Well as the story unfolds it looks more and more like some overzealous police work from my point of view.
1st up, the police were watching this apartment. The guy who was shot walked out and the police thought it was their suspect so they followed him.
The British police said the main thing suspect about his clothes was the fact that he had a baseball cap on which obstructed a clear view of his face!
The unit that shot and killed the man were part of a special unit of armed police that were created after 9/11 to prevent suicide bombers. They have shoot to kill orders.
The man was held down by several police and then shot in the head 5 times. The police claim that they gave the man a warning but he didn't stop before they tackled him.
Citizens on the train said that they never heard the police give any warning.
One witness said it looked like an "execution". That person's words.
The source of all the news was the London Police. They had the man's house under surveillance. Thought he was one of their suspects. Continued to claim that he was an "Asian" because of his dark complexion. Total screw up on their parts.
"The shooting before horrified passengers, coupled with the mayor of London's acknowledgment of a police shoot-to-kill policy, threatened yesterday to raise religious tension in the city."
The brits are going to fuck this one up, guaranteed. First they fucked up going into Iraq with the U.S., now they are going to treat this current situation badly. This is purely public relations - reacting to the situation with this shoot to kill policy is simply to make it look like they're willing to anything to protect the public. BUT... as we have seen time and time again, when serious terrorists want to strike, they'll do what they need to do.
Just curoius from those who are trying to justify this - would you say the same thing about Diallo? I mean, shouldn't a black man in New York know better than to wave his wallet around? Wasn't he just asking NYPD to pump 41 shots through his frame?
"British police say more members of the public could be shot in error as the hunt escalated for four men who tried to blow up London's transport system last week.
The warning comes after police, who are engaged in one of the biggest manhunts in British history, mistakenly shot dead a Brazilian man on Friday, thinking he was a suicide bomber.
Millions of London commuters faced a tense Underground train trip to work fearing that the four would-be suicide bombers were still on the loose despite the biggest police investigation in British history.
Police sent more armed officers onto London's streets.
Britain's most senior policeman, Ian Blair, defended the shoot-to-kill policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers and said police were in a race against time to find those behind last Thursday's attempted bombings of three underground trains and a bus, the second attack on the capital in two weeks.
"This is a terrifying set of circumstances for individuals to make decisions," Blair told Sky News television. "Somebody else could be shot."
They should make this London's new tourism tagline.
Whilst appreciating that if faced with a bomber, shooting maybe the only option in case he sets it off they were in fact faced with an innocent electrician. They should not have taken such extreme measures with so little evidence. It's pure incompetence. There was more than reasonable doubt that he was a bomber, surely to take someone's life you must have more than circumstantial evidence: leaving the wrong building, wearing a fleece, not being white!!? plenty of reasons why he may have run. they were plain clothed, he may not have heard them say they were police etc etc dude was from sao paulo, some pretty heavy shit goes down there, often at the hands of currupt police...... apparently his visa had run out too which maybe why he legged it... He died as a result of the current hysteria . bottom line: have they found the actual bombers - no Have they killed an innocent man based only on circumstancial evidence -yes.
>Just curoius from those who are trying to justify this - would you say the same thing about Diallo? I mean, shouldn't a black man in New York know better than to wave his wallet around? Wasn't he just asking NYPD to pump 41 shots through his frame
The man was held down by several police and then shot in the head 5 times. The police claim that they gave the man a warning but he didn't stop before they tackled him.
Thats not true, he was'nt held down.
Of course its terrible that an innocent man was shot but com'on, its another innocent casuality of war, it happens in every war. I for one don't hold the police responsible, the guy did'nt stop, jumped a barrier and so one.
Whould you want to make that decision of pulling the trigger? No, well don't judge those who have too. As blazhay as it sounds, it was a mistake, it happens.
Also, ease up on the SHOOT TO KILL, its Shoot to Kill for protection of the masses. A big difference.
Some of y'all need to understand that the UK police are not like there US counterparts.
I realise that, not sure why, just copy & paste it & it works fine.
also relating to a previous comment: We are not actually at war. A few terrorists does not a war make. There are very serious issues which need to be addressed yes but the young man who died was not a casualty of war.
also relating to a previous comment: We are not actually at war. A few terrorists does not a war make. There are very serious issues which need to be addressed yes but the young man who died was not a casualty of war. Maybe war is the wrong word if you are defining war as 2 countries declaring war on each other, but my point remains, he is another innocent victim of fundamentalists (although not directly).
I just think the police are getting unjustly blamed over this.
8 shots total -> 7 to the head, 1 in the shoulder...
What's particularly disturbin'/gallin' is the seemingly flippant and egregious manner in which the authorities are tryin' to project an air of infallibilty (and then add arrogantly that more innocent people are in target sights if need be)... Euphemisms such as 'We regret...' and '... tragic mistake' really don't evince accountability as much as somethin' more direct like 'we f*cked up...' Admittedly, it would likely erode public confidence if that were ever uttered...
>Just curoius from those who are trying to justify this - would you say the same thing about Diallo? I mean, shouldn't a black man in New York know better than to wave his wallet around? Wasn't he just asking NYPD to pump 41 shots through his frame
Thats a retarded comparison.
Is it? What's the difference? Diallo was a victim of a SERIES of unfortunate decisions, misconceptions and mistakes. Don't forget - the police in that shooting were cleared of all charges, the end belief being that Diallo contributed enough to his own death that the police had no legal liability to have taken greater steps to have prevented his death. I see the same kind of manuevering in action here.
The glibness to which people on this board treat the London shooting is striking. To chalk this up to a "tragedy of war" sounds like typical spin-speak to me, it avoids the issue. And to justify a "shoot to kill" policy by explaining that it's "for the safety of the masses" is the same logic that creates concentration camps and justifies dumb shit like the Patriot Act.
also relating to a previous comment: We are not actually at war. A few terrorists does not a war make. There are very serious issues which need to be addressed yes but the young man who died was not a casualty of war.
Maybe war is the wrong word if you are defining war as 2 countries declaring war on each other, but my point remains, he is another innocent victim of fundamentalists (although not directly).
I just think the police are getting unjustly blamed over this.
If police are charged to "serve and protect" and most of all, to be frontline of preserving the principles of a nation that operates by rule of law, to EXECUTE people on weak circumstantial evidence goes against what the police are supposed to do. This isn't someone who got shot trying to carjack someone in broad daylight - the idea of a clear and present danger simply doesn't exist. And while terrorism has rewritten the rules of what "war" means, until the UK descends into the chaos of Iraq, you still have to have basic faith that folks like police can do their job without killing too many folks errantly.
I know the media are getting a lot of mileage out of the whole islam/jihad thing but the bombers were all young british lads, to me it smacks of trenchcoat mafia..
odub: i agree, the evidence used to decide to shoot the victim would not even have been enough to get him sent to prison.
I know the media are getting a lot of mileage out of the whole islam/jihad thing but the bombers were all young british lads, to me it smacks of trenchcoat mafia..
odub: i agree, the evidence used to decide to shoot the victim would not even have been enough to get him sent to prison.
It wouldn't have been enough for him to get *charged*.
Most folks on this site don't like cops, why? I'm pretty happy I live in NYC where the NYPD has 1000s of officers on counterterrorism, safest place in the world right now, I cram to understand how most of yall who are not harassed on a daily basis have such venom for the police who protect your ass, obviously this was a tragedy but I don't see how yall can come off with such ridiculous venom. Who do you run to when you get your ass kicked or robbed or whatever? Who comes to your aid when a bomb actually does go off?
Again, this is a tragedy. But I am perfectly fine with the wide lattitude NYPD has to operate against terrorism. Doesn't affect me one bit.... I don't know the runnings in London so I don't really want to speak on that.
Amadou Diallo was walking out of his apartment building... with his wallet... no bomb suspect, no post-terrorism jitters... just white guys against an African... obviously the police in the London situation thought the worst and were way wrong. But to compare the circumstances is not doing justice to either. Quite frankly, Oliver, you're faaaar to smart for that.
you still have to have basic faith that folks like police can do their job without killing folks errantly.
What's disturbin' is that the UK police force was once famous for not carryin' firearms, a policy that's changed over in recent times - and that once armed, there appears to be an incident in which gettin' caught up in the moment also means just pullin' the trigger, no questions asked...
It also raises the issue of faulty intelligence on the part of the British authorities - the personnel on the ground were informed by intelligence sources to monitor the buildin' in which the victim resided as well as to follow him once he had exited the premises... This is the country that promotes the SAS as one of the best trained outfits anywhere when it comes to special ops...
Again, this is a tragedy. But I am perfectly fine with the wide lattitude NYPD has to operate against terrorism. Doesn't affect me one bit....
JP - not to get into another argument here, but if it should ever - will you be so compliant then? Just wonderin' - and I can't really speak for O here, but the same lack of control (i.e. rash actions/behavior) that fundamentalists are accused of seems to be @ issue here (from this vantage point) - you can't really seem to project a sense of a fair and judicious playin' field (while accusin' others of lackin' it) and have an incident such as this not affect the rhetoric in question...
I'm curious to know more details about this case - Did the officers announce themselves - Say something like: "Freeze - We're Police!"
All I know is if 5 men with a guns yell at me to stay put, I'm not moving...I mean, what does this dude who's running think? "I'm gonna outrun a bullet?"
If dude was illegally in the country, I guess he was scared of being picked up.
>Just curoius from those who are trying to justify this - would you say the same thing about Diallo? I mean, shouldn't a black man in New York know better than to wave his wallet around? Wasn't he just asking NYPD to pump 41 shots through his frame
Thats a retarded comparison.
Is it? What's the difference? Diallo was a victim of a SERIES of unfortunate decisions, misconceptions and mistakes. Don't forget - the police in that shooting were cleared of all charges, the end belief being that Diallo contributed enough to his own death that the police had no legal liability to have taken greater steps to have prevented his death. I see the same kind of manuevering in action here.
The glibness to which people on this board treat the London shooting is striking. To chalk this up to a "tragedy of war" sounds like typical spin-speak to me, it avoids the issue. And to justify a "shoot to kill" policy by explaining that it's "for the safety of the masses" is the same logic that creates concentration camps and justifies dumb shit like the Patriot Act.
1) Diallo was shot by an NYPD empowered by a policy justified in the public mind to stop the pernicious advance of squiggi dudes. Giuliani falsely campaigned on a platform that claimed crime rates rose under Dinkins and in turn unleashed a police force that had a well known history of brutalizing blacks and browns against minorities in New York. Diallo in many way was a victim of this new agressive zero tolerance policy. While a jury may have cleared the cops in that case, Diallo's murder must be understood in that context. In London, the police are reacting to a very real threat that a suicide bomber is on the loose and for the most part have encountered total cooperation in this extreme crisis from almost all Londoners. It is a terrible tragedy and there is no doubt they screwed up immensely. But I don't think these incidents are comparable. You have to understand Diallo in the context of Luima and crown heights. You have to understand last Friday in the context of 7/7 and 9/11.
2) A policy of shooting to kill suicide bombers is not the same as the Nuremburg laws. It is demonstrably in the public's interest that the police take extraordinary measures to stop people who seek to blow up trains and busses. And this is not a phantom threat. Talk about glibness. No one serious wants increased state surveillance, militarized policing or secret evidence because they love big brother and hate individual liberties. These policies are justified in the context of sleeper cells, the Finnsbury Park Mosque and a global movement that seeks to kill civilians and ruin our economies. I have a lot of problems with the Patriot Act as well. And I don't think it's cut and dry. But the discussion has to at least acknowledge that these (hopefully) temporary abrogations of our rights are necessary to defend our democracies from terrorists. Saying it's all one big slippery slope to the gas chambers is not so much an argument as it is an evasion.
If dude was illegally in the country, I guess he was scared & being picked up.
Just to add H - go to any large city in which there's a housin' boom in the US and then confront the (usually illegal) migrant (a lot of Mexican-origin) men millin' about early in the mornin', lookin' for work - see if they run or stay around to be queried...
Again, this is a tragedy. But I am perfectly fine with the wide lattitude NYPD has to operate against terrorism. Doesn't affect me one bit....
JP - not to get into another argument here, but if it should ever - will you be so compliant then? Just wonderin' - and I can't really speak for O here, but the same lack of control (i.e. rash actions/behavior) that fundamentalists are accused of seems to be @ issue here (from this vantage point) - you can't really seem to project a sense of a fair and judicious playin' field (while accusin' others of it) and have an incident such as this not affect the rhetoric in question...
How do you mean "be so compliant"? Cops shoot people that run from them all the time around here. It's tragic, and of course they should not be killing people (shoot for the legs!) but I can't really say much to that beyond "why the hell are you running from cops???" I own a business, and the cops are screwing me over on a recent auto accident, but I'm still happy they're there and I of course depend on them for the security of my shop and my home. Fuck, there are a lot of assholes on the force. Still doesn't cause me to say, "fuck all of this, I wish they'd just go home." I drive over the bridge every day and I am happy there are cameras on every crossbeam and law at either end.
Cops have pulled me over to check ID and such. I am totally compliant. WTF should I be rebelling against?
Perhaps in London it's different, but out here at least to me there is a total sense that we will be attacked soon. Most people are willing to give up a little bit of "freedom" and "liberty" to ensure that the cops are as well equipped as they can be to prevent it. I rarely hear my arab/muslim friends complain about it but I sure do hear a lot of shit from well-off white folks. NYPD counterterrorism is no joke - as a recent article in the New Yorker attests to - and are probably more powerful/able to stop an attack than any federal agency. I am down with that.
Comments
Where I live police shot people for a lot less than trying to run away.
Dan
1st up, the police were watching this apartment. The guy who was shot walked out and the police thought it was their suspect so they followed him.
The British police said the main thing suspect about his clothes was the fact that he had a baseball cap on which obstructed a clear view of his face!
The unit that shot and killed the man were part of a special unit of armed police that were created after 9/11 to prevent suicide bombers. They have shoot to kill orders.
The man was held down by several police and then shot in the head 5 times. The police claim that they gave the man a warning but he didn't stop before they tackled him.
Citizens on the train said that they never heard the police give any warning.
One witness said it looked like an "execution". That person's words.
The source of all the news was the London Police. They had the man's house under surveillance. Thought he was one of their suspects. Continued to claim that he was an "Asian" because of his dark complexion. Total screw up on their parts.
The brits are going to fuck this one up, guaranteed. First they fucked up going into Iraq with the U.S., now they are going to treat this current situation badly. This is purely public relations - reacting to the situation with this shoot to kill policy is simply to make it look like they're willing to anything to protect the public. BUT... as we have seen time and time again, when serious terrorists want to strike, they'll do what they need to do.
"British police say more members of the public could be shot in error as the hunt escalated for four men who tried to blow up London's transport system last week.
The warning comes after police, who are engaged in one of the biggest manhunts in British history, mistakenly shot dead a Brazilian man on Friday, thinking he was a suicide bomber.
Millions of London commuters faced a tense Underground train trip to work fearing that the four would-be suicide bombers were still on the loose despite the biggest police investigation in British history.
Police sent more armed officers onto London's streets.
Britain's most senior policeman, Ian Blair, defended the shoot-to-kill policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers and said police were in a race against time to find those behind last Thursday's attempted bombings of three underground trains and a bus, the second attack on the capital in two weeks.
"This is a terrifying set of circumstances for individuals to make decisions," Blair told Sky News television. "Somebody else could be shot."
They should make this London's new tourism tagline.
plenty of reasons why he may have run. they were plain clothed, he may not have heard them say they were police etc etc dude was from sao paulo, some pretty heavy shit goes down there, often at the hands of currupt police...... apparently his visa had run out too which maybe why he legged it...
He died as a result of the current hysteria .
bottom line: have they found the actual bombers - no Have they killed an innocent man based only on circumstancial evidence -yes.
Thats a retarded comparison.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707261,00.html
Thats not true, he was'nt held down.
Of course its terrible that an innocent man was shot but com'on, its another innocent casuality of war, it happens in every war.
I for one don't hold the police responsible, the guy did'nt stop, jumped a barrier and so one.
Whould you want to make that decision of pulling the trigger? No, well don't judge those who have too. As blazhay as it sounds, it was a mistake, it happens.
Also, ease up on the SHOOT TO KILL, its Shoot to Kill for protection of the masses. A big difference.
Some of y'all need to understand that the UK police are not like there US counterparts.
It was tragic.
Unfortunately shit happens.. especially at times of panic.
Excatly. Thats it.
Thread KILLAH.
Now..... Lets talk about some freckin reckidz mannnnnn.
These links dont work.
I realise that, not sure why, just copy & paste it & it works fine.
also relating to a previous comment: We are not actually at war. A few terrorists does not a war make.
There are very serious issues which need to be addressed yes but the young man who died was not a casualty of war.
also relating to a previous comment: We are not actually at war. A few terrorists does not a war make.
There are very serious issues which need to be addressed yes but the young man who died was not a casualty of war.
Maybe war is the wrong word if you are defining war as 2 countries declaring war on each other, but my point remains, he is another innocent victim of fundamentalists (although not directly).
I just think the police are getting unjustly blamed over this.
8 shots total -> 7 to the head, 1 in the shoulder...
What's particularly disturbin'/gallin' is the seemingly flippant and egregious manner in which the authorities are tryin' to project an air of infallibilty (and then add arrogantly that more innocent people are in target sights if need be)... Euphemisms such as 'We regret...' and '... tragic mistake' really don't evince accountability as much as somethin' more direct like 'we f*cked up...' Admittedly, it would likely erode public confidence if that were ever uttered...
? versus honesty...
Is it? What's the difference? Diallo was a victim of a SERIES of unfortunate decisions, misconceptions and mistakes. Don't forget - the police in that shooting were cleared of all charges, the end belief being that Diallo contributed enough to his own death that the police had no legal liability to have taken greater steps to have prevented his death. I see the same kind of manuevering in action here.
The glibness to which people on this board treat the London shooting is striking. To chalk this up to a "tragedy of war" sounds like typical spin-speak to me, it avoids the issue. And to justify a "shoot to kill" policy by explaining that it's "for the safety of the masses" is the same logic that creates concentration camps and justifies dumb shit like the Patriot Act.
Maybe war is the wrong word if you are defining war as 2 countries declaring war on each other, but my point remains, he is another innocent victim of fundamentalists (although not directly).
I just think the police are getting unjustly blamed over this.
If police are charged to "serve and protect" and most of all, to be frontline of preserving the principles of a nation that operates by rule of law, to EXECUTE people on weak circumstantial evidence goes against what the police are supposed to do. This isn't someone who got shot trying to carjack someone in broad daylight - the idea of a clear and present danger simply doesn't exist. And while terrorism has rewritten the rules of what "war" means, until the UK descends into the chaos of Iraq, you still have to have basic faith that folks like police can do their job without killing too many folks errantly.
odub: i agree, the evidence used to decide to shoot the victim would not even have been enough to get him sent to prison.
It wouldn't have been enough for him to get *charged*.
It is - anyone know what projects @ MGM Michael Viner supervised while an executive there?
Again, this is a tragedy. But I am perfectly fine with the wide lattitude NYPD has to operate against terrorism. Doesn't affect me one bit.... I don't know the runnings in London so I don't really want to speak on that.
Amadou Diallo was walking out of his apartment building... with his wallet... no bomb suspect, no post-terrorism jitters... just white guys against an African... obviously the police in the London situation thought the worst and were way wrong. But to compare the circumstances is not doing justice to either. Quite frankly, Oliver, you're faaaar to smart for that.
What's disturbin' is that the UK police force was once famous for not carryin' firearms, a policy that's changed over in recent times - and that once armed, there appears to be an incident in which gettin' caught up in the moment also means just pullin' the trigger, no questions asked...
It also raises the issue of faulty intelligence on the part of the British authorities - the personnel on the ground were informed by intelligence sources to monitor the buildin' in which the victim resided as well as to follow him once he had exited the premises... This is the country that promotes the SAS as one of the best trained outfits anywhere when it comes to special ops...
JP - not to get into another argument here, but if it should ever - will you be so compliant then? Just wonderin' - and I can't really speak for O here, but the same lack of control (i.e. rash actions/behavior) that fundamentalists are accused of seems to be @ issue here (from this vantage point) - you can't really seem to project a sense of a fair and judicious playin' field (while accusin' others of lackin' it) and have an incident such as this not affect the rhetoric in question...
All I know is if 5 men with a guns yell at me to stay put, I'm not moving...I mean, what does this dude who's running think? "I'm gonna outrun a bullet?"
If dude was illegally in the country, I guess he was scared of being picked up.
I dunno. Sad story.
h
1) Diallo was shot by an NYPD empowered by a policy justified in the public mind to stop the pernicious advance of squiggi dudes. Giuliani falsely campaigned on a platform that claimed crime rates rose under Dinkins and in turn unleashed a police force that had a well known history of brutalizing blacks and browns against minorities in New York. Diallo in many way was a victim of this new agressive zero tolerance policy. While a jury may have cleared the cops in that case, Diallo's murder must be understood in that context. In London, the police are reacting to a very real threat that a suicide bomber is on the loose and for the most part have encountered total cooperation in this extreme crisis from almost all Londoners. It is a terrible tragedy and there is no doubt they screwed up immensely. But I don't think these incidents are comparable. You have to understand Diallo in the context of Luima and crown heights. You have to understand last Friday in the context of 7/7 and 9/11.
2) A policy of shooting to kill suicide bombers is not the same as the Nuremburg laws. It is demonstrably in the public's interest that the police take extraordinary measures to stop people who seek to blow up trains and busses. And this is not a phantom threat. Talk about glibness. No one serious wants increased state surveillance, militarized policing or secret evidence because they love big brother and hate individual liberties. These policies are justified in the context of sleeper cells, the Finnsbury Park Mosque and a global movement that seeks to kill civilians and ruin our economies. I have a lot of problems with the Patriot Act as well. And I don't think it's cut and dry. But the discussion has to at least acknowledge that these (hopefully) temporary abrogations of our rights are necessary to defend our democracies from terrorists. Saying it's all one big slippery slope to the gas chambers is not so much an argument as it is an evasion.
Just to add H - go to any large city in which there's a housin' boom in the US and then confront the (usually illegal) migrant (a lot of Mexican-origin) men millin' about early in the mornin', lookin' for work - see if they run or stay around to be queried...
How do you mean "be so compliant"? Cops shoot people that run from them all the time around here. It's tragic, and of course they should not be killing people (shoot for the legs!) but I can't really say much to that beyond "why the hell are you running from cops???" I own a business, and the cops are screwing me over on a recent auto accident, but I'm still happy they're there and I of course depend on them for the security of my shop and my home. Fuck, there are a lot of assholes on the force. Still doesn't cause me to say, "fuck all of this, I wish they'd just go home." I drive over the bridge every day and I am happy there are cameras on every crossbeam and law at either end.
Cops have pulled me over to check ID and such. I am totally compliant. WTF should I be rebelling against?
Perhaps in London it's different, but out here at least to me there is a total sense that we will be attacked soon. Most people are willing to give up a little bit of "freedom" and "liberty" to ensure that the cops are as well equipped as they can be to prevent it. I rarely hear my arab/muslim friends complain about it but I sure do hear a lot of shit from well-off white folks. NYPD counterterrorism is no joke - as a recent article in the New Yorker attests to - and are probably more powerful/able to stop an attack than any federal agency. I am down with that.