London Police Shoot Innocent man !!!!

UK Police: Man Killed Unrelated to Probe


Saturday July 23, 2005 6:46 PM

AP Photo NYET255

By JILL LAWLESS

Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - The man shot and killed on a subway car by London police
in front of horrified commuters apparently had nothing to do with this
month's bombings on the city's transit system, police said Saturday in
expressing their ``regrets.''

A day earlier, the police commissioner said the man was ``directly
linked'' to Thursday's attacks, in which bombs on three subway trains
and a bus failed to detonate properly. No one was injured.

``For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy
and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets,'' a police
spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity.

The man, whose identity has not been released, was shot Friday at a
subway station in the south London neighborhood of Stockwell. Witnesses
said the man appeared to be South Asian and was wearing a heavy padded
coat when police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground
and shot him in the head and torso.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said on customary condition of anonymity
that the man was unconnected to the incidents of Thursday, in which
bombs placed on three subway cars and a double-decker bus failed to
detonate properly.

The spokesman also said the man was ``probably unconnected'' to the
July 7 subway and bus bombings that killed 56 people, including four
attackers.

However, Scotland Yard would not rule out that the man was not
connected to any terrorist actions.

Hours after the man was killed, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian
Blair said the shooting was ``directly linked'' to the investigations.

``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
Friday.

``He was then followed by surveillance officers to the station. His
clothing and his behavior at the station added to their suspicions.''

Police investigating Thursday's attacks also said Saturday they had
arrested a second man in the same south London neighborhood where the
shooting occurred and another person was detained.

Thousands of officers fanned out in a huge manhunt amid hopes the
publication of images of four suspected attackers would lead to their
capture.

Security alerts kept the city of about 8 million on edge. Police
briefly evacuated east London's Mile End subway station in one such
incident and one witness reported the smell of something burning.
Service was suspended on parts of two subway lines, but police said
later the incident ``turned out to be nothing.''

The mourning continued, with hundreds packing Westminster Cathedral for
the funeral Mass of Anthony Fatayi-Williams, a 26-year-old who was
among the 52 people killed by four suicide bombers in the first wave of
attacks on July 7.

``These present atrocities and Anthony's death have raised great
emotions in us,'' Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster Alan Hopes told
mourners. ``We are angry, we are appalled and we are grieving. But as
Christians we cannot yield to bitterness, we cannot yield to thoughts
of revenge.''

The Metropolitan Police said the second arrest late Friday was ``in
connection with our inquiries'' into Thursday's attacks. The first
suspect, whose identity also has not been released, was being
questioned at a high-security London police station.

Police would not say whether the men arrested were among the four
suspected of carrying bombs onto three subway trains and a bus
Thursday. The bombs failed to detonate properly and no one was injured
in the attacks, which echoed the much deadlier blasts two weeks
earlier.

Police said they had a good response to Friday's release of the photos,
taken from the British capital's ubiquitous closed-circuit surveillance
cameras, which have proved a boon for investigators.

The closed-circuit TV images of the suspects stared from the front
pages of British newspapers Saturday.

``Faces of the four bombers,'' said the Daily Telegraph.

``The Fugitives'' said The Times.

The Daily Mail labeled them ``Human Bombs.''

One image shows a stocky man in a ``New York'' sweatshirt running
through a station. Another depicts a man in a white baseball cap and a
T-shirt adorned with palm trees. Two others are in dark clothes,
slightly obscured by a poor camera angle.

These have been days of high tension, disruption and fear on the London
Underground. The union for subway and bus drivers said workers would be
justified in staying away from work if the government fails to take
more precautions to make the operators safe.

``I think they're going to strike again,'' commuter Warren West, 27,
said of the bombers. ``I think they're doing to London what's happening
in Iraq.''

Heavily armed officers patrolled with clear instructions to stop
suicide bombers - if necessary, with a shot to the head.

``If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if
they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or
whatever device is on them,'' Mayor Ken Livingstone. ``Therefore,
overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a
shoot-to-kill policy.''

Thursday's bombs contained homemade explosives that only partly
detonated, police said, adding that the attacks bore resemblance to the
July 7 attacks, also on three subway trains and a bus. It was not clear
if the explosives were of the same type.

A statement posted Friday on an Islamic Web site in the name of an
al-Qaida-linked group claimed responsibility for Thursday's attacks.

Authorities, however, were skeptical. The group, Abu Hafs al Masri
Brigades, has also claimed responsibility for the July 7 bombings - as
it did for the 2003 New York City blackout and many other events.

none writes:

LONDON (AP) - The man shot and killed on a subway car by London police
in front of horrified commuters apparently had nothing to do with this
month's bombings on the city's transit system, police said Saturday in
expressing their ``regrets.''

I guess anything is justified if the "war on terror" is the excuse.

``For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy
and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets,'' a police
spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity.

He makes it sound like the guy fell off a cliff, instead of being
deliberately shot to death by the police.

Witnesses
said the man appeared to be South Asian and was wearing a heavy padded
coat when police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground
and shot him in the head and torso.

Brilliant.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said on customary condition of anonymity
that the man was unconnected to the incidents of Thursday, in which
bombs placed on three subway cars and a double-decker bus failed to
detonate properly.

It makes you wonder what the police do to people who _are_ connected
to the bombings.

The spokesman also said the man was ``probably unconnected'' to the
July 7 subway and bus bombings that killed 56 people, including four
attackers.

Oh well, just keep shooting, eventually you'll hit someone who is
actually guilty.

However, Scotland Yard would not rule out that the man was not
connected to any terrorist actions.

In other words, he was innocent, as far as they know.

``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
Friday.

Well, that certainly justifies immediate execution.

``He was then followed by surveillance officers to the station. His
clothing and his behavior at the station added to their suspicions.''

So he had to die. No time for an arrest or trial.

Security alerts kept the city of about 8 million on edge. Police
briefly evacuated east London's Mile End subway station in one such
incident and one witness reported the smell of something burning.
Service was suspended on parts of two subway lines, but police said
later the incident ``turned out to be nothing.''

Was anyone bewitched?

The mourning continued, with hundreds packing Westminster Cathedral for
the funeral Mass of Anthony Fatayi-Williams, a 26-year-old who was
among the 52 people killed by four suicide bombers in the first wave of
attacks on July 7.

Will this innocent man be added to the festivities, or does he not
count?

And what about the 80+ people who just died in the bombing of a resort
in Egypt? Or do only dead people in London count?

``These present atrocities and Anthony's death have raised great
emotions in us,'' Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster Alan Hopes told
mourners. ``We are angry, we are appalled and we are grieving. But as
Christians we cannot yield to bitterness, we cannot yield to thoughts
of revenge.''

But we can shoot people who dress suspiciously.

These have been days of high tension, disruption and fear on the London
Underground.

That's understandable, with the police pinning people to the ground
and shooting them in the head just for looking suspicious.

The union for subway and bus drivers said workers would be
justified in staying away from work if the government fails to take
more precautions to make the operators safe.

Such as?

``I think they're going to strike again,'' commuter Warren West, 27,
said of the bombers. ``I think they're doing to London what's happening
in Iraq.''

Not if they can get the police to do the work for them.

Heavily armed officers patrolled with clear instructions to stop
suicide bombers - if necessary, with a shot to the head.

How do you verify that someone is a suicide bomber before shooting him
in the head?

``If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if
they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or
whatever device is on them,'' Mayor Ken Livingstone. ``Therefore,
overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a
shoot-to-kill policy.''

Someone who _might_ be a suicide bomber? How does one determine how
suspicious a person must be before he must be shot in cold blood?

Mxsmanic wrote:
none writes:
``If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if
they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or
whatever device is on them,'' Mayor Ken Livingstone. ``Therefore,
overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a
shoot-to-kill policy.''

Someone who _might_ be a suicide bomber? How does one determine how
suspicious a person must be before he must be shot in cold blood?

That's the crux of it - really the only significant issue here in terms
of public policy: what did the police believe, and how reasonable was
their belief? Until those questions are answered (and I do believe it
will be necessary for the inquiry into the shooting to eventually
answer them pretty fully without too much recourse to the cloak of
'sensitive intelligence'), discussion of the possible rights and wrongs
is somewhat abstract.

In article ,
says...

Someone who _might_ be a suicide bomber? How does one determine how
suspicious a person must be before he must be shot in cold blood?

The only way to know for certain is to wait until he blows people up
(possibly including himself).

Guarding against terrorism, like the rest of life, is an exercise in
probabilities. At one extreme you would shoot everyone who is remotely
suspicious; at the other, you would never take action against anyone
until until after an incident had taken place. Most people think a line
should be drawn somewhere between these extremes.

Principled, well-meaning people have differing views on where the line
should be drawn. The situation is not as black-and-white as some on
either side would like to believe.

Charles Hawtrey writes:

Guarding against terrorism, like the rest of life, is an exercise in
probabilities. At one extreme you would shoot everyone who is remotely
suspicious; at the other, you would never take action against anyone
until until after an incident had taken place. Most people think a line
should be drawn somewhere between these extremes.

No doubt. So where should the line be drawn?

Principled, well-meaning people have differing views on where the line
should be drawn. The situation is not as black-and-white as some on
either side would like to believe.

Fine. Depending on where the line is drawn, innocent people will
either be killed by the police or killed by terrorists. Where would
you draw it?

On 24/07/05 8:12, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:

Charles Hawtrey writes:

Guarding against terrorism, like the rest of life, is an exercise in
probabilities. At one extreme you would shoot everyone who is remotely
suspicious; at the other, you would never take action against anyone
until until after an incident had taken place. Most people think a line
should be drawn somewhere between these extremes.

No doubt. So where should the line be drawn?

Principled, well-meaning people have differing views on where the line
should be drawn. The situation is not as black-and-white as some on
either side would like to believe.

Fine. Depending on where the line is drawn, innocent people will
either be killed by the police or killed by terrorists. Where would
you draw it?


Normally the line is drawn if the officer is in danger of being
killed himself. I.e. self-defense. Shooting a criminal in flight
is not allowed, shooting them approaching is if the officer
reasonably feels menaced.

The Diallo shooting in NY years ago, in which the "suspect" made
the wrong move of reaching for his wallet, involved 41 bullets
being discharged and showed professional incompetence on the
part of the 4 officers involved. They were not criminally convicted
of any crime but the city had large civil suit settlement to pay.
Americans are more permissive of police violence than are Europeans
currently. This was not always the case, witness the Paris police
riot against Algerians in 1961.

The London error is all the more exceptional. My assumption is that
the officer who did the shooting has been permanently removed from
this particular service, transferred to a desk job regardless of the
decision of a special commission which will investigate this.
In France, this investigation would be in the hands of a instruction
judge. Normally they are not very permissive in such cases. It better
be "self-defense" without any excuse making.

Following up to none

LONDON (AP) - The man shot and killed on a subway car by London police
in front of horrified commuters apparently had nothing to do with this
month's bombings on the city's transit system,

If you were the police, how would you have known that in, say,
two seconds that were available?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Following up to Mxsmanic

Fine. Depending on where the line is drawn, innocent people will
either be killed by the police or killed by terrorists. Where would
you draw it?

where would you draw it when persuing someone who you had
reasonable believed was a suicide bomber?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
On 24/07/05 8:12, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:


The London error is all the more exceptional. My assumption is that
the officer who did the shooting has been permanently removed from
this particular service, transferred to a desk job regardless of the
decision of a special commission which will investigate this.

So his guilt or innocence is immaterial, good job you dont run
the police, you'd screw up their morale in short order.

In France, this investigation would be in the hands of a instruction
judge. Normally they are not very permissive in such cases. It better
be "self-defense" without any excuse making.


You seem to be forgetting the primary excuse for shooting is NOT
self defense, its protecting the public. Here we have a man who left
a house under surveillance with regard to terrorist activities who
refused to stop when challenged by police and then vaulted
a barrier and ran onto a tube train at a time and in an area
where a suicide bomber was known to be active.

This amounts to an application for a Darwin award. Like it
or not suicide bombers change the rules. The met has
amended its rules of engagement accordingly and police
ARE allowed to shoot those suspected of such activities who
dont stop when challenged.

Keith

On 24/07/05 12:43, in article , "Keith
W" wrote:

If this man had been a suicide bomber he would have killed
or injured everyone in the carriage. Running from armed police
into a train merits a Darwin award in the current situation.


True, but people do panic, they do run. Diallo, in NY, was
gunned down with 41 bullets fired by 4 officers. He made
the error of reaching for his wallet.

In the US, Black mothers advise their teenage sons to keep
they hands visible when challenged by a cop.

American police often yell at a suspect to "freeze".

Foreigners should learn the word

*****

On October 28, 1992 Hattori Yoshihiro, a 16-year-old Japanese high-school
exchange student in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was brutally murdered. He and
his American friend were going to a Halloween party. While looking for the
house where the party was being held, he knocked on the wrong door. On
answering the door, the lady of the house, shocked at seeing a Japanese
face, screamed. Naturally, Yoshihiro didn't want to cause any trouble, so he
started to walk away. Suddenly, the man of the house appeared and shouted at
Yoshihiro:

Freeze!

Yoshihiro, not understanding that when you hear that word you must
completely stop moving, turned around. That was his fatal mistake and it was
the only excuse the woman's husband, Mr. Peairs, needed to blow Yoshihiro
away with his gun. Poor Yoshihiro died before he could digest his last
English lesson. But in a flash, the meaning of "freeze" with all its nuances
was indelibly imprinted on the Japanese psyche. Today, whenever Japanese
hear this word, they know exactly what to do, or more accurately, what not
to do: they will do absolutely nothing; they will freeze in their footsteps.

*****

"Freeze", a chilling story