'More innocent people will be shot dead' says police chief !

Padraig Breathnach wrote:


To pick out somebody on the basis of living in a particular apartment
building and, apparently, no other basis, and regard him as a
terrorist threat is absurd. The stuff about the coat (now contested)
and running away does not become material until after the initial
determination that he was a suspect.

The police in Britain never stop and question innocent
people whom they find in a "compromising" location? That
doesn't make them "suspects", but it certainly gives the
police reason to want to know who they are and what they're
doing there!

I can vividly remember the time, in my youth, when I had
returned home VERY late at night and was preparing for bed.
There was a knock at the door, and I opened it to see my
date for the evening flanked by a very big policeman on
either side! They had seen him sitting in a parked car
(he'd apparently dozed off for a minute or two, before
starting for home). Considering the hour, they had thought
it suspicious, and even more so when his ID indicated that
he lived about thirty miles away from where they encountered
him. When he told them "I just brought my girl home", they
wanted confirmation..... hence the appearance at my door.
My acknowleging that what he said was true was all that was
needed, the policemen apologized, and he was allowed to
depart. (Considering the miserable marriage that later
followed, I've often wished I had said "Never saw him before
in my life!", and allowed events to take their course.)

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:


Let's not lose sight of a basic fact, one that nobody contests: Mr. De
Menezes was not a terrorist.

Tragically, that was the actual case. However, SFAIK
clairvoyance is not a requirement for being a policeman! If
a suspect flees when ordered to surrender, the police react
as they were trained to do. I'm sure that's doubly certain
in a situation where both the police and the general public
are in a semi-paranoid state after a series of terrorist
attacks. One can sympathize with the victim's family, but
that doesn't make the unfortunate man any less a candidate
for the "Darwin Award".


That's far too harsh a judgement, Evelyn. The Darwin Award is for
killing oneself in a really stupid way. It's not obviously stupid to
run away from men with guns.

No? I beg to differ!

Differ away. It's part of life's rich tapestry.

The stupidity in this case was in identifying him as a suspect.

Put yourself in the policeman's place instead of the
victim's for a moment:

Okay.

During an investigation into
terrorism (following several more or less random terrorist
attacks) you see someone emerging from a building which is
under police surveillance.

Now I need more information. For what purpose is the building under
surveillance? Is there a strong supposition that it might house actual
terrorists? How many accommodation units are in the building (if there
are, say, ten units, one of which it is thought might be home to a
terrorist, then the apparent probability of any one resident being a
terrorist is not too high.

His clothing leads you to
suspect he may be carrying a bomb.

This is contested.

You order him to
stop..... What would YOU do?

Lots of questions here. Was there a clear order? Was it made clear
that it was a police instruction? In any event, these things were
subsequent to, and consequent on, somebody identifying him as a
suspect.

(I think we've stipulated
that a policeman is no more gifted with clairvoyance than
anyone else.)

I don't expect police (or anybody else) to be clairvoyant. I do expect
them to be at least moderately-intelligent, appropriately informed,
trained, skilled, and disciplined.

Was it an error in judgement on the policeman's part?

I think that quite possible, even likely.

Subsequent events indicate that it was. Was it stupid for
him to shoot? Not really - when a split-second decision was
required, he followed instructions.

I agree with the last point. Once Mr. De Menezes had been identified
as a suspect, the outcome seems to have been propelled like a tragedy.
The chances are that the man who shot him was not the person who
identified him as a suspect.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:


To pick out somebody on the basis of living in a particular apartment
building and, apparently, no other basis, and regard him as a
terrorist threat is absurd. The stuff about the coat (now contested)
and running away does not become material until after the initial
determination that he was a suspect.

The police in Britain never stop and question innocent
people whom they find in a "compromising" location? That
doesn't make them "suspects", but it certainly gives the
police reason to want to know who they are and what they're
doing there!

I'm sure they do (not living in Britain, I'm not familiar with the law
there on such matters). But failing to stop for the police is
generally not such a great offence that one risks being shot.

I am under the impression that American law is more robust in such
matters.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Padraig Breathnach wrote:



I can't tell how I might react if I was pursued by men carrying guns.
I suspect that you don't really know how you would react either.

Oh, but I do! The "normal" reaction for an ordinary person faced with
such a situation is to "freeze" in fear -

"Fight or flight" is the _normal_ reaction. Stay and
confront the assailant(s) with defense, or run away.
Freezing up is simply stupid. Surrendering, as you
alos recommend, is pathetic. Fight or flight is normal,
and if you can see by a quick count of assailants or
weapons drawn that you are clearly outgunned, then flight
s about the most _normal_ reaction possible.

I would certainly be no exception. (And when my brain caught up with my
initial response, I would continue to stand there - knowing that, whether
they were police or criminals, I'd be less likely to be shot if my
demeanor were non-threatening.)

Not "knowing that ..." but "believing that ..." without
any evidence to back it up. Your expected reaction is
that of a prey animal. It's one of the reasons that
they get eaten.

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Put yourself in the policeman's place instead of the
victim's for a moment:


Okay.


During an investigation into
terrorism (following several more or less random terrorist
attacks) you see someone emerging from a building which is
under police surveillance.


Now I need more information. For what purpose is the building under
surveillance? Is there a strong supposition that it might house actual
terrorists? How many accommodation units are in the building (if there
are, say, ten units, one of which it is thought might be home to a
terrorist, then the apparent probability of any one resident being a
terrorist is not too high.

What makes you think the policeman had any more information
than you or I? I doubt he'd have been given a long
disertation about it, just issued orders about the general
situation.

His clothing leads you to
suspect he may be carrying a bomb.


This is contested.

I think the jury is still out on that, but in any case the
policeman THOUGHT his appearance was suspicious, and he
failed to stop when ordered to do so.

Lots of questions here. Was there a clear order? Was it made clear
that it was a police instruction? In any event, these things were
subsequent to, and consequent on, somebody identifying him as a
suspect.

For whatever reasons, the policeman regarded him (or his
behaviour) as suspicious. The intelligent thing to do would
have been to stop and clear things up, not flee.

Was it an error in judgement on the policeman's part?

I think that quite possible, even likely.

Subsequent events indicate that it was. Was it stupid for
him to shoot? Not really - when a split-second decision was
required, he followed instructions.


I agree with the last point. Once Mr. De Menezes had been identified
as a suspect, the outcome seems to have been propelled like a tragedy.
The chances are that the man who shot him was not the person who
identified him as a suspect.

That may well be true - unfortunately, it's the man who shot
him who gets the blame!

No Spam wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Padraig Breathnach wrote:



I can't tell how I might react if I was pursued by men carrying guns.
I suspect that you don't really know how you would react either.

Oh, but I do! The "normal" reaction for an ordinary person faced with
such a situation is to "freeze" in fear -


"Fight or flight" is the _normal_ reaction.

Only after the initial "freeze"

Stay and
confront the assailant(s) with defense, or run away.
Freezing up is simply stupid.

Stupid or not, it's what normal people are most likely to
do. Those who've had military training may react
differently, but in the U.S., it's been a long time since
the "peacetime" draft, so most Americans do NOT have any
military background.

Surrendering, as you
alos recommend, is pathetic.

"Better a live coward than a dead hero". (There may be SOME
causes "worth dying for" but this situation doesn't qualify
- unless the victim really WAS one of the terrorists.)

Fight or flight is normal,
and if you can see by a quick count of assailants or
weapons drawn that you are clearly outgunned, then flight
s about the most _normal_ reaction possible.

Are you REALLY a "man of action", or are you simply
indulging in a fantasy of yourself as some James-Bond-like
character?


I would certainly be no exception. (And when my brain caught up with my
initial response, I would continue to stand there - knowing that, whether
they were police or criminals, I'd be less likely to be shot if my
demeanor were non-threatening.)


Not "knowing that ..." but "believing that ..." without
any evidence to back it up.

"No evidence" except common sense - which seems to be a
commodity in short supply, these days.

Your expected reaction is
that of a prey animal. It's one of the reasons that
they get eaten.

And Modern Man is a herd (read prey) animal! So?

In article ,
(Jack Campin - bogus address) wrote:

*From:* Jack Campin - bogus address
*Date:* Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:55:17 +0100

I can't tell how I might react if I was pursued by men carrying
guns. I suspect that you don't really know how you would react
either.
Oh, but I do! The "normal" reaction for an ordinary person
faced with such a situation is to "freeze" in fear

It looks to me that the incident was the result of a failure
of communication, as other posters here have argued. But I
suspect that failure was intentional. The Met (and the British
state in general) wants to establish a right for the police to
kill without accountability.

If accountability had been waived in this case that would be a
disturbingly plausible explanation. But it hasn't been...

----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as .
My new email address is that one, with the first digit of years in the
current century placed after the first word.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

During an investigation into
terrorism (following several more or less random terrorist
attacks) you see someone emerging from a building which is
under police surveillance.


Now I need more information. For what purpose is the building under
surveillance? Is there a strong supposition that it might house actual
terrorists? How many accommodation units are in the building (if there
are, say, ten units, one of which it is thought might be home to a
terrorist, then the apparent probability of any one resident being a
terrorist is not too high.

What makes you think the policeman had any more information
than you or I?

The idea that the police might not have had more information than we
have is appalling!


I doubt he'd have been given a long
disertation about it, just issued orders about the general
situation.

I would expect that police on surveillance duty to have the situation
explained for them.


His clothing leads you to
suspect he may be carrying a bomb.


This is contested.

I think the jury is still out on that,

So you agree it is contested.

but in any case the
policeman THOUGHT his appearance was suspicious, and he
failed to stop when ordered to do so.

I don't know if it was reasonable to think that his appearance was
suspicious. It might be a judgement coloured by something said earlier
to the officers following him.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

No Spam wrote:
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

I can't tell how I might react if I was pursued by men carrying guns.
I suspect that you don't really know how you would react either.
Oh, but I do! The "normal" reaction for an ordinary person faced with
such a situation is to "freeze" in fear -
"Fight or flight" is the _normal_ reaction.
Only after the initial "freeze"

This flies in the face of years of study of human behavior.
The more a person is afraid, the more the tendency towards
"fight or flight." The next option is usually "freeze," but
that is usually not triggered unless the first two options are
not available.

Stay and
confront the assailant(s) with defense, or run away.
Freezing up is simply stupid.

Stupid or not, it's what normal people are most likely to do.

This is simply wrong. You obviously have had little
exposure to studies of how people act when they feel
fear.

Those who've had military training may react differently, but in the U.S.,
it's been a long time since the "peacetime" draft, so most Americans do
NOT have any military background.

Surrendering, as you
alos recommend, is pathetic.

"Better a live coward than a dead hero". (There may be SOME causes "worth
dying for" but this situation doesn't qualify - unless the victim really
WAS one of the terrorists.)

Yes, this situation did not seem worth dying for. Which
is probably why he ran. Simply freezing up and letting the
gunmen shoot him would not have been a wise move. As it is,
they did not shoot him until he was pinned down and defenseless,
and the killer could fire point-blank into the head of a man
who could no longer try to escape.

Fight or flight is normal,
and if you can see by a quick count of assailants or
weapons drawn that you are clearly outgunned, then flight
s about the most _normal_ reaction possible.

Are you REALLY a "man of action", or are you simply indulging in a fantasy
of yourself as some James-Bond-like character?

I never claimed to be a "man of action" as you put it.
When a person's body is being flooded with adrenaline
because of fear, fight or flight IS the natural tendency.
Given the choice, I would typically prefer to flee than
to fight. But you do seem to have a rich fantasy life.
Running away is hardly the expected reaction of a "man
of action" super-spy shoot-em-up movie hero.

I would certainly be no exception. (And when my brain caught up with my
initial response, I would continue to stand there - knowing that, whether
they were police or criminals, I'd be less likely to be shot if my
demeanor were non-threatening.)

No, you would not be ABLE to freeze until your brain caught
up with you, if either fight or flight were available, and
you were a normal, typical person. There are very few absolutes,
and perhaps you could choose the "freeze" option if flight were
available and you were under the influence of large amounts of
adrenaline, but that is NOT the typical case.

Not "knowing that ..." but "believing that ..." without
any evidence to back it up.

"No evidence" except common sense - which seems to be a commodity in short
supply, these days.

And sadly, "common sense" is often not sensible, and the
phrase is often used to describe prejudices, ignorance, and
unfounded ill-informed beliefs.

Your expected reaction is
that of a prey animal. It's one of the reasons that
they get eaten.

And Modern Man is a herd (read prey) animal!

Yet another unfounded non-sensical "common sense" statement,
no doubt. The study of human behavior is hardly an exact
science, but human behavior has been scrutinized by scientists
for centuries, and the biological basis for much behavior is
pretty well understood. Then there are those who simply think
that all that study is not worth considering ... they know
better, because "common sense", with no factual information,
is more comforting and easy.

When faced by a gang of men with guns drawn (and not a single
witness has indicated that the policemen identified themselves
as policemen), running away is a perfectly normal reaction.
Simply freezing and surrendering is not the rule in such cases,
and without knowing that the men were policemen (which is a
possibilty - I'm not saying I know it happened that way), meekly
surrendering would have been stupid. For a person afraid for his
life, running away is, quite literally, human nature.

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:


"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:


During an investigation into
terrorism (following several more or less random terrorist
attacks) you see someone emerging from a building which is
under police surveillance.


Now I need more information. For what purpose is the building under
surveillance? Is there a strong supposition that it might house actual
terrorists? How many accommodation units are in the building (if there
are, say, ten units, one of which it is thought might be home to a
terrorist, then the apparent probability of any one resident being a
terrorist is not too high.

What makes you think the policeman had any more information
than you or I?


The idea that the police might not have had more information than we
have is appalling!

I didn't say "the police", I said "the policeman", meaning
the poor plod who was only following orders. How much
explanation are the troops given, when ordered to perform a
manuever?


So you agree it is contested.

Apparently, from what I've read here.

but in any case the
policeman THOUGHT his appearance was suspicious, and he
failed to stop when ordered to do so.


I don't know if it was reasonable to think that his appearance was
suspicious. It might be a judgement coloured by something said earlier
to the officers following him.

That may well be true, but if it influenced the shooter's
assessment of the situation, then you can't say his response
was "unreasonable", either.