BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Shooting on the tube

  
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)89101112

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:04 / 23.07.05
London doesn't really have open areas, Jack - not unless he cut through Brockwell Lido.

It looks as if, if procedure was being followed, the Police were trailing him in the hope that he would go to somebody else's house and thus give thhem more suspects, but then when he headed for the tube decided instead that the risk of losing him (or of explosion) was too great, and so tried to arrest him, and then, when he ran, ultimately had to decide whether he presented an immediate risk to their lives and the livesof the other people on the Tube and, having concluded that he did (probably wrongly, as it turns out, in the sense that he didn't appear to be wired), used force commensurate with that perceived threat.

Now, it's possible that they could have ascertained earlier that he was not an immediate threat to life, in which case we're talking about an intelligence failure, but again that's probably going to take quite a while to turn up.

I know what you mean, Mummy; one of the stories this pushed down below the fold was that a house was hit with CS gas and raided by armed police yesterday, and nobody was arrested.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
13:17 / 23.07.05
Jack, surely that's asuming that A) At the point when the suspect was in open space, police where confident that he was in possestion of a bomb. (Even though it turned out he wasn't and asuming that that is the reason he was shot). B) If the police were aware that they was no danger to civillians in the area if the explosions, caused by the shots in the supects back, went off.
C) That they were close enough in the pursuit to get a clear shot.
I'm not faulting them. I think they did the right thing with the information they had. I think Haus is probably right in that they didn't think he was gonna blow shit up until he made a bee line for the tube at which point I think they probably went into "oh shit" mode. It's not very hard to shoot a moving object running ahead of you from 50 yards or so, but you'd be aiming center mass and not for the head. But it's also not hard to miss a few times and hit civilians either. So yeah, I don't know a whole lot about London police, but these guys seemed to do a pretty good job of staying restrained until they were on top of the suspect. I imagine the police in my state would have shot him 247,387 times from 300 yards as soon as they saw him run, and that would probably be a bad thing.
 
 
odd jest on horn
13:29 / 23.07.05
This sounds more than a little scary to me. I've been trying to work out how much or little would be needed to be shot in the head by the police. Basically I'm creating a little fiction about how one ends up being shot in the head by the police, while being entirely innocent of being a terrorist.


One has to look like a member of an ethnic group having a large percentage of Muslims. One had to be caught on CCTV with a rucksack at the scene of the 21st of july bombings. I'm not entirely sure, whether the person who got shot was one of the 4 prime suspects though. Has that been established?

Given that this guy was one of the four, how did he not manage to give himself up? To busy to read the papers? Recently moved to London so his friends couldn't inform him that he was being sought by the police? Maybe he himself and his friends didn't even recognize him on the blurry pictures? I myself, didn't see the pictures of the four people sought until this morning, actually, so that's one more possibility. Maybe he was afraid to give himself up, possibly having some skeletons in the closet.

Now, one has been under surveillance for a day or so, and puts on a thick coat, as is dictated by ones peer group, no matter the weather. I've seen some horrendously inapproriately dressed people on the tube. Business men in wool suits, sweating profusely. Kids in thick duvet jackets, wearing gold chains, in an imitation of Ja-Rule, I suppose.

And the crucial part: failing to stop when crewcut, plain-clothes, - I'm assuming white - men with guns yell at you to stop. Would you?

The single person I know of who has had a gun pointed at him, says he instinctly started backing away, even though the armed person in question was wearing an army uniform and yelled at him to stop moving. His higher brain functions luckily kicked in when the soldier put his gun to his shoulder, getting ready to pull the trigger, at which point he did stop moving.

So... this scares me more than a little.

Without knowing the facts, I'm also a little surprised that they did allow him to get on the tube at all. But as Haus explained to Jack, there might not have been a less crowded place to take him down at all. (In which case, if I were in pursiuit policeman, I might have doubts that he was wearing explosives at all, seeing as he could just blow him up whenever.. and still cause terror )

Worrying, all of this.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:45 / 23.07.05
Given that this guy was one of the four

He wasn't, apparently.
 
 
pornotaxi
16:04 / 23.07.05
The Metropolitan Police Service described the death as a "tragedy" and said it regretted its actions.

trigger-happy power hungry murderers. regret is NOT enough.
 
 
haus of fraser
16:16 / 23.07.05
oh Shit..

From the BBC Website

A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.
A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.

The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.

Two other men have been arrested and are being questioned after bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus.

The statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

Good response to CCTV plea
'They unloaded five bullets'

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

Stupid stupid man- shouldn't have ran, this is going to get worse before it gets better- wonder what the sun headline will be tomorrow after the One down Three to go one today.
 
 
pornotaxi
16:24 / 23.07.05
Stupid stupid man- shouldn't have ran

really?

i guess there's a policeman inside all our heads.
 
 
■
16:34 / 23.07.05
Could just be some poor sod who shat himself at being followed by a bunch of guys out of uniform with concealed guns and ran.

Right, can we start asking questions about the wisdom of arming people who aren't clearly identifiable as coppers now? Shouldn't have run? Perhaps in his case, but we now know they're willing to kill you even if they catch you, so my guess is that people are now more, not less, likely to try to get away even if they're innocent.
Fuck's sake. I know, people make mistakes, but regret doesn't seem enough, I want someone senior in charge to come out and say it was their fault (not resignations, they still have a job to do). They killed an innocent man, traumatised a few dozen onlookers and made everyone think twice about wearing inappropriate clothing and backpacks in public. Nice.
 
 
Benny the Ball
16:42 / 23.07.05
Right, first of all they haven't said he was innocent, they have just said that he was unconnected to the events on the 21st. Now before we all get up in arms about how the police blazed in all guns firing on this, the has not been one clear indication of how the events panned out save for some questionable eye-witness accounts. We don't know if the police identified themselves, we don't know if they had guns drawn instantly, so all this scared man running from frightening white armed men stuff doesn't sit right. Plus, although I have said that the accounts are questionable, many of them have said a mixture of clothed and undercover policemen.
 
 
■
16:51 / 23.07.05
many of them have said a mixture of clothed and undercover policemen
Missed that. If true, it does put a different slant on things.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
16:56 / 23.07.05
so my guess is that people are now more, not less, likely to try to get away even if they're innocent.
So you would run? Especially after what happened with the man who was shot? You think if he put his hands up and stood still the cops would have walked up to him and shot him 5 times in the head?
 
 
■
17:06 / 23.07.05
I thought we'd all to some extent justified the shooting by saying that they thought he was a suicide bomber, and that the best way to deal with that was to kill him as quickly as possible? If they really think you're carrying something, would you present an easy target and stay nice and still? Myself, I probably would, but I'd be worrying an awful lot more now than I did yesterday morning.
No, I don't think they would just shoot you straight away, but given that we've been talking about split-second decisions, I do think more people would now be more likely to try to escape as their last chance.
I'm not saying that the police have been going in guns blazing or have been trigger-happy. This just puts the willies up me and I'm trying to work out why.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
17:14 / 23.07.05
This just puts the willies up me and I'm trying to work out why.
Yeah. After 9/11 it was easy enough to stop airplanes from crashing into giant buildings. But suicide bombers? Seems really chaotic, and would definately put me on edge if it happened in my city.
 
 
Haus Of Pain
18:30 / 23.07.05
...but given that we've been talking about split-second decisions, I do think more people would now be more likely to try to escape as their last chance.

Are you for real?

You seriously think that after the possibility that someone has been shot dead for running away, from the suspecting Police terrorist unit and is 'potentially' innocent, that Mr shit scared civillian is now more likely try and do a bunk as opposed to surrendering immediately out complete disabling fear for thier lives.

Have you just finished watching die hard or something?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
18:34 / 23.07.05
Apparently the poor sod was Brazilian, not Asian.
 
 
■
18:35 / 23.07.05
Yes, yes and no.
 
 
Haus Of Pain
18:53 / 23.07.05
Wow, wierd! I have to disagree. Not sure people are more inclined to think fuck this i'm legging it, i can outrun a bullet. But hey that's just me, in my opinion people are more likely to just freeze like a rabbit in the headlights when they have seen the evidence that running from Police may = Death.

My advice to all in this situation is don't run, you may die. No evidence to suggest that if you freeze and surrender you will be shot anyway.
 
 
*
19:19 / 23.07.05
Fact is, there is no way to predict how people will react in a surprise situation that they see as life-threatening. Factors which will directly influence whether Jo/e Citizen will run from law enforcement officers include all of the following and many more: whether the LEOs are in uniform, whether they have visible weapons and if so of what kind and what are they doing with them at the moment, whether they identify themselves, whether they are of the same apparent ethnicity as the JC, what movies JC has watched recently, how many LEOs there are, whether JC is in hir "home turf" or not, whether JC has ever been arrested before, whether JC has ever been attacked/the victim of violent crime before, JC's gender, the LEOs' genders, JC's current mood, what kind of day JC has had, JCs education level, JC's place of employment, the surroundings, the witnesses... I wouldn't even want to attempt to predict one person's actions in such a situation, little say a trend over time due to this event or its media coverage. I'm not even sure I could predict my own actions— particularly if the LEOs were not in uniform, if I suspected they'd been following me for blocks, and they didn't identify themselves. I might bolt too, if I thought they were criminals rather than cops, or criminals posing as cops. I'd like to think I'd have enough sense not to do that when guns are involved, but sense doesn't always take precedence over fight-or-flight response— usually not, I'd say.
 
 
Triplets
22:58 / 23.07.05
Apparently the poor sod was Brazilian, not Asian.

Unlucky fuck. Did anyone else see the same BBC news feed I did earlier?

"And in an update from the Metropolitan Police it's now be confirmed that the person shot on the underground was not related to any of the London enquiries. Well, that's all we've got time for, see you in 2 hours time"

Blase, much?
 
 
Haus Of Pain
23:00 / 23.07.05

Fact is, there is no way to predict how people will react in a surprise situation that they see as life-threatening.
Have you heard of the TV? There's a guy called Paul McKenna who 'possibly' has a great deal of expertise which should discount your claim. You should check him out.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
00:37 / 24.07.05
(I know I typed earlier that I would come back to this thread in a couple of years, but sod it! Oh, and I apologise if anything I've typed her has offended some of you; I was annoyed , but that is still no excuse for my handling of the situation. Apologies.)

"And in an update from the Metropolitan Police it's now be confirmed that the person shot on the underground was not related to any of the London enquiries. Well, that's all we've got time for, see you in 2 hours time"

Like I typed in earlier posts: this smells like an almighty cock-up. Sad; but seemingly true.

And may I stress that I also feel sorry for the armed police in question. Indeed, I agree that it can't be hard to live with such a job or indeed such an incident. But still, if the information from the above quote proves to be from an accurate source, then, well...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
03:08 / 24.07.05
This is what I don't understand about this situation: what the fuck was anyone doing giving a plain clothes policeman a gun in a situation where their intelligence was so mangled?

This is precisely why I believe in gun control and for me that weapon was the real fuck up here. This is why the police shouldn't be armed.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
03:28 / 24.07.05
Nina, I completely agree. These are also some of the reasons why Capital Punishment is plain wrong. (Although of course, unfortunately some police (at present) do have to armed.)

To go back to my earlier posts (if I may): people make mistakes, that much is obvious. But can I draw a bad analogy to try and further explain my points?.. No?

Well, imagine the national cricket team keeps losing and making costly mistakes. What happens next? Of course, the cricket board is forced to have a review, overhauling, training, selection, coaching, and attitude (etc). In much the same way, I see that the UK (Armed) Police have made a few very costly mistakes over the past few years, and this cannot be excused as understandable because of the pressure of the situations, or anything else, etc (especially in light of today's news).

As I typed earlier, these are trained professionals in every possible way (i.e. surveillance, shooting moving targets, determining who is a target, etc).

They fucked up and though it may be understandable, it is nevertheless inexcusable.
 
 
*
04:02 / 24.07.05
Hey, Pork Boy. Chill the fuck out. I would be greatly surprised if Paul McKenna or anyone else from television, expert though they may be, could make significantly above chance-level predictions of people's behavior in such situations, especially without knowing situational details. And when my assertion is "I don't know, and I bet there's no way to know for sure," the response you gave— i.e. "Oh yeah?? There's this bloke on TV who can disprove* that!!" makes no sense whatever. Can disprove what, exactly? Did you even grasp my "claim", before assuming I intended to engage in an argument with you?

I repeat: There is a very high level of uncertainty in attempting to predict the responses of people who perceive themselves to be in danger. If Paul McKenna can disprove this, then wow, I guess I really should watch television more.

* I'm assuming you mean disprove or something like it, charitably, as opposed to "discount", which means To leave out of account as being untrustworthy or exaggerated; disregard: 'discount a rumor.' To underestimate the significance or effectiveness of; minimize: 'took care not to discount his wife's accomplishments.' To regard with doubt or disbelief. If you actually meant "discount," I venture to suggest that anyone can discount anything, but that does not mean they would be right to do so.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
04:41 / 24.07.05
At the risk of sounding smug (which I already do, apparently); sometimes I scare myself how close my instincts can be, although, of course, this partucluar example could be seen as (for want of a better word) luck:

Think about it? If that was a common-law murder, the jury would probably be asked to count to five and question whether each shot was necessary. Indeed, I bet somewhere in the Halls of Officialdom the Copper in question is getting a bollocking and being told to thank their lucky stars that the victim WAS a suicide-bomber (as appears to be the case) and not an asylum seeker panicking and having a flashback upon seeing the angry faces, stern uniforms, and loaded guns marching towards him (?).

So the guy was Brazilian and not connected to the bombings at all. Why did he run? Apparently he was from an area notorious for violence and heavy-handed police tactics. And who can blame him? Apparently there may be cause to be scared of armed police in the UK. Ask Harry Stanley's family. However, I sincerely pray this is not the case, and if it is that is does not continue and / or get any worse.

I have typed elsewhere on Barbelith about my very real fears about a future Police State in the UK. Of course, one should ask those living in more acute totalitarian states what a REAL Police State is like, but I'm sure you would all have to admit that we are getting ever closer in the UK, and all it would take is a supposed "disaster" and a few bold moves by some very f**ked up people in power to fully implement a Police State (e.g. I.D. Cards; ASBO's and curfews; one man, Sir John Stevens, being able to implement a new "Shoot to Kill Terrorists Policy" without passing it through Parliament; etc). The Law, Governance, etc, are like TV or any other powerful tool: "the wrong tool in the wrong hands...", etc.

All this is why (IMHO) we all should be cynical immediately upon hearing about any Police sanctioned killing (although letting our emotions get involved is always a bad move, I admit). Indeed, the fact that we give these poor men and women such a responsibility as carrying guns means that we have to make sure they are being used only when ABSOLUTELY necessary. A "shot to kill" policy does not help anyone.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
05:37 / 24.07.05
PW, it's not luck or instinct.

I hope everyone who thought this shooting might have been even remotely justified is now thinking very damn hard about your reasons for doing so. Why did you think, "The cops were chasing him -- he must have been a terrorist?" Why did you say, "If there was a chance he was carrying a bomb, he should have been shot"? Do you carry a backpack? Do you have olive skin? Do you look 'Asian'? Put all of these together, and you have how many 'bombers' walking around London? Should they all be shot if they run from police?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:44 / 24.07.05
We also have to recall that our brave boys trying to fight terrorism have long and documented problems with 'institutional racism' and are working in a time of some increased ethnic tension.
 
 
Haus Of Pain
07:49 / 24.07.05

i.e. "Oh yeah?? There's this bloke on TV who can disprove* that!!" makes no sense whatever. Can disprove what, exactly?

Anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
Seth
08:01 / 24.07.05
I hope everyone who thought this shooting might have been even remotely justified is now thinking very damn hard about your reasons for doing so.

Why? We're choosing to wait until the facts are released before passing judgement. Bevahing otherwise is idiotic.

And the fact that paranoidwriter is *smug* and feels the need to turn horrific events into her personal victory... I'm at a loss for words. That post was one of the most despicable I've read on this site.

Shame on you.
 
 
Harrison Ford, in a battle suit, wheels for feet, knives and guns
08:05 / 24.07.05
But the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public.

"This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility."

More horse shit.

Apparantely the ever responsible News Of The World has offered a £100,000 reward for the suspected terrorist bombers of the past week. What the fuck is wrong with them, did they learn nothing from thier 'Let's get the peadophile's campaign' resulting in the death of a Peadiatrition. I dred to think how many other innocent people will suffer at the hands of the 'inspired' vigilante squad.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
08:11 / 24.07.05
Seth, back away and think about what you have just typed.

Note what I typed:

(which I already do, apparently);

Especially take note of the word "apparently". Unbeknownst to you guys and girls (obviously), I'd previously showed this entire thread to a friend who reminded me that (although not intentional), I can sound smug in my writing, as indeed my friend felt I had done in my previous few posts. My friend knew this wasn't the case, but I agreed with the point ze made. Indeed, this was my way of saying that I can see how some readers of Barbelith could think I'm being smug. I assure you I'm not, and I don't need victories of any sort over my fellow human beings or anything else for that matter. Indeed, if I am competing with anything or anyone on this planet, I'm competing with time and my own stupid body.


Seriously mate, you're out of order. Can you tell me why you decided to have a pop at me about this?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:47 / 24.07.05
According to the IoS report the guy was an illegal immigrant who was already under surveilance in relation to that, he may well have started running because he thought it was police coming to throw him out of the country. Combined with the police being plain-clothes and not required to announce that they are police, how is anyone expected to know what is going on?

I don't know why, but this worries more than the risk of terrorists with bombs.
 
 
Ganesh
09:01 / 24.07.05
Toksik:
i would have to disagree. the people i have spoken to that have killed others have had a range of reactions, up to and including being completely comfortable with it.

Fine; this sort of this is evidently easy for some. I'd suggest that, the majority of UK police being a) unused to shooting people, and b) not entirely psychopathic, it's likely that those involved will be adversely affected by this.
 
 
Benny the Ball
09:03 / 24.07.05
Coming over here, stealing our bullets...

As said above, there has been mixed reporting on the nature of the uniformed and un-uniformed police officers at the scene, plus, I strongly doubt that the police, with weapons drawn do not have to announce that they are police officers.

Still, quite a nasty thought, imagine the moment as they bundled the guy onto the tube, him thinking oh they got me, and then...brrrrrr.
 
 
Ganesh
09:31 / 24.07.05
And the crucial part: failing to stop when crewcut, plain-clothes, - I'm assuming white - men with guns yell at you to stop. Would you?

Well, this is something of a loaded question, isn't it? As you yourself acknowledge, it contains several assumptions (white skin, but also gender, hairstyle, mode of communication - "yell" - etc.) not least the major assumption that, at no time did the police identify themselves as police.

I actually think that, in pretty much any situation where a gun were waved in my direction, I would stop. This obviously takes into account my previous experience of people with guns (virtually nil), my perception of people with guns in this country (they've got no reason to want to shoot me) and the ways I've dealt with hostile/aggressive people before (de-escalation). I accept that others might react very differently - but this underlines the problems inherent in attempting to appeal to a common 'line' on this ("Would you?")
 
  

Page: 1 ... 23456(7)89101112

 
  
Add Your Reply