London Bombing - Man Shot Not Connected
Last week, I wrote about the London bombings and, specifically, about the man who was shot and killed by British Police. Reports over the weekend indicated that this man was not involved in the bombings and was not connected to the terrorists. Of course, this is a tragedy. Innocent people should not be shot and killed. I pray for his family and friends and hope they can find comfort in this dark time.
I still believe the police acted in the appropriate manner. Reading this on the BBC's site, raises many questions and certainly seems to indicate the police were justified. The man was under surveillance, he vaulted the ticket stall, he ran from police, and he was wearing a bulky jacket in the middle of the summer. Had I been one of the police officers, I certainly would have done the same. The police were thinking of not only their own safety, but also the safety of all the other people in the subway station at the time.
In a city where bombs are being set off in the subways, why would you run from police? Why, when you know there is more security than ever, would you hope the ticket stall? Why, once the police caught up with you again, would you not obey their instructions? Why on a hot July day would you wear a heavy jacket?
Again, I feel this was a tragedy and I do hope that it does not happen again. Innocent civilians need to have a bit more common sense than this guy did. Most police in London do not carry firearms. As soon as he saw they were armed, he should have made the connection that this was an anti-terror force and immediately complied with their instructions. That's not to say that it is ok for someone to run from unarmed police officers, just that he should have been able to realize that with everything that has been going on in London in the past month, maybe it would be a good idea to listen to those charged with protecting the public from further attacks.
Tags: london bombings, london, bombings, terrorists
I still believe the police acted in the appropriate manner. Reading this on the BBC's site, raises many questions and certainly seems to indicate the police were justified. The man was under surveillance, he vaulted the ticket stall, he ran from police, and he was wearing a bulky jacket in the middle of the summer. Had I been one of the police officers, I certainly would have done the same. The police were thinking of not only their own safety, but also the safety of all the other people in the subway station at the time.
In a city where bombs are being set off in the subways, why would you run from police? Why, when you know there is more security than ever, would you hope the ticket stall? Why, once the police caught up with you again, would you not obey their instructions? Why on a hot July day would you wear a heavy jacket?
Again, I feel this was a tragedy and I do hope that it does not happen again. Innocent civilians need to have a bit more common sense than this guy did. Most police in London do not carry firearms. As soon as he saw they were armed, he should have made the connection that this was an anti-terror force and immediately complied with their instructions. That's not to say that it is ok for someone to run from unarmed police officers, just that he should have been able to realize that with everything that has been going on in London in the past month, maybe it would be a good idea to listen to those charged with protecting the public from further attacks.
Tags: london bombings, london, bombings, terrorists
posted by Bill Blankmeyer at
10:08
6 Comments:
I'm sorry if this sounds odd, but, so far, every person I've heard defending the police on this case is either stupid or ignorant of the facts. In your case, it's just ignorance.
> In a city where bombs are being set off in the subways, why would you run from police?
They weren't identified as policemen, and he had been attacked by a gang a few weeks/days ago.
> Why on a hot July day would you wear a heavy jacket?
He was brazilian. Brazil = hot country. Should this translate to a death sentence?
This was clearly a case of police being overzealous. Tell me a reason for killing a man who's immobilized in the ground. You may tell me that the policemen were nervous and overreactead. That's OK, but that's the exact same answer to your questions of "why did the guy act like this?".
I hope the policemen and the british government are punished for this. I don't want to be the next innocent killed!
By
Anonymous, at 25 July, 2005 17:17
"In a city where bombs are being set off in the subways, why would you run from police?" should read "In a city where bombs are being set off in the subways, why would you run from 3 shouting guys drawing guns"
and
"Most police in London do not carry firearms. As soon as he saw they were armed, he should have made the connection that this was an anti-terror force and immediately complied with their instructions." should read
"As most police in London do not carry firearms no sane person would assume that 3 armed and shouting guys are part of any anti-terror force and nobody who isn't retarded would immediately comply with their instructions."
They [profanity deleted] shot him 7 times *AFTER* they pinned him to the ground! If he had been a suicide bomber he had plenty of opportunities to carry out his mission by then.
This has nothing to do with security.
This is what you get if you give people guns, tell them "There MIGHT be someone with a bomb outthere and we are very afraid of them, so KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL" and then turn them loose in a city that's overflowing with diversity.
This shooting is not a tragedy, its a direct result of the glaring incompetence that plagues western polititians when it comes to dealing with terrorism. I find your comments appalling and short-sighted at best.
By
Anonymous, at 25 July, 2005 19:41
This story doesn't stack up - if the Police believed that he was carrying explosive with the intent to cause havoc, why did they allow him to reach a crowded underground station having already boarded a bus?
"After a five-minute walk to the bus stop on Tulse Hill Road he boarded a No 2 bus bound for Baker Street. He had to change his normal route after finding Brixton Tube station closed." The Independent, 25th July.
A suicide bomber is intent on death and glory (I presume) and therefore is unlikely to run away when (if?) challenged. Consequently, there is no point in following him. If he is not a suicide bomber then the threat is minimal.
Killing a suicide bomber with a shot(s) to the head is no guarantee that the bomb will not be detonated - a grenade explodes if its trigger is released
By
Anonymous, at 26 July, 2005 02:30
@anonymous1
'They weren't identified as policemen'
They had police hats on and identified themselves as police when they confronted him.
'He was brazilian. Brazil = hot country. Should this translate to a death sentence?'
This taken by itself means nothing. But when you add in all the other factors, it raises the suspicion level of the police. Police are trained to look for things that do not seem right. In this case, there were too many of these items that just didn't seem right.
'Tell me a reason for killing a man who's immobilized in the ground'
As far as I know, details of how immobilized the man was have not been released. If he is struggling and has a hand free and has a trigger on his hip, he could set off the explosive. If he has stilled himself and 'gone limp' for the police to immobilize him and search him and then is shot, that is wrong.
I do not know what happened. I was not there. Maybe one of the cops (or a few of the cops) saw something else. Maybe he had a wire near his waist (for headphones or something). In the heat of the moment, with all other factors, this might translate into 'bomb' in the mind of the police.
@anonymous2
'If he had been a suicide bomber he had plenty of opportunities to carry out his mission by then'
Perhaps he had a specific target he was trying to reach. Maybe he was instructed to hit a particular train with backup instructions to get as close as he can and then if he cannot get all the way there, do the most damage he can.
'its a direct result of the glaring incompetence that plagues western polititians when it comes to dealing with terrorism'
Since you seem to know better than western politicians, how would you deal with terrorism?
'I find your comments appalling and short-sighted at best.'
I am sorry you feel that way. But it doesn't change the way I view the situation. Maybe once more information comes to light, I will see it differently. Maybe you will see it differently. I'd be interested to hear accounts from the police involved. Without knowing what was going on in their minds, I can only guess. But with what I do know from the reports I've seen, I can see many of the mitigating factors that could have made me respond the same way had I been in their shoes.
@anonymous3
'why did they allow him to reach a crowded underground station having already boarded a bus?'
'therefore is unlikely to run away when (if?) challenged'
I mentioned this above, but the police have to consider that he might have been heading for a particular target. Instructions like "get there if you can. If you fail to reach there, make it as close as you can". Also, at the point he boarded the bus, he hadn't vaulted the turnstile and he had not run from authorities. Had I been in their shoes, I might have stopped him before allowing him to board the bus, but I cannot say for sure.
'Killing a suicide bomber with a shot(s) to the head is no guarantee that the bomb will not be detonated - a grenade explodes if its trigger is released'
There are two scenerios: 1. He has a bomb with a dead man's trigger 2. He has a bomb without a dead man's trigger. In case one, a shot to the head ends the threat and prevents injuries to bystanders and the police. In case two, a trigger is going to go off as they take him into custody. Shooting the victim in the head will set the bomb off, but it was going to go off anyway.
Again, I want to reiterate that I think this is a tragedy. I think this could have been avoided had the victim acted differently. I think this could have been avoided had the police been better identified. Maybe the group that approached him should have included a few uniformed police. Had that happened, he might have been less likely to take off running. Hopefully, this will not happen again. I think the next time something similar occurs, I think both parties will react to the situation more appropriately.
By
Bill Blankmeyer, at 26 July, 2005 09:00
From anonymous1:
Where did you get the information that they had their police hats on?
By
Anonymous, at 26 July, 2005 20:22
@anonymous1
I have tried tracking that info back down and haven't been able to. I've reread several reports I know I read earlier and a few that I might have read and I have not been able to find where I originally read that they were wearing police caps. In light of that and the fact that I cannot find any substantiating story, I have to assume that I was mistaken or the story I read was mistaken and has since been amended. I need to start keeping better record of my sources so that when this happens, I can at least point to a corrected story or something. If I do come across the article, I will post the story and link.
By
Bill Blankmeyer, at 27 July, 2005 11:26
Post a Comment
<< Home