Plainclothes British special forces chased and killed a supposedly South Asian-looking man on the London tube yesterday whom they suspected of being a suicide bomber (thanks, Ravi):
… he saw a man in a black bomber jacket and jeans running towards him being chased by the officers… The suspect, described as being of Asian appearance and wearing a thick, bulky jacket, vaulted over a ticket barrier when challenged by police and ran down the escalator and along the platform of the Northern Line…As waiting passengers and those already on a train that had pulled into the station dived to the floor, the suspect jumped on the train. Two witnesses said that as he entered the train he tripped, ending up half in and half out of the carriage, on all fours… the officers caught up with the man and pushed him hard to the floor. Witnesses said that they then fired up to five bullets into him at close range, killing him instantly. [Link]
“As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified. He sort of tripped but they were hotly pursuing him and couldn’t have been more than two or three feet behind him at this time. They unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He’s dead, five shots, he’s dead…” [Link]
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… [Link]
Now they say it was all a mistake (thanks, Abhi):
It is understood that he was found not to have been carrying a bomb… After the suspect had been shot police sent a robot to examine the man, because of fears that any device could still prove a danger. But it is understood that no device was found… [Link]The man shot dead by police at Stockwell Underground station yesterday morning had nothing to do with Thursday’s abortive London bomb attacks, Scotland Yard said tonight… The Met said in a statement this afternoon: “We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police… We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday…” [Link]
This is a Rashomon-like story. The cops’ version: they followed him from an apartment complex which they’d staked out in connection with the recent London bombings. He was wearing a suspiciously thick jacket on a temperate day and heading for the subway, so they decided to arrest him. He did not comply with their warnings and instead ran into the tube station, vaulted the gates and made it onto a train. Under those circumstances, it was their duty to stop a potential suicide bomber, so they tackled him to the floor of the train and shot him dead.
From the victim’s point of view, he left the apartment to go to work, got on a bus and got off at his tube station when he noticed he was being followed by men in street clothes. They started yelling at him and pulled guns, which British cops normally don’t carry. Believing his life was in danger, he bolted into the nearest escape vehicle, the tube, and he almost survived. The cops are saying he had no link to the bombings.
So the cops are saying, why did he run? And the victim would’ve said, why weren’t the cops in uniform? It’s Amadou Diallo all over again:
Diallo had come to New York City to study computer science… While he was walking near his building, police officers… in plainclothes but wearing their NYPD shields, approached him for questioning… they reported Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway… He then reached into his jacket. Believing Diallo was drawing a firearm, Officer Carroll yelled “Gun!” to alert his colleagues… The four officers fired 41 shots, hitting Diallo 19 times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo’s body, and that he had pulled out of his jacket and held in his hand his wallet… [Link]
In the UK, there’s an even more apt analogy, the table leg shooting:
Harry Stanley decided to help his brother repair a broken table on 22 September 1999… He stopped off for a break at The Alexandra, not his regular haunt, and ordered a lemonade, still carrying the table leg in a blue plastic bag. But someone mistook his Scottish accent for an Irish one and thought the bag contained a sawn-off shotgun. As Mr Stanley left, oblivious to causing any fuss, someone called the police. The father of three was only about 100 yards from home when he heard the shout: “Stop, armed police…” Mr Stanley turned around, and raised the bag, which they believed to contain a gun… [Inspector] Sharman, who said he was sure his colleague was about to be killed, shot Mr Stanley in the head. [Link]
Now, I don’t want to second-guess cops in the heat of the moment. London is under repeated attack right now, they’re on hair-trigger alert. If you’re highly certain the perp is a suicide bomber, shoot to kill. But a lot is still unclear here: what was the cops’ level of certainty, and how did they arrive at it? Because it seems they just executed in broad daylight someone innocent of the charge.
I look forward to your comments. Please remember that frothing at the mouth is only attractive when you’re drinking latte.
Update: BBC says the man was ‘thought to be Brazilian‘ (thanks, Scarface).
Update 2: The victim has been named:
The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27… Scotland Yard said Mr Menezes, who lived in Brixton, south London, was completely unconnected to the bomb attacks… Mr Menezes, who was from the city of Gonzaga in Minas Gerais state, had lived in London legally for at least three years and was employed as an electrician. [Link]
Menezes’ family was Roman Catholic. When asked if he had become Muslim in Britain, Agostino Ferreira Rosa, a policeman in Gonzaga said: “According to his family, he had nothing to do with Muslims or Islamism. He was Catholic.”… [Link]
Ian Blair, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police… told reporters that officers had ordered the man to halt and had opened fire only after he failed to obey. But none of the witnesses reported hearing any warning. [Link]
The London police have been accused of being trigger-happy in the past:
The [Police Complaints Authority in 2003] examined a rise in police shootings and found that the London force was twice as likely as others to open fire on a suspect… The PCA looked at 24 police shootings, including 11 fatalities, between 1998 and 2001 and concluded that many of those shot were mentally ill or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The report noted that 55 shots had been fired by police and no suspects fired back. [Link]
Update 3: One possible explanation surfaces for why de Menezes ran:
Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police… “The murder rates in some of these slums are worse than in a lot of war zones and that could explain why, when plain clothes officers pulled a gun on him, he may have run away…” [Link]
Update 4: De Menezes was shot eight times:
Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder… [Link]
He may have been worried the cops would deport him:
BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the type of visa Mr Menezes had been given would normally be valid for one-and-a-half to two years. He said Mr Menezes had not renewed the visa, adding: “… it might provide an explanation as to why he ran away…” [Link]
He hopped a bus first:
It took 26 minutes for Jean Charles de Menezes to get from his flat in Tulse Hill to the entrance of Stockwell Tube station. In that time the 27-year-old electrician did not appear to realise that a team of 30 Scotland Yard officers were following his every move… [Link]
Cops may have realized he wasn’t one of the bombers:
When Mr Menezes emerged from the communal front door just after 9.30am, the police must have realised from the photographs they carried that he was not one of the four bombers. [Link]
It’s not clear whether he was warned to stop:
By far the most controversial claim comes from a number of witnesses who have cast doubt on police statements that they shouted a warning or identified themselves to the suspect before opening fire. Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout “police” or anything like it. Mr Ruston, a construction company director, said that he saw two of the officers put on their blue baseball caps marked “police” but that the frightened electrician could not have seen that happen because he had his back to the officers and was running with his head down. [Link]
I walked past Stockwell station yesterday and felt very uneasy. Not cos I was scared – but just thinking about what had happened a bit earlier. I was initially discussing things when we weren’t sure about what had happened. I said I’m no fan of the coppers but I had faith in British police not to do something completely rash. Ah well, guess I was wrong. This is very, very worrying indeed. Especially as so much of this is on my doorstep and I fit squarely into the photo-ident of a suicide bomber.
I’ll never back-chat a policeman again.
Either incompetence or meant to send a message. Why do I say so?
“One witness suggested that as the man neared Stockwell station, he realized he was being followed, but it is equally likely police decided they could not take the risk of allowing a suspected suicide bomber back on to the underground network.
In any case, the pace of events accelerated from this point. Chris Wells, a 28-year-old company manager, said he saw about 20 police, some of them armed, rushing into the station.”
Now, if there were 20 policemen around, and there were suspected suicide bombers under surveillance nearby, and if the police didn’t want such suspects getting on the underground, then doesn’t it make much more sense to post a few of those twenty men at the entrance of the station, and if any suspect wandered towards the stations, these guys should be alerted to be ready to stop him?
Some other points of interest:
“”I’ve seen these police officers shouting, ‘Get down, get down!’ — and I’ve seen this guy who appears to have a bomb belt and wires coming out,” Anthony Larkin said.”
Interesting case of eyewitness seeing something that wasn’t.
(Per timesonline link) The victim was challenged to stop by regular officers (at the station) they mentioned they were the police and he bolted. The Diallo analogy seems a stretch —
“Alerted by the bulk of his jacket, police had followed the suspect on foot for some time and became concerned when he approached the Tube station.”
“After the officers were ordered to stop him from entering the station at all costs, they challenged him before he crossed the main road to the station. ”
When they drew their weapons and shouted “Stop, armed police”, the man looked over his shoulder and bolted. He was described as being very fit and agile.
No, the Diallo analogy is apt. The cops also identified themselves to Diallo, but it was late at night, and he wasn’t very fluent in English.
What was the indentity of the man ? Indian ? Pakistani ? Bangla ?
indentity* = identity
He was Brazilian.
They haven’t publicly ID’d the man yet. Most news reports said he looked South Asian, though the BBC just said he was ‘thought to be Brazilian.’ You can watch developing coverage here.
I remember these British sanctimonious pricks issuing ‘advice’ to India for restraint when police in India shot dead a businessman mistaking him to be a terrorist/gangster. I wonder if the Indian embassy ought to put out a travel warning in Britain. “All brown people beware.. British police is just as trigger happy as the Delhi/Bombay & Kerala Police.”
I still don’t feel like I know exactly what happened to the point of being able to judge it (particularly whether the Diallou analogy is apt). The London police keep changing their story and the victim’s perspective is hard to know given that he’s dead. Most of all, I’m totally missing context that would allow us to assess whether it is like Diallou/Giuliani police tactics or it’s different. If this had happened in New York with NYPD, I also would have a far more cynical understanding of this incident. Maybe someone from London can comment on the context of police / desi relationships and use of force by the police.
One thing’s for sure, though–I’m terrified that I get could get shot in the head four times at point blank range while being held down.
Five times, Saurav. In the head.
In case anyone has doubts, check out the shoot-to-kill guidlines given to police.
“I remember these British sanctimonious pricks issuing ‘advice’ to India”
It is difficult to sympathize with somebody’s plight till one goes through a similar experience. During the anthrax scare in the US I remember anthrax jokes were doing the rounds on indian mailing lists.
Obviously he should have stopped running and started dancing salsa… wait, wait, im the OTHER type of brown!
Thanks for the correction, cicatrix. I’ve read about the shoot-to-kill policy; I’m just having a hard time accepting that it’s come to this.
Compounding that is that the facts of the investigation are unclear, it’s dealing with a set of social dynamics I know nothing about (e.g. does the London PD have the same poor recent history of race relations that the NYPD has?), and, most of all, it’s all occurring within the context of what I consider a continuous and imminent threat (not the “war on terrorism” in general–I mean specifically the threat of bombings in London in the near future). The Diallou case and other incidents that have happened in New York are easier for me to get a grasp on because none of those things are true.
Exactly my thoughts. I think this proves what many of us debated about last week. Now South American=South Asian also.
Maybe he was running because he was illegal and feared deportation. I only offer this possibility because the British government is said to be in contact with the Brazilian government which either means he was there on a visa or illegal.
Ahem, now that he’s “thought to be Brazilian,” (though at this rate he may turn out to be Inuit tomorrow and Chinese-Nigerian the day after . . ) I hope we won’t be any less insistent that the truth get out and strategies analyzed. I’m less interested in getting heads to roll than I am in making sure policies are sincerely analyzed for efficacy and safety.
I’m willing to give the British system the benefit of the doubt. They don’t want their agents be running around randomly shooting colored people. But they have to be responsible for the policies they put in place and the actions they take that lead to that happening–or even the almost as damaging perception that that is happening.
The question I want to ask is this: how well trained was the copper with the gun? I can’t help but think that for all our trigger happy American cops, any American police officer would be a little more careful about shooting someone on a crowded train. There is something to be said for training and experience. I’m guessing if you did a log of “police shots fired with people present” and then counted “police shots fired leading to wholely unnecessary injury or death” the American ratio would be a lot lower than the British ratio. Since you can’t build that in, the, oh , two weeks it’s been since 7/7, you can at least advise cops to take extreme caution.
Because really, the thing that freaks me out is this:
The officers “couldn’t have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time,” Mr. Whitby said, “and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor, and the policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand.”
(From the New York Times, same quote in the London Times)
Couldn’t they have just pinned the guy with a boot in the back? Shot him in the knees? At such close range? These are questions only the witnesses and the cop who pulled the trigger can answer, and the person who trained the cops has to be answerable for shooter’s training and orders. But, yeah, we should reserve judgement until all the facts are brought to light.
Our British counterparts (and I mean all of them, not just the “Asian” ones) should make damn sure they do come to light, however.
Not to go way off topic, but I remember being at a SAYA! event a few years ago, where Sukanya Krishnan, morning reporter with WB11 in NYC, used “South American” as a peculiar shorthand (?) to talk about the desi community. More than 3 times. I don’t think that she realized what she was doing, and no one told her.
I thought she was talking to the 2 Guyanese folks in the room.
Regardless, I think that it will be very interesting to see how London police handle this very high-profile incident, and what happens when folks demand answers.
What do you mean by that Saheli?
The other day I was joking to friends that I would pretend to be Hispanic if questioned.
Seems like that idea’s out the window.
The man has been confirmed as being Brazilian as far as I know. Brazil are going to be pissed. However someone made an interesting point on TV, that Blair is lucky the guy was Brazilian. Had an innocent muslim been shot dead, there would be a huge public outcry and either Blair or a senior police chief would’ve been in some serious trouble. As it stands, there aren’t that many Brazilians here to kick up a fuss.
Maybe it’s time for me to invest in some Fair and Lovely cream after all.
It is a tragedy and a horrific thing to have happened.
But the circumstances are as follows : the man left a block of flats that was under surveilance for suspected suicide bombers (two men were subsequently arrested from the block of flats in connection with the attacks) – that he was told to stop by armed police, that he ran away into the train station and was running towards a train that had just pulled into the platform – and he was wearing a heavy fat jacket that could have concealed explosives – the police were jittery and under orders to prevent any suicide attack by a shoot to kill policy – extraordinary tensions – extraordinary circumstances – it is terrible and wrong – but it wasnt just a straightforward example of a man picked out at random.
This is what terrorism does to a society – it makes it nervous and jumpy and forces cruelty to be used by the defenders of a society trying to defend itself. Split second decision to save lives given that less than 24 hours before four suicide attacks miraculously failed – and they made the wrong decision. Tragedy beyond words can describe. But I for one will not castigate the British Police as a whole as some Muslim fundamentalists have already started doing. They are the ones protecting us against the evil of Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombing, and that is what is the trigger for this terrible and horrific event.
It’s time to get a t-shirt that goes “Oi am not a terrorist.. and that weird smell is just curry & hair oil and not acetone peroxide”
Percy
Most of which originated stateside.
This is what the Mayor said:
If the time is right for cool heads it is right for cool heads all over – including from people who without context by reflex try to make out that this was something other than what it was – trying to incite the racial aspect – that is what the terrorists want. Do not do their work for them.
I hope that police procedures are corrected and appropriate actions taken but I think that the Mayor is right on the money. A terrorist incident is unfortunately the “gift” that keeps on giving.
Abhi
I believe you are correct – and I think it is wicked and craven to make politics out of this tragedy. Especially given that the apologists for terrorists (there are some of them about) will take this and try to show that it is an example of how the state are the ones at fault – no. It is a tragedy and I mourn but in the present circumstances the ultimate responsibility for this lies with the terrorists.
Remember, the four failed suicide-bombers are still at large – and the whole of London is on edge because we expect the next attack to come soon – this is a terrible situation. It is a tragedy that has come out of this context.
I would like to say that despite some vocal exceptions, generally the sentiment here is that we are upset this shooting occurred, but we understand why.
There are some unanswered questions right now, some of which have been touched upon here, but we are not baying for the police’s blood. Something went wrong with the intel on this guy, and an enquiry has begun. But, as you say Scarface, we’re more concerned about the next attack. We’re getting on with our lives, but we’re scared by when the next attack is coming and the brown ones amongst us are scared to run for the tube.
We’re scared. But we’re rational.
Ultimately, I think people making bold assertions, like the author of this post did, that this was a racially motivated killing like some New York case, are being extremely unhelpful and do not understand the gravity and horror of what has happened in London and the context in which it occured.
Lets do the investigation into what happened and learn from it.
But I want to ask those who criticise the police forcefully and without thinking a question:
Are you suggesting that the next time this happens the police should just let the person go on their merry way? If there are four suicide bombers on the loose in London who are trying to blow up tube trains, the armed police should just allow men to run away from them and get onto tube trains?
That is ultimately, tragically, what it boils down to.
Not to speak out of turn, but don’t you think that once the police catch the guy, hold him down, and clearly outnumber him, it might be a little unnecessary to plug five bullets into his head?
cicatrix
Are you aware of the police procedures for dealing with suicide-bombers? In a split second decision that has to be made when the potential suicide bomber is inside the carriage of the tube train and might let off his device? What would you do? Have you ever been in that situation? What is your qualification? Under pressure and your trigger finger is nervous and you know he might be about to let off a suicide bomb with the adrenaline and fear and you let off one or two rounds more than you should in the heat of the moment? Who are you to judge?
People are going to criticise the police for their own agenda – the police are risking their lives for us in London – perhaps because you do not live in London and your life and the lives of your family and loved ones are not currently at risk from suicide bombing psychopaths so you can afford to be more sanguine about it. Great that is your luxury, use it, have fun with it, but I am not going to beat up on the police in these present circumstances and give succour to terrorists because of it.
It is a tragedy. Investigate it to make sure it does not happen again. But I resent the implication and the lack of understanding in your post.
And yes, the suicide-bombers are still out there waiting to strike. I support the police. This is a tragic incident. But I am not going to start a witch hunt against them because of it while they are risking their lives to protect my life and the lives of my friends and family.
Dont forget that.
And cicatrix, are you suggesting that in the future when four suicide bombers who are exploding themselves on tube trains are on the loose and a suspect runs onto a tube train police should just let him get on with his work? Perhaps ask him nicely to stop stop?
Truly, this is a tragedy, but one that the terrorists hold ultimate responsibility for. Feel free to criticise in the luxury of your SAFE city and your SAFE home.
Wow, Scarface. Suddenly I feel like I did when Sri Lankan “uncles” who’d lived here for 30+ years took it upon themselved to tell me, 5 months after I landed in this country, that my skirt was too short, and that I was becoming too “Americanized” and not at all like a “proper Sri Lankan girl.”
So listen, uncle. I’m sorry for your fear. But you made too many assumptions about me in that last post to really be taken seriously right now.
achcha! veddy nice shot! But I grew up in Sri Lanka and was working in downtown Manhattan on 9/11. Please try again.
You know, maybe I wasn’t speaking for the majority of Londoners went I said we’re not baying for police blood. This issue seems to have driven a wedge between those who thought it was essentially better to be safe than sorry and those who thought it was completely uncalled for police over-zealousness.
Sadly, amongst the people I talk to and read the opinions of, the wedge has been driven firmly along religious lines, which only serves to reinforce the point I made earlier – how different this would have been if a Muslim had been shot.
Muslim Londoners are aghast, the rest of London thinks the police did the right thing. I just wonder what Brazilian Londoners think.
I sincerely hope that this isn’t seen as baying for blood. As I said here this incident is one of my worst fears come true.
Are Pakistanis “desis” (well, technically, to other Pakistanis, they are)? No distinctions made out there, you say?
Then, darn it all, my nonbelieving, technically Hindu goose is cooked by default i guess….
Religion blows in general, and suicide bombers blow in little groups it seems. Apologies to the silent majority of believers out there, but i must vent. Ahh, no longer verklempt now.
I just blogged about this-ish sort of thing … well, really, more of the fact that the CNN anchor was talking about how this man’s “dress” and “manner” set off alarms, as if his skin color wasn’t somehow a factor in the equation. Because we can’t acknowledge that at all. Skin color is just a non-issue in all of these things, right?
I think it’s entirely feasible that he was an illegal fearing deportation.
And I suppose we’re better safe than sorry, but I don’t see how a lot of “us” are safer with police shooting at suspects when they don’t know for certain who they are. Safer we are from suicide bombings, perhaps, but safer from random shootings? Be they stray bullets hitting non-suspects, people shooting back, or just more innocent people being killed?
I don’t know. Ach.
Saheli,
shooting in the head was the policy. The goal was to stop somebody who was crazy enough, strong enough or desperate enough to be able to detonate a bomb even while being held down.
Unfortunately, this is possible. Unless you have somebody in cuffs, they can sometimes move even when they are grabbed by others. While this doesn’t address the broader issues involved in this strategy, it does us little good to ignore this police concern either.
And yes, I too am afraid of this happening to me, either there or … here. Who knows how the policies of US cops have changed post 7/7.
Lastly, counting bullets makes sense only if we’re afraid that the cop shot him vengefully. Once he’s authorized to kill, however, I don’t care how many bullets he uses. The person is dead either way.
In many ways, we’re “lucky” that he wasn’t a desi. I think that people are more willing to examine the policy closely now that a non-desi has been shot than they would if a desi had been wrongly shot.
Theo ze brown
Here’s the latest from the NYT:
I’ll tell you this: when I’m next in London, I’ll be wearing a t-shirt, not carrying a rucksack, and walking very very slowly. The t-shirt will read “I’m not Brazillian. Hell, I can’t even Salsa!”
This to me is the crucial point. Whether you think this killing was justified or not (in fact, particularly if you think this killing and the policy it was based one were justified), there need to be simultaneous stepped up calls for information as to what the police tactics are and how they’re being implemented. I’ve seen some people refer to this as not standing up for the people, but if they’re going to get expanded powers, they need to be monitored even more closely. That guy’s dead, after all.
“How could they have done such a thing as to kill him from behind?” Mr. Alves told the Globo Television Network. “How could they have confused and killed a light-skinned person who had no resemblance at all to an Asian?”
Oh my god! Confusing a light skinned European wannabe Brazilian with a curry smelling, dark and oily Desi. What the fuck is the world coming to. Next they will think that the Mexicans look like Desis or something.
Don’t you mean Samba?
Dude, your non-believing technically Hindu goose looks just like my non-believing technically Hindu goose looks just like Abdullah the extremist’s devoutly-believing turkey through a cross-hair.
It’s f**king scary sh*t feeling at risk from the ‘goodies’ and the baddies.
I expect that if the police have a potential suicide bomber under surveillance, and that too, for a couple of days, then they have had time to think through what they would do should the suspect do such-and-such or other such-and-such.
In particular, the police ought to have figured out that they might want to prevent the person from getting to potential target areas.
I mean, the minute the guy was getting up to go somewhere, leaving the house where he was under watch, presumably, he’d head for public transportation.
The news accounts are that around 20 of the plainsclothes men suddenly realized – oh my god, he’s going to the station. 20 of them would be enough to put a cordon around the suspect.
And the news accounts say that they shot him while they had his hands pinned down. Yeah, he was so able to blow something up in that state.
No, this is the government gauging how much the bombs have turned Britishers into sheep. This is the shepherd reassuring his sheep, I shoot wolves in the head, five times, even when the wolves are rabbits.
I hope London turns out for this guy’s funeral as an act of contrition.
Well, as a Sikh I’ve been afraid of the foreign terrorist baddies, the domestic racist “backlash” baddies, and the goodies for some time.
Least afraid of the goodies, but quite aware of the fact that they might not be very concerned with my well being.
Most afraid of domestic racist baddies, actually. Chances of getting killed or injured by either type of baddy is very very small, but actually higher from the domestic side than the foreign side. And I speak as somebody who knows multiple people who have been killed or injured by terrorists.
The post doesn’t say that at all– it looks like a case of bad judgment. At the end of the day, an innocent man is dead.
But since you bring it up, there’s no question racial misidentification was a factor in both this case and the UK table leg shooting, where a Scotsman was misidentified as Irish.
The news coverage says he was in the UK legally.
Should plain-clothes policemen be allowed to interact with the public at all? Anyone, perhaps a gangster, could stand on the street and shout “Stop, police!”. How on earth is the public going to know whom to believe and whom not to? Show the badge? I’ve never seen what a real badge looks like, how do I know if it’s real or fake?
Even if they’re pursuing a suspect, should they be allowed to shoot? Shooting a known criminal is different from shooting a “suspect”. Everyone can be suspect. You, me, everyone.
cicatrix
I am supposed to worry if you take me seriously or not? If you do not wish to answer that is fine, dont, but dont dance around and posture, deal with the situation and the question.
Manish
Actually, you did assert that it was a case similar to the incident in New York. I pointed out the circumstances and context were different.
Arun
So you are suggesting that this was not a tragic and horrifying fuck up in circumstances and a context of suicide-bombing nervousness, but was a calculated decision by the British Government as part of a conspiracy?
So were the suicide bombers part of the governement conspiracy too? Or were they separate? Maybe they were not real? It is all probably a set up job, right?
Seven million people have to show ‘contrition’ for the tragic and horrific mistake of one armed police officer in a pressure situation?
Well, the terrorists definitely believed London had to show ‘contrition’ for the crime of being a decadent un-Islamic evil outpost of the Zionist empire – collective guilt – and your reasoning certainly coincides with theirs -‘collective guilt of London’, conspiring government and all.
Tell me, do you believe Londons Muslims should turn out at the funerals for the victims of the suicide bombings to show ‘contrition’ – that would be a rather bigoted and fascist thing to assume, would it not? Because there is no collective guilt here – just the guilt of the terrorists and their helpers, not the average Tariq and Sajda on the street.
Your reasoning is specious, dangerous, and wrong.
Are you kidding me? Police chase a man who has been given no indication of who they are, he is captured, held down, and shot in the head 5 times, and there is any discussion of whether or not what they did was reasonable? How is it in any way acceptable that a challenge from police, in which they simply tell you that they are police and may kill you, is proper justification for killing someone? If I were to kill someone for fear of my life, which is lawful, in such a situation I could possibly be prosecuted for a hate crime. Why is it suddenly a matter of debate as to police becasue use of lethal force is part of their “job”? If it is a matter of procedure, as it must be, then they simply acknowledge they made a mistake and make the necessary corrections in staff and procedures. This crap about how he ran and what he was wearing and how he was challenged are irrelevant. They seem top basically be saying that he didn’t fear for his life ENOUGH (since he ran and ignored to challenge), and so had to be killed. This plays to the stereotype of terrosists not caring about life, but also ignores what the police must surely know about fear reactions in people who are threatened with violence or death.
And what about the idea of individuals acting responsibly? From some of the comments above, the implicit statement is that the police can racially profile and shoot to kill with impunity which is justified because of the previous terrorist acts and with the intent of avoiding future ones. This I find disturbing. Not only does that mentality lend itself to the justification of racial profiling and xenophobia, it also exculpates those who violently kill the innocent. I do not see this as a meting out of justice; instead this is yet another variation of terrorism itself.
Not the alleged racial aspect of the Diallo case, the police misjudgment aspect.
Does your Jack Nicholson impression cover members of the British government?