Shooting Brazillian man was a "mistake" (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

According to his family (well, cousin), his command of the English language was reasonable.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So you have a situation where someone with decent english skills, no mental disability, has been approached by plain-clothes police and has started running away for some reason.

Now either;
- The cops didn't identify themselves as cops (unlikely, but we might never know).
- He got way too startled and ran away.
- He had a reason to get away from the cops (maybe some drugs or a speeding fine... who knows).

It's just... I'm sure they warned him before they started shooting, and he would of known they were cops if he had decent english skills... This is either a big stuff up for the cops involved or the brazilian man made a big stuff up of his own.

 

[tempco]

They shot the man in the head because in a terroist situation, obviously shooting him in the chest is a highly dangerous thing to do.

they shot him at point blank range, after they cornered him in a train carriage. is it just me, or does it make no sense as to why the police came so close to him if they were afraid of him having bombs strapped around his chest?

 

[Xayma]

If they had cornered him and his hands were exposed I could see no reason to shoot him. If multiple having them search his pockets first would've been the wise thing to do.

Few situations wouldve been possible:

• Trigger detonated device: Shooting him was the only thing to make sense but likely he would've detonated it earlier.
• Dead man's handle (switch): Shooting him would be useless and would need to be restrained while an explosives expert does their job.
• Timed device: Shooting him just incapacitates him, enabling the remainder to flee in time

If it is determined he was cornered there is very few reasons to shoot him.

 

[Generator]

they shot him at point blank range, after they cornered him in a train carriage. is it just me, or does it make no sense as to why the police came so close to him if they were afraid of him having bombs strapped around his chest?

A stray shot to the chest/torso was what they were trying to avoid.

 

[tempco]

A stray shot to the chest/torso was what they were trying to avoid.

it still doesn't make sense. they had him cornered - and they shot him in the head, not the legs to incapacitate him (easier target?)?

If they had cornered him and his hands were exposed I could see no reason to shoot him. If multiple having them search his pockets first would've been the wise thing to do.

Few situations wouldve been possible:

1. Trigger detonated device: Shooting him was the only thing to make sense but likely he would've detonated it earlier.
2. Dead man's handle (switch): Shooting him would be useless and would need to be restrained while an explosives expert does their job.
3. Timed device: Shooting him just incapacitates him, enabling the remainder to flee in time


If it is determined he was cornered there is very few reasons to shoot him.

skynews says he was boarding a train. sydney morning herald says he was cornered in a train carriage.

 

[Frigid]

the officer was working along his guidelines, so, personally he is not liable.

but i'm just questioning the need for this absurd policy of 'shoot first, in the head, ask questions later'.

 

[Generator]

it still doesn't make sense. they had him cornered - and they shot him in the head, not the legs to incapacitate him (easier target?)?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-o...wn-innocent-man/2005/07/24/1122143714912.html

But former London police chief John Stevens defended the tactics.

''I sent teams to Israel and other countries hit by suicide bombers where we learned a terrible truth,'' he wrote in the News of the World.

''There is only one sure way to stop a suicide bomber determined to fulfil his mission - destroy his brain instantly, utterly. That means shooting him with devastating power in the head, killing him immediately.''

And London's Mayor Ken Livingstone said police had done ''what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public''.

That's the rationale behind the tactic.

 

[tattoodguy]

If he is totally innnocent and his only crime was wearing a heavy jacket and running from police.

Im disgusted anyone could even try and justify this.

I hope the guy is muslim? and this gets the terrrorists even more angry. Thats a blatent execution, provided the guy is really innocent..

Police always always always justify their actions - shooting a guy at point blank range 5 times in the head - how is that reasonable?

Wearing a heavy jacket makes you a terrrorist? or a terrorist suspect - i dont think so.

If a guy pulls a gun out etc and they kill him i dont have a problem. I respect the right of the police to killl people to save themselves.

Even if you dont stop and follow the polices instructions - so fuckign what. You shouldnt have to justify to anyone why ur wearing a jacket.

 

[townie]

wat i dont get is that he was shot in the head

now, there are much better targets, shouldnt he at least have been shot in the arms, leg, or back first.

shooting in the head is pretty....execution style

 

[tempco]

Yes, they just picked someone at random and shot them because they didn't like the look of them.

oh my god, i totally implied that, didn't i?

 

[Slidey]

wat i dont get is that he was shot in the head

now, there are much better targets, shouldnt he at least have been shot in the arms, leg, or back first.

shooting in the head is pretty....execution style

This has been covered. Read above.

 

[transcendent]

it's a good day to be a trigger-happy policemen in London. i mean if i was a psychopath, not that i'm not, i'd really enjoy going on a ethnic killing spree justified by the fact that 'i'm doing this for the good of the community' except replace ethnic with pom.

 

[Vangineer]

the police that shot the brazilian dead shud be imprisoned or at least charged for manslaughter and murder. He shud of shot his arms or legs so he cant activate bombs, etc. But this prejudice is just bullshit. the english 'shoot to kill' thingo is just too james bondish. This idea will just cause more havoc in england.. tsk tsk no gud. It's like 'oh look, that guys wearing a turban, i better go kill him', wtf??? blair so stupid, he mustv played alot of counter strike all his life.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

well .. u could shoot them in the arms.. but the nerve impulses still go..

if ure on top of a suspected terrorist.. id think he was pretti inclined to blow himself up if he were caught..

 

[supercharged]

Unless London was in a state of martial law, where anyone breaking curfew gets instantly shot on the spot, I'm sure that officer will get some jail time.

What the Brazilian electrican did was only the natural response.
Who wouldn't run if some unidentified plainclothes gunmen pulled their weapons on you? They could be hitmen after your scalp for all you know.

 

[ryanl11]

I'd like to bring to everyone's attention that the N.S.W. police force carry handguns on the premise that they shoot to kill. This is justified because the only reason a gun should be used is if the police officer feels his or her life is threatened by the suspect and it is the last option available to protect themselves. In their training, N.S.W. Police are taught how to shoot a suspect dead.

The question that needs to be asked in this situation is 'If the man was cornered in a train carriage, as the media reports, why would the police have to shoot him?'
Well, of course first we need to establish that the media's reports are always sketchy. My opinion of the police is being judged through an imperfect account of events. But sticking to this version nonetheless, I would say that the police did not have a personal vendetta against the Brazilian race.
Taking away the choice of a gun, perhaps the British Police should have used a hand baton or billy club. All they would need to do would be approach him and give him a good beating, hoping that there wasn't a bomb underneath his jacket. Maybe if one was carrying a device similar to capsicum spray (or worse jalapeno spray) then they could have sprayed him in his eyes, and hope that in his sudden amount of anger and pain he doesn't detonate the bomb. Maybe they were feeling extra lucky that day and seeing as they didnt want to approach him to spray or baton him, they could have thrown a shoe at him and demanded he put his arms in the air before they released the lethal sock.
Some 3rd, 4th, 5th hand accounts of the situation will have you believe that the innocent man was cowering in the corner with his hands visibly above his head. All of a sudden the evil people they call 'Police' (who were at the anti-Brazilian protest the day earlier) shot him dead and it is these police officers that are the real terrorists of the world.
The people who tell the story like this need a higher understanding of why police go to work each day.

Running from the police was mistake number one for the suspect. Does anyone seriously believe that the police didn't identify themselves before taking chase to the suspect. Do the same people then believe that the suspect was shot as soon as he was cornered by police in a train carriage? Is it not more probable that the police, after the suspect cornered himself, tried to get the suspect to go willingly into custody?
Although 'transcendent', a self proclaimed 'Vigilante Member' from "Sin City' laughed at the idea, 99% (thankyou member 'Serius') of police officers are genuine people. This being the case, the ones currently thrown in hot water for doing their job had only human instincts and morals to abide by in the split second of making the decision to shoot the suspect. If their training is the same as those of N.S.W. Police, then they felt their lives were in danger and hence acted the way they did. This is justified.

I don't believe that the Police in the situation should be charged with murder or face any years in gaol. I also believe that if there are charges laid, then the defence of the City of London will be significantly reduced due to a greater number of police who are too scared to use their weapons in procedures for law enforcement and self defence.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

He was told to stop and he didn't so they shot him. Fair enough I reckon.

 

[loquasagacious]

The shoot to kill policy reflects several issues to do with detaining a suicide bomber in that:
It is assumed that a suicide bomber by definition is not concerned with dieing and thus may detonate their payload if apprehended. Therefore it is logical to shoot to kill a suicide bomber because if you do not they may detonate their payload. For this reason it would possibly be counter-productive to shoot for the arms of legs. Because a suicide bomber generally carrys their payload around the midrif it is unfeasible to shoot at their torso as this may inadvertantly detonate the bomb. Therefore only one feasible target remains the head.

Adetailed previously capsicum spray, batons, etc may only serve to allow the bomber to detonate whilst the officer is in close proximity. Hower 'taser-guns' allow an officer to lay down a suspect in such a way as to avoid being physically near them, killing them or giving them oppurtunity to detonate. However the current involved may well detonate a bomb depending on the detonator in use.

All this said however the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) manages to apprehend suicide bombers without killing them. The police are placed in a very awkward situation in this scenario, one with no clear right or wrong, had the electrician turned out to be a bomber the officer would be lauded as a hero and peter beattie would suggest a 'shoot-to-kill' policy being instigated for misdemeanors in Australia.

Insofar as to whether or not the officer will be punished and the extent to which he might be, that would depend on whether he was operating under a set rules-of-engagement and whether he violated them. If ROI do not currently exist for the Brit police force I would expect them to be introduced as a result of this incident.

 

[Riewe]

According to several reports, his actions after the police approached him would've made him a prime target for the police. As somebody said earlier, acting the way he did is almost cause for a Darwin Award.

But unfortunately, the policeman had to make a split-second judgement (which i hope i would never have to face) which would either kill an innocent man or potentially kill hundreds of innocent commuters because of inaction by police. So it was a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't for the officers in question.

And as for their method of killing him, i agree that a good shot to the head is the only efficient way of taking out potential suicide bombers as this immediately removes any threat (unless the bomb is on a timer but it usually isn't). Shooting them in the arm of chest or leg is useless as the person would still be alive and able to blow himself and his surroundings up.

So while it was a tragedy, i cannot side with the bleeding hearts who now hate the police. They did their job and that is all you can ask of them