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 ... 45678(9)101112

 
 
pornotaxi
06:31 / 26.07.05
i suspect a greta deal more attention to public safety was at work in this situation thatn perhaps you imagine.

[...] the actions of the police, so far as i can see. seem to be exemplary.

fuck that. by all accounts, you've got twenty armed plain clothes guys chasing a guy into a station, jumping on him in the carriage, and then once he's down, putting eight bullets into him.

that done, they chase the tube driver down the tunnel and put a gun to his head also.

not being present personally, this has to be conjecture, but the situation seems well out of control, and in a way that reminds me of hyped up riot cops in other situations.
 
 
Evil Scientist
06:46 / 26.07.05
Paranoid, I'd encourage you to continue writing. Just because people don't agree with you. It doesn't necessarily mean you aren't making any good points.

Nina, if our police shouldn't be armed (which I agree would erase any risk of accidental shootings) then how should a suspected suicide bomber be dealt with? The majority of them aren't armed with anything more lethal than a taser anyway.

I'm not personally an advocate of all police officers carrying firearms. But, as I have said before, it is occasionally necessary. Remove all access to firearms and the police would not be able to combat organised crime and drug crime, both areas where the people committing the acts are quite happy to carry and use firearms.

But this whole thing the Met chief came out with about more innocent people are going to be shot. Totally unacceptable. It sounds like he's trying to suggest that one innocent life killed accidentally by the police is worth less than the dozens of innocents that would be killed by a terrorist explosion.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:43 / 26.07.05
Yes, it is kind of crap as apologies go, isn't it? (Ian Blair's, not PW's, for the avoidance of confusion).

I'm still unsure (even after reading ALL today's national papers) as to whether they were all plainclothes and whether they identified themselves? Otherwise, the point previously made that to someone from Brazil, a bunch of guys in shirtsleeves pulling out guns and shouting at you is gonna say "robbers" far louder than it does "police", I would have thought.

Littlejohn's particularly odious today... something along the lines of "well, Asians and Muslims may find themselves disproportionatley stopped/searched/whatever, but they're just gonna have to live with it".
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:59 / 26.07.05
(Just for clarity, the apology I was referring to as being "crap" was Ian Blair's. The one about, y'know, shootings on the Tube).
 
 
Ex
11:29 / 26.07.05
I'm bloody annoyed at the phrase 'shoot-to-kill-to-protect'. I understand that it is being used to emphasise that Police would only shoot-to-kill in extreme circumstances. But to me it seems a way of implying that this is totally different from all those other shoot-to-kill policies! This one is '-to-protect' and therefore its potential infringement of civil liberties is all different as well.

This feels very much like other dodgy changes of policy and procedure due to the special, unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity all-new terrorist threat.

Ultimately (and the 'inappropriate responses' thread beckons) are they saying that all the other times shoot-to-kill has been used, it was shoot-to-kill-for-a-laugh?
 
 
Smoothly
12:44 / 26.07.05
I got the impression from Chris Fox on Newsnight last night that the 'shoot-to-kill-to-protect' bullshit is a response to the way people hear the expression 'shoot-to-kill'. If you place the emphasis on 'shoot', it sounds like a policy to shoot. Point of 'shoot-to-kill' here is - I thought - that if you shoot, then intend to kill.
I agree with Ex in that S2K2P is a hopeless rebranding, but has been said earlier, this never was the kind of policy employed by the SAS in N. Ireland (which was, IIRC, a 'shoot suspects, do not even attempt to arrest' policy). I think that's the distinction they're trying to make, anyway. To be honest, I thought this was the standard policy for armed police. As Grant said, you don't ever point a gun at someone unless you're prepared to shoot them, and you don't ever shoot at someone unless you're prepared to kill them. The change under Kratos seems to be that officers should aim for the head, and I don't see why that is a problem. If anything, I'd have thought this requirement will make police less likely to pull the trigger.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
12:45 / 26.07.05
I want to make a disclaimer before I post parts of this article that I haven't been able to verify where it came from. I've been told that it's a Met press release. Does anyone know if this is true? Anyone know how it leaked?


TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD

Urgent Release For All Press

Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following points should be emphasised in your reports:

The dead man is to be referred to as the "suspect" and never the "victim". The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.

He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.

Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.

Remind the reader what would (never say "might") have happened if the suspect "had" been a suicide bomber and the police had "not" shot him. Exaggerate.

Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.

Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.

When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the real bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.

Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.

Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.

It should not be written that he "failed" to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stopping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as "refused" or "resisted".


And so on....

As Deva said, the scariest thing about this is that if Jean Charles was, in fact, a 'bomber', everyone would have breathed a sigh of relief and got on with what they were doing after he was shot. Whatever has happened to the right to trial? Habeas corpus dies all over again. Even the IDF arrests suicide bombers without killing them (sometimes, when the media is present.)
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:09 / 26.07.05
Interesting.

Where did you see this?
 
 
Not Here Still
13:13 / 26.07.05
I don't know if that's official or not, but I would suspect if it had gone to several outlets (both left and right wing papers) they would have run a story on it (as in the advisory note.)

The only way I can see that not happening would be if it went to selected, "friendly" journos - in which case, how did it leak?
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:13 / 26.07.05
Oops, didn't see the link.

Without it having any kind of supporting evidence, I'd say this is not a genuine statement. I don't know what it is about the statement specifically but it doesn't ring true as a police statement.
 
 
illmatic
13:20 / 26.07.05
I think the statement is just a pisstake/reaction to the dodgy and manipulative press and police handling of post-shooting events. Looks to me like it was written by the guy who runds that blog - obvious, surely?
 
 
Not Here Still
13:21 / 26.07.05
BTW, that link started doing something dodgy with a PDF file when I tried to access it...
 
 
pornotaxi
13:34 / 26.07.05
it appeared as a satirical post on urban75 a couple of days ago.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:25 / 26.07.05
Nina, if our police shouldn't be armed (which I agree would erase any risk of accidental shootings) then how should a suspected suicide bomber be dealt with?

Oh, I'd say evacuate the train and leave them in the station for a couple of hours to wander around a bit. If it doesn't go off on a timer than it can only be hand triggered and all of the stations have security camera so you can see if they're preparing to hand trigger a bomb anyway.

Well isn't that as absurd as arming every policeman and woman standing outside a station?


the scariest thing about this is that if Jean Charles was, in fact, a 'bomber', everyone would have breathed a sigh of relief and got on with what they were doing after he was shot.

That's a big assumption. Since that didn't happen you can't actually be sure that people would have reacted in that way. I think that after a week of tally-ho, the police shot a man, the articles examining the problems with guns on the tube would have started to appear. It's not as if anyone was comfortable with this on any level, it just didn't seem right to criticise a man for making a split second decision in which he ended someone's life so soon after the event. You're doing everyone a disservice.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:10 / 26.07.05
Remember on 7/7, when there were rumours flying around that exactly this scenario (except without an innocent man) had happened at Canary Wharf? And Ian Blair categorically denied it, what with it having not happened?

I think it'd be going way too far to attach any deliberate intent to that, but it really did help to prepare the way for this one, didn't it? When I first heard of the shooting it was almost as if it was something that had already happened that I was hearing about again.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:25 / 27.07.05
what else were these agents acting within a faulty system supposed to do? let's discuss the system of intelligence and police force methodology, not lambast the individual officer who probably, yes, has a distinct and particualr existence outside his role as police officer, with a family and circle or friends.

That's all well and good, as long as you apply the same understanding and rationale to every individual who has killed as part of their voluntary membership of an organisation whose leader has said will continue killing in the name of a given goal (here, to protect the London public), even when a given instance of violence manifestly does not advance that goal.
 
 
Bill Posters
10:36 / 28.07.05
I hope this incident hasn't been mentioned already, I'm too busy to read all the above, but allegedly police held a gun at a 12yr old boy and pushed his gran which may or may not have caused her to have a heart attack. Details here and here.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:44 / 28.07.05
Interesting perspective from John Gardner, Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford:

Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July:
(1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414.
(2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.
(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.
(4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower!
(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.
(6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.
(7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.
(8) Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn't mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:03 / 28.07.05
Hmm. I have no doubt that the government would respond that lethal force is 'necessary and proportionate' in the case of someone who intends to kill themselves and others in a bomb blast.

Maybe the answer is non-lethals, but they're taking their time and the idea of firing directed energy which damages electronics at someone in a bomb vest has obvious drawbacks.

The real answer would be social, of course, not technical, but we're a loooong way from one of those.
 
 
Seth
12:07 / 28.07.05
Flyboy: how is that an interesting perspective to you? Is that not the situation as it is broadly already known?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:15 / 28.07.05
It's interesting because it comes from someone who would appear to be an authority on the law, which I am not. Legality isn't the only issue here, but that doesn't stop me being interested. I'm not sure what you mean by "broadly known" - certainly the implications of the above don't seem to be accepted by every commentator (official or otherwise) on the murder of De Menezes.
 
 
Not Here Still
12:24 / 28.07.05
Phrasing this carefully (for legal reasons), but was interested to hear of the use of a taser on the man arrested in Birmingham in connection with the events of the 21st for similar reasons to Nick's above.

Inside 63 Heybarnes Road, a house split into two flats, the officers faced a struggle. The police have refused to say what went on inside but confirmed that they used a Taser gun, which sends out an electric charge, to stun one man. They may also have used some sort of explosive designed to shock or disorientate.
 
 
Supaglue
12:49 / 28.07.05
Probably doesn't shed any more light on the issue, but hey-ho:

Blackstones Criminal Practice:

"..Criminal Law Act 1967, s3... applies to all arrests and to action in the prevention of crime, specifies that only such force as is reasonable in teh circumstances may be used. The court, in determining what force is reasonable, will take into account all the circumstances including the nature and degree of the force used, the gravity of the offence for which the arrest is to be made, the harm that would flow from the use of force against the suspect and the possibility of effecting the arrest or preventing harm by other means. The use of excessive force will not, however render the arrest unlawful"

Obviously the wording is broad to cover as many potential scenarios as possible, but this gives a wide ambit for a police defence - Like Nick said the govt could justify the action, even if the arrest was unlawful.

What concerns me is that I swear I heard eye witnesses say on the news not long after that they saw the police throw De Menez to the ground and then shoot him. I don't see how more reasonable restraint could not be used. Has any one else heard this?
 
 
Supaglue
13:45 / 28.07.05
Also in the section by Gardner that fly posted was this:

(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.

This is interesting. Shouldn't the court (jury) not consider exactly what the offending officer(s) frame of mind was at the time? It must be difficult for the plod who has the gun and has been given specific information (what this information was precisely is yet to be seen) about a suicide bomber to temper his approach to the situation on the off chance that the information may be incorrect (this, assuming that the force was reasonable).

Perhaps the officers who gatherred the intelligence are in some way culpable in a way similar to corporate manslaughter?


in the same vein, with regards to the prejudice of an officer, should juries only be allowed to take a redacted version of facts as to the state of mind of someone in cases like this?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:50 / 28.07.05
It's not the government, IIRC - it's the CPS. In most cases, parmed policemen who kill during the discharging of their duties are not prosecuted because the CPS declines to prosecute - that is, that it judges that there is not a reasonable chance of securing a prosecution.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:55 / 28.07.05
The Metro is reporting today that the dead guy wasn't wearing a bulky jacket, nor did he leap over the barrier, he had a travel card, which he used just like anyone else. Looking elsewhere for confirmation of this as the police's justifications look increasingly dodgier.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
06:52 / 29.07.05
If that's the case, maybe it's time to separate the discussion about 'shoot to kill' and so on from the discussion of this incident; if this was just a blatant screw-up which cost a life, that's one thing. The use of lethal force as 'necessary and proportionate' is another question.
 
 
Supaglue
08:15 / 29.07.05
"It's not the government, IIRC - it's the CPS. In most cases, armed policemen who kill during the discharging of their duties are not prosecuted because the CPS declines to prosecute - that is, that it judges that there is not a reasonable chance of securing a prosecution."

Yeah its an important distinction, I guess. When I said govt in my posting I was really meaning the police and in particular the officer(s) involved rather than the crown/CPS.

That said, I'm sure the CPS get policy pressure put on them, but hopefully in this case public interest is such that they will think long and hard.

I read about the jacket of De Menez and the tube card

Its his family that are saying this. If this is true it just gets worse:

First he's a suicide bomber who was running from police. Then he was just a suspect. Then he was an innocent man but an immigrant who'd outstayed his visa, with suggestions of being on benefits and being a criminal (same thing to you Daily Mail readers out there). Then, er, he's an innocent legal immigrant who was not clothed in any way like a bomber, did not jump the gates at the tube and was running from unclothed police who did not have their identifying baseball caps on (although I'm not sure how obvious that makes the police anyway).....
 
 
Cat Chant
09:00 / 29.07.05
it just gets worse... Then he was an innocent man but an immigrant who'd outstayed his visa... Then, er, he's an innocent legal immigrant

See, this is related to the point I was trying to make, above - the idea that it would be somehow more acceptable to shoot an innocent person if they'd overstayed their visa in Britain. Not that I think you're saying that, supaglue, and obviously I've extracted from your post in a way that misrepresents it, but I do think that there is a very scary discourse at work about how the further away you are from a white non-immigrant secular-Christian British citizen, the less it matters if the police shoot you.

And as for all this "shoot-to-kill-to-protect" thing: I have to say I for one don't think the spectacle of plain-clothed armed police shooting a man in the head in front of a trainful of people is going to make anyone feel protected.
 
 
Supaglue
09:13 / 29.07.05
Quite agree, and its kind of why I posted it.

Of course its a mix of what the Home Office have said and what the papers say, so perhaps what I posted shouldn't be taken together as literally as I've suggested, but you can see the gradual watering down of the statements from 'suicide bomber shot' to 'er.. man shot but its ok, he shouldn't have been in this country' to 'shit...'
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:19 / 29.07.05
I think the point is that the expired visa makes it more likely that he would have responded to a first police signal to stop by bolting; that is, that it makes it more credible that the Police behaved according to approved operating procedure, and thus that their actions were, ultimately, justified. Of course if you're a Daily Mail reader you may also take it as a reassurance that, as you say, the person shot was not only foreign but blatantly foreign.
 
 
Supaglue
09:24 / 29.07.05
And house prices are not set to rise.
 
 
pornotaxi
10:55 / 29.07.05
heartwarming news, that a police officer 'involved' in the killing has been sent off on a fully paid family holiday, personally authorised by Sir Ian Blair, even as the IPCC currently investigate the slaying.

with over 3,000 armed cops on the streets, don't let the sun go down on you in this cowboy town, if your visa has expired, y'all.. there's a freebie holiday at stake here..
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:03 / 29.07.05
Both relevant and sensitive.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:24 / 29.07.05
The more I think about this, the more I think, talking about instinctive reactions, I would have run as well. Even knowing what I know now, I don't think rationality would be enough to stop me running from a bunch of guys pulling guns on me. If they looked like cops, I'd probably stop- "cop as authority figure" is probably as deeply ingrained as "flee from muggers"- but if they only identified themselves by voice, well, on the Tube I always wear a Walkman.

I think I'd be fucked.

I'm losing track- have either the cops or Mr Tony actually apologised properly yet (You know, like we'd demand if they'd shot one of our citizens?)? If not, is there some sort of petition for individuals to send their apologies to the Brazilian government?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)101112

 
  
Add Your Reply