Police in London shot dead a man in connection with the attempted bombings there. According to witnesses, the man was shot five times after plain-clothes officers had pursued him as the suspect ran on to a subway train carriage. The man apparently slipped while entering the train.
"I saw them unload five shots into him — bang, bang, bang, bang, bang," passenger Mark Whitby, 47, said. "Five shots and he's dead. It was no more than five yards from me" (source: Reuters).
Police say the man failed to heed their calls to stop, and that he was connected to the investigation of the attempted bombings. Muslim groups say they are concerned that police have adopted a "shoot-to-kill" policy.
This leads to a brutal question: should police shoot to kill if the suspect is a terrorist linked to suicide bombings? I'm inclined to give police the benefit of the doubt. All a terrorist has to do is fall down and set himself off. If a suspect in such a case refuses to stop immediately, don't police have an obligation to kill the suspect?
Or is that going too far? Might innocent people be harmed?
Certainly, we've entered a troubling age post 9-11 and post 7-7. Terrorists have demonstrated a complete disregard for their own lives and the lives of others. They are so engaged in their religious jihad they have set aside every common decency. As regards their kind, governments will deal much more harshly than with common crime.
I am reminded that in Egypt, awful acts of terrorism were stymied in the 1990s after the government implemented extreme measures. (After the recent bombing in Egypt, will the government enact even harsher measures?) Frankly, since the 1972 massacre of Olympic athletes, the world is growing weary of terrorist acts. Perhaps it's time to really put our foot down.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Interesting thing to bring up. In the US there wouldn't be more than a moment's thought about this, unless the suspect who was shot was from an ethnic minority. It's a much bigger issue in Britain because they aren't used to police who pursue suspects carrying guns in the first place. The mere fact that they've got cops on the street carrying guns now is an interesting development coming out of the terror attacks in London.
Dave
2 - SFC Ski
"This leads to a brutal question: should police shoot to kill if the suspect is a terrorist linked to suicide bombings?" Yes, if they believe that he cazn still move to trigger the bomb.
One thing I read was that the suspect was wearing a heavy coat in the midle of summer, that is a common trait among suicide bombers.
3 - Nancy
Anyone who fails to stop on police command in this day & age, & instead takes off running, is knowingly going to die, especially when they are at the site of recent mass violence such as the London bombings. Anyone - even those not speaking the language - anywhere in the world faced w/authorities w/guns shouting at them, is a fool who doesn't immediately stop & put hands out where they can be seen. To run is fatal & a tacit admission of guilt, and everyone knows it. No excuse whatsoever for anyone to take off running - unless they want to get shot.
Good for the British police. It's about time they stopped coddling criminals over there. Pity they don't apply this stiffening of the spine over in Holland, France, & other parts of terrorist-infested Europe as well.
4 - todd
Great defense of the right of the Man to kill anyone who doesn't give instant obediance to authority.
We need more good Americans like you.
5 - Andy
The man shot had nothing to do with the bombings. I wonder if he even knew that they were really plain-clothes police asking him to stop...
6 - Temple Stark
Why do you say that Andy. Links? Articles written?
7 - Demi
I hate to be dull, but during a heightened state of awarness.... it would have the prudent thing to comply with the police request to stop, not jump the turnstile, and to quit acting like a person bent on getting plugged.
Darwinism at work.
8 - Duece
Hey Todd, maybe they should scour the country side for Clarvoyant cops?
Then they could read everybody's mind as due process while trying to prevent more bloodshed, shredding of bodies, wide areas of tissue dispersion and the like....
you're an idiot.
9 - NancyGail
If he had nothing to hide, why did he run? Although it seems to that if he tripped and fell, the police could have cought up with him at that point and detained him for questioning.
10 - Aaman
I think the point of this post, and the concern of British Muslims is larger than the singular fate of this individual. The concern is misplaced or quick-on-the-trigger reactions from police.
India adopted a shoot-to-kill policy and near-brutal measures to put down the Sikh terrorism in Punjab in the 1980s - it worked,but cost much socially and economically, at the very least.
11 - Mark Adams
Police now say the man is unconnected to the bombing investigations, but the circumstances of the shooting have not changed.
1. The man was under surveillance.
2. As police approached; he would not surrender.
3. He bolted into a crowded train wearing heavy clothing and fell to the ground.
4. Police shot him.
It's not just that he "looked" a certain way, but he acted a certain way. That he is unconnected to the investigation doesn't change my view. Darting into a crowded train probably wasn't a good move, and if police hadn't acted, and there was a bomb, people would be asking why the police did nothing. Heck, if a man holds a fake gun on a police officer, the officer can still shoot (unless he knows the gun is fake). If a man can use his body as a weapon, doesn't it follow the police can treat a body as a weapon? Failure to heed instructions from a police officer might be fatal.
I remember when President Clinton was in Seattle, a hotel worker walked up to the president and handed him a cup of coffee. The move was unexpected and secret service agents told the worker they almost shot him dead.
It's not that I want the police to shoot people simply for running, but if a bombing is potentially involved, they have to act.
Word to everyone: If a cop says stop, stop. You can always complain afterwards.
12 - todd
If you have ever seen the cops beat up your friend for no reason in front of 100 people and get away with it, you would perhaps change your thots about trusting them with deadly force.
Till that happened, I was pretty much Mr. Law and Order
13 - Duece
Todd, how can you confirm that? News stories, url's, what?
There's too many sob stories floating around that are nothing but anecdotal, and subsequently don't carry any weight.
Sorry about your friend, and the 100 people to stood around and let it happen. Since we're allowed to carry weapons, why didn't anyone try to stop the cops?
A few bullets thrown their way would have put an end to the alleged beating.
14 - Dave Nalle
Duece, you don't shoot at cops if you want to stay alive.
Dave
15 - Mark Adams
"If you have ever seen the cops beat up your friend for no reason in front of 100 people and get away with it, you would perhaps change your thots about trusting them with deadly force."
But the fact is we do trust them with deadly force, and when they abuse it we ought to hold them accountable. Are you really saying we shouldn't trust police with deadly force? Who would protect us?
16 - Dave Nalle
Yes, they should be held accountable, but if you shoot them then you'll be in trouble too. As demonstrated in the Rodney King case, carry a video camera wherever you go. Video tape the beating and make sure they get put on trial and appropriately punished without taking the law in your own hands.
Dave
17 - Nancy
According to news reports, now he's some guy from Brazil totally unconnected w/the bombings, & of course everyone who ever knew him is declaring he's a saint, which may be true, who knows? Maybe being from Brazil, he had the jacket on because he was cold, who knows? Maybe he was late for his train, who knows? But fer shur he was abysmally stupid not to stop. He couldn't have been that oblivious to the fact that they were after HIM, specifically, which makes me wonder why he ran. I still don't blame the cops, w/all that's going on in London recently. As for comment #4, my point was NOT not to question or challenge authority - laughable for those who know me - but that when faced with a very dangerous situation like this, to keep on running or fail to respond is insanity. At least if you want to live.
18 - guerilla science
so lets recap this story, non-white guy who has nothing to do with the bombing wears the wrong kind of clothing, doesn't respond to Plainclothes police officers, jumps a turnstile gets pushed to the ground by the Plainclothes cops, then shot 5 times in the head, and you are defending the pigs who did this?
I'll be you defended the rodney king beating pigs too, and for the guy who used that as an example of holding cops accountable, can you please tell me what the punishment they were dealt at the trial was? (as far as i remember they walked, which was what started the LA riots)
So the next time a group of brutes in civilian clothes yell and chase you, (and lets not forget the convience store clerk who was killed after 9/11 for being the wrong color) why not stop and talk to them?
19 - Mark Adams
Well, the police (pigs, whatever you wish to call them, I guess), regret shooting the man, but they are not saying anyone is criminally liable, though the case is under investigation. And, granted, this is a terrible way to go, but he wasn't shot because he was the wrong color and wearing the wrong clothes. He was shot because he, good grief, jumped a turnstile, bolting into a train. If he was worried for his safety, he should have stopped. He was, after all, in a public area.
As these human-bomb attack increase, it will be increasingly unlikely that you'll be given the benefit of the doubt, nor do I really think you should. In Israel, police would be crazy to let an overdressed man bolt into a train after being told to stop.
I'm not necessarily justifying the action of the police in this case; however, I am asking if such deadly force might be (or already is) necessary as these attacks increase. If the human body itself becomes a weapon, shouldn't police act as if the suspect will use it?
20 - Mark Adams
Want to add this bit off MSNBC:
Police stand by shooting, though regret killing the suspect. ?It?s [terrorism] still happening out there, there are still officers having to make those calls as we speak. ... Somebody else could be shot,? Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said.
According to MSNBC:
"Asked if the instructions were to shoot to kill if police believed a suspect was a suicide bomber, he said: 'Correct. They have to be that.'"
21 - Fred
OK let's take a look a at different healine had things turned out another way. Try this: "Bungling London cops fail to catch suicide bomber as he blows up a rail car and collapses a section of tunnel. Many of the slow officers were maimed or killed in the blast. Officers tried to wrestle the cuffs on him rather than shoot him just before he blew up, video cameras reveal."
22 - bhw
The guy was on the ground with a bunch of police around and on top of him. They didn't have to shoot him. And they certainly didn't have to shoot to kill. Police shouldn't use deadly force unless they KNOW they're facing it themselves.
These British police obviously didn't know that.
Running from police should not be punishable by death, especially if you're innocent of the alleged crime. We'll never know why this guy ran, will we?
23 - guerilla science
the "what if" reasons are not enough to kill someone.
If an innocent person's life becomes nothing more than an asset or liability and shear, "what if" is enough to kill someone we are headed down a very, dark path.
Now running from people in normal clothes shouting at you is an offense punishable by death?
for shame.