No warning
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7706033.stm

Isn't giving a warning to a suicide bomber ready to blow himself up* a bit stupid? Surely it'd just be an invitation to blow himself up?

*I know he wasn't but the police believed he was.
( Captain V, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 14:31, 11 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Not at all stupid.
Minimal decency, I'd've thought. After all, they didn't know he was a bomber, the legal presupposition is that he wasn't, and - even if he was - to allow a person to give himself up is presumably better than killing him. Isn't it?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:01, Reply)

My understanding
Is that the intelligence they had on the bloke they mistook him for was that he was a suicide bomber.

I expect that if I were a suicide bomber the moment they revealed themselves and warned me I'd be blowing myself to kingdom come. Any other situation (that I can think of) I'd agree with you but when somebody is already willing to take their own life threatening to kill them isn't a particularly big deal.
( Captain V, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:07, Reply)

It's a genuine problem
There might be a difference between what's permissible in respect of a suicide bomber and a suspected suicide bomber... and it's usually only the latter with which we have to deal.


Not, of course, that I have any idea how one ought to solve the problem...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:15, Reply)

offer them a kitten
you can't blow up kittens

its the universal diffuser of situations.

Either that or an old woman with shopping should have fallenm over, everyone would have stopped and watched a few oranges roll down the other end of the carraige,.

then the trigger happy goons can execute suspects.

I love that the Brazilian family is all upset about this, because the Brazilian Police are shining examples of honest fucking decency!
(Halfy By light alone, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:21, Reply)

@Enzyme
I guess a lot depends on where they confront somebody and the threat they pose to the public at that very moment.

Needless to say it's not a decision I'd want to be responsible for.
( Captain V, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:22, Reply)

Surely the issue is that they said one thing to the coroner and the witnesses said another
Ronseal
(sirolimus, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:53, Reply)

@halfy
what? so they're supposed to go 'OK, you killed our son, but your police aren't as bad as ours so we won't make a fuss about it'?
(sirolimus, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 15:59, Reply)

hmmmmm
originally, it was reported that de menezes was here illegally, and ran from the police because he was an illegal alien. if this is true, although obviously he did not deserve to die, there has to be some degree of contributory negligence for his behaviour, especially in the light of the previous day's bombings.

however, now they appear to be saying that he was here legally, because although he had overstayed his visa by about 2 years, he had re-entered england via ireland, therefore giving himself a further 3 month period. also that he did not run away from the police, but was merely picked off, once in the carriage.

what is true, is that the reports are very mixed and the truth needs to be ironed out. it's a very tragic story, but i do believe the police were doing the best job they could under horrendously difficult circumstances, and that they genuinely believed he was a threat to the public. i am very glad it wasn't my job to do, as i know i wouldn't have stood up to making this decision.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 16:12, Reply)

@Enzyme
It's important to be able to identify (as you've done) that this is the case of a shooting of an innocent person. The fact that they allege that he was a suicide bomber is (or at least, should be) immaterial.

Personally, I'm unpleasantly surprised that the officers themselves haven't been arrested and charged with manslaughter.

EDIT: Please note rachelswipes note above mine; she's a legal type, I'm not :)
(Eds Meds Mathskillz=1,Socialskillz=0, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 16:13, Reply)

Personally!
If I was an armed response officer, and I thought I was about to confront a suicide bomber, I would not warn them, I would shoot them, and I would try to kill them as quickly as possible.
However, in the event that I got the wrong guy and shot an innocent person I would not try to cover my tracks by claiming he was an illegal alien, or he may have been a rapist from several years earlier, or that he was acting in a "terroristy" way, or that I shouted a warning that other people in a crowded tube couldn't hear.
The officers involved should resign.
(smells-like-victory-v's, Mon 3 Nov 2008, 16:20, Reply)

Charles
You are indeed correct!

I mean its only one teeny tiny mistake, accidentally shooting an innocent man in the head 7 times, could happen to anyone.



ah, hang on . . . .
(Halfy By light alone, Tue 4 Nov 2008, 10:09, Reply)