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

>>Do you also live in London?<<

Did do till very recently, moving back there soon - still consider myself a Londoner (having a weird gap year of sorts)

>>I think that's very fair all things considered<<

Exactly - it's not like anyone's trying to downplay the seriousness of this, the police least of all.

as an ex-member of the armed forces i'll share a sound truism i was told by my old regiment sergeant one time training for armed guard duty of the station - "dead men tell no tales". there is no such thing as shoot to kill. but if you thought your life and the lives of unarmed people were in danger from a man about to detonate a bomb and you could stop that event would YOU shoot to wound?
As many rounds as it takes to make sure.
That's how many rounds you fire.
better safe than dead, eh?
if that guy HAD been a bomber and he'd detonated something, would we still be up in arms about the police trying to shoot him?

On this thread I've noticed so much hostility directed at the police for this mistake, despite how whole heartedly they've immediately come clean. Some people here don't seem to feel any indignation towards the terrorists who set out deliberately to kill innocent people and precipitated this whole situation in the first place. Or if they do they don't say it. Lets face it if those bombers hadn't done what they've done that Brazilian guy would still be alive and well. This is not true of other places on hootoo thank goodness.

Dogster - I still await your understanding of a suicide bombers mindset.

'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.' Thats a 'perhaps' I wouldn't risk - The police use the head shot for hand guns because its the instant kill shot - though the mouth and sever the spinal cord - stops all bodily actions. Stun guns etc are no good they could well trigger any explosive devices being carried, as well as stunning others in contact with the suspect.

The policy was developed from Israeli experience by a UK police chief. Its no use shouting stop to a suicide bomber - they have already decided to die - you have to decide what you are dealing with - and act accordingly - I would hazard thats why they followed this guy for so long.

Dogster, training only goes so far. I have unfortunately been in the position where I had a loaded rifle pointed at an intruder thought to be IRA, at night, in a pretty stressful situation. I hesitated and it turned out the guy was only a drunk matelot, but I spent the rest of the night shaking wondering "What if?". This guy made a mistake, but it was a life or death situation and he carried out his duties in the manner he thought right for the situation.

Maybe the important thing to come out of all this, is that other suicide bombers may now hesitate and be a little more fearful. I know they want to die anyway, but they want their death to have meaning. Maybe they think Allah remembers a suicide bomber who kills the infidels in his name, but he sure as hell won't remember some numpty who dies without taking the enemy with him. The failed suicide bombers the other day showed a pretty healthy will to live when they realised their bombs hadn't worked.

They think the West is soft, our society decadent and we're too weak to resist them. Hopefully next time the police shoot one through the head, it will be a suicide bomber and they'll start to realise we're not as soft as they think.

We can't get too hung up on the death of one innocent, There is a bigger picture.

Something else which occurs is that, from what I understand of counter-terrorism, they're usually very keen *not* to kill anyone if they can possibly avoid it, precisely because the information that person may have is potentially so valuable.

Which again - stating the obvious in a very slightly different way - suggests these were extraordinary circumstances.

>>We can't get too hung up on the death of one innocent<<

Sorry, but that's exactly what we should do. It's what makes this society worth defending. Affect the overall approach to that bigger picture, maybe not - but there shouldn't be any brushing aside of what has happened.

When terrorists blow up scores of people, they don't care. When our police force shoots an innocent man, we do. That's the difference and it needs maintaining at all costs.

I think that the British, and particularlky the Londoners', reaction to the bombings has been spectacular. As many have noted in the press, Londoners and the British have had so many years of IRA bombings and have both grown used to "carrying on" and also seeing "carrying on" to be the best way of showing bombers that their plan to terrorize the British people, unlike Americans, isn't going to work because it isn't going to get the same sort of rise out of them.

I've been out all day and now I've read the backlog one time through quickly.

While I was out today I thought of a little something:

Assuming, as has been stated in the news stories and by Sir Ian, that there is a limited policy or authority or whatever you want to call it to use lethal force with extreme prejudice in the case of suspected suicide bombers

and

assuming that all counter-terror constables who are expected to encounter such a situation have had thorough training for just such a situation

and

assuming that the constables involved in this incident were just such counter-terror specialists

and

assuming that they honestly felt they were dealing with a suicide bomber


then

it is absolutely unfair to cast any aspersions on the judgement of the constable that pulled the trigger in this case: any constable trained in that manner confronted by the same situation would have done exactly the same thing or else there is a failure in the training.

So

we should either blame a failure in training or go up the line and blame a failure in policy. Or, we have to accept that there just might be innocents killed by both sides.

And, of course, we don't have all the facts.

I agree that theyve been exemplary in owning up to the mistake quickly.

And, I find it all extremely disturbing.

Oh. And what Mudhooks said -- ditto for me.

McKay,

"Dogster - I still await your understanding of a suicide bombers mindset."

Well, as far as I can tell, a 'typical' suicide bomber feels helpless, unable to exert any control over a situation he (or she) hates, like the occupation of their country for example. This feeling becomes overwhelming and intolerable, and the only thing they feel able to do is suicide bombing. You can understand the mindset of all sorts of people you think are wrong, even fundamentally wrong. I don't think there's anything strange or complicated here, just people on the edge driven to extremes. It's more difficult to understand why people living their whole life in this country would do it though.

whisky,

"This guy made a mistake, but it was a life or death situation and he carried out his duties in the manner he thought right for the situation."

That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't criticise him. If he was doing what he was trained to do, or if he was acting under direct orders from superiors, then the blame obviously doesn't lie solely with him. We don't yet know the whole story, and maybe we never will, but can you agree that if - as some eyewitness reports suggest - the guy was already pinned down by two officers, then shooting him in the head five times is simply wrong?

"We can't get too hung up on the death of one innocent, There is a bigger picture."

Yes there is a bigger picture. I'm making a big deal of this for two reasons. Firstly because the death of one innocent is important, especially if he has been essentially executed without trial by the state on the basis of evidence which barely even counts as circumstantial, let alone on the balance of probabilities, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, this represents a fundamental change in the relationship between the state and its citizens in the UK. If the government arrogates to itself the right to execute people simply because it perceives the possibility of a threat, then we're living in a very different state to the one we were living in a few weeks ago. Or so it seems to me.

redpeckham,

"On this thread I've noticed so much hostility directed at the police for this mistake, despite how whole heartedly they've immediately come clean."

Feeling sorry for having murdered someone doesn't exactly excuse it does it?

"Some people here don't seem to feel any indignation towards the terrorists who set out deliberately to kill innocent people and precipitated this whole situation in the first place."

That's not what this thread is about, and I assume everyone agrees with your sentiment.

"Lets face it if those bombers hadn't done what they've done that Brazilian guy would still be alive and well."

And for all we know, if Britain hadn't gone to war with Iraq then the Brazilian guy might still be alive and well, as well as the 50 or more Londoners killed. So maybe Blair is to blame? Who knows? What is for sure is that if the policeman hadn't pulled the trigger 5 times the Brazilian guy would still be alive and well.

"Well, as far as I can tell, a 'typical' suicide bomber feels helpless, unable to exert any control over a situation he (or she) hates, like the occupation of their country for example. This feeling becomes overwhelming and intolerable, and the only thing they feel able to do is suicide bombing. You can understand the mindset of all sorts of people you think are wrong, even fundamentally wrong. I don't think there's anything strange or complicated here, just people on the edge driven to extremes. It's more difficult to understand why people living their whole life in this country would do it though."

Like I said this causes me a lot of trouble - I can understand how one might be prepared to kill for an ideal - I can understand how one might be prepared to die for a greater cause - defending ones children for example - but I can't understand how one can blow oneself up for no reason but to kill and maim and disrupt.

If someone was stood next to the Queen, or Tony Blair and blew themselves up, then I can see the grand gesture and all, and why they'd do it - but a group of innocent citizens ?

Sorry I just cannot understand why any sane person would do this.

So what would you do in the present situation Dogster if you were mayor of London? Obviously not what Ken Livingstone has said and done, because I haven't heard him saying anything like your posts.

Out of interest what exactly is your knowledge of the workings of an incredibly complex day to day functioning of a city of 20 million people? Not to mention the further millions who come in and leave each day on the transport system?

I think part of the problem here is the "shoot all suspected suicide bombers in the head" policy is poorly thought out. The arguement that the only way to stop them is to kill them with a head shot is idiotic. As has been mentioned earlier, what if the bomber is using a dead man's switch, a simple enough thing to rig? Now that the policy has been made public, you can bet the next bomber will be.
Having said that, except at point blank range, there really is no such thing as shooting not to kill. The idea that these guys are action movie marksmen who can get a guaranteed head shot every time is also stretching reality a bit. Handguns are not especially accurate, so you tend to aim for the body mass. And despite what you've seen in movies, shooting a stick of dynamite or a chunk of C4 will not make it blow up unless you hit a fuse or the bomber is strapped with black powder or nitro (about as likely as the suicide bomber carrying greek fire)
The basic facts are that a bunch of tough looking lads yelled at this Brazillian guy to stop. They may or may not have been waving guns at him, but they certainly looked aggressive - who wouldn't run? We don't know if they identified themselves as police (though I would hope so and expect they did) but he may have had a bag of pot in his pocket or had a lot of parking tickets or just not trusted cops (and given his background, probably with good reason) He ran, they caught him, held him down and executed him. Five shots to the head is excessive and points to panic fire, since one shot in the head at close range with anything bigger than a .22 peashooter would spatter brains all over the place. Five shots likely turned his head to hamburger. I'm sorry if that's a bit graphic, but think how the poor bastard on the receiving end of things felt about it.

As to all this illogic about it being the terrorists' fault is bullsnot. They didn't pull the trigger five times. The notion that this would not have happened if they hadn't killed 50 people on July 7 and therefore it is their fault is spurious logic. By the same rationale, the whole thing is George Bush's fault or Saddam Hussien's or Mohammed's or Moses'. And the defense that "if he had been a bomber, these cops would be heroes for killing him" or "what if he had been a bomber, and they hadn't shot him? --- Well if the Queen had balls she'd be the King, but she doesn't, so she isn't. Let's just drop the "if" silliness, it's sloppy thinking.

The whole thing is the result of paranoia, overreaction and bad policy. It is a tragedy. Given recent events I can understand the paranoia and even the overreaction, though I'm disappointed by it. The bad policy is unforgivable.

McKay,

I think the cold logic of it, in the case of the suicide bomber attacking the civilians of an occupying nation, is that if you make it politically costly enough to maintain an occupation the occupation will end. At least, that's their hope. Anyway, this is getting a bit off topic for this thread, I suggest we start a new one if you want to continue to discuss it. I'm sure lots of people would contribute.

redpeckham,

I'm not sure I understand your question. What does the mayor of London have to do with it? I'm sure he didn't authorise the police to kill people.



Incidentally, I came across this interesting snippet while I was looking up what Ken Livingstone had said. From the July 23rd Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147,00.html

"Police are describing him as an “intimate accomplice of the cell”. His name and address were thought to have been found among the possessions left by the would-be bombers on Thursday."

So, er, the police weren't exactly telling the whole truth at this point in time.

I certainly have no argument with a policy that gives police the authority to shoot a suspected bomber, in the head or anywhere else, if said suspect is posing a threat. However, assuming the eyewitness reports are accurate (and there have been a number of them, all essentially in agreement) that the man was in the hands of two (and potentially, three) professional policemen, the posing of a real threat seems greatly diminished.

And there is a word for shooting a man in the head five times while he is in physical custody: execution.

Sorry, but (again, if those eyewitness reports prove to be accurate) I can find no excuse for that.

Regarding the shooting of the innocent guy on the Tube – correct me if I am wrong, but we are in a state or war, right? The US and UK have declared “War” on terrorism, and the incidents in London are a direct fight back by the enemy, bringing the “War” back home to us by the only means they know how to. Only a Politician would attempt to say there is no link, as everyone I ask seems to believe a link exists.

So:

If we are at “War”, then innocents will die on both sides, correct? Rightly or wrongly, this man on the tube was therefore just another casualty of the conflict. These are surreal times – and I fully understand why if you suddenly get chased by three men brandishing a weapon, you would choose to try and escape. How would he have known they were genuine police and not just three guys out to mug him?

The issue that I find myself thinking about now is that the hawks who want ID cards, increased stop and search, shoot to kill policies and more invasive policing of the population will get just that. In times of “War”, these things are easily passed in the name of “Protection and Security” aren’t they?
For the foreseeable future, the Terrorists have doomed us to far less freedom, more airport style security and the eyes of the state on everything you do. The other thing that grieves me is that I see no end at all and in future it will just get worse. There is absolutely no defence from somebody who is prepared to kill him or herself in the name of a cause. Even without access to explosives, they could still load a car up with petrol in containers and then quite easily drive alongside a school bus and crash into it.

So:

We seem destined (at least for the foreseeable) to live in a permanent state of war with faceless terrorists. If we accept that, then shootings by the Police will probably increase as they seek to protect us from “Them”. Question is, at what point do we stop being so pig headed about it and start to address the underlying causes that make these people do what they do? Seems to me that the sooner we start to do that, then the sooner we can get back to being a free country again. I am sick to death of Politicians deciding a course of action and then point blank refusing to acknowledge the fallout – or even attempting to try anything else.

In the meanwhile, we the people will live on under ever increasing and more oppressive “Security” measures. Innocents on both sides will continue to die, and I live in dread for the kind of future my two little girls will grow up in. I am not advocating caving in to terrorist demands – what I am advocating is at least looking to see if the underlying causes can be addressed, so that there are far fewer disenfranchised people prepared to die for a cause. If Politicians persist in doing what they are doing with no reality checks included, then this really will still be going on for decades. Unfortunately though, and knowing politicians, we had better get used to more indiscriminate death.

As says: "the death of one innocent is important". The instant we move away from that, we've lost. There is no bigger picture than this. The death we're speaking of is the extinction of a living breathing person just like you and me.

When Jean Charles de Menezes is anonymised to "an innocent" we begin the process of distancing ourselves which ends with the soldier's view of his enemy as not-human. [If you must kill someone, you need to characterise them as not-like-you-and-me, to make it easier to do and to live with.] The opposite is also the case. Jean was apparently innocent of any wrong. I understand how he was shot, and I make no accusations, but Jean is dead and he shouldn't be.

He wasn't "an innocent", he was Jean Charles de Menezes and he had a Mum and a Dad. He was real.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"