British Police Kills suspect with no links with bombings
-
I lived in london for 3 years they used to all these nonsense on bombs since the IRA times that's why london underground have no rubbish binOriginally posted by BeEtHoVeN:now now, tit for tat is not going to solve the problem
-
According to Macross, wikipedia has a page on this poor guy.
-
As best as i can remember from the news, this is what happened:
The police had put a flat under surveillance. This was related to the hunt for the London Bombers. The block of flats in question only had one means of entry and exit. Mr M, the victim, was living below the flat under surveillance. When he walked out of the block of flats on the day in question, the police decided to follow him.
They followed Mr M to a bus-stop where he took a bus and alighted near stockwell station. By this time, the police armed response unit had been given orders to stop Mr M.
Mr M. was challenged by the police at the entrance of stockwell station by plain-clothes officers. He did not comply with orders to stop. He vaulted over the ticeketing barriers of the train station and ran down the escalators towards a train. He tripped and was then pinned down by pursuing officers. The officier in question fired 8 shots at him; 1 into his shoulder and 7 into his head.
Some pertinent facts:
- Mr M was olive skinned.
- Mr M had on a bulky jacket. This was mentioned by Mark Whitby, an eye-witness. One poster above had neglected to mention this. Tsk tsk.
- It was claimed by a TV station that MR M had outstayed his student visa. His parents dispute this, saying that all his paperwork were in order.
----
Personally, i think we should not be too quick to go on a witch hunt. This might very well be an honest mistake.
Some of you argue that there was no need to shoot him, or that there was no need to shoot him in the head. I disagree. This is because the only way to make safe a suicide bomber is to utterly and completely destroy his brain. One shot to the head might not be enough to stop all motor functions. I have not seen a man being shot in the head, but i have seen footage of farm animals being shot and from what i have seen, animals like cows retain some motor function even after having been shot in the head at close range.
I also feel that some are too eager to fling words like 'racist killing' around. This might very well be an honest mistake.
Mr M emerged from a block of flats that is under surveillance, He looked 'Asian' (which is what the london bombers can be described as), he had been wearing a bulky jacket when the temperature was around 23 deg Cel., and more importantly, he refused to stop when challenged. He might very well have been justified in running away because the officers were, after all, not in uniform. IMO, that is probably what happened. If so, then i do not think the fault lies with the officer who pulled the trigger. I think luck, fate and the met police share equal blame.
Kym, you argue that he could have been stopped earlier. I disagree. UK policemen do not generally carry firearms. Therefore, it would seem logical to let the firearms unit do the arrest. -
Considering that he comes from a country where gangland killings are pretty common, the sight of armed plainclothes agents may have freaked him out.Originally posted by lwflee:Mr M emerged from a block of flats that is under surveillance, He looked 'Asian' (which is what the london bombers can be described as), he had been wearing a bulky jacket when the temperature was around 23 deg Cel., and more importantly, he refused to stop when challenged. He might very well have been justified in running away because the officers were, after all, not in uniform. IMO, that is probably what happened. If so, then i do not think the fault lies with the officer who pulled the trigger. I think luck, fate and the met police share equal blame. -
I fully agree with you.Originally posted by lwflee:As best as i can remember from the news.....
....Personally, i think we should not be too quick to go on a witch hunt. This might very well be an honest mistake....
...Mr M emerged from a block of flats that is under surveillance, He looked 'Asian' (which is what the london bombers can be described as), he had been wearing a bulky jacket when the temperature was around 23 deg Cel., and more importantly, he refused to stop when challenged. He might very well have been justified in running away because the officers were, after all, not in uniform. IMO, that is probably what happened. If so, then i do not think the fault lies with the officer who pulled the trigger. I think luck, fate and the met police share equal blame.
-
The most crucial issue British police officers have to establish in the fatal shooting of Mr Menezes is how much of a threat the victim was believed to pose? Many other crucial questions remain unanswered. It appears Menezes travelled on a bus before reaching stockwell. If correct, why was a suspected suicide bomber under survelliance allowed on public transport? Above all, the victim who was suspected of having links to suicide bombers, why was he not confronted in a way which prevented him running into stockwell station?
Under British law, if Menezes had been a suicide bomber, it would have been lawful for the police to kill him in order to protect the lives of the officers and others around them. The officer who pulled the trigger must account for his actions, as must those commanders who briefed and authorised him. The quality of intelligence received by commanders could be a critical factor. In law, unless it can be shown that the officers who chased and shot Menezes had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that he was a suicide bomber, they are unlikely to face prosecution. It is a tragedy that an innocent unarmed man was murdered because of police incompetence. -
-del-
-
Why was he allowed onto the bus?Originally posted by kym:The most crucial issue British police officers have to establish in the fatal shooting of Mr Menezes is how much of a threat the victim was believed to pose? Many other crucial questions remain unanswered. It appears Menezes travelled on a bus before reaching stockwell. If correct, why was a suspected suicide bomber under survelliance allowed on public transport? Above all, the victim who was suspected of having links to suicide bombers, why was he not confronted in a way which prevented him running into stockwell station?
Under British law, if Menezes had been a suicide bomber, it would have been lawful for the police to kill him in order to protect the lives of the officers and others around them. The officer who pulled the trigger must account for his actions, as must those commanders who briefed and authorised him. The quality of intelligence received by commanders could be a critical factor. In law, unless it can be shown that the officers who chased and shot Menezes had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that he was a suicide bomber, they are unlikely to face prosecution. It is a tragedy that an innocent unarmed man was murdered because of police incompetence.
I can think of a couple of logical reasons:
1. They might have wanted to glean intelligence from him.
2. Like i said, british cops do not generally carry firearms. It would be foolish to try and arrest a suspected suicide bomber when you do not have firearms. I think what might have happened is that by the time the firearms unit were ready to challenge Mr M, he had already boarded the Bus. To try and arrest a suspected suicide bomber on a bus would be a very stupid and dangerous move. The only relatively safe place to challenge him then, would have been when he alighted. He alighted near or at Stockwell station where he was challenged.
Lets just wait for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the incident before we pass judgement shall we? -
I believe it is usually the toehr way round in practice.Originally posted by shade343:Normally in Singapore Law, The courts alwyas adopt the stance that it is better to let 10 guilty person go scot free than wrongly conviction of an innocent person.
the skeptical pikamaster -
If seemingly plainclothes people , out of a sudden takes gun and chase you, what would you do?
I would run of course, stupid people would then stay.
Even if the police were wearing uniform , it would be natural for that guy to run as well , he might have overstayed his work permit.
Has it become a scenario whereby if you wear thick jackets , you are a suicide bomber?
Please lah, if SPF officers wearing plain clothes were to chase me, i would have run away from them or even fight with them.
Cause they never bring identity cards and could have been terrorists for all i know. -
To dispute this matter, i reckon is two-sided. Judging by the scenario and the event of the bombings, everyone will be relatively nervous. Especially the police. Them failing to act will result in thier incompetence.. they they did a china man style. TRY LUCK. lol! But its true that u dun confront a bomber in bus as it would just jeapordise the ppl on board. I think they did what they had to do. The police should have produced his badge properly, the man understandably would panic.. if i were the cop, i would've done it too. Coz if i dun shoot him.. he may have a trigger anywhere and i would end up in the body bag too. So he bagged his ass. =P Thats what the terrorists wants.. want the people to doubt thier own law enformenct agencies. I bet they are laughing somewhere. As most suicide bombers are all of Arab origins. Cant believe they thought the brazillian as asian too though..
-
Look, we do not know how the cops challenged Mr M, so lets not pass judgement on them with regards to that issue.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:If seemingly plainclothes people , out of a sudden takes gun and chase you, what would you do?
I would run of course, stupid people would then stay.
Even if the police were wearing uniform , it would be natural for that guy to run as well , he might have overstayed his work permit.
Has it become a scenario whereby if you wear thick jackets , you are a suicide bomber?
Please lah, if SPF officers wearing plain clothes were to chase me, i would have run away from them or even fight with them.
Cause they never bring identity cards and could have been terrorists for all i know.
I must say, you appear very simplistic in you thinking. He was a suspect suicide bomber not only because he was wearing a thick jacket. There are other factors that led him to being a suspected suicide bomber.
Let me put the following question to you. You are a cop in an armed response unit. That means you are only called out into action where the situation is potentially very dangerous.
2 weeks ago, your country was hit by a terr attack involving the detonation of 4 bombs by men of asian origin. Yesterday, 4 asian men tried unsuccessfully to detonate another four bombs. They are still at large.
Today, you have been order to stop an asian man who is suspected of being a suicide bomber. He is wearing a thick jacket under which he could easily have hidden a bomb belt. You raise your pistol and challenge him. He looks petrified and ran into the train station towards a stationary train that is filled with passengers. What would you do?
Edited for accuracy -
Heard of Taser??Originally posted by lwflee:Look, we do not know how the cops challenged Mr M, so lets not pass judgement on them with regards to that issue.
I must say, you appear very simplistic in you thinking. He was a suspect suicide bomber not only because he was wearing a thick jacket. There are other factors that led him to being a suspected suicide bomber.
Let me put the following question to you. You are a cop in an armed response unit. That means you are only called out into action where the situation is potentially very dangerous.
Last week, your country was hit by a terr attack involving the detonation of 4 bombs by men of asian origin. Yesterday, 4 asian men tried unsuccessfully to detonate another four bombs. They are still at large.
Today, you have been order to stop an asian man who is suspected of being a suicide bomber. He is wearing a thick jacket under which he could easily have hidden a bomb belt. You raise your pistol and challenge him. He looks petrified and ran into the train station towards a stationary train that is filled with passengers. What would you do?
Let me put the following question back to you..
You are an immigrant who has overstayed as an electrician , and after the London bombings , you have been worried for your life about terrorists.
Today, when you leave your house , you saw a group of plainclothes people carrying automatic weapons and ordering you to stop.
You wore a jacket , because the weather might be cold today, The block which you stay in , had low amount of facilities , so its possible to save more on rentals.
The plainclothes people ( you didnt know they were cops) tried to point their gun at you , you tried to escape.
To hide yourself from them , you charge into a stationary train in order to shake them off.
The police got on top of you and pumped 5 bullets to your head.
Fair enough? -
Just to point out some facts:Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Heard of Taser??
Let me put the following question back to you..
You are an immigrant who has overstayed as an electrician , and after the London bombings , you have been worried for your life about terrorists.
Today, when you leave your house , you saw a group of plainclothes people carrying automatic weapons and ordering you to stop.
You wore a jacket , because the weather might be cold today, The block which you stay in , had low amount of facilities , so its possible to save more on rentals.
The plainclothes people ( you didnt know they were cops) tried to point their gun at you , you tried to escape.
To hide yourself from them , you charge into a stationary train in order to shake them off.
The police got on top of you and pumped 5 bullets to your head.
Fair enough?
"Heard of Taser??" - Taser has only a small barbed hook to pierce the skin of the victim upon discharge from the pistol. It is useless against thick clothing material.
"You wore a jacket , because the weather might be cold today" Nobody in London wears thick clothing in summer with 23 degrees Celsius temperature. Heat stroke potential...
I think the thing that did it for Mr M was because he ran when challenged by the police. If you got nothing to hide, why run? Also, wouldn't the sight of the guns make a person think seriously about how best to preserve his life i.e. by cooperating with the police? -
I agree fully with you. For those who disagree, I have a question for you :Originally posted by lwflee:As best as i can remember from the news, this is what happened:
The police had put a flat under surveillance. This was related to the hunt for the London Bombers. The block of flats in question only had one means of entry and exit. Mr M, the victim, was living below the flat under surveillance. When he walked out of the block of flats on the day in question, the police decided to follow him.
They followed Mr M to a bus-stop where he took a bus and alighted near stockwell station. By this time, the police armed response unit had been given orders to stop Mr M.
Mr M. was challenged by the police at the entrance of stockwell station by plain-clothes officers. He did not comply with orders to stop. He vaulted over the ticeketing barriers of the train station and ran down the escalators towards a train. He tripped and was then pinned down by pursuing officers. The officier in question fired 8 shots at him; 1 into his shoulder and 7 into his head.
Some pertinent facts:
- Mr M was olive skinned.
- Mr M had on a bulky jacket. This was mentioned by Mark Whitby, an eye-witness. One poster above had neglected to mention this. Tsk tsk.
- It was claimed by a TV station that MR M had outstayed his student visa. His parents dispute this, saying that all his paperwork were in order.
----
Personally, i think we should not be too quick to go on a witch hunt. This might very well be an honest mistake.
Some of you argue that there was no need to shoot him, or that there was no need to shoot him in the head. I disagree. This is because the only way to make safe a suicide bomber is to utterly and completely destroy his brain. One shot to the head might not be enough to stop all motor functions. I have not seen a man being shot in the head, but i have seen footage of farm animals being shot and from what i have seen, animals like cows retain some motor function even after having been shot in the head at close range.
I also feel that some are too eager to fling words like 'racist killing' around. This might very well be an honest mistake.
Mr M emerged from a block of flats that is under surveillance, He looked 'Asian' (which is what the london bombers can be described as), he had been wearing a bulky jacket when the temperature was around 23 deg Cel., and more importantly, he refused to stop when challenged. He might very well have been justified in running away because the officers were, after all, not in uniform. IMO, that is probably what happened. If so, then i do not think the fault lies with the officer who pulled the trigger. I think luck, fate and the met police share equal blame.
Kym, you argue that he could have been stopped earlier. I disagree. UK policemen do not generally carry firearms. Therefore, it would seem logical to let the firearms unit do the arrest.
Do you think that there is a crime only if there is a victim? Or do you believe that there is crime even before there is a victim? -
Do police tackle suspected suicide bombers the same way as they do with other type of terrorists? For suspected suicide bombers, you probably force him into area less crowded and take him out from a distance. You don't go near him. If you manage to pin him down you have actually stopped him already, why need to kill him? unless his is a suspected psychopathic killer, the Dr. Hannibal, who can kill with his mind, then pin him down and put 5 bullets in his brain.Originally posted by lwflee:Look, we do not know how the cops challenged Mr M, so lets not pass judgement on them with regards to that issue.
I must say, you appear very simplistic in you thinking. He was a suspect suicide bomber not only because he was wearing a thick jacket. There are other factors that led him to being a suspected suicide bomber.
Let me put the following question to you. You are a cop in an armed response unit. That means you are only called out into action where the situation is potentially very dangerous.
Last week, your country was hit by a terr attack involving the detonation of 4 bombs by men of asian origin. Yesterday, 4 asian men tried unsuccessfully to detonate another four bombs. They are still at large.
Today, you have been order to stop an asian man who is suspected of being a suicide bomber. He is wearing a thick jacket under which he could easily have hidden a bomb belt. You raise your pistol and challenge him. He looks petrified and ran into the train station towards a stationary train that is filled with passengers. What would you do?
Now not only arabs are potential terrorists, the asians (excluding the yellow skin like chinese, vietnamese, korean and jap, I hope) are also potential terrorists. You shoot to kill them with the slightest suspicion. You are panic now, you then make more mistakes, "every strand of grass and every stick is an enemy to you." You were biten by a snake so you freak out everytime you see a coil of rope. (These are just some words of wisdom taken from old chinese books.) The real terrorists are smiling!!
Nothing can bring back the life of a young man who came to a foreign land for a better living and no compensation can console the bereaved family, especially the parents. But hopefully the investigation can help change the way such issue is handled in the future, so that no innocent life would be wasted unnecessarily. Ways must be devised to get the asians and the arabs to work with the police, then the chances of a successful fight against the terrorists would be much greater. For now, everyone who shoot and kill the wrong person must be made accountable, that is the law and order regardless of peace and war, and law and order is what people trust in a country, not the police or the military. -
You couldn't have said it better. It is really sad that one's skin colour has become so vital in the paranoia that followed the bombings.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Do police tackle suspected suicide bombers the same way as they do with other type of terrorists? For suspected suicide bombers, you probably force him into area less crowded and take him out from a distance. You don't go near him. If you manage to pin him down you have actually stopped him already, why need to kill him? unless his is a suspected psychopathic killer, the Dr. Hannibal, who can kill with his mind, then pin him down and put 5 bullets in his brain.
Now not only arabs are potential terrorists, the asians (excluding the yellow skin like chinese, vietnamese, korean and jap, I hope) are also potential terrorists. You shoot to kill them with the slightest suspicion. You are panic now, you then make more mistakes, "every strand of grass and every stick is an enemy to you." You were biten by a snake so you freak out everytime you see a coil of rope. (These are just some words of wisdom taken from old chinese books.) The real terrorists are smiling!!
Nothing can bring back the life of a young man who came to a foreign land for a better living and no compensation can console the bereaved family, especially the parents. But hopefully the investigation can help change the way such issue is handled in the future, so that no innocent life would be wasted unnecessarily. Ways must be devised to get the asians and the arabs to work with the police, then the chances of a successful fight against the terrorists would be much greater. For now, everyone who shoot and kill the wrong person must be made accountable, that is the law and order regardless of peace and war, and law and order is what people trust in a country, not the police or the military. -
To your simplistic question, here are somethings for you to think:Originally posted by Agressor:I agree fully with you. For those who disagree, I have a question for you :
Do you think that there is a crime only if there is a victim? Or do you believe that there is crime even before there is a victim?
You can suspect a crime would be committed, but if you are going to kill somebody in the name of preventing the crime, wouldn't you want to be sure it is a crime about to be committed??
who decide if a person is a criminal? and who decide if the criminal should be jailed, hanged or shot? when you shoot to kill, you have decided that he was a criminal and he was sentenced to be death, by you!!!
Until a crime is committed, what victims??? -
from dan brown's book, " who will guard the guards?"
-
i mean the unskilled leeches..not those who contribute to the nation. malaysia and singapore are near insignificant markets if you notice.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:this will definitely solve the bombings.
But are you going to lose the middle eastern market? and south east asian markets particularly malaysia and singapore?
even the middle east the only consumers are the greedy royals who pilfer the money from their starving subjects. -
I agree with you. Whatever reason London police can come up with, it is indefensible to kill an innocent person. There is absolutely no justification. Life is the most precious thing and death is irreversible. Therefore, should the police decide to take away the life of a person, they must be dead sure that this person is a serious threat. Obviously this is a case of wrong judgement that resulted in a tragedy. The British government must compensate profusely for the death of Mr. M. For those who think that the police should not be held accountable because they did what they had to do, how would you react if Mr M is your family?Originally posted by sgdiehard:Do police tackle suspected suicide bombers the same way as they do with other type of terrorists? For suspected suicide bombers, you probably force him into area less crowded and take him out from a distance. You don't go near him. If you manage to pin him down you have actually stopped him already, why need to kill him? unless his is a suspected psychopathic killer, the Dr. Hannibal, who can kill with his mind, then pin him down and put 5 bullets in his brain.
Now not only arabs are potential terrorists, the asians (excluding the yellow skin like chinese, vietnamese, korean and jap, I hope) are also potential terrorists. You shoot to kill them with the slightest suspicion. You are panic now, you then make more mistakes, "every strand of grass and every stick is an enemy to you." You were biten by a snake so you freak out everytime you see a coil of rope. (These are just some words of wisdom taken from old chinese books.) The real terrorists are smiling!!
Nothing can bring back the life of a young man who came to a foreign land for a better living and no compensation can console the bereaved family, especially the parents. But hopefully the investigation can help change the way such issue is handled in the future, so that no innocent life would be wasted unnecessarily. Ways must be devised to get the asians and the arabs to work with the police, then the chances of a successful fight against the terrorists would be much greater. For now, everyone who shoot and kill the wrong person must be made accountable, that is the law and order regardless of peace and war, and law and order is what people trust in a country, not the police or the military. -
The bottom line is that a young innocent man with no connection to the bombings in London had lost his life. This is irrefutable. To say the least it must have deeply embrassed the Metropolitian police, reflecting on their inability to deal effectively with the threat of suicide bombings and the "quality" of their intelligence gathering. Nothing short of a full inquiry into the shooting should be carried if the diplomatic relations between Britain and Brazil was already not strained. No amount of swift compensation can bring Menezes back to life.
-
Why do you need to kill him even after having pinned him down? Because detonating a bomb can be as simple as pressing down on the terminals of a 9volt battery.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Do police tackle suspected suicide bombers the same way as they do with other type of terrorists? For suspected suicide bombers, you probably force him into area less crowded and take him out from a distance. You don't go near him. If you manage to pin him down you have actually stopped him already, why need to kill him? unless his is a suspected psychopathic killer, the Dr. Hannibal, who can kill with his mind, then pin him down and put 5 bullets in his brain.
Now not only arabs are potential terrorists, the asians (excluding the yellow skin like chinese, vietnamese, korean and jap, I hope) are also potential terrorists. You shoot to kill them with the slightest suspicion. You are panic now, you then make more mistakes, "every strand of grass and every stick is an enemy to you." You were biten by a snake so you freak out everytime you see a coil of rope. (These are just some words of wisdom taken from old chinese books.) The real terrorists are smiling!!
Nothing can bring back the life of a young man who came to a foreign land for a better living and no compensation can console the bereaved family, especially the parents. But hopefully the investigation can help change the way such issue is handled in the future, so that no innocent life would be wasted unnecessarily. Ways must be devised to get the asians and the arabs to work with the police, then the chances of a successful fight against the terrorists would be much greater. For now, everyone who shoot and kill the wrong person must be made accountable, that is the law and order regardless of peace and war, and law and order is what people trust in a country, not the police or the military.
Why not wait for him to go to a less crowded area before taking him out at a distance? because this is London we are talking about. Because he was not heading for a less crowded area. Because he was heading for a train with passengers onboard. Because to try and shoot him from a distance would be a very dangerous thing to do in place like a train station.
Yes, it is a tragedy. And yes the officers involved must be made accountable under the rule of law. That is exactly what is happening now. The Police is investigating the case. -
It is plain wrong and completely self-defeating in the fight against terror.
Can you imagine if it were your son or daughter who got killed in this way? His family would sue the police and insist that the police officer goes to jail for manslaughter. If the courts will not give justice, then I won't be surprised if they have made his brother or father a true suicide bomber...to execute vengeance.
That is what's happening in Palestine. The feeling of helplessness against the powerful Israeli nation, Palestinians having no means of seeking justice in the courts and too weak militarily to fight; they turn their bodies into weapons of mass destruction. All of us condemn this....but unless we drain this pit of hatred there will be no long-term solution.
In our fight against terror, we must be careful that our solutions do not add to the problem. -
When considering the death of Mr Menezes, it is right that there should be shock and an inquiry. People in Britain are not so inured to violence that they respond with indifference to an innocent man's death. The policeman who shot him would not be in line for a gallantry award.
The failures of the suicide bombers must have presented the police with large amounts of forensic material. It is hoped that this will make it easier to roll up the terrorist neworks to which the bombers were connected. But even if that proves to be so, it does not mean that we can roll up the map of Islamic terrorism. There are bound to be more attacks.
When the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, it became much harder either to imprison undesirable foreigners or to deport them. As a result, authorities can no longer take crucial decisions affecting security. They have allowed themselves to be overruled by legal constraint of foreign origin. Given all that, MI5 would hardly be popular with ministers if it recommended the arrest of everyone who might come under suspicion. The only desirable legal change is the repeal of the Human Rights Act, so that Home Secretaries regain the power to exclude undesirable aliens.