LONDON, U.K. - As horrible as it was that an innocent man was shot dead at a London subway station last Friday, July 22, the police have maintained a shoot-to-kill policy.
If the job of the police is to protect us, especially from terror attacks, then who can argue with that? It is almost inconceivable that anyone would cry over a dead "freedom fighter" if such a death would save dozens to hundreds of people.
Look at the evidence presented to the police last Friday at Stockwell station: A man, in the middle of summer, is walking around with a heavy jacket on. He also has a large knapsack. He would not stop when police summoned him.
With 7/7 still fresh in everyone's memory, and considering that a failed bombing attempt transpired at Oval, just one stop to the north of Stockwell, the day before, is it any surprise that tensions were running, shall we say, high?
It turns out that the man, shot eight times in front of horrified commuters, was a Brazilian. Jean Charles de Menezes probably found the weather, although warm to Londoners, too cool, hence the jacket. Perhaps he did not understand English that well and/or panicked when police came after him. The police were also plain-clothed.
There is no denying the horrible mistake that was made. But, given the anxious state that now exists in the British capital, police did the right thing. If we want to be as safe from terror as possible, then we need to let the police do their brave jobs and not question them when they get it wrong.
Everyone involved all feel terrible about the slaying of Menezes. So do I. For an innocent man to have been shot was the worst possible outcome. But still, the police did their job.
Article comments
1 - Natalie Bennett
Fine, if the police are absolutely sure. But as this case showed all too clearly, they can't be trusted to make that judgement.
What's the equation: it is worth shooting five innocent people to prevent one bombing?
I don't think so.
(Plus all of the fear and distruct of the police that will engender, which will reduce the chances of stopping other bombings .... )
2 - Marc
So given the context this event happened Natalie would you have done?
Shoot him in the leg or foot in a effort to disable the suspect and hope he doesn't pull the trigger on a shrapnel laced bomb that kills 20 or 30 innocents?
Sorry that only flys with "civil rights activists," moonbats and those that have no clue there is a WAR going on.
It's a horrible mistake sure. But to be honest I have little sympathy for someone, given the situation, who would ignore police orders to stop and vault over a ticket turnstile in the process.
He didn't deserve what he got, but he got what he asked for.
And before some bleeding heart brings it up, spare me the "he was afraid of being mugged" routine, he didn't know they were cops.
Violent crime is near nonexistent in England and he was not in some dark alley alone, it was in broad daylight among hundreds of other people.
So just spare me that crap.
3 - bhw
Oh, Marc, it's not crap. When you give the police license to shoot people "acting guilty," you have abdicated to the police state and have authorized the people in power to make life and death decisions based on "instinct" or "belief" rather than on evidence or even reasonable certainty.
Face it, the police truly BLEW it in this case. They were ill informed about the man himself and his residence. They made all sorts of assumptions about him *based on where he lived*.
I ask you: what would they have done to him if he'd stopped when they first told him to? Do you think he'd still be alive? If they thought he was carrying a bomb, why did they follow him at all? Why didn't they stop him as soon as he walked out of his door with the heavy clothing on?
4 - billy
are you kidding me? and the basis for this article is what? that they just used dhoot-to-kill on an unarmed non-terrorist. what evidence to support such a notion. the first time it was used, it failed.
tell you what. if EVER there is a case in history of the US or Britian shooting a fleeing terrorist on our home soil ill listen to this garbage. otherwise it is just a smokescrren for the bush goons.
5 - Natalie Bennett
Violent crime including mugging with guns is far from uncommon in London, particularly South London. I've met two people it has happened to. (ANd no they weren't from the underworld - one was an estate agent, the other a journalist.)
And it seems the cops weren't in uniform, so I think fleeing is perfectly understandable.
And his family wants the Tube station CCTV images released, because they say the images show he entered the station using a Travelcard, perfectly legally and properly.
6 - Druxxx
Say the guy was a suicide bomber. The only way to stop him would have been to kill him. Probably. If the police managed to stop him without killing him, they would have had to hope his bomb malfunctioned. As long as there is still life in these bombers bodies, they can make everything go boom.
This is why the shoot to kill(Head shot) order has been given. If he did use his transit card, then the police made a big mistake in this case. If not, a mistake was made, but a justifiable one.
I bet there were quite a few people in the train station, that were glad to see this guy shot dead before a bomb went off.
If the police were right, they just saved potentially hundreds of lifes. Would you rather be hearing about 100 dead, including one terrorist, or one dead wrongfully suspected terrorist.
No matter what we do, many innocent people die every day. Our goal should be to keep that to a minimum. And to do that with any success, a few innocents might have to die at the hands of the people proctecting the other innocents.
7 - bhw
And to do that with any success, a few innocents might have to die at the hands of the people proctecting the other innocents.
Scary, scary thought.
8 - JR
This just in: civilization doesn't work.
9 - Druxxx
It might be scary, but it is reality.
We DO NOT live in a perfect world.
Unfortunately, freedom and security don't go to well together.
I have a question.
Lets say we put a stop the shoot to kill policy. How many innocent people would have to die before you would put it back into effect?
Just curious.
10 - valery dawe
>Sorry that only flys with "civil rights activists," moonbats and those that have no clue there is a WAR going on.<
Marc, I doubt very much that you have a REAL clue WHY there's a WAR going on. But feel free to prove me wrong.
11 - Natalie Bennett
Well said JR!
The civilised view is that you make sure the guy is a bomber before you shoot him anywhere.
There is a risk in that, certainly, but there is a bigger risk in the state executing an innocent person or people and hence destroying the basis of the pact between it and its people.
12 - JR
Druxxx: Lets say we put a stop the shoot to kill policy. How many innocent people would have to die before you would put it back into effect?
6,000,000,000
13 - beadtot
It's the old 'the chicken, or the chicken-hawk' dilemma.