To quote news reports, http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2005/07/24/world/londonattacks-070524
"The police force said officers saw Menezes emerge from a house that they had been staking out as part of the hunt for the bombers. They said suspicions were aroused because he was wearing an unseasonably bulky jacket and acting oddly, so they followed him. They eventually chased him into the station and onto a train, where they shot five bullets into his head in front of stunned passengers." So the guy exited a house they had under surveillance, and was wearing a very heavy coat that could have hidden a bomb belt. He was followed to the subway and was told to stop. Instead he ran. What was the police to do? Risk the deaths of quite a few more people. THe guy could have prevented the whole thing just by stopping and complying with the police. larry On 7/24/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So what do you do with a suicide bomber with a set of explosives? You > tackle him and he sets the belt off killing possibly dozens of people. > You let him go and he detonates the belt. Do you want to explain to > the mother or father who has just lost their 5 year old kid that we > were trying to protect the bomber's rights? Or how about the husband > of the pregnant woman who was beside the bomber when it went off? > > The police had id'd themselves as police, told him to stop. He did > not. He ran, and acted in a manner similar to a suicide bomber. > > What do you do in this case? > > There is no good answer. The metropolitan police said it right. They > were incorrect and are reexamining their procedures. What do you want? > How many people do you want to die for the police to err on the side > of causion or on the side of the guy with the bomb belt? > > larry > > On 7/24/05, Jennifer Larkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's more than an unfortunate tragedy. It's a warning. They targetted > > and killed someone innocent in the name of protecting people from a > > theoretical threat. And their response is "Sorry. It is an unfortunate > > loss." Not even "We need to re-examine our procedures and see what > > could have been done to handle the situation better." Just "He acted > > suspicious so we shot him in the head. It's not our fault. If you have > > a problem with this, shove it." > > > > Who's next? > > > > Some guy with chills who is on his way to the doctor's office trying > > to keep warm? > > > > Someone who knows that innocent people have been detained indefinitely > > without access to lawyers and has just suddenly realized that he is > > wrongly under suspicion? > > > > You? > > > > On 7/24/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It unfortunately sounds like there was mutual panic - on both the > > > victim's part, cops chasing him. and on the police. They may have > > > thought he had a dynamite belt on him, and rather than endanger > > > others, decided to shoot. > > -- > > "You can't destroy EVERYthing. Where would you sit?" The Tick > > > > Now blogging.... > > http://www.blivit.org/blog/index.cfm > > http://www.blivit.org/mr_urc/index.cfm > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:166104 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
