A day after attempted suicided bombings, a "south Asian" runs from armed police while wearing a heavy padded coat in July.

I'd say he earned his fatal case of lead posioning.

If nothing else, it will decrease fare jumping.

No bomb, but he was wearing a heavy padded coat. In July. I know British weather is a bit on the chilly side, but certainly not to that degree... (Here in New Orleans, he'd have dropped of heatstroke long before reaching a streetcar or bus...)

I hope they reloaded.

And fired again.

There was a little more to the story

"Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said the shooting was "directly linked" to the investigation.

"The man who was shot was under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was itself under observation because it was linked to the investigation of yesterday's incidents," police said in a statement. "He was then followed by surveillance officers to the station. His clothing and his behavior at the station added to their suspicions." ?

Sounds like thinnin' the herd.

Exactly my concept Bill. Much has been made about how in the final analysis he may not
be able to root out all the terrorists root and stock.

I grew up in the country so I think of the terrorists as the equivalent of wild dog packs.

When the packs in an area become too much of a drain on livestock farmers used to and probably still do today, ban together and thin the packs down.

Do they eliminate the threat? No more wild dogs will breed, still the fact that they can never kill all of them is no reason not to kill those they can, otherwise the wild dogs packs would breed until their numbers would be beyond control.

For those who claim my viewpoint dehumanises the terrorists, my reply is NO they already did that all by themselves they did not need my help.

No explosives on him it turns out. Just a few small pieces of lead hidden inside his skull.

So basically Beck, you want people dressed suspiciously be able to just ignore police and enter a populated area that was a target of attack just the day before?

Or, is it that you don't want us to be able to defend ourselves?

I think he was just making a little joke.

I hope they reloaded.

And fired again.

They just announced that the man turned out to be unrelated to Thursday's attacks. Whoops.

Still hope they plugged him good?

Given that he was wearing a bulky, concealing coat in the middle of summer, leaving a suspected terrorist safehouse, and trying to evade the police to get onto a tube system that had been attacked the day before? Yes, I hope they plugged him good, so as to improve the gene pool if nothing else.

My suspicion is that he'll eventually turn out to be another "lily-white" who was sent to (A) test the tube's new defenses, and (B) spark a public outcry about the same.

To state the obvious, it appears that the Brit's have taken the gloves off.

A smart "Asian" in Britian will not wear heavy winter wear in July, certainly will stop when the Bobbies holler "STOP". Perhaps they'll even take to wearing wife-beaters.

The reaction by Britons about the man killed because he had not stop when police ordered him to do so, will indicate the level of tolerance of the intolerances in England. I think they just shrug off and said "too bad".
Moderate Muslims better wake up before it happens to them, here in America, when a big bang forces the hands of the crowd. No Muslim is innocent in the eyes of the hysterical crowd and compare to what happen next, the Japanese internship in WW2 is a walk in the park.

Asian? He was Brazilian. There's even a picture of him here. Damn non-slanty-eyed bastard!

Scotland Yard said Mr Menezes, who lived in Brixton, south London, was completely unconnected to the bomb attacks and added: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

And yet some of you still applaud the shooting, as if no further explanation is necessary?

Look, I'm not necessarily saying the police acted irresponsibly. However, unlike BloodSpite and the dyslexic Nowhere Man, I'm willing to wait to hear the full story before jumping on the armchair commando bangwagon.

You're fucking nuts.

Andy -

Just FYI - "asian" in the UK reports generally means SW Asian, as in Indian or Pakistani.

I have two questions:

1. Why did he run?

2. Did the police clearly identify themselves?

Bill -

That's fine, but the guy was Brazilian, and doesnt' look Indian or Pakastani to me (although a couple of guys in the picture might).

1. It's my understanding (which could be wrong) that the police were plainclothes and waving a gun.

2. I don't know.

Like I said, I don't know all the facts, and I'm pretty sure the commenters in question don't either, but they're all too happy to rejoice in the death of this man. That's what I have a problem with.

That's fine, but the guy was Brazilian, and doesnt' look Indian or Pakastani to me

I was just pointing that out because of this:

Damn non-slanty-eyed bastard!

Otherwise, I completely agree with you, I wasn't challenging you. I thought I just heard on the news that he was an illegal immigrant taht didn't speak english too well. If so, that would explain why he ran, and it was a tragedy.

Andy,

Apperently you're forgetting the context. A little over two weeks ago, fifty-some-odd people were killed by suicide bombers on 3 subway trains and a bus. The day beore the incident in question, an attempt to repeat the attack was thwarted but the terrs not knowing how to store their improvised explosives properly. In that context someone with a skin tone not unlike the Pakistani-Britons runs past a checkpoint in a heavy coat in the middle of summer and refuses to stop when the police tell him to. Furthermore, he makes a beeline for a train of the sort that had been attacked previously. Now consider the results had the mistake been reversed, not shooting someone who was a suicide bomber. The dead would include all five cops and most of the people in that subway car, in addition to the dude in the unseasonable garb. I don't see how anyone can honestly critisize the police under those circumstances.

There's a big difference between some reasonable expression that this is a terrible tragedy (as provided by andy and Bill) and the ghoulish celebration that went on initially (which you can see for yourself) when NONE of the facts were clearly established.

Yes, "context" is important. Like:

1. Did the officers properly identify themselves? They were plainclothes. Did this man see police officers, or men with guns?
2. The London police have recanted on all of their claims that this individual was connected to the bombing so far. Did he actually leave a suspected safehouse? Did he run through a police checkpoint? Was he just fare jumping?
3. Was the "shoot to kill" policy made reasonably public before the shooting? Doesn't sound like it, from the way British commentators are talking.
4. The weather in Europe sucks right now. The high in London today is 61 degrees F with lows in the 50s and rain (which is not great). I'm in Berlin, and it's been rainy and very cold and windy since Weds. A coat is not out of the question.

My take on this is it's an ugly accident, though at least now everyone knows the ground rules. But there's nothing objectively wrong with asking hard questions, especially when you run into a "false positive" like this. There IS something normatively wrong with celebrating someone's death out of hand without understanding the situation. It's a little too close to the way terrorists view American or Israeli civilians for my taste.

Thanks, Moebius.

Cybrludite, you say, in your comments to me:

I don't see how anyone can honestly critisize the police under those circumstances.

And I don't believe I've criticized the police at all. I have criticized those who were dancing in the cyberstreets like Palestinians on 9/11 before we even know what really happened.

One can say it was a tragedy, that the police acted rationally, and that the celebrants are complete idiots without logically contradicting oneself.

So what exactly would you propose to do Moebius, in a circumstance like that?

I would say the only thing you can do at this point if you're the police is firmly establish the ground rules and make your presence and intentions very explicit. If there are actual police checkpoints, make them visible. Make sure people are aware of the "shoot to kill policy" (which I don't think they were). Some London police have received anti-terrorist training from Israel, which is very familiar with creating controls to prevent these sorts of terrorist acts (and these controls seem to work). Israel has a shoot to kill policy, but there's also no way that people entering the checkpoints aren't aware of the stakes.

This sounds like a huge misunderstanding that stems from 1) insufficient police identification, 2) someone possibly involved in a completely unrelated illegal activity, like fare jumping (assuming he really jumped a ticket turnstyle), who wasn't expecting to get shot five times; or 3) something completely different.

Moebius,
1) Your assumption of insufficient police identification is possible but not sound because
a) I assume that police don't chase people around without yelling "police, stop". Police got basic training and that is the least basic thing any police officer can get. I am sure that part will be included in the official report.
b) Demanding complete identification such as police in uniform is not possible because it will exclude all undercover operation.

2)"... someone possibly involved in a completely unrelated illegal activity, like fare jumping (assuming he really jumped a ticket turnstyle), who wasn't expecting to get shot five times"
This is a hindsight maybe great to rouse the feeling of injustice but irrelevant in logic because the fact presenting at that split second a police officer has to decide whether to shoot or not to shoot, before a possible detonation occured could take the life of many people at that moment. It's very perculiar why this man running away from police (chase means a fair distance of running) and probably, no one would know the truth.

I guess the assumption of all law abiding citizens that when ordered by police officer to stop, they should stop. If they don't then either cop is just a pussycat, meaning there is no law and order anymore, or something else suspicious bordering criminal activities undergoing. With that assumption in mind and with the circumstances surrounding London in the past days, I don't think anyone can act otherwise. Now a cop has to live with his conscience that he killed an innocent man.

"Make sure people are aware of the "shoot to kill policy"

No such thing. Either you have armed cops and therefore a policy to shoot, or you don't. When you do have armed police, both here in the states and in the UK they can only shoot when life or limb is at risk. (I think a reasonable person would conclude that was so in this case)

There is no such thing as a "shoot to wound" policy. Not only can you not, as a practical matter, actually do that with any reliability, but with few rare exceptions (certian kinds of police sniper shootings) the whole point of a law enforcement shooting is to make the person stop whatever it was they were doing that made you shoot them. When you shoot, you shoot until they stop. Whether or not they are dead at that point is irrelevant.

I believe a "shoot-to-kill" policy indicates that police will gun you down if you don't stop when ordered, NOT that they won't try to kill you if they shoot at you (as every policeman shoots to kill when they shoot).