How? All it takes is barely a thumb twitch to trigger the explosion. You try gassing the person, but gas is too slow. Stunning him, with what - there are no SF stun guns yet. And such devices as stun grenades would have collateral damage, and still may allow the person to set off the explosions. How are they going to check the person's background when they did not have a name? As for diverting the person, that assumes that they knew where he was going. They were following him, more or less behind him. How are they going to get in front of him without giving everything away, and still not prevent him from getting into the subway station. Moreover how are you going to do the auditory surveilence without either getting into the house to plant the microphones, or by having some fairly bulky equipment, that more or less advertises what they were doing.
Its a matter of time in all these cases. The situation appeared to be developing into an immediate threat to others. So what do you do, risk many others hurt or killed, or take out the potential suicide bomber? Remember the police have to be lucky each and every time. The terrorists only have to be lucky once. larry On 7/24/05, Jennifer Larkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gee, I don't know, maybe incapacitate him? Maybe coordinate a way to > keep him out of the train station, since they should have been able to > expect such behavior out of people exiting a house that they had under > surveillance for possible terrorists? Maybe check his background when > he went into the house? They had to have seen him go in. Maybe do > auditory surveillance on the house to see what he talked about while > he was inside? The technology is available for that. > > We aren't talking about protecting the rights of terrorists. We are > talking about protecting the rights of non-terrorists. The guy they > shot in the head was NOT a terrorist. They eventually arrested a > person in that neighborhood but from a different house. How was that > guy supposed to know that the police were surveilling that house, > especially since it was the wrong house? You have no idea why he was > wearing a coat-- maybe he had chills, maybe his wife made him put it > on when he left, maybe he's accustomed to even warmer weather and was > chilly at the temperature. He ran from police. Lots of people do that. > > Is that a reason for him to die? Since he was innocent there was no > way for him to even know that he was a suspected terrorist. Neither > would you. > > You say the police identified themselves as such, although I've read > at least ten articles on this and I've seen nothing that said that > they identified themselves as police. I've been specifically looking > for information regarding that, so if you know of some, please point > them out. I have also not seen any reports that they were examining > their procedures. In fact, the articles that I have found imply that > they have no intention of examining their procedures. > http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/07/25/251.html > "Blair defended the officers' shooting to kill, saying such action > only applied when lives were believed to be at risk. > > "'I am very aware that minority communities are talking about a > shoot-to-kill policy; it's only a shoot to kill in order to protect > policy,' he said. > > "'It is drawn from experience from other countries, including Sri > Lanka. The only way to deal with this is to shoot to the head,' Blair > said. 'There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that > is where the bomb is likely to be,' Blair said." > > They had him pinned on the ground and shot before they shot him in the > head. There were multiple officers involved. He was incapacitated > before they shot him in the head, but there are other ways to > inconpacitate people and other ways to keep them from being a threat. > > I'm not saying that the police should have their hands tied when > attempting to protect against terrorists. But they very clearly could > have handled this in a way that did not involve killing him and they > should be required to have some more proof before shooting someone in > the head. > > That's not for the protection of the terrorists or in lieu of > protection of the transit passengers-- that's for everyone's > protection. > > On 7/24/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase RoboHelp from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=59 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:166111 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
