Armed action in other countries is sometimes necessary. Giving someone a choice between surrender to the police and being shot is sometimes necessary. Holding an innocent man down and shooting him five eight times in the head is morally indefensible.
My only hope is that the current climate of fear surrounding London at the moment does not stop Jean Charles de Menezes’ killers from facing justice
The terrorist threat facing Britain (and London in particular) is real, but in fighting it we must not condone (or even encourage) similar levels of brutality from ‘the good guys’, as that will just make the terrorist threat worse. Even people who agree with the Stockwell shooting generally see the logic of this, such as Richard Allan (a former Lib Dem MP)
The question before us now is the extent to which that should change in the face of the new terrorist threats that we face. Terrorists aim to brutalise societies and provoke tit-for-tat killings. If the state response is excessive then this can feed the monster.
Basically what this comes down to is not ‘is the shoot-to-kill policy right’, as most people agree to some extent, but a decision by the Independent Police Complaints Commission as to whether a reasonable police officer would have considered John Charles de Menezes a serious terrorist threat (worthy of being killed eight times over) as he was being held to the ground by two other officers.
[EDIT] As you will see from the strikethroughs, it turns out that the victim was shot eight times, not five. Anyone still think it wasn’t excessive?[/EDIT]
[EDIT2]: Changed wording slightly as it was causing confusion for some readers (see comments)[/EDIT2]
See Also
As someone who has actually had to bear arms and understands the factors that must be weighed in deciding to use deadly force, as opposed to the vast majority in the UK who have never even handled a firearm for sport, to accuse the police officers of murder in this case is nothing short of grossly irresponsible. Whenever I hear such ridiculous accusations I have to wonder if the motivations behind such mischaracterizations aren’t political more than anything else.
If you are chasing after a subject who you believe may be a deadly threat, and may be carrying a bomb, you stop him at all costs. And when he refuses to stop after you have identified yourself as police, uniform or not, then you must make a decision. If you have reason to believe that he may in fact be carrying a bomb that he may set off, then you must do whatever it takes to prevent him from triggering such a device, a device you must believe he could trigger even in the midst of a struggle. What do you do under such assumptions in order to protect yourself and the public? You empty as many rounds into him until he stops struggling, which may be several.
The Brazilian was shot because he was an idiot. He knew what the clinate was, and when police tell you to stop, you don’t run, and you certainly don’t act in any way which may be construed as presenting a threat. He did both and he paid for it with his life. You should be thankful you have men in your country who are willing to make the tough decisions and do everything that is necessary to protect the public, whether or not the public has the stomach for it. You should be thanking those brave officers instead of slandering them,
The truth will out
As I suspected, the official police account of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes turned out to be complete BS. The full comparison between the police story and the evidence is available at that BBC link, but here are…
What a difference a day makes. Interesting how “Liberal” is being used as an insult and put-down. Liberal: Person that instinctively distrusts and disbelieves authority, especially mainstream media. Sounds a healthy attitude. Paranoia: It keeps you alive and it keeps you free. Notice how the risk takers emigrate and the risk adverse remain in UK, trusting the government will take care of them. And the risk adverse tend to instinctively and unquestionably accept authority’s version of events. Well for those with the wit to see beyond the end of their nose, the Charles de Menezes’ case exposes the duplicity of UK authority big time. But just when it seemed that things couldn’t possibly get worse, suddenly they did. The dum-dum bullets revaluation revived interest, albeit briefly. In the court of public opinion, dum-dum is an assassin’s bullet, despite all the first year college physics being bandied around. If the Brazilian was shot because he was an idiot, then we’re all idiots. Because we are all a wrong place at a wrong time step away from being at the sharp end of police brutality. Those that find excuses for the police over the murder of an innocent bystander, be ashamed, be very ashamed. Short of sending the Metropolitan Police Service en masse to Iraq (where’s your sense of humour, Infidels?), your best move is to get out of range. Emigrate while the going’s good. Nice neutral Buddhist country anyone?
Not sure where you’re from Andrew, but as far as I’m aware Liberal is only really used as an insult in the USA, where it is almost used as a synonym for ‘communist’, whereas over here ‘liberal’ just means someone who respects human rights, and doesn’t necessarily mean the person is left wing (our ‘liberal democrats’ have their share of left wing people, but they also have a fair number of libertarians as well, who are what you would normally consider right wing)
Tougher question that you intended. Not sure where I’m from as I’ve spend more of my life outsite the UK than in it. Give you a clue; if it wasn’t for the cloud cover and darkness, I’d have a good view of the active volcano. Britain: A good country to be from; a long way from.