It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Scotland Yard Issues Statment Apologizing For Shooting

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by netbound
I don’t know about you, but I believe maybe 25% of what I read. And if it’s from some “authoritative source”, then I believe even less.

At any rate, if what I understand is correct, that is, if the police had this guy on the ground and had his hands restrained, then I don’t understand the point of pumping 5 rounds into the guy’s head and body. Is that in itself supposed to stop the bomb from detonating? How lame can you get?

It seems to me that this is not the manner in which a professionally trained team should have handled this. These “professionals” are the ones who are supposed to keep their heads when the citizenry is unable to keep theirs. If the guy was restrained, then I see no reason for administering “hot justice” in the way it appears they did. It protected the life of no one, and was a matter of cops playing the role of judge, jury and executioner. This is NOT civilized behavior. IMHO, this is no better behavior than that of those you label as “animals”, “uncivilized” and “murderous”.

But then, I think there’s a fine line between those who consider themselves “civilized” and those who they consider are not. Let’s face it, we’re all a bunch of crazed animals when it gets down to it. What is right and wrong just depends on the side you take.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of terrorism or violence. I just think there’s a right way of dealing with these things and a wrong way. Giving police complete authority to shoot and kill at their own discretion is not, IMHO, the right way. I feel for the dead man and his family and friends.



[edit on 7/23/2005 by netbound]


I think when the details emerge it'll show that the fella was 6 - 10 ft infront of the shooter running down the centre of the carriage - if he had have been on the ground with his hands restrained then there is no way they would have shot him, not infront of so many witnesses. I may be wrong though about him being in front running down the centre of the carriage....we'll no doubt find out soon!

As for the comments about being shot 5 times in the head - i'm willing to bet he wasn't shot at all in the head.......in that kind of close proximety i doubt there'd be any of his head left to shoot at after about 3 shots anyway!




posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by netbound
I don’t know about you, but I believe maybe 25% of what I read. And if it’s from some “authoritative source”, then I believe even less.

At any rate, if what I understand is correct, that is, if the police had this guy on the ground and had his hands restrained, then I don’t understand the point of pumping 5 rounds into the guy’s head and body. Is that in itself supposed to stop the bomb from detonating? How lame can you get?

It seems to me that this is not the manner in which a professionally trained team should have handled this. These “professionals” are the ones who are supposed to keep their heads when the citizenry is unable to keep theirs. If the guy was restrained, then I see no reason for administering “hot justice” in the way it appears they did. It protected the life of no one, and was a matter of cops playing the role of judge, jury and executioner. This is NOT civilized behavior. IMHO, this is no better behavior than that of those you label as “animals”, “uncivilized” and “murderous”.

But then, I think there’s a fine line between those who consider themselves “civilized” and those who they consider are not. Let’s face it, we’re all a bunch of crazed animals when it gets down to it. What is right and wrong just depends on the side you take.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of terrorism or violence. I just think there’s a right way of dealing with these things and a wrong way. Giving police complete authority to shoot and kill at their own discretion is not, IMHO, the right way. I feel for the dead man and his family and friends.



[edit on 7/23/2005 by netbound]


I think when the details emerge it'll show that the fella was 6 - 10 ft infront of the shooter running down the centre of the carriage - if he had have been on the ground with his hands restrained then there is no way they would have shot him, not infront of so many witnesses. I may be wrong though about him being in front running down the centre of the carriage....we'll no doubt find out soon!

As for the comments about being shot 5 times in the head - i'm willing to bet he wasn't shot at all in the head.......in that kind of close proximety i doubt there'd be any of his head left to shoot at after about 3 shots anyway!



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Ah but the rules of engagement only allow for 'shoot to kill' if he is an imminent danger to the public. If he was a terrorist suspect that was not about to commit an imminent attack on the public then the police are not allowed to shoot him.

That link doesnt change the legality or the facts surrounding this case.

[edit on 23/7/05 by subz]

seeing as he was a terrorist suspect, in winter clothing running from police to the place where previous bombings occured, the police were correct in killing him as the police believed he was an imminent danger to the public.

The police shouldnt be criticised for this, the darwin award nominee should.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Flyer]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I can imagine the responses I would see in this thread if the head line read Bomber sets off bomb kills 50 after Police failed to shoot fleeing suspect.

The very same ones that are now condemning their actions would be all over the Police asking why they did not shoot and you all know it.

Face the facts here:

1. He was under surveilance that is a fact

2. He was wearing a heavier then normal jacket for this time of year also a fact.

3. When challenged by Police he started to run also a fact. In fact he actually even jumped over a turnstile a certain sign he was avoiding police for sure.


(And no I am not accepting he possibly did not understand what the police said when they shouted for him to stop. I do not care where you are; one of the first words of any countries language one learns is the word Stop and Police. Also most words meaning police have virtually the very same sound i.e., Police, Policia etc.)

Therefore there is no excuse for not stopping even if he did come from Brazil, there is absolutely no excuse for not stopping when ordered to do so.



Now put yourselfs in the shoes of the officers involved, just what do you think you would have done?

Edit for minor correction and typo.



[edit on 7/23/2005 by shots]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Re: weapons it's not an SA80!

The only UK Police who use theSA80 are the MOD Police - the other police forces were offered it in the 80's but it was too heavy / overspecified for their needs (5.56 Nato is too big a round for city streets/airports etc) plus the 'now corrected' stoppage issues.

The guy in the pink shirt (and others) are carrying short barrelled H&K G36's (K or E).

www.levelrating.com...

world.guns.ru...

In the early TV clips they're only wearing civilian clothes, later when the media really get going they're wearing cheap 'Police' caps (£4?) anyone could buy 'em! No Police armband / badge or visible ID .

Don't think they're the Police
.

Only people in UK forces who use the G36 are the Nuclear Police and the SAS. Can't see the Nuclear Police needing concealable assault rifles!

Rumours 'around' of UK armed Police being completely stretched nationally - serious shortage of armed officers, Army taking over some duties, previous firearms officers being recalled etc



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
(And no I am not accepting he possibly did not understand what the police said when they shouted for him to stop. I do not care where you are; one of the first words of any countries language one learns is the word Stop and Police. Also most words meaning police have virtually the very same sound i.e., Police, Policia etc.)

Hed been in the country for 3 years so he must have learnt some English.
Even if he didnt. Police = Policia in Portuguese so he was actively evading them and not just being confused.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I suspect your right CTID56092, if there is an active SAS cell directly hunting for actice terrorist cells in the U.K, then i'm all for it! Taking their "shoot to kill" policy directly to the IRA soon put them on the back foot - infact it nearly finished them!...it's about time we took the initiative when it comes to dealing with terrorist acts like we keep seeing.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
While I cannot condone the killing of an innocent man--most especially the way this killing is said to have taken place--I can certainly understand why inexperienced officers might have shot him. As someone said earlier, I'm sure there will be a public inquiry about this incident and some type of action(s) will be taken as a result of that inquiry. Until that happens, I believe the best policy is simply to remain mum about it.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
"A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police. "

Ahh the whole world is a tragedy.

Let the witch hunt begin!

Shooting an innocent man may seem like a lot, but let's start getting used it.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
March 02 (this year) they switched over to the MP7.

Prior to that they used the Browning pistol, the SA80 assault rifle and the Heckler and Koch MP5.

----

Daily Mail, The Times of London, et al all reported the story.


[edit on 23/7/2005 by Odium]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
First of all scotland yard apologized which means they accept the action was uncalled for.

Secondly, did they identify themselves as the police?

Thirdly, 6 bombs within two weeks are said to have been carried onto the subway system, why then did the police allow this man to enter into a station before at least disabling him?

Fourthly, why did they not shoot him before he made it to the platform, and why did they after he had been pinned, find it necessary to unload 5 bullets into his body rather than secure his arms and legs?

Fifthly, Ian Blair yesterday led us to believe that police knew this man had a connection with the bombers, and now we find out this is not so. Why?

Suicide bombers once they have been made detonate their devices, it stands to reason that the police giving chase were not thinking. Saying they are sorry helps, but it sure as heck would not appease the parents of that man nor should it because it means that police have the out to kill anyone simply by claiming it was a mistake.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Fourthly, why did they not shoot him before he made it to the platform, and why did they after he had been pinned, find it necessary to unload 5 bullets into his body rather than secure his arms and legs?
.


This is actually the part of the story I'm finding it hard to "accept". You have a suspect. You chase said suspect. Suspect refuses to stop. You then have three colleagues pin him down - why then does it become necessary to offload five shots into his virtually immobile body? (unless by some great leap "pinning him down" doesn't render him immobile. If he was Jean Claude Van Damme or someone, for example).

I can understand the confusion, and the fear, felt by the undercover police.

I can also comprehend (to a degree) the last minute dilemma before they acted - even though it's perhaps not prudent to expect a member of the public to stop for a group of men who say they're the police despite those men perhaps not resembling the police force with whom you're generally familiar.

What I cannot comprehend is the necessity to shoot after your suspect is immobilised.

If the suspect was a suicide bomber wearing a remote-detonated jacket - then shooting him would not have necessarily prevented the explosion.

Pinning him down would not have necessarily prevented the explosion.

Even wearing a "regular" (is there such an animal?) "suicide jacket", shooting him would not have necessarily prevented the explosion; if anything, would gunfire not have increased the risk of detonation?

I just cannot agree that "oh, well one wrong guess is better than fifty potential victims" is either sound logic or a fair response; not least when shooting the suspect may not have prevented detonation to begin with. This whole thing just saddens me; and yes, I really do empathise with the shooter, too - this is going to haunt him for the rest of his life.

If we're living in fear to the point where we're ok with the premise of "shoot now, ask questions later", then the terrorists just might be winning their fight.

And that's the real tragedy to me.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
He didn´t even look like any of the suspects, did he? It was of course stupid to run from the police like he did.

Click any of the pictures for the BBC article...

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27


BBC: Shot man not connected to bombing




posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
+1 to the enormous body count of the innocent killed in the wild goose chase known as the War on Terror. The guilty who die appear to be very few and far between. I hope those that support this war feel this is worth it as they do the collateral deaths in the War on Drugs.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   


1: Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase a man into Stockwell Tube station from the street

Author note not all of the officers were chasing the man according to some reports, they were already on the scene after learning the plain clothed officers were following the suspect. The plain clothed officers were wearing head pieces that allowed them to talk to others while following just wanted to make that clear.

2: One person says the man vaulted the automatic ticket barriers as he made his way to the platforms

3: The most direct route is via this escalator or the staircase that sits alongside it

4: Police challenge the man but he apparently refuses to obey instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead.

----
Now what would you do if you were one of the officers that was following a suspect that ran directly to the tube and you suspected him of having a bomb and watched him jump a turnstile, run down the escalator, refused to stop and entered a train loaded with passengers?


My gut reaction would be that I would do the very same as of the officers did under those conditions and don't kid yourself you probably would have done the very same given those conditions. It is real easy to sit here and be a monday morning quarterback trying to tell the players how they should have played the game, yet completely different if you were in fact part of the game.

edit to add last comment and typo

[edit on 7/23/2005 by shots]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
My question is who is at fault here. Since an innocent man lost his life who is to blame and who is to be charged. The police were just doing there job, but they acted in a matter so extreme it disgusts me. They thought that he was a suicide bomber so if you think about it how else would you subdue someone with explosives on their person.

On the other hand the police could have just tried to negotiate with him instead of run after him and shoot him to death 5 times point blank. Like if he was living in england for years you would think he would speak english as pointed out earlier in this thread.

The people who are at fault here are the ones DOING THE INVESTIGATION as to WHO THE SUSPECTS ACTUALLY WERE!!!! They are the ones responsible for an innocent mans death and they should be tried, and be sentenced to life in prison without patrol. PERIOD!

I wonder how the "investigators" who stated "this man is directly linked to the bombings and is a terrorist" got their jobs in the first place. Hell even Tony Blair himself stated the man was a "terrorist."

Is this what the world has come to? Accusing everyone of middle eastern origin of being terrorists. Shooting them at will. I hope things will change soon.... or else we will be in serious trouble.

My biggest problem is the term terrorist itself. How is someone labelled a terrorist. EVERYONE in the entire world can be a terrorist. The true terrorists can only be labelled as such after they have killed. But if someone doesn't do anything in the first place how terrorists even exist. It is a Paradox. Ex) The innocent man in this thread. This could and if nothing changes, will happen again.

LOOK.... The bottom line is people kill other people and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Limiting everyones freedoms does nothing. It turns peoples fear into a catalyst. Thus is creates panic and more people die as we have seen today.




Will you be the one shot and killed because you are a "suspected terrorist"? Only time will tell....


edit: spelling



[edit on 7-23-2005 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   
No one will get charged with the killing, as it wasn't the police who did it.

The dude was an electrician, who lived in the same building that was under surveillance by Anti-Terrorist Police. He left the house wearing bulky clothing and headed towards the tube. He then ran when challenged by "Police" (or whoever they where), vaulted a turnstile and charged headlong into a packed commuter train.

I would have shot him, even if he wasn't guilty as it is obviously removing a bloody idiot from the Gene pool.

Shots, why would you possibly try and run from a large gang of armed men? You can outrun bullets now can you? Stop trying to villify the police/security services in this as the bloke was a moron.

Standing still and obeying instructions shouted by said large gang of armed men would be your best course of action with increased chances of survival.

If i was challenged by anyone with a gun, the last thing I am going to try and do is run. Especially if they are yellin "STOP!! POLICE!!"..warrant card or no warrant card....I would not be to finicky about seeing it if they had several guns pointed at me..we can sort out the details later once everyone has calmed down.

Stand still, lie down....get arrested and spend the morning in a cell...Have a chat with the police, who by now would know you weren't a bomber, go for a fag....

If your lucky the police will get you a Maccy D's or something. You would have been out by lunch and down the pub with a day off work. Sorted...

Whatever you do, you don't run.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
You have voted stumason for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Stumason, you're exactly right. I don't care if the person waving a gun at me is police or not, I'm stopping. Whatever you did, it's not worth getting shot over. I went over police logic here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, I admit, it's sad this guy had to die for being dumber than a sack of rocks. But then again, I'm not going to blame police because he didn't have a stitch of common sense.

DE



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   


The police shouldnt be criticised for this, the darwin award nominee should.

I disagree, yeah the police did what they thought was right...the "suspect" should not have ran and as far as the police were concerned he could have been ready to carry out Allahs word just like all the other cronies....but whenever an innocent man dies by the police, the police should be critisised....ever heard of constructive critisism???? The police can learn alot from this and from the critisism so hopefully they can do a better job to prevent future acts like this from happening.

Unfortunately they had very few options and they took the best option they had at the time


stumason
...as soon as the button comes back, you're getting a WATS....well said.

[edit on 24/7/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
stu made some great points..however...

As was pointed out, this guy wasn't a British national. He came from a country where if a guy not wearing a uniform is chasing you with a gun, the likelihood is that he's not the a member of the police force. Cultural differences might have been a critical part of this equation, and can't be ignored.

Sure, he didn't exactly help his cause. But he also - in all likelihood - wasn't expecting to be chased by several plainclothes cops; not least when the police just aren't known for shooting people in the UK.

There should be an inquiry, absolutely. And there should be consequences for the shooting; but I'm not sure it's either fair or productive to lay the blame solely in one area; the policeman who did the shooting is going to live with this for the rest of his life, and the act itself may well undermine the entire police community in England.

Still, I can't help but wonder why he was shot after being subdued.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join