Shoot to kill: A policy that was DOA?

Ghoulish Delight · 08-19-2005, 08:54 AM

Alright, let's get everyone up to speed on the embarassment that is Britain's shoot to kill terror suspects policy:

After the first subway bombings in London, British police enacted a shoot to kill policy for anyone they credibly felt was a suicide bombing threat. Shortly after the second bombing attempt, that policy was put into use...with embarassing results.

A man was shot and killed in the London Underground by police. Tony Blair quickly came out and said that he was "directly linked" to the failed bombing attempt. Well, it turns out that he was Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent electrician from Brazil. But wait, it's okay, because the police have a plausible explanation for why they shot. He was observed leaving a location that had been under surveilance because the address was on a paper in one of the backpacks recovered at the scene of the failed bombings. He was wearing a heavy jacket, despite rather warm weather. He hopped the turnstyle, was acting susiciously, and failed to respond to officers when they confronted him and told him to stop. Clearly a threat, right?

Well, surveilance footage from the underground tells a different story. The footage shows wearing a simple denim jacket not a large bulky one, buying a newspaper, walking through the turnstyle quite legally, and getting onto a train. And some eye witness accounts say he was sitting in his seat, not running away.

So hmm, even if only some of that is true, it differs quite a bit from the "official" story.

But wait, there's more. The question still remains why they thought HE was a suspect. Well, the address they had was for a location with several units, and they weren't sure which unit to be on the lookout for. So, wisely, they set up surveilance. The wa it was supposed to work was that an officer would be watching the place, and any time someone came out, he'd start recording them on video and determine if it was a suspect or not (I believe they had some idea of who they were expecting to see). Well, when mr. Menezes came out of his unit...the officer on duty was reportedly taking a piss! He came back in time to see that SOMEONE had left, and sent the message ahead that he thought it might be someone they were looking for.

And then de Menezes was shot dead. Because a guy was taking a leak. And then the police covered their asses with a series of lies. Ugly.

So, does anybody think now that the shoot to kill policy is a good idea?

Scrooge McSam · 08-19-2005, 09:25 AM

*crickets*

Motorboat Cruiser · 08-19-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

*crickets*

So, it's ok to shoot Jimminy on site? Man, you liberals sicken me.

MickeyLumbo · 08-19-2005, 09:43 AM

you can shoot me if you see me wearing a denim jacket

Scrooge McSam · 08-19-2005, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

So, it's ok to shoot Jimminy on site? Man, you liberals sicken me.

You haven't heard? All us liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win. FoxNews told me so.

wendybeth · 08-19-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

You haven't heard? All us liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win. FoxNews told me so.

Not true. We merely want to put them in therapy.

Motorboat Cruiser · 08-19-2005, 09:27 AM

The only way I could ever condone a "shoot to kill" policy is in a situation where people are in immediate danger. For example, if a guy pulls out a gun and is firing it towards people, then take him out swiftly before he hurts or kills anyone. Other than that, it's a stupid idea.

scaeagles · 08-19-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

The only way I could ever condone a "shoot to kill" policy is in a situation where people are in immediate danger.

Still a tough call. While this is most certainly a tragic event, with a huge CYA, and officials that should be held liable (financially if not criminally), it is a tough call as to who presents a danger.

Let's say some kid had a backpack on, and in it is a baggie of marijuana. Dog catches a whiff of it, starts barking, kid runs. Does the cop shoot him, thjinking it is perhaps a backpack bomb? At that point in time, is he a danger, perceived if not real?

Granted, my example is probably not the best one as I doubt if there is crossover between drug dogs and bomb dogs, but my point is valid.

I wouldn't want to be the one trying to determine if someone was presented imminent danger. In the days of suicide bombings, it is possible that any heavily dressed person or or someone with a bag is a risk. Searching everyone is hardly a solution - impractical, and the bomber could simply detonate at the checkpoint.

Tough call on a tough situation. Someone having a gun and shooting it in a subway isn't hard to figure out. The current situation is.

Moonliner · 08-19-2005, 09:48 AM

Clearly the brits F'ed up in this case. Clearly they then tried to cover it up.

Somwhere Mr. Bin Laden is sitting back in his easy chair having a good belly laugh.

scaeagles · 08-19-2005, 09:48 AM

Quote:

you can shoot me if you see me wearing a denim jacket

I still have mine from my 80's HS days. Levis. Faded. Collar almost stuck in the flipped up position.

What can I say? I was a preppy.

08-19-2005, 08:54 AM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Shoot to kill: A policy that was DOA? Alright, let's get everyone up to speed on the embarassment that is Britain's shoot to kill terror suspects policy: After the first subway bombings in London, British police enacted a shoot to kill policy for anyone they credibly felt was a suicide bombing threat. Shortly after the second bombing attempt, that policy was put into use...with embarassing results. A man was shot and killed in the London Underground by police. Tony Blair quickly came out and said that he was "directly linked" to the failed bombing attempt. Well, it turns out that he was Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent electrician from Brazil. But wait, it's okay, because the police have a plausible explanation for why they shot. He was observed leaving a location that had been under surveilance because the address was on a paper in one of the backpacks recovered at the scene of the failed bombings. He was wearing a heavy jacket, despite rather warm weather. He hopped the turnstyle, was acting susiciously, and failed to respond to officers when they confronted him and told him to stop. Clearly a threat, right? Well, surveilance footage from the underground tells a different story. The footage shows wearing a simple denim jacket not a large bulky one, buying a newspaper, walking through the turnstyle quite legally, and getting onto a train. And some eye witness accounts say he was sitting in his seat, not running away. So hmm, even if only some of that is true, it differs quite a bit from the "official" story. But wait, there's more. The question still remains why they thought HE was a suspect. Well, the address they had was for a location with several units, and they weren't sure which unit to be on the lookout for. So, wisely, they set up surveilance. The wa it was supposed to work was that an officer would be watching the place, and any time someone came out, he'd start recording them on video and determine if it was a suspect or not (I believe they had some idea of who they were expecting to see). Well, when mr. Menezes came out of his unit...the officer on duty was reportedly taking a piss! He came back in time to see that SOMEONE had left, and sent the message ahead that he thought it might be someone they were looking for. And then de Menezes was shot dead. Because a guy was taking a leak. And then the police covered their asses with a series of lies. Ugly. So, does anybody think now that the shoot to kill policy is a good idea? __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 09:25 AM	#2
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	crickets
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 09:43 AM	#4
MickeyLumbo thankfully grateful Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: shangrila Posts: 1,388	you can shoot me if you see me wearing a denim jacket __________________
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 09:27 AM	#7
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	The only way I could ever condone a "shoot to kill" policy is in a situation where people are in immediate danger. For example, if a guy pulls out a gun and is firing it towards people, then take him out swiftly before he hurts or kills anyone. Other than that, it's a stupid idea.
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 09:48 AM	#9
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	Clearly the brits F'ed up in this case. Clearly they then tried to cover it up. Somwhere Mr. Bin Laden is sitting back in his easy chair having a good belly laugh. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes