to shoot a terrorist by sheer chance.

On the contrary, if they really did have good reason to suspect him, clearly identified themselves as armed police and told him to stop, then that makes their actions more acceptable. If their actions really were necessary and appropriate to protect the public, then they don't become any less appropriate just because the police were unlucky and got the wrong man...

-roy