h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Surely if a policeman tells you to stop, you stop."

As far as I know you don't *have* to do anything a policeman says unless they arrest you.

I posted in a my journal that they had shot an innocent man. Of course, I was just meaning he hadn't had a fair trial. I didn't realise that I was actually right! To be fair, the police are obviously as freaked out as the rest of us, but to shoot someone five times when he's already on the ground isn't the sort of thing that should be happening, whether he was guilty or not!

What if he had been a terrorist and the police hadn't shot him? My initial post in this thread said 'at times like this...'
I'm not suggesting that the police shoot anyone that doesn't stop, but their job is to protect us. If they let a suspected terrorist run off after ignoring warnings they would be negligent in that duty.

"What if he had been a terrorist and the police hadn't shot him?"

But he wasn't - he was an innocent man, confused and scared.

Mina,I take your point and under normal circumstancs would agree with you but there is currently a terrorist threat, government buildings are at amber alert and many, many people in London are jumpy, including the police. I really don't think they could take the risk of *not* shooting.

I'm writing this under the impression that the man was running. If he was on the ground then obviously my position will change.

He was on the ground when he was shot.

But even if he *had* been involved in the bombs, he still shouldn't have been shot.

(just a quick aside I spotted Fox news applauding the shooting, whilst simultaneously saying there would be "hell to pay" if the guy was completely innocent: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163420,00.html)

I agree with Roymondo that in these times, if a guy shouts "armed police! stop!" that anyone who turns and runs away is definitely running the risk of being shot. Dead.

We have all been watching the news for the last two weeks, we have all heard what the situation is. Anyone who is travelling around London at the moment, I would guess (since I'm not there I can't be sure) must be picking up the security vibe. No?

Now, if it is true that he was being held down while he was shot, that is a different matter.

I rather suspect, however, that not many of us here have actually been in a position where someone has been waving a weapon at us, or been waving a weapon at someone we honestly think is going to detonate a bomb with awful consequences.

(if anyone here has, I'd be interested in their pov.)

I haven't been in either situation, but i have been in simulations of both. And I can say without any scrap of doubt, if I hear the words "armed" and "stop" then I would stop with my hands in the air and turn to face whoever was shouting at me. That way I reckon I'd have less chance (not no chance, less chance) of being shot.

I can also imagine the headlines and the reports in the papers had this panned out a little differently. "surviors said the Police had a clear chance to bring the bomber down, but didn't shoot 'in case they got the wrong man' "

what I find very disturbing is The Sun's headline yesterday -

"One down, three to go"

Even late Friday police were saying the shot person wasn't one of the attemted bombers that the Sun is obviously meaning (they accompanied the headline with the CCTV photos of the 4 the police have identified as the failed bombers)

So even if the early reports were right and this person was linked to the attempts, the headline was totally wrong.

Now it is even worse.

This will go down as one of the top 5 sickest Sun headlines, surely.

CHawke

I keep thinking "oh this is like the 70s and 80s again" but it's not. It's worse. Not the bombers (which is bad enough) but the reaction in the press.

>>if a guy shouts "armed police! stop!" that anyone who turns and runs away is definitely running the risk of being shot.<<

So do we know *exactly* who said what? When they said it? Where they said it? How far away from this chap it was said? How loud they said it? How obvious it was that they were police officers as opposed to a bunch of blokes shouting at him?

No, I don't think we know the answers to any of those questions.

For what it's worth I listened to an eyewitness account on BBC world the day it happened from someone who saw the man shot. From what I remember he was chased onto a train, ended up on the ground (unsure if he fell or if the police pulled him down but I suspect the latter) and was shot five times.


I find the whole thing incredibly sad rather than disturbing. Without knowing the details... it's possible that the police were in a no win situation - shoot an innocent (or not innocent) man vs another bomb going off killing more people. It's also possible that they overreacted and totally f*cked up.

A no win situation for the Brazillian too. It's hard to imagine the conditions under which one would run from armed police but it's not impossible.



How many people living in Britain would know that plainclothes police could legally shoot someone they suspected of terrorism?

If the police were in plain clothes, I can well understand someone running away, thinking they were being mugged or something. In noisy London streets, would you necessarily hear what was shouted behind you?

I too found that shooting of an innocent scary but I have great sympathy for the police in London at present. They are under unbelievable pressure to prevent further bombings and protect the public. A gross over reaction occurred, a mistake. The full facts need to come out so we can learn why it happenned. I'm sure the terrorists are loving it. It is extremely difficult because these fanatics are utterly ruthless so we are not exactrly living in normal times. As a Londoner I feel so angry that I have to feel scared about getting on a bus, so I basically support a hardline approach from the police, it makes me feel safer. I maybe deluded but I'm not alone. I have talked to friends and neighbours, many of different races and most people support the police and want touch action.

I was pleased to see that our left wing mayor, Ken Livingstone has come out in strong support for the police, in unbelievably difficult circumstances.

Of course it's possible that they didn't shout, that even if they did he didn't hear it and he thought he was being mugged/robbed or whatever.

The situation is really awful, but I think on this thread there is a definite assumption that the police overreacted.

I actually hate the idea that armed, plainclothes police are at large in London (or anywhere else for that matter). But having been helped greatly (if a little over the top in my situation) by similarly armed and dressed policemen (in Frankfurt main station) I can understand how these things happen.

I just hope that next time (and I am damn sure there will be one) that the person being challenged (or not) by the police does what he should do.

They were plainclothes armed police. How would the victim know for sure they were police? One newspaper report talked about how he had come from a village in Brazil with a very high crime rate, where people were often shot and killed . . . could it not be that his choice to run was based on sheer panic, stemming from his past experiences in Brazil? That sort of learned panic reflex doesn't leave a person just because they are living elsewhere. Obviously the man was terrified at being threatened by men with guns, so he ran.

He was already on the ground and at the mercy of the police. If they felt a need to incapacitate him further they could have shot him in the legs (though handcuffs and being manhandled by several police officers probably would have sufficed).

Even if he had been one of the bombers, why shoot him in the head and kill him? Surely a suspected bomber would have been more valuable to the investigation alive, to be interrogated in order to find out the names of others involved.

Reading the curt 'official apologies' in the various newspapers, if I were a member of this man's family I would feel not only extremely angry but insulted by them.

Meanwhile, I still can't understand why a running man who had stopped running, who was in fact being held down by several police officers, was shot point blank in the head five times.


az

On the day it happened the BBC news reported eye witness statements that the man was on the ground, being held down by two policemen, when the 3rd one shot him.

i certainly wouldn't stop if a strange man (or men) shouted at me, even if they were apparently dressed as policemen. There've been far too many reports of impostors.

And I wouldn't have thought a young Brazilian living in London would have much reason to want to stop for the police. They do have a tendency to hassle young men with permanent tans. It can get pretty annoying after a while. If you were on your way somewhere and some idiot shouted at you to stop would you risk missing your train?

I thought the apology from Ian Blair was quick and unequivocal, the Metropolitan Police accepting full responsibility, an official enquiry announced immediately. What else could he do?

As for the man who was shot - Az, everything you say makes sense. But this is one day after four bombs going off, the police are following this guy as a suspected suicide bomber ... and he runs off the street, over the barriers in a tube station and onto a train. He may have explosives strapped to any part of his body, you don't know how he's planning to detonate it, you've got to stop him doing it. What if the detonator's in his hand as he's on the ground?

Sorry, but I find it hard to point any fingers at this stage. This is a tragedy. It's going to be fully investigated and I see no signs of anyone trying to sweep it under the carpet.

if, as most people here seem to have ascertained, they were in plainclothes that gives him even less reason to stop.

The terrorists must be rubbing their hands with glee. They seem to have precipitated a very satisfactory over-reaction.

>>The terrorists must be rubbing their hands with glee. They seem to have precipitated a very satisfactory over-reaction<<

Absolutely

<>

I still think a couple of shots in the shoulders, or the kneecaps, would have shocked him into not detonating anything. At least as much as five shots in the head. Perhaps not, perhaps if he had a detonator in his hand he could still get it off after being shot in the shoulders, but I rather doubt it.

Also, a couple of serious gun butt hits to the skull would probably have rendered him unconscious almost immediately.

My take was that the police officer who shot the man panicked. Surely they can't have orders to shoot all possible suspects in the head? I wonder how he is feeling now (the police officer who shot an innocent man).


az