Innocent shooting

[Busyman]

I think, to the police, this guy wasn't that important until he started to flee. So he wasn't important enough to stop him from getting on a bus or getting near a tube station. He was, perhaps, a potential lead who may not even have been followed up on if things had gone differently.

However, as soon as he started to flee he became a major threat. He went from someone who might have a connection to "OMG this guy might have a bomb" in a small space of time. I don't agree with what happened but I can (kind of) understand why it happened.

Good point, CheeseHesh.

[RioDeLeo]

They would have known he had to get the tube as well as the bus, he'd been under surveillance for weeks.

The block of flats in Tulse Hill, south London, where Mr Mr De Menezes lived, was under surveillance following the discovery of its address in a rucksack containing one of four bombs which failed to explode in the capital last Thursday.

Source

If he had realised before he reached the station that he was being followed, that may have been the reason he jumped the barrier and fled, he may never have heard the request to stop. That's if he did jump the barrier.

[manker]

The block of flats in Tulse Hill, south London, where Mr Mr De Menezes lived, was under surveillance following the discovery of its address in a rucksack containing one of four bombs which failed to explode in the capital last Thursday.

Source

If he had realised before he reached the station that he was being followed, that may have been the reason he jumped the barrier and fled, he may never have heard the request to stop. That's if he did jump the barrier.

That's a fairly unimportant point but it appears I did misrepresent the time he'd been under surveilance. I thought it was since the initial bombings.

My premis was that the police should have attempted to apprehend him in a manner which prevented him darting into the busy tube station.

[RioDeLeo]

My premis was that the police should have attempted to apprehend him in a manner which prevented him darting into the busy tube station.

Or onto a bus.

[Barbarossa]

I am a bit disturbed about this whole thing. There are a number of factors that worked against him, and I have equal sympathy for him, his family, and for the police officers involved.

1). He came out of a building that was under surveillance.
2). He was wearing thick padded clothing.
3). He was of a dark complexion.
4). He panicking and reacted in an irrational manner when challenged.
5). It was only one day after an attempted suicide attack.

One could argue, that if any one of the above five points was not true, he would still be alive today.

On the one hand, the guy was a complete idiot for jumping over the turnstiles and trying to desperately reach the train, I can understand that he did look like a suicide bomber, and so I can understand the desperate need to stop him being able to detonate a bomb. A shoot-to-kill policy is the only 100% effective way to stop a suicide bomber, and aiming at the head is the sensible way to avoid accidentally detonating any explosives he may have about his torso.

On the other hand, firing 5 shots into the head at extremely close range does seem really brutal, and it's the sort of thing we usually hear about in the news from other countries, not in our capital city.

I think this incidident is going to have ramifications, both socially and politically for some time to come. (in the same way as those IRA bombers being gunned down in Gibraltar by the SAS in 1988)

I just hope we won't have to learn to get used to it.

[lynx]

Seems his visa may have expired.

If this had happened to a Westerner in Iraq a few years ago there would have been calls for action to be taken against Saddam and his "thugs".

[DanB]

Had Iraq been attacked by western suicide bombers then?

[lynx]

Had Iraq been attacked by western suicide bombers then?

Why do you ask?
Is it because you think cold blooded murder by armed police is acceptable once suicide bombers commit atrocities in our country?

[DanB]

It certainly gives more of a justification than if he was just a ticket dodger.

Do you think if we hadn't have endured the recent terrorist attacks they would have shot him 5 times in the head?

Or would you rather they had just let him get on the train and see if it had blown up? Is that a risk you would be prepared to take if you were in that officer's position?

And in answer to your question my answer is yes. If they fully believe that it is someone that needs taking out to prevent something terrible happening then I see no reson why they shouldn't.

[bigboab]

I agree with Dan. I can see no justification in criticising the police under the present circumstances. What would and should worry me/us is if the police/authorities are/were aware of the intentions of other bombers and did not shoot them.
It seems strange to me that within hours they are knocking on doors. Unless they have CCTV cameras that give the name and address of everyone appearing on them.