BrianH
At the Start
Some of us have moved out of medieval times
Explosion On The Tube
- Thread starter Shadow Leader
- Start date
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
And your point is? Ooohh there killing our soldiers and civilians but lets not be OTT in our response...we dont want to create a surge in recruitment. Bobby Sands, now that was funny.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Respectfully Gareth, I wonder what any useful purpose can be served by having an exhaustive investigation into the tragic incident. We all know enough about what happened without having it dragged out though the media and the courts. Such public navel-gazing could have consequences and seriously undermine the reputation of the Met force and even lead to criminal proceedings. It was a most unfortunate accident, nothing more sinister. If that innocent Brazilian gentleman HAD been a suicide bomber the policemen involved would have been in line for a medal .............. getting it wrong on a spur-of-the-moment decision could possibly lead to disgrace. The police at this time need our support -- not our opprobrium or a public witch-hunt.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Thank you, Brian, for the above clarification. But I would propose that Chechnya ( at the time of the first "war") was not a Republic ............ there was a secessionist movement involved in military activity in that area of the Russian Federation.
Similarly in Afghanistan (irrespective of who was supporting the rebels) the situation was that of an insurgency movement fighting the legitimate government. Yet both Chechnya and Afghanistan were described as wars. This may make me seem as being pedantic but you seem to have overlooked my question as to how you would term an military response by a government against an armed insurgency (as the IRA campaigns of the 50's thru to the 90's could be described). If not a war, what is it?
Similarly in Afghanistan (irrespective of who was supporting the rebels) the situation was that of an insurgency movement fighting the legitimate government. Yet both Chechnya and Afghanistan were described as wars. This may make me seem as being pedantic but you seem to have overlooked my question as to how you would term an military response by a government against an armed insurgency (as the IRA campaigns of the 50's thru to the 90's could be described). If not a war, what is it?
Colin Phillips
At the Start
"The police at this time need our support-- not our opprobrium or a public witch-hunt"
..............but who guards the guards.
At this time should the police be given a free-hand...........a carte-blanche to do whatever they like?
Colin
..............but who guards the guards.
At this time should the police be given a free-hand...........a carte-blanche to do whatever they like?
Colin
Muttley
At the Start
In my view it is nothing to with "public navel gazing" but with ensuring that the response to the terrorist threat is correct. The last thing we need right now is to alienate everyone in the country who just so happens not to fall into the "White British" category. At the moment, if you happen to be "White British" you enter a tube station wondering if someone is going to blow up the train you're about to get on. If you happen to be, say, "Asian British" you might enter a tube station wondering if someone is going to blow up the train you're about to get on and if you might get shot ...
R
rumoursabound
Guest
Good Afternoon PDJ.
I agree with you.
I agree with you.
BrianH
At the Start
Whatever the media or anyone else might call things, war is clearly defined in international law. You can find all you need to buy searching the internet,
One of the rules of war is that you do not kill unarmed prisoners as happened in Gibraltar (but not in a war).
There is no point in continuing with this discussion as those who think that it is OK to do so wil not change their minds and those, like me, who think that it isn't will likewise not change theirs. Consequently we will all just be wasting time typing thousands of words for no reason.
A
Ardross
Guest
I am horrified by that news about the Brazilian guy. There can have been no reason for shooting him other than panic on the part of the officer. I hope it makes it clear that the British people will not accept an ends justify the means let's shoot and ask questions later policy .
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628
The reason that there are fixed positions on this topic that the arguements seem to be based on the extreme.
Clearly shooting to kill someone just because they happen to look Asian or because they appear vaguely suspicious is wrong and cannot be condoned. It should also be punished.
However there will be circumstances when it will be appropriate to shoot to kill. An extreme example is if a guy sitting on a crowded bus appears to begin to pull out the pin on an apparent hand grenade ,would you as an armed officer several feet away?;
a) Say "shite" and run;
B) Ask him politely not to continue;
c)Try and disable him with a couple of highly accurate shots;
d)Shoot him several times in the head ;
It may turn out out that what you thought was a hand grenade was something else, should doing either c. or d. mean that you should be guilty of manslaughter or even murder.
The real world ,particularly on the streets and in crowded areas, means that some has to make a judgement call. Sometimes they will get it wrong!
Clearly shooting to kill someone just because they happen to look Asian or because they appear vaguely suspicious is wrong and cannot be condoned. It should also be punished.
However there will be circumstances when it will be appropriate to shoot to kill. An extreme example is if a guy sitting on a crowded bus appears to begin to pull out the pin on an apparent hand grenade ,would you as an armed officer several feet away?;
a) Say "shite" and run;
B) Ask him politely not to continue;
c)Try and disable him with a couple of highly accurate shots;
d)Shoot him several times in the head ;
It may turn out out that what you thought was a hand grenade was something else, should doing either c. or d. mean that you should be guilty of manslaughter or even murder.
The real world ,particularly on the streets and in crowded areas, means that some has to make a judgement call. Sometimes they will get it wrong!
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Fair point, sorry.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
I appreciate your reasons for wanting to terminate this discussion but, however, your statement quoted below demands rebuttal
Whether it was a war or not, the Gibraltar three were most definitely NOT prisoners. At no time had they been arrested or were in any kind of custody. Rather they were three IRA operatives who were under surveillance and killed in the belief that they were about to detonate a radio-controlled bomb. As an aside, it is often overlooked that the Gibraltar coroner's court ruled that the killings had been lawful.
On that final word I'll repect your wishes to discontinue the debate and post no further on the subject.
Like you the vast majority of people, both in the UK and abroad would agree with you regarding the unfortunate death of the Brazilian man. A tragic mistake.
I'm not sure that the vast majority would agree with your latter statement, "I hope it makes it clear that the British people will not accept an ends justify the means let's shoot and ask questions later policy."
Hindsight is a wonderful tool for argument and as somebody pointed out earlier, if he had been a bomber as suspected, then the officers would be facing recommendations and medals.
I'm not sure where you arrive at a, "let's shoot and ask questions later", but you make it sound like a flippant policy on behalf of the police for some random individual John Wayne lookalikes.
Correct me if I am wrong and please allow for the pressure that the police were under at the time of the incident, but wasn't the man followed from a house under surveillance at the time, dressed in an abnormally warm/padded coat for the temperatures of the day, requested/commanded to stop by the police, then jumped a set of turnstiles to run away eventually ending up on a crowded train? This man had lived in the UK for 3 years and could speak excellent English.
Did anybody else in the vicinity make the same decision as him and run when the police arrived on the scene, or was he the only one?
Nobody wants a police state and nobody is going to get one, but you have to let the police get on and do their job with support from all. Under these present circumstances and under pressure that you have never encountered, unfortunately mistakes may be made. Nobody wants it, nobody chooses it, especially the police.
Own up anybody who has never made one.
I'm not sure that the vast majority would agree with your latter statement, "I hope it makes it clear that the British people will not accept an ends justify the means let's shoot and ask questions later policy."
Hindsight is a wonderful tool for argument and as somebody pointed out earlier, if he had been a bomber as suspected, then the officers would be facing recommendations and medals.
I'm not sure where you arrive at a, "let's shoot and ask questions later", but you make it sound like a flippant policy on behalf of the police for some random individual John Wayne lookalikes.
Correct me if I am wrong and please allow for the pressure that the police were under at the time of the incident, but wasn't the man followed from a house under surveillance at the time, dressed in an abnormally warm/padded coat for the temperatures of the day, requested/commanded to stop by the police, then jumped a set of turnstiles to run away eventually ending up on a crowded train? This man had lived in the UK for 3 years and could speak excellent English.
Did anybody else in the vicinity make the same decision as him and run when the police arrived on the scene, or was he the only one?
Nobody wants a police state and nobody is going to get one, but you have to let the police get on and do their job with support from all. Under these present circumstances and under pressure that you have never encountered, unfortunately mistakes may be made. Nobody wants it, nobody chooses it, especially the police.
Own up anybody who has never made one.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Seems to be unclear whether it was a house or a block of flats.
Unless you're from a country where the winters are warmer than a London summer.
There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about the exact details of how he was approached by the police. By the way, you missed the bit where he got on a bus. Why on earth the officers following him decided it was ok to let him get on a bus but only started to get worried as he approached a tube station is beyond me.
This appears to be the case, but again a lot of the details are unclear. Some of the reports being used still rely on eye-witness accounts which have already proved completely wrong - such as the woman on the train who claimed the victim was a "shaven head Asian with a rucksack".
I've never made a series of mistakes that ended up with me shooting an innocent man dead.
It does appear that there are several questions that have to be answered and fairly obviously, there was one hell of a major human error here. Gareth rightly points out a whole series of inconsistencies in the police surveillace process
However, what's done is done - sadly, there's no way of bringing the poor man back. We need to face the fact that we are going to have not only very jittery policemen (and women) carrying guns but also a few with an unacceptable agenda. I wouldn't have thought it beyond the realms of common sense for their superiors to have a pretty good idea of who should and - more importantly - shouldn't be armed. If there are any doubts at all about their ability to have control when carrying firearms then quite simply they shouldn't do so. Of course there should be a review and an enquiry and if the officer in question was in contravention of the prescribed procedures than he is just as much subject to disciplinary action as anyone else.
And in fact, his superiors need to have their actions very closely examined too!
However, what's done is done - sadly, there's no way of bringing the poor man back. We need to face the fact that we are going to have not only very jittery policemen (and women) carrying guns but also a few with an unacceptable agenda. I wouldn't have thought it beyond the realms of common sense for their superiors to have a pretty good idea of who should and - more importantly - shouldn't be armed. If there are any doubts at all about their ability to have control when carrying firearms then quite simply they shouldn't do so. Of course there should be a review and an enquiry and if the officer in question was in contravention of the prescribed procedures than he is just as much subject to disciplinary action as anyone else.
And in fact, his superiors need to have their actions very closely examined too!
A
Ardross
Guest
The guy was apparently from a very poor area of Sao Paulo - where the police are terrible and fear of them common .
The points you make are valid Griff but it seems that there were a string of mistakes . The guidelines of Operation Kratos -- the protocol for arms use even with suicide bombers required it to be made known to the suspect that the police are armed . It might have happened but i have seen no account that states it .
If we end up living in a state where policemen shoot innocent people on the off chance they might be suicide bombers then the terrorists will have won.
The points you make are valid Griff but it seems that there were a string of mistakes . The guidelines of Operation Kratos -- the protocol for arms use even with suicide bombers required it to be made known to the suspect that the police are armed . It might have happened but i have seen no account that states it .
If we end up living in a state where policemen shoot innocent people on the off chance they might be suicide bombers then the terrorists will have won.
BrianH
At the Start
We're probably all right unless we get too heavy a suntan though
G
Griffin
Guest
That's what I was thinking. Would the police have shot him if he were blond with white skin? I doubt it.
In the USA they would've done, Griffin. They've had plenty of experience of whiteys planting bombs and in the case of where the offender/s are known to be white, they've shot the occasional innocent white in mistake for the offender. And when we were being attacked by the IRA, while they may not have been blonde, they were certainly white when they were shot dead (Gibraltar, remember?).
And, so far, Al-Queda and its various cells aren't exactly over-subscribed with blonde, white members, so of course the police aren't looking for such people. When there are large numbers of people in this country who think 'all Asians look the same' when they're referring to Indians, Malaysians, Phillipinos, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and anyone with a less than Daz-white skin, then we shouldn't be surprised that the public can't tell Brazilians from Chileans. Can you?
And, so far, Al-Queda and its various cells aren't exactly over-subscribed with blonde, white members, so of course the police aren't looking for such people. When there are large numbers of people in this country who think 'all Asians look the same' when they're referring to Indians, Malaysians, Phillipinos, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and anyone with a less than Daz-white skin, then we shouldn't be surprised that the public can't tell Brazilians from Chileans. Can you?
A
Ardross
Guest
He was selected to be followed due to his skin colour and attire - i.e had he been white and pale he would not have been . He was allowed to board a bus for goodness sake ! Then he was challenged at the tube station by plain clothes men with no ID . Eye witness accounts worryingly seem to tally that no warnings were shouted that the police were armed . This is beginning to look like an answerable case of manslaughter by gross negligence.
This article by Times Tory columnist Tim hames sums it up for me :
Tim Hames
This article by Times Tory columnist Tim hames sums it up for me :
Tim Hames