Man Killed in London Not Linked to Blasts
I don't want to be to hard on London, because it seems that for the most part, they are handling these things better than we would. But this is the kind of thing that is going to happen when everything you do is guided by fear of a worst case scenario. With recent events, I understand they have reason to be afraid, but you really need to be a lot more sure what you're doing when you shoot and kill someone. As far as I can tell, they had no other reason to believe he was a terrorist than that he had heavy padded clothes on, and while thatmay be plenty of justification for suspicion in London these days, it certainly isn't any justification to shoot someone, and especially not to shoot to kill. Also, according to this article, they had him pinned down before they shot him, so I don't get where the urgency to shoot him would come from.
Also, it looks like the Mayor is trying to pin this guy's death on the terrorists, and while that may make everyone feel better, I don't see how this one is their fault. We need to find some real legitimate ways to fight terrorism instead of being guided by fear, because in the long run, that will just make things worse.
12 comments:
Yeah, IF. We could just shoot everybody, then we'd definitely get the terrorists. Running from the police or wearing the wrong clothers should not warrant a death sentence. And why did they need to kill him? From everything I've read, they had him pinned down, and if they thought that he had to take action to detonate, then they should have prevented him from taking that action and if he had something that was going to blow up anyway, then shooting him wasn't going to do them any good. And if he was so suspicious, why not stop him before he got to the subway? Like I said, I don't want to be too hard on them, but there are way too many things wrong with this one.
"Um, well," christiana, jackets are not against the law. Living in the wrong apartment building is not against the law. Running is not against the law. And depending on how it played out, running from 20 regularly clothed people coming after you is usually a good idea.
If the police are interested in saving innocent lives, perhaps they can refrain from, um, well, taking innocent lives.
I ask why they had to kill him because it said they had laready pinned him down and shot him at point blank range. It didn't matter whether or not he wanted to give up, they caught him. So resembling someone is a capital offense?
Yes, obviously it would be nice if people didn't try to run from the police, but do you really want to give them license to shoot (and kill)anyone who doesn't? Maybe he had other reasons for not wanting to get caught by police, maybe he didn't know they were police, maybe he was deaf, whatever the case, not stopping for police is not an excuse for them to shoot you in the head. Acting suspiciously could mean anything, there's no way to know you're gulity of it until after they've shot you.
Dressing like it's the middle of winter is now a crime? That'sso ridiculous, I can't believe anyone would actually even say it.
His mistake may have been first, but the police's mistake was lethal. Which is worse?
"Witnesses said he was wearing a heavy, padded coat when plainclothes police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso."
The weather in London over the last few days has been in the low to mid 60's and overcast. Maybe not padded coat weather exactly, but it's not summer in Florida either. My wife wore a heavy lined yellow coat in London last year in June some of the time.
According to the news reports, he was pinned to the ground before he was shot, so we're not talking about trying for that elusive leg shot. We didn't see it, so we can't know what happened for sure, but raising the question John is raising is certainly legitimate. If this guy had done exactly the same thing one month ago, would the same thing have happened? Or if it happens again in a few years, and there haven't been any recent local attacks? Clearly, there are times when police have to shoot suspects. But if we assume that everyone who runs from police is a potential suicide bomber, we can shoot everyone with impunity.
In response to Patrick, I would also say that people who question the actions of those in authority also play a large part in our freedom to sit here and blog without the government breaking in and stealing our computers as evidence in an investigaton.
I don't see how any of this guy's actions were "acting like a terrorist." The police may have had reason to be suspicious, I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that they didn't have reason to shoot him in the head at point blank range. Regardless of whether he was resisting or not, that's an ridiculously extreme solution. And as I already pointed out in my post, I don't see how it gained them anything even if he had been a terrorist. And everyone's hypothetical situations about what if he was a terrorist just make me sick, because he wasn't. And I certainly don't want to live in a world where everyone is assumed to be a terrorist until their dead body is searched for explosives.
Patrick, if you say that this would not have happened a month ago, then you prove my point for me. Either this was the proper way to handle it or it wasn't. If it wasn't the proper way a month ago, then it isn't now. If you say it is, then you can justify any action, including shooting people for absolutely no reason. This is disgusting, an innocent man was killed. He ran from people who were police, but I'm not even sure that's a crime, and even if it was, they were apparently in plain clothes, so why would he necessarily know they were police? And even if he did, his mistake should not have cost him his life.
We could just live in a police state, then we would definitely be safer. I was going to ask you if that's what you're arguing for, but then looking at your comments again, I already see that you are.
Everyone plays an important role in our freedom, particulary those who question the government when it fucks up. Those who go along blindly with whatever the government does simoly because it's the government don't do anything for freedom.
It is honestly appalling to me that people are actually defending the shooting of an innocent man simply on the basis that he might have been a terrorist. That is insane. Civilized societies don't act that way. But congratulations to the terrorists for changing (some) people's definition of freedom.
Here are a few more clues:
He lived in an apartment block in which one apartment was under surveillance .. NOT his apartment. Not a house where everyone knows what everyone else is doing.
It rains in London and the weather forecast was for rain. Wearing a coat isn't so very strange.
If the concern was for public safety, why let him get on a bus and travel three miles on the bus?
The Police account doesn’t tally with any of the eye-witness accounts. Try this for size:
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.
Mr Ruston remembers one of the Scotland Yard team screaming into a radio as they were running. Mr Ruston thought the man that they were chasing “looked Asian” as he tumbled on to a waiting Northern Line train.
Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.
Again, Mr Ruston says that no verbal warning was given.
All of this happened not only in the most violent part of town, but the most violent part of the country. Only weeks before this same guy had been attacked in that area .. if someone not wearing a uniform suddenly points a gun at you, wouldn't you want to run like stink?
The simple fact is that he was behaving like an ordinary person and the moment we stop allowing people to behave like normal people, then we can say for certain that the terrorists have won.
The terrorists have won.
Thanks recidivist, I wasn't aware of that much detail, and now that I am, it only makes me more disgusted with this whole thing.
they would have prevented him from detonating his bomb.
I'm not playing dumb. They already had him pinned to the ground, so how does shooting him further prevent him from detonating a bomb? And the fact is, he didn't have a bomb, it was a ridiculous assumption driven by fear, and that's my whole point, that you can't decide someone's life on such a precarious assumption.
Jesus fucking Christ, we're arguing over whether or not he could have detonated something after being pinned to the ground, do you honestly not realize that he had nothing to detonate, and there was absolutely no reason to believe that he did? Raincoat, heavy coat, a gortex parka, it doesn't matter, maybe that was the only coat he had, regardless, it's not a crime. Sure it might be a reason to be suspicious, it's not a reason to shoot him in the head. Whether or not the police identified themselves is also pretty irrelevant, since they were in plainclothes and he had no reason to believe them. Besides, why would you not believe the witnesses if their stories are consistent? It's ridiculous, this guy didn't do anything wrong, and he's dead and that's disgusting. Being in the vicinity of where a crime occured earlier does not make someone a criminal. Neither does wearing a coat, neither does running when people are chasing you.
I guess we can kill everyone and then we don't have to worry about all these "threats", but I'm sure you'll stop being in favor of that strategy when someone is threatened by your actions.
Why are you so convinced that you know exactly what happened? You don't think it's even possible that this guy didn't know or believe that these people were cops? That's ridiculous. So you have no problem living in a police state? That's where your arguments take us.
They blew up busses and trains?
Gosh, if I'd known they did that in my city and nearly got my best friend in the process, then I wouldn't be so outraged at the killing of an innocent man, would I?
Anything I have to say to that sort of mentality is already on my blog, so I wont bore people with it all over again.
No, I'm not equating one police mistake with a police state. I'm saying that when people like you argue that the police are justified in shooting innocent people on such flimsly suspicion, then that's where that argument will take us. Since any police action can be justified the same way, they don't have to have an reasonable justification, they just have to say they thought you might be a terrorist.
The guy was innocent. That's an indisputab;e fact, unless there is some additional information that we haven't been made aware of. Therefore the police were wrong, sinceit ispretty clearly wrong to shoot innocent people seven times in the head.
You can stay, I'm too lazy to kick anyone out.
Post a Comment