London BombingJuly 25, 2005 2:03 pm
One of the big questions on my mind regarding the Brazilian chap the police shot last week - namely, why did the man run? - may have been answered.
His visa had expired.
16 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://garymonro.blogsome.com/2005/07/25/why-did-he-run/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Another illegal - what a surprise.
Comment by David Vance — July 25, 2005 @ 6:35 pm
That’s what the police said… they also said they have properly identified themselves to him as police… who can believe them? the only eyewitness now has 8 bullets in his body too many.
Comment by korina — July 26, 2005 @ 2:56 pm
My husband is Brazilian and the same age as Jean Charles. We live in London. He would never have run. Even if the police hadnt declared themselves! As he pointed out Stockwell had been in the news for 12 hours. It was obvious what was going on around there. Jumping a tube barrier at Stockwell was stupid. A tragic mistake and he paid with his life. Also had his visa been valid the police would have known he lived there. I doubt the government will come clean on his visa as they are in so much crap already about immigration. We fully support the shoot to kill policy. Had the police been right they would be heroes. People always have so much to say in hindsight but none of these people do these jobs. Only the very brave risk their lives or their careers either way.
Also - we are both gobsmacked as to what the demonstrating Brazilians actually want? They will get money (7/7 victims dont), they will get justice (7/7 victims dont), they get an apology (7/7 victims dont). They are the ‘lucky’ ones in this hateful era.
Comment by Alison Figueiredo — July 26, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
Alison,
Thank you for your comment - some sanity in a mad world.
I saw Jean Charles’ brother being interviewed on television this morning and he is, quite understandably, very upset and very angry with the police. He can be forgiven his wilder emotions because he has lost a loved one in truly tragic circumstances.
But it is amazing how people adopt the victim mentality when their association with the real victim is just a shared nationality. Would they be so angry if he had been wrongly shot in Brazil?
Few people seem to have expressed much sympathy with the police officers involved. One can imagine they are going through a tough time at the moment. I am glad they take the chances they take and expose themselves to the dangers they expose themselves to because if they didn’t I might have to. And I don’t fancy it one bit.
I would like to see the police critics explain how they would deal with such situations and how they would have reacted if, in the case of a real bomber, the police had simply told him to put his hands up and he had, instead, detonated a bomb.
GM
Comment by Administrator — July 26, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
Following your logic, the police should not bother to challenge a suspect - simply shoot them dead. And thats because of the immeasurably small number of “suicide bombers” that might be on the tube at any one time.
Given this man was being followed, and could have been stopped at anytime (perhaps before he entered the tube) I think questions are quite rightly being asked.
Comment by DE — July 27, 2005 @ 3:31 am
The man was killed by the police.
The man was innocent.
{Gary assists the negative propaganda by linking to obscure visa claims] Probably some technical nonsence.
Is it sanity to not be alarmed. Alison and Gary,
you are accepting the murder of innocent citizens
by Government.
You are now both dutiful programed citizens of your Police State.
The “war on terror” is working very successfully
for Big Brother.
Comment by Christopher Brooks — July 27, 2005 @ 4:02 am
DE, if it is so that the police challenged the man who then bolted into a tube station then, in these heightened times, could they not be forgiven for believing they had a credible suspect on their hands?
And could they not be forgiven for believing that, if they were right, then not only were the lives of innocents at risk - could have been you and me on that train - but also their own?
Mr Brooks,
I am accepting - with mmuch regret, I might add - the mistaken killing by police officers.
Please send me something - under a thousand words - desribing what your point is regarding the London bombing, the surrounding conspiracy and the basis of your claims. I’ll post it.
gary monro gmail com
GM
Comment by Administrator — July 27, 2005 @ 10:19 am
If a uniformed officer challenged me in the tube, I assume we would all stop. If a plain clothes officer challenged me in a city whose language was not my first, I personally wouldn’t run but I would probably be somewhat startled.
For a policeman, in London, to assume that someone who runs away from them is “guilty” is quite ridiculous. No court in any democratic country would accept this either. The best assumption would be “possible suspect”. While the situation is tense, our laws do not alter.
To jump from “suspect” to “target” would only be reasonable if a positive id had been confirmed. This clearly was impossible, and the result is the death of an innocent man. This is not an issue about the judgement of a single policeman - its about current policy.
And Gary, I would prefer to risk the low probability of death by terrorist than live in a state that accepted arbitrary execution. What about you?
Comment by DE — July 27, 2005 @ 11:57 am
GM
There is an interesting letter in the Times today from a police officer training in firearms use for those of you who clearly know best in these circumstances.
Alex has faced several people with guns in Sao Paolo. As he and many of his friends here have said and his family in SP have said, you just dont run. So plain clothes or not a gun speaks volumes in anyones language apparently (though im given to understand he spoke very good english).
It was a terribly tragic accident that came at a time when a nervous city is faced with a sinister and new problem. We seem to be losing sight of the real criminals in this situation. It is the terrorists who have placed us in this shoot to kill situation. We would also do well to remember that only one man had a choice on Friday morning - whilst two men faced terrifying split second decisions. This tragic young man still had a choice. He ran into the tube station jumping the barriers - at a time like this. Tragic. Plain clothes or not, police or armed gangsters - in Brazil if you run - you die. He would have known this. He must surely have been aware of the tensions in the city, having been stopped and searched himself on many occasions prior. His English was good enough to understand the commands of the officers concerned. Had the police been correct they would have saved many lives. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing for the bleeding hearts out there but the public need to wake up to what is going on, start using their heads. Am standing firm with the police who are doing a terrifying job in this city at the moment. If that makes me dutifully programmed by the police then I can live with that for now.
I wonder if the police involved in the decision were busy contemplating all that blurb you posted “hmmm possible suspect/possible terrorist, hmm democracy, hmmm shall i shoot and stop him or shall i let him detonate a bomb….err”, making these great debate decisions as they looked at someone bolting into a tube station having failed to stop. Arent you the lucky one to be able to deliberate.
Anyone that wants to come along and talk to my friend about the small chance of being blown up by terrorists at the moment is welcome to go along to the hospital where she has been since 7/7 waiting on prosthetic limbs in time for her wedding in December. Feel free!
Comment by Alison Figueiredo — July 27, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
This is not Sao Paolo, its London. I expect a police officer to follow due process of law; this is what separates us from criminals and terrorists, remember?
I take your point that the reaction to run was clearly the wrong one - very wrong in hindsight - but that does not change the basics. You are innocent until proven guilty, and positive identification is required before terminating a known terrorist. The grey area between these ideals is where the police are trained to operate. Frankly, they don’t make many mistakes. But the current standing orders would make a similar incident quite possible to repeat.
I have no wish to belittle either the injuries of the bomb victims, or the death of the innocent man. Nothing we say here makes these things easier to bear.
Comment by DE — July 27, 2005 @ 2:06 pm
OK It was a comparison in respect of the mans reactions and his nationality that was all. I think this is the first time we have ever faced a situation like this, unless im wrong. I feel you are waxing lyrical a fair bit about the due process of law as if that can come into play in these scenarios with any effectiveness. Does the due process of law allow for an officer to properly disarm a terrorist in a matter of seconds? That’s what Id like you to answer please. How do you apply due process when stopping someone from blowing themselves up? What lawful steps do you apply to someone asked to stop, who bolts potentially holding a bomb, running into a public area with the potential to kill dozens? And please dont tell him they should have arrested him on the way. The armed response unit was called in after surveillance had followed him. Surveillance are not trained ARUs. The ARU arrived at the station when they considered him a threat. sadly of course he wouldnt have been a threat if he had followed the due process of law abiding and had an up to date visa legally requiring him to advise the local police of his address.
Comment by Alison Figueiredo — July 27, 2005 @ 2:34 pm
Gary
Surprisingly many web threads ive followed and most people who’ve been discussing this with interest do very much sympathise with the officers. There are some human beings out there who can it seems understand that life is messy and not everything all the time can be deftly packaged up by ‘the laws of a civilised society’. Of course the BBC today and a little surprisingly The Sun (both needing fodder) jumped on the fact that they have been given a break away from home.
These guys need time away from prying journos wanting to stick their faces in the paper. Theyve also suffered a trauma and need all the support they can get. And the police should pay for it. They werent doing this in their free time. Im sure theyre asking themselves why they bother to protect the public at all. Good luck to them. Theyre going to need it - bloods up in the ‘civilised holier than thou’ corner.
Comment by Alison Figueiredo — July 27, 2005 @ 3:51 pm
Happily, the current suspect has been successfully identified, and stopped with a non lethal weapon. They’ll probably find him a little easier to interview without the bullets in his head.
This outcome hopefully underlines the one off nature of the previous incident.
Comment by DE — July 27, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
He wasnt running towards a tube train or a danger to the public. Happily - LOL. What country do you live in?! He will be free and getting compensation in a few months. As for a “low probability of death from terrorism” what do you know that the rest of us dont? ABC news channel reports there were 16 nail bombs destined for London on 7/7 discovered in a Luton car.
Comment by Alison Figueiredo — July 27, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
And as is usally the case these days, not much of the original story was actually true anyway..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537613,00.html?gusrc=rss
Comment by DE — July 28, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
Seemingly witness/media/family speculation, lest we forget the officers shot him for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Of course.
Bianca Jagger. Do grow up love.
Comment by Alison Figueiredo — July 28, 2005 @ 2:25 pm