Shooting to kill needs no warning (UK)

[lockdown]

Police have been given permission to shoot suspected suicide bombers dead without any verbal warning, the Guardian has learned.

The killing of an innocent Brazilian man in a London underground station on Friday has focused attention on new guidelines to defend against terror attacks.

Operation Kratos tactics say suicide bombers who are about to explode their devices can be shot in the head.

There is still confusion over whether Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot eight times, received a verbal warning.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1536751,00.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LisaL]

4. Seems like they lost their minds. Shoot people without warning?

Because these people are suspicious?
I think they are already finding out that it's a lot easier to kill innocent people than actual terrorists that way.

[Tesha]

83. Britons, welcome to Bushworld!

As Tony Blair has probably finally learnt, "you lie down with dogs,
you get up with fleas."

Tesha

[Cha]

5. The British are NOT

stupid..they marched against the War on Iraq..but a couple of guys named blair in England are too stupid to be PM and PC.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. "The British are stupid..."

I think that comment is pretty nasty.

[ConfuZed]

10. A British person who agrees

with such a policy that gives the police the right to shoot anyone without warning isnt any better than our freepers but to say that all british people are stupid is an unfair characterization.

[Cha]

2. You might want to fucking

get the Right person, then!!

Or you're going to lose your World supporters like bush did after 9/11.

[Romulus]

3. old news?

Seems many of us here figured that out already.

Not even a "They're comin' right for us!"



http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/display_episode.php?season=1&id1=103&id2=03&tab=10

[bemildred]

6. Sounds like a police state. nt

[american_mutt]

8. no warning =

terrorists...

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. It's a terrible policy, and it'll cause many innocent deaths

Considering what has happened recently, it would be best for the police to tread carefully and make verbal warnings explicitly clear.

[phusion]

11. What about lawsuits?

Does the British legal system allow for lawsuits like the US? It seems that after a few of these no-warning killings people will start to file lawsuits against the police/city.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. Yes it does

The family of the deceased Brazilian man are considering bringing such a suit in the U.K. courts.

[termo]

33. They should go to european court

and avoid loosing time with a justice of a state which is becoming facist.
:banghead:

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Well, what is your response now?

All you apologists for fascism right here on DU who have been blaming de Menezes and bleating about how we were rushing to judgement and always blaming the cops and making it all up? Huh?

What is your spin now?

The official lies so far.
Not a terrorist.
Not a muslim.
Not inappropriately dressed.
Not warned.
Not a chance he was going to survive his commute.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. Which DUers are fascists?

[Warren Stupidity]

18. I'd say every last one who supported this action.

Although I suppose simply supporting the actions of a fascist government in one specific situation does not make one a fascist, merely a fascist apologist.

Since Sunday, when the truth started leaking out, there has been a raging flame war here on DU between those of us who called this out for what it was: the intolerable actions of a now overtly fascist regime, and a not small number of DU'ers, new and old, who thought it was all shades of appropriate.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

19. I think it was important to wait for the facts to come out

before labelling the action appropriate or no than what it was immediately at the time.

Also, the U.K. is not a "fascist regime". It has a constitutional parliamentary system. Its government has a general neo-liberal philosophy with authoritarian tendencies. That is not the same as fascism.

A reminder of what a fascist regime involves can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[Warren Stupidity]

20. overtly fascist

when the police are let loose to execute suspects without warning you have an example of overt fascism. Yes the UK retains the appearance of liberal democracy, and it has not yet become overtly totalitarian, however, like our own regime in washington it now qualifies within many of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism.

My fascism score for GB:

powerful and continuing nationalism - yup.
disdain for human rights - yup.
indentifying of enemies/scapegoating as unifying cause - yup.
supremacy of the military - yup.
rampant sexism - nope.
controlled mass media - yup. (Purge of bbc two years ago.)
obsession with national security - yup.
religion and government intertwined - nope.
corporate power is protected - yup.
labor power is supressed - yup. (Blair's third way.)
disdain for intellectuals and the arts - nope.
obsession with crime and punishment - yup.
rampant cronyism - don't know.
fraudulent elections - not yet.

9/14. I suppose we should wait for 14/14 to avoid mislabelling, huh?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

21. The Fascist Kingdom of Britain?

"when the police are let loose to execute suspects without warning you have an example of overt fascism."

That's not fascism per se, it's an idiotic policy and the police will get taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

"powerful and continuing nationalism - yup."

You got that impression from the union jack lapel pins, the veneration of the British flag and the pledge of allegiance? But, we don't have any of those. British nationalism has been dead as a motivating factor since the remnants of the British Empire broke up in the 1960s. British nationalism today is expressed on the fringes of neo-nazi groups and ulster loyalist sectarianism.

"disdain for human rights - yup."

I don't think this blanket statement applies. The police shooting isn't exactly a regular occurance, as awful as it was. Britain has legalised same-sex unions and enshrined feminist anti-discrimination beliefs in employment law. Fascist nation indeed?


"indentifying of enemies/scapegoating as unifying cause - yup."

The politicians have been very careful and explicit in trying to avoid an anti-Muslim backlash. There is scapegoating but it rests usually in the right-wing owned newspapers.

supremacy of the military - yup.

I don't think you know much about Britain. General Tony Blair, head of the Military Junta of Britain? No. The Queen as head of state is officially commander-in-chief, but Cabinet controls the military, not the other way round..

"controlled mass media - yup. (Purge of bbc two years ago.)"

The purge? What did Generalissmo Blair have BBC journalists killed or something? No. The BBC is now reporting non-stop pro-Tony Blair stories? No. The BBC is still politically-impartial.

"obsession with national security - yup."

Yes, as are most countries today.

"corporate power is protected - yup."

Yes, but rather because of free market dogma than fascist-style state-corporatism.

"labor power is supressed - yup. (Blair's third way.)"

The unions are much more powerful in Britain than they are in the U.S. They're not as powerful as they used to be I grant you. Britain is signatory to the European Social Chapter which grants generous holiday entitlement for workers and holds maximum working hours. Britain also has a minimum wage that is much higher than the U.S. equivalent.

"obsession with crime and punishment - yup."

Yes, as governments are.


"9/14. I suppose we should wait for 14/14 to avoid mislabelling, huh"

I think you should avoid blanket statements and learn more about Britain.

[Taxloss]

22. You are so off the mark.

Powerful and continuing nationalism? Nope. Study the news footage carefully - do you see any flag pins or union flags in the links? No. Are we hanging flags outside our homes? No. I saw more flags during the last Europena football tournament.

Disdain for human rights - hey, at least we have an effective oppostion campaign on that one.

Scapegoating? How exactly?

Supremacy of the military - not since the Civil War, 400 years ago. Other than the neutrals, no other country has a military that is so detached from public life. We saw military dictatorship, briefly, under Cromwell. Our entire constitution is based on stopping it happening again.

Our mass media is still far more open and free than yours has been for years. Even Sky, our Murdoch channel, is more balanced than your TV news.

Obsession with national security - yup, got us there. Has been since the start of the Troubles.

Actually our religion and government are intertwined, in ways that would make the ACLU spit feathers. The difference being that the state runs the church, not the other way round.

Corporations, labour power, crime - got us there. But one again there is effective opposition on the ground, and we are making progress.

All I'm saying is please don't accuse my country of being fascist. For all our flaws we have a deeply democratic tradition. Nordfire isn;t in power yet.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[east saxon]

45. How astoundingly arrogant

Two well reasoned - and absolutely on the money - posts explain why it is absurd to characterise the UK as a fascist state, and you simply insult and laugh at the posters. Apparently you understand British society so much better than intelligent, well-informed and progressive British citizens that's it's not even worth considering their views. It's interesting to see that the mentality, if not the ideology, of neo-conservatism extends into the left as well as the right of the US political spectrum.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Welcome to DU, East Saxon.

Excellent observation.

Prepare to have your ethics questioned, however.

Anyone who dares to disagree is automatically considered a supporter of the racially motivated state executions carried out by the police in the name of this fascist regime. :sarcasm:

That is the price some of us pay for dissent, apparently.

[termo]

124. as far as I know, UK has a unwritten constitution

"Our entire constitution is based on stopping it happening again."

which unwritten part are you talking about ?

[maryallen]

25. Not yet on "fraudulent elections?"

Where have you been?

[endarkenment]

51. I think he meant the UK

[kestrel91316]

28. I just read Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here" ..............

and I swear to God it's Bush's PLAYBOOK. Fascism is alive and well in the 21st century, right here in the USofA.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. The police killed someone in cold blood and they did it using....

...an officially-sanctioned policy that they claim they will continue to use.

That is a fascist act, whether you want to believe it or not.

[LeftishBrit]

162. I think that's a bit misleading

I detest our present government, and am most unhappy with what Thatcher did, and what Blair is now doing. But fascist, no!

powerful and continuing nationalism - No, there is SOME nationalism, but not more 'powerful' than in other countries. Moreover, the nationalism that exists tends to take an isolationist form rather than the imperialist form associated with fascism.

disdain for human rights - No, the government is not as pro-human-rights as it could be, but not 'disdainful'. For example: the death penalty was abolished 40 years ago, and it is very unlikely that any government could re-introduce it. People can be detained for a maximum of 2 weeks before trial, and, despite proposals to extend this period, there is so much opposition that it's unlikely to happen.

indentifying of enemies/scapegoating as unifying cause -. A problem, yes; a unifying cause, no. There is racism and scapegoating, and the tabloids don't help. But it is not universal or officially encouraged. An attempt by Howard the Tory leader to play the 'race card' in the last election is generally thought to have damaged his (never very high) election chances.


supremacy of the military - Certainly not! The military have almost no political power.

rampant sexism - No.

controlled mass media - No. A lot of anti-government stuff gets into the media.

obsession with national security - Yes, but no more than most countries at the moment.

religion and government intertwined - No.

corporate power is protected - No. Big corporations may not be sufficiently regulated, but they don't have great political power (and they do have to pay more taxes than in many countries).

labor power is supressed - More than it used to be, thanks to Thatcher (uggh!!!); but unions still play a significant role.

disdain for intellectuals and the arts - No. Some people are anti-intellectual, but the government is quite supportive of the arts..

obsession with crime and punishment - Yes; but punishments are not usually extreme.

rampant cronyism - No.

fraudulent elections - No.


So as far as I can see, there are only two criteria that are undeniably met - obsession with crime and obsession with national security - and these characterize almost all governments at the moment. Two more ( scapegoating, and suppression of labour power) are partially met, but again less so than in many countries.
The remaining 10 don't apply at all, unless one uses very unusual definitions.

And I don't understand the 'not yet' about fraudulent elections. I see no signs that we are likely to have fraudulent elections.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. I bet you still think the U. S. is still a democracy, too.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

165. I would describe the U.S.

as an authoritarian republic run by a corporatist oligarchy.

I would describe the U.K. as a parliamentary government system run by a neo-liberal elite.

[Taxloss]

23. As I remember it,

we didn't apologise for fascism. We said it would be unwise to leap to judgement before the facts were known, and that we didn't much like people bandying around the phrases "death squand" and "public execution".

[lockdown]

50. "unwise to leap to judgement"

You've been happy to leap to judgements that absolve the police, saying it was Menezes' fault for running and ridiculing accurate statements on the story, while declaring that others' speculation is foolish and you'll wait for the inquiry. Maybe you should follow your own advice, that or stop criticizing others for daring to speculate.

[endarkenment]

52. OK

Fair enough. So now that this fact is out there staring you in the face are you going to step up and condemn the policy, or do you have a fallback position?

[Taxloss]

55. This officer clearly over-reacted in a horrible manner.

One shot would have been too many - eight indicates something like frenzy or panic.

Are you saying condemn Kratos? Yes, it's plainly a policy that needs a radical overhaul, and seems to be receiving one.

However, I also condemn the blanket treatment that Britain and the British police have received at the hands of some posters here on DU. Especially coming from a country where the police operate a shoot-to-kill policy on 13-year-old joyriders.

[endarkenment]

58. equivocation

nice try. You seem to be squirming a bit. The question had nothing to do with DU'ers, nothing to do with the police here in the US, and no as far as I know, we do not have an official policy permitting police officers to blow the brains out of 13 year old joyriders without warning.

And you have not condemned Kratos, which by the way until this news broke, you denied existed and denied was applied in this case. Instead you have said it needs drastic overhaul.

You really aren't going to say quite simply "this is wrong and it must stop" are you?

[Taxloss]

61. This is wrong and must stop.

This is also wrong and must stop:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1657100

Note the deathly silence. Mote, beam.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

68. No comment on the killing of a 13-year-old joyrider in LA?

None at all?

And we UKDUers will be waiting for an apology for all the posts calling our country and police fascist. That's wrong and must stop.

I won't hold my breath.

[endarkenment]

74. I have no idea what you are referring to

However I rather doubt that there was an official policy in place allowing shoot to kill without warning. If there is I of course condemn it. Please post a link that indicates you have any evidence of this at all.

When in retreat diversions are always good tactics.

[Taxloss]

79. Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1657100

[endarkenment]

81. and the part where this was official policy?

and the part where this was an undercover operation?

and the part where there was no warning given, nor any intention to give warning?

I thought not.

Do I condemn police brutality in general and in this case specifically? Of course.

[Taxloss]

82. So the fact that this was a 13-year-old joyrider,

not an adult suspected suicide bomber, doesn't strike you as indicating that excessive force was used? And your police always carry guns - what are they there for? Drilling 13-year-olds seven times, clearly. There may be no official policy, but your police are in the habit of killing a lot of people, aren't they?

And that's before we get onto your legal system, which kills a lot of people as well. A disproportionate number of blacks and mentally ill people, it seems. Hundreds of them.

But a British policeman shoots a suspected suicide bomber and suddenly we're the fascists and you're Amnesty fucking Internation.

[endarkenment]

84. Which part didn't you understand?

"Do I condemn police brutality in general and in this case specifically? Of course."

:wtf:

There was and is, as far as I know, no official policy in place that permits shoot to kill without warning of 13 year old joyriders or anyone else. If there is one I condemn that unhesitatingly as well.

But continue to equivocate and continue to divert. Anything to get off the terrible fact that your government has plunged right off the deep end here, and that all of your arguments from yesterday now ring hollow.

[Taxloss]

91. And I condemn the shooting of De Menezes.

You seem really unwilling to accept that fact. Plus - and I stress again that I think it is a deeply flawed policy and in need of urgent review - you ignore that Kratos does not mean that an officer shooting a man "gets off the hook" - quite the contrary, he is thoroughly investigated, although there seem to be moral flaws in the treatment of this officer that I strongly oppose. Even if the man had been a suicide bomber, the officer would still be investigated. You seem to consistently miss this point.

Of course I condemn police brutality. You seem happy to turn a blind eye to it in your own country though. Official policy or no official policy, it happens all the time there.

And when you're arguing around a developing situation, it's natural that your arguments might be overtaken by events. I don't get your point here, since you were as much in the dark as me - were you trying to retrospectively grab moral clarity? I seem to remember it was your side that rushed to judgement. And we still don't know exactly what happened, not that that matters to you.

[endarkenment]

94. oh heck

it didn't half an ounce of brain power to figure out what went down. I pointed out several times yesterday the glaring contradiction between "necessity to blow brains out due to self-demolition threat" and "suspect was warned and ordered to halt". You just weren't listening because you are so much smarter and more sophisticated than me.

[Taxloss]

97. Well, a lot of things were said and frankly I'm exhausted with this

argument. It's really achieving nothing. Shall we halt it here? Truce?

[beam me up scottie]

99. Yes, he is,

isn't he?
:evilgrin:

[Sterling]

118. Is this a contest between the US and UK?

To see which has the worst authorities? IF you thought things were just fine on this side of the pond in terms of police brutality you must be really new.

[Tesha]

85. Nobody doubts that the LAPD has fascist elements. (NT)

[lockdown]

60. Do you support killing people based on suspicions?

[Taxloss]

67. What an absurd question.

See how it floats free of any context or justification.

Of course I do not support the killing of people on the streets of London on the basis of obviously highly flimsy intelligence. I will happily attempt to understand this incident, though, without snapping into the automatic and comfortable assumption that our police are gunning down any off-white people on an indiscriminate basis because it shows such a basic happiness to malign an entire police force on the basis of one incident, by one officer. Do you know how many suicide bomb alerts there have been in London over the past week? 250. This is an awful anomaly.

[endarkenment]

69. there you go again

seems your condemnation was exceedingly short lived.

Just because the police are gunning down offwhite people on an indiscriminate bases is no reason to condemn them or their official policy that allows the gunning down of offwhite people on an indiscriminate basis. Nope, best to reserve judgement, unless of course you are pressed on the issue in which case you can flippantly agree that it is wrong in one thread while returning to its defense in another.

[Spider Jerusalem]

76. That's rather disingenuous.

The official policy allows for the killing of suspected and potential suicide bombers in situations where an immediate threat to public safety is perceived.

The killing of De Menezes was a terrible tragedy that occurred because of incompetence and poor intelligence; if the police had taken the time to suss out the identities of the residents of the block they had under surveillance, and to properly identify who it was they were watching, this wouldn't have happened.

On the other hand, had this actually been a suicide bomber and NOT an innocent Brazilian electrician, could you say the actions of the police would have been wrong?

Obviously the current procedures are deeply flawed and need to be rethought; the fact that something like this happened shows that.

[jwcomer]

142. Of course the actions would still have been wrong!

Given the information at hand, shooting this man was wrong. Whether he turned out to be suicide bomber or not isn't relevant. It’s also true that an apprehended suicide bomber would have useful intelligence value. But that is also beside the point.

In a free society you simply cannot go shooting people willy-nilly without sufficient provocation. And this man had not done anything provocating. I could go to Baghdad and start taking pot shots into the crowds. Sooner or later I'm bound to hit someone who is a bomber or is aiding bombers. But it wouldn't justify all the other innocent people who had been killed without cause. This situation isn't all that different.

Oh and since I live in NYC and ride the subway every day, I'm not being purely theoretical when I say that I prefer justice to security. I think it’s pretty much a given that sooner or later we will have one of these bombings in my neck of the woods. I earnestly believe that it is morally reprehensible to let fear and cowardice paralyze justice.

[Spider Jerusalem]

143. "Would still have been wrong"?

So if it HAD been a suicide bomber, you'd be okay with him blowing himself up in a crowded Tube station?

[jwcomer]

152. Did I stutter?

Your question is rhetorical, framed and loaded.

Obviously I'm not okay with anyone blowing themselves up in the crowded Tube station. But I am perfectly ok with taking that risk when weighed against shooting people with no provocation. While I am not at risk of this policy because I have the good luck to have been born blued eyed and fair skinned. I'm totally unwilling to ask my friends and neighbors take an increased risk to their life in order to increase my security in my morning commute. I believe that anyone who is willing to sacrifice their neighbor’s security for their own should be totally ashamed of their cowardice. Don't you?

[Spider Jerusalem]

153. I think you should read my original post more carefully.

[jwcomer]

156. We clearly agree on more than we disagree.

If you agree that it is unfair to shift the burden of risk onto your neighbors, then you have to be comfortable with the risk that the bomb will go off on target. I'm comfortable with that. I'm not happy about it. But it is where my values and principles lead me. From your posts it sounds like you do believe that had a bomb been found on the Brazilian, then the kill order would have been morally justified. I just don't see how post-facto evidence can turn a wrong into a right. Certainly, it would turn an unfortunate situation into a fortunate one, but that is something different, because it doesn't change the ethics of the situation.

[Taxloss]

78. What part of that message was not condemnatory?

The response of many DUers to this shooting has not been to condemn this individual officer, or Operation Kratos, it has been to malign the UK, UKDUers, our entire police force and our state. No wonder this "debate" has generated more heat than light. I believe the shooting of De Menezes was wrong, and I believe Kratos is obviously horribly flawed.

Perhaps if the criticism was coming from a country that didn't have the worst execution and police-shooting record in the entire Western World, I might feel a little less offended by DU's reaction.

[baby_mouse]

166. Sir,

you are confused.

I suggest you consider the policy in the light of what it is supposed to prevent.

[lockdown]

77. Well I tried to give it some "context or justification" in the UK forum

but it's a pretty simple and fundamental question actually.

So who decides what intelligence is flimsy, where's the line drawn on burden of proof?

Personally, I'm not snapping into any "automatic and comfortable assumption", I'm following what's emerging and becoming increasingly angered by what is apparent.

[Sterling]

113. "I also condemn the blanket treatment"

I am sure that the UK will survive the opinions of DUers, this new fangled government you have is another question.

[Pert_UK]

42. Yes that's right...lots of apologists for fascists here on DU....

Tell you what - why not go and start your own website, so you can keep it nice and clean from those who don't swallow your views without question.

From what I saw on here, some people (myself included) said something like, "Based on the initial evidence (i.e. IF, as claimed, the police gave a warning and IF he ran away and IF they genuinely thought he was a suicide bomber and IF there is no other to stop a suicide bomber than by shooting them dead etc. etc.) then it is incredibly tragic but understandable that the police acted in the way they did."

I'm quite willing to be proved wrong as more evidence comes to light, but until that point you'll just have to excuse me if I don't race to the uninformed, knee-jerk reaction that all British police are racist, trigger-happy, fascist thugs.

How delightful it is to see people like you on a "progresive, liberal, democratic" website prepared to turn on and attack fellow members for offering a different opinion and giving the benefit of the doubt, pending evidence to the contrary.

How lovely for some DUers to use the attacks on London as a weapon against British DUers, accusing us of having been "cowed" and "scared" into swallowing fascism.

Personally, I feel fucking betrayed that certain DUers are prepared to turn on some of the few people left in the world who are able to differentiate the majority of sensible, intelligent Americans from the dipshit evil regime that runs your country.

It's no wonder you guys can't win an election if you're so happy to attack your own fucking supporters.

[east saxon]

46. why engage in reasoned, respectful debate...

...when you can scream "fascist"? It seems we have here a good number of left-wingers (ideologically, at least, but perhaps not in terms of mentality) who toss around the terms "fascist" and "apologist for fascism" with the same freedom that right-wingers do "terrorist" and "apologist for terror"- and with what can only be presumed to be the same purpose, stifling dissent. I've read a lot of your posts whilst wating for my account to become active, and would like to thank you for cutting through some of the uninformed, hysterical and reactionary garbage that has been slung in this forum.

[Pert_UK]

63. Thank you very kindly......

Always nice to be able to welcome a new contributor, especially a rational one who writes so well!

:hi:

Welcome aboard!

P.

[beam me up scottie]

96. The only thing they can do is scream.

It's easier than waiting for the results of an investigation or actually educating themselves.

[east saxon]

116. Indeed

Until this tragic incident has been thoroughly investigated - and it will be - we should all have the humility to accept that our interpretations of it are provisional. Unfortunately this involves showing some degree of circumspection and open-mindedness, which just lack the thrill of yelling "fascist!"

(And thanks to you and Pert for the kind welcomes:hi:).

[beam me up scottie]

120. You're very welcome.

Have you been to the UK forum yet ?

The mods try awfully hard to keep things respectable in there.

Unfortunately, the main forums are open to anyone who wants to bash the British.

[east saxon]

135. thanks for the tip

I hadn't actually realised there was a UK-specific board. I've just perused a few of the threads down there- it's good to find a forum where most of the posters don't seem to think that this incident is the British equivalent of the Reichstag fire!

[endarkenment]

53. So

Now that it seems that he was not warned and that the official policy is to shoot to kill without warning, are you ready to condemn the policy, or are you going to offer up another defense of fascist tactics?

[beam me up scottie]

62. So, how long ago did you stop beating your wife?

[endarkenment]

66. Condemn or support

you too. Which is it?

[Pert_UK]

70. Thanks for doing my dirty work for me.....

For the first time EVER on DU I had to do a "wholesale" application of the Ignore button yesterday, just to stop myself getting banned.

It got to the point where I'd made my point so clearly so many times that it didn't seem worth trying to make it again to people determined to misinterpret and offend.

I was getting really upset by the dogmatic yet uninformed comments being thrown around, and the outright nasty attacks on liberal UK DUers who were merely asking for consideration of an alternative, but equally valid viewpoint.

In the end I knew I'd just lose it and descend to my attackers' level, so I hit IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE, and as a consequence am much more relaxed......although half of LBN seems to have disappeared!

Thanks again.

[endarkenment]

75. Condemn or support. EOM.

[Taxloss]

86. There's nothing like the great taste of Manicheanism!

Why bother dealing with details when you can divide the world into black and white?

That's what makes Manicheanism (TM) the hip political success it's always been!

In an awkward and complicated debate? Just spray around a bit of Manicheanism (TM) and see the debate divided into Nazis and angels! nothing could be simpler!

[beam me up scottie]

88. Oh sure, Tax, make them look up a word, why don't you ?

:rofl:

[endarkenment]

93. sure hope you don't walk out the wrong door.

[beam me up scottie]

87. No problem. I stopped coming to the main forums last week.

I only responded to this after I saw my friends being attacked when they asked for respect.

The attacks don't bother me anymore.

I imagine if I registered at Freeperville and posted there, I would get the same sort of responses.

That's why I steer clear of the rabid ideologists, regardless of which side of the political fence they're on.

[Pert_UK]

144. Cheers, fella....

:toast:

Virtual pint, coming your way!

P.

[beam me up scottie]

147. Thanks!

That hit the spot !

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Actually, that is a common question used in arguments to

illustrate the other person's use of a "loaded" question.

Your reply is simply an insult, but then, I'm sure you knew that when you posted it.

:hi:

[Pert_UK]

145. HOW DARE YOU? I have NEVER....

stopped beating my wife!

:evilgrin:

Yeah, yeah, look at me, not only am I an apologist for fascists, I also find spousal abuse hilarious.

:sarcasm:

[beam me up scottie]

148. I KNEW IT !!!

I knew if I browbeat you long enough the truth would come out !!!

[The Stranger]

80. With friends like these . . .

Look, this is simply baseless:

"Based on the initial evidence (i.e. IF, as claimed, the police gave a warning and IF he ran away and IF they genuinely thought he was a suicide bomber and IF there is no other to stop a suicide bomber than by shooting them dead etc. etc.) then it is incredibly tragic but understandable that the police acted in the way they did."

As repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated ad nauseum, the "police," such as they were, were not wearing uniforms, and there is evidence that the victim thought he was fleeing a group of people that had assaulted him in the same area within the week. Ergo, this was not a case of someone knowingly fleeing from police.

Furthermore, pinning someone to the ground and pumping eight rounds into their pinned body -- seven shots to the back of the head -- is not police work -- it is an execution.

Finally, as pointed out previously, to do so constitutes murder. This must be presented to a grand jury to determine whether an indictment should be issued. If the shooter was under instructions to execute people, he can assert that as a defense to the murder charge.

But it does not allow the police to murder innocent people on the streets.

[Sterling]

126. "We can't be bothered with unpleasant details like these"

That make it hard to trust big brother. To acknowledge them would simply be too painful and this must stop now!!!!

[silvermachine]

154. Plenty of support for your views here...

...what I've seen in these forums lately are sickening in their self-righteousness.

[catnhatnh]

14. Incidentally....

for any sentient being the first move after a warning of "Don't move or I'll KILL you will be a frenetic fit of motion....as in total panic....Did they give a warning? For 99 and 44/100ths percent it would make no difference.....

[slackmaster]

15. Jeez, I thought it was bad when the USA suspended Habeas Corpus

Back in 1861.

:rolleyes:

[lockdown]

17. "21st century solutions"

The order to "neutralise" came from a senior commander (Deputy Assistant Commissioner or above according to a police source in The Times) who was in constant "real-time" contact with the team and probably had access to some CCTV footage at the time. According to Ian Blair on Channel 4 today the officers chasing "thought he was a suicide bomber". It wasn't for them to assess things, under Kratos guidelines they get their orders and intelligence fed to them from above and are dependant on that.

Micromanagement gone mad, people at desks deciding who dies. It is sick. Fuckers like John Stevens who helped set it up need to be held to account. John Stalker (famous for his investigation of shoot-to-kill in N. Ireland) says it would've been sanctioned at ministerial level. Which you'd expect. But it's worth stating because today Tony Blair, while backing the tactic, said the plans never crossed his desk and palmed off responsibility to the police.

And the visa story, of course, was a disgusting police smear because they knew their version of him fleeing when warned to stop didn't wash. :grr:

[catnhatnh]

24. As a US citizen....

....I remain basically clueless,other than you guys shot to death a guy who at best hadn't a clue....When your PM links that closely to a guy who SOMEHOW became our pesident that is the best you can hope for...Fight now while you can....before they can stop my typing,that is my best advice....

[daleo]

26. I would say this means he wasn't warned.

They are letting the truth out slowly. He was shot down like a dog. I hope his family sues - a civil trial might bring out more real testimony than a government sponsored inquest.

[alarcojon]

27. Yes, it does support that theory

which is, of course, also supported by eyewitnesses.

A civil trial might also let us know if he was even wearing a jacket, and whether it was a heavy, padded jacket or simply a denim jacket.

[moggie]

49. The jacket

I don't know why so much is made of what he was wearing! On the day in question, I left my (London) office at lunchtime to get food, and the first person I saw was wearing a padded jacket. Since she was a middle-aged white woman I didn't wrestle her to the ground and call the police. I'd describe the temperature that day as "mild" rather than "hot": too warm for me to wear a jacket, certainly, but if I came from a hot climate and wanted more pockets, it'd be different.

[alarcojon]

119. They need the jacket to justify the shooting

without it, all they have is that they followed an olive-complected (at best) man with dark hair from the communal door of a suspected apartment complex. It would be an admission of racial profiling, if you ask me.

Where is the jacket? Has anyone seen it?

[endarkenment]

121. oddly no pictures

Odd given the cctv coverage. Eyewitness reports are that it was a rather appropriate denim jacket, and acquaintences report that he always wore the same denim jacket. The more we learn the more sordid and unacceptable this all becomes. But I've been advised that it is best not to rush to judgement here, or jump to conclusions, or something.

[Nihil]

127. Nor agreement from eye witnesses (nothing new there)

> Eyewitness reports are that it was a rather appropriate denim jacket,
> and acquaintences report that he always wore the same denim jacket.

On the other hand, a different eyewitness reported:
> "He had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish
> coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded
> jacket.
>
> "He might have had something concealed under there, I don't know.
> But it looked sort of out of place with the sort of weather we've
> been having, the sort of hot humid weather.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

We could also go into the number of eye witnesses who claimed there
were five shots ... or was it two shots ... or was it a lot of popping
sounds ...?

When all of the initial reports were from eye witnesses (or wannabes)
the situation is confused.
Q: How do you think the official picture is built up?
A: From the officers' statements and from the statements obtained
from eyewitnesses ...

[moggie]

146. Unreliable witnesses

There was even one witness who reported that the victim took a hostage! So in addition to the generally unreliability of witness memories (something which psychologists have done extensive research on), you have to contend with the occasional outright fantasist!

[Nihil]

149. Bingo!

The next task is to remind people of this whenever they ask
"why did the story change?"

(BTW, thanks for that ... I seemed to recall a brief claim about
a "hostage" but only fleetingly! :-) )

[moggie]

155. Here you go

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147_1,00.html

Another witness said that the suspect boarded the Tube and attempted to take a hostage before he was shot.

Dan Copeland, a Northern Line passenger, told BBC News: “The man burst in through the carriage door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.

[oscarmitre]

30. The government doesn't sponsor inquests in the UK

They are held by independent judicial bodies.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. Independent judicial bodies that are responsible to whom?

[oscarmitre]

29. Nothing new in this story

it reads to me like a re-hash with a few unattributed statements from "sources" who are not identified just to keep the story going.


The comments regarding police being given "permission to shoot dead suspected suicide bombers without any verbal warning" is just a statement of the law as it is already. There's no "requirement" to give a warning. Consider the situation where a sniper (well out of earshot of the suspect) decides to shoot the suspect to save the life of a hostage. Will that officer be culpable simply because he or she didn't yell a warning to the suspect? Should the officer warn the suspect who can then kill the hostage? See how stupid this article is?

And just a word to the hysterical DU'ers intent on throwing the "fascist" word around. The rule of law is still in place in the UK, this incident is being investigated by independent bodies and if necessary the culpability of all the actors will be judged by an independent court. That's the rule of law at work. In a fascist state there is no rule of law. You should know that. Now calm down and save it for a state that really deserves to be called fascist.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Thank you.

Hysteria is the word for it.
Why suddenly so much hate for the UK ?
Never mind, I don't really want to know what fuels hate mongers.
Another reason to stay out of the main forums.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. "Hysteria"?? Is that what you call the public reaction to plain....

...clothes police who held down a man and murdered him by shooting him several times in the head? Is this how you want to see trials conducted in the future, with no judges and no juries?

Hmmmm.

I'd say the reaction is one of disbelief and shock that anyone living in a self-professed democracy would give that kind of order. It's even more shocking that anyone living in a democracy would agree with that course of action.

IMHO, it's your post that's a perfect example of posting nonsense designed to piss people off and get the kind of reaction you want to see. You just make stuff up like, "Why suddenly so much hate for the UK?". Nobody here has expressed any hatred for the Brits, only for their screwed-up policy that allows the killing of people that are merely SUSPECTED of somehow being involved with terrorism.

[U4ikLefty]

39. Thank You

[beam me up scottie]

56. You're welcome!

[beam me up scottie]

54. Thanks for proving my point !

Insulting me by suggesting that I approve of YOUR version of the events, which is skewed at best and manufactured at worst.

People who are TRULY concerned about democracy and fairness wait until the evidence is in before passing judgment.

Your antics, however, get more attention.

And of course, when shrieking doesn't work, you can always fall back on questioning the morality and ethics of anyone who disagrees with you.

Quite predictable and boring, I'm afraid.

:evilgrin:

[baby_mouse]

168. YOU! YOU THERE! SUICIDE BOMBER!

STOP right there.

Now. Just sit down a minute, thank you. Hold on a second and calm down.

We need to phone some poeple. We need a judge and and a jury, so it's going to take a little while. I know you're really desperate to let off the bomb strapped around you but if you coul'd hold off for just a minute or two we have some Emergency Court Appointees to fly in.

How do you plead?

[alarcojon]

32. Polite disagreement

Okay, so a police sniper doesn't have to give verbal warning when a hostage is clearly present. I trust you'll grant me that this situation is completely different - Menezes was totally within earshot.

In fact, you conveniently fail to mention that reports state that the cops claim to have screamed (more than once) that they were cops. If this was not necessary under the law, why claim it? To make themselves look better? If they did warn Menezes, why do several eyewitnesses claim they never heard such a warning?

See, I'm bothered by the cover-up as well as the crime (yes, I consider this a crime - we'll see if your courts agree).

This is not even to get into all the other problems with this case, some of which this "stupid" article mentions. Suffice it to say that a policy allowing the police to kill someone without warning is only as good as the intelligence behind it. The intelligence behind this shooting was piss poor.

BTW, I agree with you that there is too much hysteria and throwing around of the word "fascist" regarding this case. I do trust your legal system to come to a fair conclusion on this case. But it REALLY bothers me that the official line is that this policy shall remain in place.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. Personally, I don't think the word fascist is used nearly enough when....

...referring to officially sanctioned actions that result in the cold-blooded murder of man already being restrained.

[oscarmitre]

44. Personally I think hyperbole

is too restrained a word for such an exaggeration connected to such speculation.

[oscarmitre]

43. Disagreement is necessary and expected

In fact, you conveniently fail to mention that reports state that the cops claim to have screamed (more than once) that they were cops. If this was not necessary under the law, why claim it? To make themselves look better? If they did warn Menezes, why do several eyewitnesses claim they never heard such a warning?

I don't know. And it's because I have no direct knowledge of the matter that I'm not discussing the details of what allegedly happened.

See, I'm bothered by the cover-up as well as the crime (yes, I consider this a crime - we'll see if your courts agree).

So no presumption of innocence for police officers? btw I'm in Australia not the UK.

This is not even to get into all the other problems with this case, some of which this "stupid" article mentions. Suffice it to say that a policy allowing the police to kill someone without warning is only as good as the intelligence behind it. The intelligence behind this shooting was piss poor.

Perhaps and then perhaps not. I'm looking at the possible culpability of the police officer who pulled the trigger. The issue of intelligence will be vital for him or her. Piss poor or not it will figure large in any defence if it goes to trial and given the propensity of the UK legal system to put police officers on trial when they have had to shoot a suspect I wouldn't be surprised if it does go to trial.

Although I have nothing to do with the UK legal system I have trust in it.

[alarcojon]

129. Yes, it is

I of course also have no direct knowledge of the matter. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions based on what I have read. I clearly see less than forthright behavior on the part of the authorities. That troubles me. In fact, it prejudices my opinion of the police.

I am only stating my opinions based on what is publicly available. I am perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if subsequent facts show that the shooting was justified. I just find it hard to imagine the circumstances under which that would be the case at the moment.

You mention that the blame might lie with the invidual officer(s) and not with the policy. That is a point worth keeping in mind. So let me expand on my earlier statement - a policy allowing the police to kill someone without warning is only as good as the intelligence behind it and the people who will be carrying it out.

Sorry I assumed you were British. I'd really like to visit Australia some day.

[lockdown]

48. Did you know that last week? I didn't

I've seen a couple of articles in recent days that mention a warning isn't mandatory, they didn't specifically say one wasn't needed for suicide bombers (never mind suspected suicide bombers) though the inference was obvious. This is the first time I've seen that specifically stated.

[Solly Mack]

47. IOW's. They didn't warn him or "challenge" him

and this is their excuse.

That eliminates that pesky confusion rather soundly....by rendering it moot.

But you know, if such was actual policy(in place at the time of the shooting), wouldn't that have come out before now?

I'm just sayin'

[sleipnir]

57. I'm boycotting my trip to the UK, because I don't want to get killed.

I was seriously thinking of traveling later this fall, but I'll tell you one thing: The UK is certainly out of the picture. I really don't want to get mistaken for a terrorist and shot while riding the Tube.

Maybe a nice trip to Belgium or Poland, I haven't forgotten Poland.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Bwahahahahaha ! And I'm sure they're devastated !

Whatever will the Brits do ?

:rofl:

[silvermachine]

158. How ridiculous...

...want to avoid getting shot? Then your best bet would be to leave the gun happy US and head to Britain.

[sweetheart]

59. The penalty for evading the tube fare is summary execution

Well, that's a bit more than the old cash penalty, but i guess that
it keeps the tube less crowded when they kill the fare evaders.

Does this mean that the police can shoot a war criminal preemtively
to prevent mass murder? In that case, world leaders should fear the
UK police... and blair should hide in his bunker.

[endarkenment]

64. Please be clear about what happened.

de Menezes was not trying to avoid the tube fair, he was chased by armed men who were intent on killing him, and who had not made any attempt to arrest him or identify themselves as police, and he ran for his life. They cornered him and executed him, pinning him down on the floor of a train car in front of witnesses, and unloading a clip from an automatic pistol into the base of his skull, as they had been trained to do.

[sweetheart]

95. Well, that certainly makes it clearer

Visa violations perhaps? The british hard right would surely not mind
shooting some dark skinned immigrants who overstay visas.

And the reality is that we are divided and upset whilst the criminal
political elements that started illegal wars and created this increased
environment of terrorism... those people have teflon jackets, and the
shit falls on to ourselves who sling it at each other.

Just next time you jump the toll at the tube, remember that the price
of fare evasion has gone up. :-)

Its so sad, that in a nation of outstanding humour, this terrorism
war has made people so serious and upset. It is the price of electing
a bLIAR.

[endarkenment]

98. the visa violation was bullshit too.

[sweetheart]

101. Ok he was brazilian, an electrician, dark skin perhaps?

What are you getting at?

I doubt that he paid his tube fare, if he was running full speed
through the station. Certainly i would myself jump the gates, as
that small delay would let them catch one.

Its a terrible tragedy, and i've become dissonant, in a place of
black humour.

Perhaps they shot him, to test how the tube train floors handle
bullets after passing through someone's neck.

[beam me up scottie]

103. Rather light skinned, actually.

But I don't want to ruin the fun.

Carry on.

[sweetheart]

106. Ok, then maybe he had a funny accent?

Raincoat. Perhaps he had on the wrong brand of knickers, or had not
shaved his armpits. Maybe he was thinking the wrong thoughts!

Maybe he was involved in the death of princess diana, and knew about
the bribes given to the driver of the mercedes to crash the car and
kill the princess.

[endarkenment]

108. it is hysterically funny isn't it?

I am just :rofl: every time I think of de Menezes last moments.

[sweetheart]

110. It is tragic indeed

I'm sure you're laughing your head off.

What can be done?

It seems that the purpose of this thread, is to do nothing but
beat on people and make them feel bad, to sew distrust of the
police and the government, to rub salt in the wounds of terrorism
so we can all feel collectively morbid.

And when people do that around me, i make black humour jokes...

[Sterling]

131. "to sew distrust of the police and gov" Ok I admit it.

I am responsible for all the mistrust of big brother. Without my tireless efforts people would be going about their lives without questioning the very questionable actions of their governments and law enforcement personnel.

[sweetheart]

141. Using american mind in a british frame

In america, it is "the" government, an alien entity to be distrusted.
In britain, it is "our" government, one that represents us.

That DU is an american forum, i would expect much distrust and concern
over this, as if it were done by US police. Though certianly there is
much concern over this in britain, it is framed as a "we" problem, and
if you've got a better way to protect the tube from suicide bomber
suspects, then i'm curious how you do it.

The officer was wrong to shoot said brazilian, but this does not
automatically mean that the british police forces are "them". They
are still "our" police, and they are in a tough job, and it was a
terrible mistake, one that tarnishes their reputaitons and shames
the whole force.

Next time an american cop kills a civilian, i'm sure we won't be
seeing his department apologize door to door in the neigborhood and
holding public inquiries. The american police are really evil, and
one of the reasons i left the US, after being chased and grabbed by the
NYC police (much like this brazliain chap) for having my fucking dogs
off leash in battery park.

I still trust the british government to be on the side of the people
a little bit, unlike the US one that has entirely lost the plot.
That is not to say that things have eroded terribly under the bLIAR,
but the damage is not near as bad as where the neocons have been
shitting in the swamp. (DC).

[jwcomer]

161. We're all stuck with the only mind we've got

I found you comment very insightful as to the differences in mindset.

I wanted to address you question as to how to better protect the Tube. I think your question is poorly phrased. You have accidentally framed the question in a way that avoids the issue at hand and leads to only one conclusion. The relevant question is: where is the proper balance between protection, morality and practicality? If you really want to completely protect the Tubes there are many outlandish ways to do this. You could just not let anyone on the Tubes. You could search everyone before riding the Tubes, same as airplanes. You could even go to other extremes, like deporting all Muslims from the country; summary execution of all dark skinned persons entering the Tubes, etc. But those options are either impractical or immoral.

Now that I have altered the question, I believe I can provide an answer. The shoot-to-kill policy has gone too far in the direction of security at the loss of morality. I suggest that unless the bomb in confirmed, no shoot-to-kill is justified. While this does somewhat increase the risk of a bomb going off. It greatly reduces the risk of a false positive. And sense there are also far more suspicious persons who are innocent than who are guilty, this is probably the most moral policy even for utilitarians.

[sweetheart]

163. This is why i'm suprised at the military response

The britain i know is a very peace loving country, one that is very
christian, in the old-style sense of turning the other cheek. It is
frankly, very un-british in my view, the police going around with guns
at all.

I think that this is due to tony blair's war on terror and the guns
and weapons proliferation, the increased police powers and all this
police state nonsense, is just not very christian. I have to wonder
what Mr. Blair has become, and his government in its war-pandering and
meddling in affairs afar... affairs that are other people's business.

I envision the british response, to be military goodwill, to be
jesus-like in responding to terror with flowers in the gun barrels,
of healing aids, malaria and poverty in our lifetime. To be struck
like this, is a turn to become great and grande hearted, benevolent in
suffering... and i'm disappointed at the victory of the small hearted
man in british thinking, the one that makes solutions with guns and
war, siding with like minded smallness against goodwill in human kind.

It is cynical, the entire plot, and that brazilian man was the
real martyr. He was the great hearted pure sacrifice to the demon
of fear, hatred and war. And how many more must be martyred before
the british people recall that they once were a christian nation,
or is that all window dressing these days.

Nationalism is not christianity, and that these labour tories are so
diminished, its downright discouraging. NO guns, no state violence,
stand tall in the face of fear and don't weaponize or militarize,
take the punch and don't destroy your society. The US mistake, as
with the drugs war is to militarize, and it rots away all goodwill
in society to do so... what a tragedy.

I hear you about shooting policies.... its's shocking, it makes me
feel dissonant to think it a bit much, but it is all a bit much, to
have to threaten the public with summary execution, and then the
other dissonant side thinks about suicide bombers and legal
precedents of jury trials and all... and i really have to wonder,
who is in charge that would tamper with such antique success stories.

Your comments are wise. It has gone too far.

[Pert_UK]

72. I doubt it's even worth me pointing out your total mischaracterisation..

of the situation....

No?

Didn't think so......

[sweetheart]

89. its absurd

The situation is so absurd that it might as well be for evading tube
fare.

I'm aware and have argued on DU, that the police have little choice
when confronted with a suicide bombers with hand-triggers... and that
what else can be done?

But in the mean time, it does look like foreigners are being shot in
london for visa violations or tube fare evasion.

:-) Of course it is mischaracterized.

But i'll make sure to pay the correct fare next time i ride the tube
just in case.

[endarkenment]

92. more lies from the government

the visa thing was bullshit.
the jumping the turnstyle stuff is crap.
the 'paniced policemen' meme is crap.
he was running for his life and with good reason.

You all are pretty much in denial about what happened. Its understandable.

[sweetheart]

100. so you're saying they chased him down and shot him

and that's that, a pre-emptive death penalty if you will... for working
illegally perhaps?

Honestly, i can't fault the police in london for their job. London is
a very very international city, with many races and languages... and to
be a police officer is to have to deal with all these disparate
communities and their eccentricities.

Here's the way i deal with it. I don't go to london. I don't want to
be shot, so i stay in scotland, where the probabilities of summary
execution are lower. I won't apologize for the police actions, nor will
i condemn them. This same situation is happening 1000 times over in
iraq and nobody is making such a fuss. American soldiers kill people
with impunity for looking the wrong way, and this to defend the very
ideals that they claim to be defending on the tube.

Bottom line, i still don't think police should carry guns. They are
much more likely to be able to disarm a threat when they themselves
are disarmed.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Your proof ?

I assume you have some to back up your claims, don't you ?

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sweetheart]

112. If a suicide bomber looked like george bush...

Would they mistakenly end the life of the US terrorist, because he
rode the tube; or is that reserved for brazilians.

Why are YOU in such a huff? Planning to visit london soon? Why don't
you make such a huff about every single civilian the US has capped in
iraq. This all seems so disprporitionate to view a police crime in
london with a microscope and in iraq with a telescope.

[beam me up scottie]

115. I'll take that as a no.

I don't have to "prove" anything, that falls to the people accusing the British of being fascists.

And obviously the best you have is the parrot:

BWAWK ! Condemn or support! BWAWK ! Condemn or support!

[Nihil]

122. Searching for truth amongst news reports is fun isn't it?

> the visa thing was bullshit.

The "visa thing" was bullshit. It started on Monday with the claim
that he was here on a student visa (which would have expired) but
was subsequently questioned by the family (who claim he had a five
year visa) and - eventually - by the Foreign Office (who confirmed
that he was here legally with a permit granted three months ago).

> the jumping the turnstyle stuff is crap.

Link please?
I haven't seen anything that stated otherwise so far.

> the 'paniced policemen' meme is crap.

This evolved from the difference between a professional killer
giving a double-tap to the head and an armed officer putting
7 shots there (the 8th presumably missing).

I've yet to see a report stating what type of gun was used.
Anyone?

With my limited knowledge of armaments, would eight shots from
such a weapon (if anyone knows the type) require eight trigger
pulls?

> he was running for his life and with good reason.

Really?
Holy shit ... we have the only person in the entire world who actually
*KNOWS* why he ran! Here in DU! Aren't we lucky? We were thinking
that the only person who knew the deceased thoughts were the deceased
but no, we were all wrong and the all-powerful "endarkenment" had
telepathically extracted the vital evidence that would have saved
his life. Shame that the almost all-powerful "endarkenment" couldn't
combine prescience and telepathy to tell De Menezes to stand still
instead of legging it.

> You all are pretty much in denial about what happened.
> Its understandable.

Probably more so than the unbridled hostility that you've
demonstrated. Maybe we all need to calm down a little?

[Spider Jerusalem]

130. Re: type of gun

It was described as an "automatic pistol", which generally means SEMI-automatic (1 pull of the trigger per shot), and probably a Glock 17 (standard issue for UK firearms officers). However, it MAY have been a Glock 18, which has a full-automatic selector switch (meaning it can fire the clip empty as long as the trigger is pulled), which is, as far as I know, not issued to UK police (but is to SAS, at least according to the results of a quick Google search).

[Nihil]

138. Thanks for the quick response!

Other reports claim that the gun was silenced.

Do you happen to know if both of the above (i.e., Glock-17 semi- and
Glock-18 full-auto) can be fitted with a silencer?

(A quick google search on Glock + silencer throws up a lot of "for sale"
items and a few scary sites but didn't see anything userful there.)

[Spider Jerusalem]

140. Both can be fitted with a silencer...

it's a simple matter of threading the end of the barrel to mount one.

[Nihil]

150. OK, thanks again!

:toast:

[Spider Jerusalem]

151. You're welcome

:hi:

[Sterling]

133. It's pretty clear he ran because of people chasing him with guns.

If you can think of a more obvious reason for him to have run please share your thoughts.

[endarkenment]

134. they are patiently waiting

for the government that has issued one bullshit statement after another about this incident to tell them why what happened was acceptable. nothing else will do.

[Nihil]

137. I'm patiently waiting ...

... for answer to my questions in #122.

You can skip the snarky bit about "how did you know when no other
person on this planet knows" but I would appreciate the answer to
your assertion re jumping over the turnstile.

[endarkenment]

160. fine

What we now know, and what I tried to point out to the various defenders of the realm yesterday, is that the team that did the shooting, once it had decided to act, did so without warning and with the intention of performing a 'tackle and kill' operation on their target. Read up on on what Kratos training is, this information has been out there since Sunday.

So this is what I think went down, and I admit that of course I cannot prove it, so spare me that line of attack. My assertion is based on my processing of the various bits and pieces of information that have come out that seem to me to be consistent and to make sense.

de Menezes, at some point, became aware that he was being targeted. This is a natural, instinctual, ability that all of us have to a greater or lesser extent, it is a survival defense mechanism. At the point that the team moved on him with, in my opinion, every intention of killing him, de Menezes, aware that he was being hunted, ran like hell.

My scenario makes sense, which is why I have held to it, and which is why, day after day, as the truth leaks out, it is being confirmed.

[Nihil]

139. And the reason he knew ...

... that the gunmen were thugs/muggers/non-policemen after *him*
(as opposed to any other person in the area) was ...?

Or did I miss the report saying how a dozen or so other travellers
jumped over the turnstile instead of freezing with a big "WTF"?

(Edit: typo)

[endarkenment]

157. yes indeed he must have been guilty of something. nt.

[element23]

71. The Terrorists

must be peeing themselves with happiness.

great job guys.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Actually, the ones screaming "fascist" seem to be pretty effing thrilled .

One would almost think they were enjoying this...

[endarkenment]

107. right

Where have I heard a similar attack? Oh, wait yes, that's it, why we are the same people who are just overjoyed at the disaster in Iraq.

[beam me up scottie]

117. You really enjoyed that ?

Well, as long as you're happy, that's all that matters.

[Matilda]

111. You could say I'm screaming fascist.

But I'm disgusted, angry and scared. Because it's probably going to
happen in Australia too - the state governments are already talking
up security.

I guess I just distrust authority gone mad.

[Jack Rabbit]

109. Some of these anti-British remarks are way over the top

Apart from an actual state of combat, any shoot-to-kill-without-warning policy is deplorable and ought to be condemned on it face.

However, one such errant policy does not make Britain a fascist state. I still read the British press because, quite frankly, it is far more trustworthy the US corporate MSM. Elections in Britain are still free and fair. Criticism of the government is still open and widespread.

We should bear in mind that while Prime Minister Blair wrongly joined Mr. Bush's colonial misadventure in Iraq, he did so against the overwhelming opposition of the British people. If Mr. Blair's ruling Labour Party had only the kind of majority in Parliament that Harold Wilson's Labour Party had in the sixties, Labour and Blair would have been defeated last May and there would have been no doubt that his toadying to Bush would have been the reason.

Fascism should be made of sterner stuff.

[endarkenment]

114. condemning the British government

is not an attack on the British people. No doubt the claim that GB is a fascist state is over the top.

This event, and the unapologetic assertion that the policy behind it is sound and will be continued smack of fascism, of a government that is no longer a liberal democracy but has transformed itself into something different. But what? How should we label what has happened to the US and what now appears to be happening to the UK?

[beam me up scottie]

125. One shooting means that the UK is becoming like the US ?

Definitions of histrionics:

* theatrical performance: a performance of play
* a deliberate display of emotion for effect
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[endarkenment]

132. no, that isn't what I said is it?

What I said was that the fact that this was by policy and that the government is unapologetic about that policy and that the policy remains in place 'smacks of fascism', and that this (and as you are into word twisting 'this' refers to the policy) is similar to events that transpired here in the US after 9-11, see for example the rapid and uncritical passing of our own little 'enabling act' aka the Patriot Act.

[Sterling]

136. And no one should say anything bad about our fearless leader.

Else they be America haters. I don't really see any animosity toward the UK. In fact I am stunned that a country I respect so much is having this kind of trouble. I don't have a lot of respect for the people claiming UK bashing here though. It's a little cry baby like in my eyes.

It's fine for UKers to come and discuss how fucked up our gov is but not theirs? I think not.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

164. That's not what it's about

The policy is fucked-up and most Brits agree. However, based on that one policy some DUers have decided to lay on the "fascist" word to describe Britain. This is what irritates us,

We have no problem with anyone attacking the U.K. government and this policy, but to label the whole country "Fascist" is lazy labelling at best and offensive at worst. In fact Britain is very much to the left of the U.S. in most domestic policy. We also had a free and fair election recently.

To dish out the fascist label as easily means the original definition loses all meaning. If you or I see opposition parties banned, ethnic minorities rounded-up into ghettos and executed, and the country is then run by a strong racialist and nationalistic ideological elite. Then the fascist label more readily applies.

[Sequoia]

159. "Who gives you the right....."

www.wavsource.com/snds_2005-07-7_97911023478912/tv/star_trek/how_many.wav (copy and post, goes to Amazon for some reason)

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

169. Lock

This thread has run it's course and is no longer breaking news.