Further Explosions on London Underground

[noyhauser]

First off Bossell I don't think that you can easily tell whether he was carrying a bomb or not. Hamas, LTTE and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers have made incredibly effective bombs that are very easy to conceal with buttons that could be concealed under a belt. So he may well have been carrying a weapon.

Secondly he wasn't just chased by painclothed policemen. Each metropolitan tube Station are just crawling with Transport and Metropolitan police officers, especially the large ones. So I doubt that all twenty officers were plain clothed. I have sympathy for the family, but to be honest I think that it was his failure to stop that
was the cause of his death. Yes the Police made a mistake when they thought he was a suspect because he lived in the same flat as other suspected terrorists, but
he should have stopped. Its that clear. The lack of a public outrage is because most people agree with that in the UK. Had he been gunned down innocently walking the street the outrage I think would have been far more visible. but because he ran, then INTO a train, most people think its a shame but his fault.

Lastly, I don't believe this has had the effects that you believe. The UK has lived with shoot to kill for quite some time. It was a clear policy during the height of IRA terrorism. Secondly, put into the same situation not knowing what we do now, I would hazard to guess that most police officers even before 9/11 would have done the same.

 

[bossel]

First off Bossell I don't think that you can easily tell whether he was carrying a bomb or not.

First off, for the biggest part, it wasn't me talking, but (unlike others who probably would simply refer you to the original writer, ah, how nice I am) I try to provide a response as far as I can agree with the author, or at least can see his point.

I don't think, he said something like "you can easily tell whether he was carrying a bomb."

I can't remember any instance when the British police hunted down an individual & killed by multiple shots to the head. But I suppose, you can give some examples? This is Wild West manner which I would expect (in extraordinary circumstances) from some US police but not from the British.

Hamas, LTTE and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers have made incredibly effective bombs that are very easy to conceal with buttons that could be concealed under a belt. So he may well have been carrying a weapon.

I don't think, that was his point either.

Secondly he wasn't just chased by painclothed policemen. Each metropolitan tube Station are just crawling with Transport and Metropolitan police officers, especially the large ones. So I doubt that all twenty officers were plain clothed.

20? The BBC speaks of "3 undercover officers". Anyway, if he panicked for being pursued, I doubt that he would have looked around very much whether it was only the 3 hunting him or whether 17 uniformed officers had joined the chase.

I have sympathy for the family, but to be honest I think that it was his failure to stop that was the cause of his death.

Ah yes, obviously, 7 shots to the head are a valid response if someone doesn't stop. Anyway, 7 (seven!) shots? Seems like overkill to me.

Its that clear.

Not really.

The lack of a public outrage is because most people agree with that in the UK. Had he been gunned down innocently walking the street the outrage I think would have been far more visible. but because he ran, then INTO a train, most people think its a shame but his fault.

Or it's because of government propaganda about terrorism?

Lastly, I don't believe this has had the effects that you believe. The UK has lived with shoot to kill for quite some time. It was a clear policy during the height of IRA terrorism.

Nope, it wasn't. There were a few instances of shoot-to-kill tactics (by the SAS), but no official policy. "Kratos" was only introduced 6 months after 9/11.

As the BBC states:
"If Operation Kratos is being used, it would be the first time a shoot-to-kill policy was officially allowed on British streets."

Secondly, put into the same situation not knowing what we do now, I would hazard to guess that most police officers even before 9/11 would have done the same.

Probably not, since there was a clear policy before. From the above link:
"These state that [the police]:
# Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).
# Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.
# Should reassess the situation after each shot."

After the 1st shot to the head a reassessment probably would have led to the conclusion that another 6 rounds to make it a big lump of blood & brain were unnecessary.

 

[noyhauser]

First off Shoot to kill IS an old debate. Its pretty clear that it was used in Northern Ireland for over a decade (many individuals have said so, even if the Government has denied it) and was heavily debated at the time in Wesminster. Note that I made sure I said UK, NOT Britain, because it was in use in Northern Ireland, and was not limited to the SAS soldiers but was a policy for some time of the Ulster Constabulary.

For the 20 police officers (A bit of a stretch and I should have checked it to be sure), I thought I heard this when I was watching the telly (I live in london)... I may have been wrong... so my apologies if I am.

I can't remember any instance when the British police hunted down an individual & killed by multiple shots to the head. But I suppose, you can give some examples? This is Wild West manner which I would expect (in extraordinary circumstances) from some US police but not from the British.

Maybe not to the head, but during the Iranian Embassy Siege of 1980 the Public was treated to the sight of an SAS soldier trying to drag a sixth terrorist back into the embassy to shoot him. In counter terrorism operations, excessive use of force is the norm, and this situation was viewed by officers as just that. In Northern Ireland, many examples exist of Police probably overstepping their bounds. But this isn't just a British Phenomenon. The GSG-9 in Germany killed several terrorists in 1977, and the creation of the DGSE in France and its use against Algerian terrorism during the 80s and the 1990s. Moreover this situation for the police is considered far more dangerous than the IRA troubles in the past. IRA bombers in 80s and 90s did not carry out suicide attacks, and even telephoned in warnings. Bombings were more for symbolic purposes rather than the killing and maiming of large individuals. In Madrid, when the bombers of the Trains were cornered they blew themselves up killing a spanish police officer as well. So I'm not suprised that shoot to kill has been clearly implemented.

After the 1st shot to the head a reassessment probably would have led to the conclusion that another 6 rounds to make it a big lump of blood & brain were unnecessary.

First off there weren't 7 shots to the head, there were five (accorrding to witnesses) and I've heard that it was only three to the head, and five shots in total (two from a distance). Even If it was the latter scenario, then I would consider that responsible use of force. Also I caution you to make such a statement before the inquest has concluded because it is ongoing and the facts of the case are not clear. And even if it was excessive, given the situation where the police officers had every reason to believe that he was a bomber (he emerged from a suspected bomber flat, was wearing a heavy overcoat on a warm day AND proceeded to run away when being asked to stop) I'm sure they were running on adrenaline at the time and only had the worst case scenario in mind. Had they not of, and he was a suicide bomber, the consequences would have probably been worse in their minds. There was no way for them to tell he wasn't a suicide bomber EXCEPT by asking him to stop, which he did not comply with. He represented to them a serious risk to public saftey. You're right, that the police made a mistake in the first place but that could have been easily rectified had he of stopped, which HE is LEGALLY required to do, but he didn't stop. Had he of stopped, we would have never heard of this whole incident and Mr Menzes would be alive today.

Probably not, since there was a clear policy before.

You;re right, but read the policy carefully its not as clear as you think; "(unless this risks serious harm)" "Should aim" and "Should reassess." If a serious threat to public safety is posed by the indidiviual like him carrying a gun in public or a bomb, its essentially shoot to kill at that point. The Reassessment is when the individual is dead or completely incapacitated... IE what happened to Mr. Menzes.

 

[noyhauser]

Or it's because of government propaganda about terrorism?

No because of my completely unscientific poll of asking my friends what they thought and what I've heard from people around London, as well as reading the editorial lines from several papers about the subject. Generally people here are a bit shocked and saddend, but I would hardly call it an outrage.

 

[bossel]

Note that I made sure I said UK, NOT Britain, because it was in use in Northern Ireland, and was not limited to the SAS soldiers but was a policy for some time of the Ulster Constabulary.

I understand UK very well, & IMO if you only meant Northern Ireland, you should have said so. UK is the whole thingy. Anyway, AFAIK no clear policy there, either.

Maybe not to the head, but during the Iranian Embassy Siege of 1980 the Public was treated to the sight of an SAS soldier trying to drag a sixth terrorist back into the embassy to shoot him. In counter terrorism operations, excessive use of force is the norm, and this situation was viewed by officers as just that. In Northern Ireland, many examples exist of Police probably overstepping their bounds. But this isn't just a British Phenomenon. The GSG-9 in Germany killed several terrorists in 1977, and the creation of the DGSE in France and its use against Algerian terrorism during the 80s and the 1990s.

IIRC, all these cases involved clearly identified terrorists, not simply suspects. I see a huge difference here.

First off there weren't 7 shots to the head, there were five (accorrding to witnesses) and I've heard that it was only three to the head, and five shots in total (two from a distance). Even If it was the latter scenario, then I would consider that responsible use of force.

I rely mainly on the BBC, according to their news it was 7 rounds to the head & 1 to the shoulder.

And even if it was excessive, given the situation where the police officers had every reason to believe that he was a bomber (he emerged from a suspected bomber flat, was wearing a heavy overcoat on a warm day AND proceeded to run away when being asked to stop) I'm sure they were running on adrenaline at the time and only had the worst case scenario in mind.

Police (esp. special forces) should be trained to deal with such a situation & keep their emotions under control. If they can't they are probably not up to the job.

Had they not of, and he was a suicide bomber, the consequences would have probably been worse in their minds. There was no way for them to tell he wasn't a suicide bomber EXCEPT by asking him to stop, which he did not comply with.

Since there were 3 of them, wouldn't it have been an option that 2 of them walk to his sides & then suddenly hold his arms? If he were a suicide bomber this would make more sense than shouting from some yards off "Don't move!" & then let him run away. It seems, the police officers were more concerned about their own safety than that of the public.
But, as you said, in that regard we should perhaps wait on the results of the official inquiry (although I don't have a great trust in official inquiries into police violence)

You;re right, but read the policy carefully its not as clear as you think; "(unless this risks serious harm)" "Should aim" and "Should reassess." If a serious threat to public safety is posed by the indidiviual like him carrying a gun in public or a bomb, its essentially shoot to kill at that point.

Nope, just because you carry a gun (or even a bomb) would not constitute a serious enough threat to the public. Only if the intention to harm is clear, it would constitute a reason to "incapacitate" (which does not necessarily mean "kill").

The Reassessment is when the individual is dead or completely incapacitated...

I don't think you've read it carefully. It says "Should reassess the situation after each shot."

 

[Index]

Since there were 3 of them, wouldn't it have been an option that 2 of them walk to his sides & then suddenly hold his arms?

From what I read they knocked him over and held held him down, then shot him.