An innocent bystander is dead, shot by the good guys. Now the London mayor is claiming that Jean Charles de Menezes, the ‘South Asian-looking’ guy shot by British special forces, was actually a victim of terrorism rather than the cops. It’s Livingstone, I presume:
London Mayor Ken Livingstone described Mr Menezes as a “victim of the terrorist attacks”. [Link]More innocent people could be shot dead by police… Scotland Yard’s chief admitted yesterday. [Link]
Livingstone’s statement is faulty moral calculus and actively blocks the solution. First and foremost, you must assign responsibility accurately, otherwise you’ll never fix the problem. The terrorist attacks are a contributing cause. The primary cause is the commando who held him down and shot him seven times in the head.
Shoot to kill is indeed a good policy when you’re highly certain the suspect is a suicide bomber. But the criteria have to be tightened and the threshold for action tweaked. We have empirical proof of it: it’s de Menezes’ body. ‘He ran’ and ‘he had brown skin’ aren’t reason enough to kill someone. The criminal justice system doesn’t execute or even imprison people for those reasons.
This is an issue apart from the terrorists, who are obviously mass murderers. It’s of interest because society holds sway over its government’s shoot-to-kill criteria in a way that it doesn’t over deluded, nihilist 19-year-olds. We grant governments a monopoly on the use of force precisely because they have the duty and the means to use it correctly.
Several nonlethal weapons which might work exist today: bomb jammers, stun guns, beanbag guns, rubber bullets, plastic bullets, pepperball guns, sticky shockers, immobilizing goo, veiling glare lasers, flash bang grenades, pain-inducing microwaves and millimeter wave body scanners for detecting explosives.
Even more advanced solutions such as electromagnetic pulse guns and microwave guns which only affect electronics are under development. Many waves (electromagnetic and laser) affect different materials in different ways, for example by discriminating between the human body and explosives or detonators. X-rays, CAT scans, surgical and dental lasers, and luggage scanners rely on a variety of these effects.
But when you say ‘it wasn’t our fault,’ when you go into denial, you immediately truncate the search for a fix and the R&D investment needed to solve the problem. Western militaries have invested significantly in technology to curtail friendly fire. It’s worth doing so for law enforcement as well.
Previous post here.
i think what happened was horrible. an innocent guy thought he was being chased for being an illegal resident gets killed. one important thing you gloss over is that the police were surveilling his residence. it wasn’t just some random brown person in a puffy jacket they shot, there was some suspicion. whether it was enough is entirely debatable. frankly even with all the other mechanisms (stun gun, etc) for stopping a potential terrorist, the real deficiency here is lack of good intel. why were they surveilling the wrong residence? or why did they think the guy who left was even a suspect? can’t they discern between individuals residing in the same building?
i think one intentional effort with making their shoot-to-kill intentions public is to make it glaringly clear to others that immediate cooperation is expected. they should have done this from the beginning, and maybe this guy would have just stopped and laid down. to some extent, if individuals in the future deviate from full cooperation, it may give the police more cause for suspicion about the person they are trying to get.
Nicely put, Manish. Seven times….jesus. I wonder if there was anything left of his head. If the mayor’s comments are allowed to stand, we’re starting the long slide down a slippery slope…
No, they were staking out his entire apartment complex. That’s hardly a precise ID.
i didn’t say they had a precise ID. i pointed out that they are at fault for not being able to discern between various residents of the same building.
Those were not the reasons he was shot. He was shot because they thought he was a suicide bomber and was running towards a train the day after four suicide bombers failed to slaughter masses of people in London. It was caused by faulty intelligence, incompetence, and trigger-nervousness. Not ‘because he had brown skin’. Because they erroneously thought he was a suicide-bomber.
Yeah. That will do the trick. Spray him with shaving-cream whilst he reaches for the detonation switch and sends himself to janaat to screw 72 hooris and all the kaffirs to hell.
Maybe the police could just ask him if he would like a cup of tea and discuss it like a jolly reasonable chap?
That should do the trick.
Ah, Luke. You turn immobilizing goo into ‘shaving cream’ and rubber bullets into ‘a cup of tea.’
How about if they just kill everyone in the apartment complex. Reasonable suspicion and all.
Being reductionist sure is fun.
Thirty men surrounded this guy for twenty-six minutes between the time he left his house, took a bus ride and went into the tube. They had photos of the bombers. They had time to make a calculated decision. It’s not clear whether he was warned to stop.
Read the updates to this post. Come back when you’re up to speed.
Does this guy really meet the ‘he had brown skin’ criteria?
to some clueless white cop, yeah, he probably did.
Witness thought so. Although he hadn’t surveilled the guy for a while like the police did, so I suppose it’s still a very legit question.
cicatrix:
Do you know that the cops that chased him and shot him are white?
I don’t think any of the nonlethal weapons listed above would have deterred a suicide bomber with his finger on the trigger. Best solution for that is a bullet in the head.
We also know the ruckus being raised by the ACLU and others over the use of one of the most popular non-lethal weapons in the US, the taser.
Sugar Boy, I don’t know if the officers involved were white. That information has not yet been released.
Are you implying something?
Well..It is unfortunate that an innocent man has been killed. It is also unfortunate that Mayor said that the man is a victim of Terrorism The courts will decide if the Police were “at fault” or not. Someone will, for sure take it to the court.
It is only natural for cops to say that they acted in good faith and best judgement in the heat of the moment. In your own words, this is Rashomon (It could as well be many instances from Mahabharata and still mean the same) like situation.
My personal opinion is that there were enough grounds for cops to shoot-to-kill. I don’t think that will be widely used policy, but it should not be removed from the table and the ground realities should drive the use of this option. Cops never said “brown guy” or “Asian looking guy”. Those were the words of witnesses.So, we don’t know if there were racial motives for the kill. As unfortunate as it might seem, racial profiling is a direct outcome of statistical analysis of terrorism data (It is just inverse of affirmative action and affirmative action is not very scientific)
If the cops were all plainclothes types, how would the poor guy know for sure that these were official? They could be nazi skinheads for all he knew. After all, the number of racist attacks had spiked substantially after the bombings.
By the way, he was shot EIGHT times, 7 to the head, 1 to the shoulder.
OK, here’s the skinny.
I support shoot-to-kill-to-protect, as it’s now being called here. Which is basically the same as shoot-to-kill. I support it when there is a GENUINE reason to believe someone is a suicide bomber. However, this incident is beginning to look like a big mistake, not an unfortunate accident:
1 – Yes, the building was being surveilled. However, many different flats shared the exit. They did not know who he was or what flat he was from when he emerged.
2 – If they thought he was a suicide bomber, why did they let him board a bus on the way to the station? Were bus passengers less valuable? They just followed him, allowed him to enter the station and then the train and THEN unloaded 8 rounds.
3 – The secret service said his visa had expired. The Home Secretary says he was in the country legally.
The chap who recently stepped down from a senior Met. Police post in London, who was responsible for adopting the shoot-to-kill policy for suspected terrorists who said:
Right– ‘seven times in the head’ is accurate. The shoulder shot won’t kill ya.
‘seven times in the head’ is accurate. The shoulder shot won’t kill ya.
Well, if the guy’s wearing a bomb and your intent is to save lives, you can’t shoot his body.
I hear what you’re saying about the non-lethal weapons, but none of what you mention can stop someone instantly. And, the friendly-fire analogy makes sense, but it’s not precise because in a field of war the exact same situation that caused Menezes death happens every day and there’s no technology that can stop it.
So, what would you have done?
A guy once ran at me from across the street and not knowing what his intent was, I hit him when he got too close. I’m not proud of it, it’s just what happened, I made a choice. This shooting is not like the guy in Los Angeles who used his kid as a shield, this is a guy running toward a train after being told to stop…
I’m not condoning what happened because, without doubt, 100% guilt lands on the intelligence community, no question. But what do you do after things are in-motion and you believe the guy you’re chasing is “the guy?” Do you shoot him in the legs and hope he doesn’t have a bomb, do you just put him down with shots to the head or do you shout at him and pray?
A sufficiently powerful electroshock gun or sticky shocker would do it, I believe, by temporarily disrupting the central nervous system. Pain-inducing microwaves would remove all desires other than fleeing the beam. Bomb jammers (that act on more than just a detonation signal), EMP guns and microwave guns could potentially disable the bomb. Remote scanning could tell you whether the suspect’s carrying anything in the first place.
But if you classify the guy as collateral damage and say it’s not your fault, you’re not going to progress down either the learning curve or the tech development curve.
If you have high certainty, shoot to kill. But the mistake was set in motion long beforehand by bad intelligence, faulty criteria and a bad judgment call re: level of certainty. And nonlethal weapons give you options.
By the way, some witnesses are saying he was not given a warning.
I am trying my hardest not to comment on this suicide-bombing business because some of you dont really have a true insight into what is going on and I fear I might alienate you all.
But this is a tragedy beyone words and the Met needs to have a serious inquisition now.
And Ken Livingstone is a wanker anyway – the day before the latest attacks he went on Channel 4 news and justified suicide bombing in Israel, distinguishing it from suicide bombing in London(he is from the crazy left wing of Labour – and his statements are doing as much harm as good at the moment – he also invited a Muslim cleric who advocates suicide bombing to a London conference last year and hugged him – this cleric faced a ‘rainbow’ coalition of protests from Gay groups – [he believes they should be thrown off buildings head first] – Jewish groups [he believes they are all sons of apes and pigs and should be killed] Hindus [I dont think he said anything about them but they wanted to join in] and Sikh groups [who never pass up the opportunity to protest against something – especially a Jihadi] – so imagine if you will Gays and Sikhs protesting together – so Ken manages to alienate every minority group in London – he is a clown – or as my Irish Uncle says – a foooking eeejut)
Punjabi Boy, do say what you think about the whole business, I’d like to hear.
About Livingstone: it’s not that simple anymore. Yeah Ken’s an idiot, I have to pay EIGHT pounds when I drive into town now, but it’s too simplistic to say he’s from Labour’s crazy left. He was, a long time ago. Now he’s just like Tony Blair, as far right as Maggie.
The incidents like inviting Yusuf al-Qaradawi (who incidentally said you can beat your wife if you avoid her face) to London are simply indicative of Labour’s misguided obsession to court the Muslim vote. Remember when Tony Blair said he carried a Koran around with him? Sometimes they get it right and endorse someone who enjoys support amongst the Muslim community, sometimes they get it woefully wrong and alienate a lot of people.
Tragically, Ken Livingstone has lost what made him Red Ken and a thorn in Thatcher’s side so many years ago. He lost any respect I had for him (I voted for him enthusiastically at the first Mayoral elections) when he pathetically crawled back and pledged his allegiance to New Labour after publicly criticising them. He’s been caught out making anti-Semitic comments (although, to be fair, that was a dirty trick), he has surrounded himself with right-wingers like Gavron and City bigwigs.
The British public seem like idiots with Alzheimer’s. Ken came in on practically one thing alone – to be a NON-Labour mayor, we all rejoiced as Frank Dobson came 3rd. Then we found ourselves with a Mayor campaigning for Blair. But people had forgotten when it came to re-election. Much in the same way people forgot why they were angry with Blair this year and thought “let’s vote for that jolly nice Anthony Blair again, what a good PM”
foooking eeejuts.
Bong Breaker
I reckon we are singing from the same hymn sheet on this. Too much understanding offered to what is basically an extreme right wing ideology that has corrupted some half-wits and become a menace to everyone – they should be treated with the same contempt we reserve for the NF and BNP – not apologised for as some people on the Left and Guardian reading class seem to be doing.
Bong Breaker
The Number 24 bus route is always phukked, the C2 route – you may as well have rickshaw drivers instead of buses its so slow – and Ken is worrying about the Gaza Strip – foooking eeejut
PB, yes many have been comparing Combat 18 and the NF to extreme Islamic groups, which is valid in many regards (it’s a whole different debate – but a mate said one line I thought was apt. “If Combat18 bombed a mosque, would white people start saying “It’s terrible, but you can understand why they did it, working class white people feel marginalised and depressed.”) However the media have treated them very differently.
I have a friend who occasionally writes for the Guardian. We were recently talking about the sacking of Dilpazier Aslam (here’s the article he wrote) and widened out into a discussion about the Guardian itself. It’s a toughie, I used to like the Guardian, but as of late it’s really annoyed me. My friend was defending it by saying:
“It is typical of reactionaries to blame centre-left idealists for terrorism. America has no outspoken media like the Guardian yet it still suffered terrorist attacks. India is also full of loonies, yet does not have any paper with the balls that the Guardian has.”
in response to someone from India (maybe it was one here) saying the freedom fanatics enjoy in the UK is thanks to Labour, loonies and lefties. I said the Guardian is all 3.
Bong Breaker
I am with you bro! The Guardian has degenerated into something quite spineless – apologists for what is as you say a fascist ideology – and that whole Dilpazier Aslam case leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. But it sums so much up about them and that way of thinking.
In a thread above ANNA has written a post about one of these extreme right wing ideologues who was planning to be instrumental in terrorist attacks against Americans and possibly Britain. Read her post, she does not say anything wrong. But someone called Jez got really upset with her ‘tone’ and says,
It’s beyond satire isnt it? He is offended by her tone! Amazing! And he says that ANNA is full of ‘vitriol’, but we have to understand this man, who we should not be nasty to, because he is a little fluffy bunny rabbit who ‘didnt actually do anything to harm anyone’
Some people instincts is to stick their head in the sand and deny what is sitting there in front of their face – if it is the BNP or NF or RSS or some Khalistani or whatever – if it looks like a fascist and smells like a fascist then call it a fascist – for heavens sake – crying because you were mean in your condemnation of a terrorist! You cant make it up can you? Its hilarious!
Yup I’ve been talking about this a lot here and there. The sooner we just call a spade a spade and label these extremists fascists, the sooner productive debate can come out of it. As long as sympathisers seek to rationalise their actions, we get nowhere and the vast majority of Muslims get tarred with the brush of people who think the terrorists had a point.
It’s not just the Guardian undermining this objective, a lot of websites ‘viewspapers’ and the like are bent on trying to excuse bombers.
However, on the subject of British press, the only paper I really trust is the Indy. The Times has a topnotch cricket section, but it’s painfully right wing at times. I don’t even need to get started on things like the Mail or the Telegraph.
Punjabi Boy,
Why is it that some people have trouble condemning a person if they fit the right profile of ‘the oppressed?’ It’s as if they could never commit a crime just because they are brown, or whatever. “Oh, woe is me. I am sad, and brown, and oppressed. Feel for me as I behead you!”
Ok, I can’t do this as well as others, so I’ll just stop.
Manish,
From what I’m reading on some of the military blogs the stun guns are not quite ready for prime time in terms of stopping suicide bombers: if they were I bet our military would be using them in Iraq or Afghanistan (or maybe they are? Not to my knowledge, which is admittedly thin). If I get time, I’ll send you a link. Anyway, this does look like a mistake (well, obviously) and it would be entirely correct and just if there were an inquiry truly interested in getting at the truth, without a pre-judgement for the officers or against. The number of shots don’t bother me – these things happen in a matter of seconds, but why was he singled out in the first place? Why was this sequence initiated? What do we still not know about why he was suspected? That is the real question here and I think this is a very tough situation. You want a complete inquiry because an innocent died, but you also want the police to know they will be supported in doing a tough job and not set out to dry for actions of superiors or for political reasons. Very, very sad.
Boy, lots of commenting from me these days. You guys are doing a great job. The posts and subsequent comments are really something today….
Voila, the Brits are using stun guns after the de Menezes debacle:
Manish,
The application of stun guns/tazers or whatnot is quite different when dealing with an armed insurgency vs. hunting down individual suspects.
The Military has Non-Lethal munitions available (Sting ball grenades, Rubber bullets, Foam Baton grenades), but the use is limited to crowd/riot control. When faced with significant numbers of armed men (Iraq or Afghanistan), put yourself in the shoes of troops,would you go in with non-lethals?
Police action is more conducive to Non-Lethals. In counter insurgency operations, you options are very limited.
I didn’t connect nonlethals and Iraq, MD did (and it’s a strange connection– the Baathists in Iraq need lethal force).
You’re right. My bad.