![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
actually, that's looking like tripleplus ungood
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535246,00.html
A young Brazilian man, living and working in London as an electrician, emerged last night as the innocent victim shot dead by police in their hunt for the suicide bombers targeting the capital.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Proceeding on the possibility that that is what you mean...
I don't know, is there a less crowded space between the bus and the tube? They may have suspected that -- if he were an actual bomber -- his bombing destination would likely have been the tube and not the bus. In that case, I imagine it would be better if they could confront him in a less crowded area before he reaches the tube. Whereas, if you confront a suicide bomber on a crowded bus, saying, "this is the police, the jig is up!" what is likely to happens is that they will hit the trigger and you will end up with a suicide bombing taking place on a crowded bus earlier than planned, rather in a crowded subway at the planned time.
For me, a central issue is whether the police had adequately identified themselves as police when they ordered him to stop. The reports make it sound like they were all plain clothes police and there were no uniformed ones involved, in which case it sounds like his behavior may have been relatively innocent. I mean, you're late for the subway, running after it, a bunch of guys start yelling at you, you look back, there are 20 guys chasing you, some waving guns... I don't find it hard to believe a "This is the police! Stop!" wouldn't have really registered, assuming he would have heard what they were saying. I mean, if there were some uniformed officers involved, completely different situation. But it's sounding like there weren't.
As for criticisms (made elsewhere, not here) that shooting him in the head five times when he was already on the ground with police piling on top of him was overkill, I volunteer that I think that's fair and reasonable if (which is the crux) one is actually dealing with a suicide bomber (or with someone who is reasonably suspected of being a suicide bomber), since a suicide bomber who isn't dead remains much more dangerous than one who is, since it takes little mobility (or thought) to trigger a bomb. The problem in this incident is that the police seem to have unreasonably jumped to the conclusion that they had a probable bomber, it is not that shots to the head when he was already apprehended would have been uncalled for were he an actual bomber.
no subject
I have to disagree. Their behavior was absolutely NOT standardized police procedure.
Also, according to the statement from his cousin (in the very article that rm links to), the bullet wounds are in his back and neck. Shooting him in the back and neck, they risked setting off explosives, if he had been carrying any.
This was a revenge killing.
no subject
First, I never said it was standard procedure. I merely claimed it was a fair and reasonable response.
Second, as to whether the police were following their rules or were making it up on the spot, a number of media sources seem to disagree with your claim that it was not standard procedure.[1] They report that the police did in fact have an explicit shoot-to-kill, aim-for-the-head policy in place when dealing with suspected suicide bombers. Apparently they have been consulting with the Israelis on this and this has led to the policy. If by "standard" you mean that it was the policy prior to the July 7 attacks, then no, probably not. If by "standard" you mean, "standard at the time", then yes it was. Absolutely by the book, if one is in fact dealing with a suicide bomber. I reiterate: the problem here was that the police screwed up with step 1): Are we dealing with a suicide bomber? They did nothing wrong with respect to step 2): If the answer to 1) is "yes", what do we do?
[1] For example, this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/24london.html?ex=1279857600&en=1c38c89cbebb8385&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) NYT story says:
Also, according to the statement from his cousin (in the very article that rm links to), the bullet wounds are in his back and neck. Shooting him in the back and neck, they risked setting off explosives, if he had been carrying any.
And how do you know they weren't aiming at the head? The fact that he was hit in the neck certainly suggests they were aiming high and up that way.
This was a revenge killing.
First, I remain puzzled as to how they are supposed to implement a do-not-apprehend-but-rather-shoot-to-kill procedure without killing the person...
Second, sorry, but do you have any actual concrete evidence of this, or is this just a gut feeling because you don't like what the police did? Something a little stronger than an implied claim that you have some kind of telepathy is obviously going to be required here if you wish to persuade on this point.
no subject
Anyhow let me try again to state my point of view with less unnecessary antagonism...
First, I am interpreting media reports such as this (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050723.w2brit0723/BNStory/International/), which says
to mean that there were in fact guidelines in place for the officers that told them to do what they did, and I conjecture that the shooting was a case of an officer following such a guideline, not the case of an officer acting out of anger contrary to the guidelines he had been given.
Second, I don't think the fact that some of the bullet wounds on the victim could be described as being "in the back" implies that the officer doing the shooting was not attempting to act according to the guidelines. It could be, for example, that he aimed at the head but missed. I conjecture that it is likely quite difficult to hit a thrashing, moving target a few feet away from one particularly when one has to act quickly. I suspect that it is much more difficult than hitting a stationary target at the same distance when one can aim at one's leisure. Further, "in the back" could mean "just below the neck" or "in the shoulders" or "in the upper back", all of which could be consistent with an officer trying to avoid the main bulk of the torso where one could expect to find explosives. Finally, even if, in the worst case (i.e. most difficult to defend), the officer did aim at and hit in the middle of the torso bulk, this doesn't establish that the officer's intent was revenge rather than merely to incapacitate the suspected bomber. That is, it may have been an attempt to render a suspected bomber harmless, by shooting to kill as per policy, but executed badly/stupidly/incompetently or with forgetting of the key "aim for the head part" given the somewhat frantic and sudden nature of the action. Or maybe the officer felt that risking setting off the explosive by shooting at the back was less dangerous than leaving the suspected bomber alive, which he believed would be more likely to lead to an explosion.
I continue to suspect that the officers were acting in the genuine belief they were dealing with a suicide bomber, or that they felt the risk was high enough that they weren't willing to take chances. If they actually had been dealing with a suicide bomber, shooting to kill even once he had been tackled would arguably have been the best way to protect the public.
I suspect (given that the facts are still unclear) that the big problem with what the police did was that they didn't make it clear to the victim that they were police. In deciding who is dangerous and who is not, knowing failure to heed police orders to stop is probably a good first criterion to apply in the decision-making flow chart. It seems to me likely that the victim was not knowingly refusing to obey police orders. It also seems to me likely that the police did not appreciate that they had not effectively conveyed that they were police, or that they were aware of the possibility but had no way of knowing if they were dealing with someone who was unaware they were police or with someone who was deliberately fleeing, and, the risk of another suicide bombing being uppermost in their minds and not wanting to take chances of another one, they assumed they were dealing with someone who was deliberately fleeing.
no subject
I don't see anything to suggest that the officers were acting out of anything other than a desire to prevent another suicide bombing, and that's different in intent from a revenge killing. Note that I am not saying that because the intent may genuinely have been public protection that there are therefore no grounds for criticism. One could well argue that they were unacceptably stupid, misguided, displayed poor judgment, got carried away by their fears and weren't objectively evaluating the evidence, should have known better where to draw the lines on when to act on suspicion, were unwittingly influenced by the ethnicity of the victim, etc. etc. etc.
no subject
And how do you know they weren't aiming at the head? The fact that he was hit in the neck certainly suggests they were aiming high and up that way.
Did you miss the witness accounts that said they had him on the floor? That is very close range. It's hard to believe that a trained police officer would miss when the gun was within inches of him.
I remain puzzled as to how they are supposed to implement a do-not-apprehend-but-rather-shoot-to-kill procedure without killing the person.
Perhaps you should set aside your determination to justify this, and instead look at the whole picture? You are looking at one small piece of it instead of the entire thing.
Something a little stronger than an implied claim that you have some kind of telepathy is obviously going to be required here if you wish to persuade on this point.
Yuor condescension and sarcasm make it pretty clear that youa re set on rationalizing their behavior even if such rationalization flies in the face of reality.
I'm speaking from experience, from having seen things like this before.
no subject
my point was that the bus itself could, if he had been a bomber, have been a target (a la the previous two attacks) so you'd think they would have gone after him ASAP; even if it was lightly populated, it seems like a much better place to have grabbed him than out in the open.
no subject