"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents"

[Alexander's Horse]

If people identify themselves as armed police in Brazil, you run if you're from the favella.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
If people identify themselves as armed police in Brazil, you run if you're from the favella.

He wasn't in Brazil, and neither were the police. And I seriously doubt he'd spent the preceding days in an hermetically sealed environment, either.

[Bereta_Eder]

Things that dont click.

_When you have a house under surveillance, you make sure to learn
a)who lives there
b) their background
c) is someone an inocent electrician from brazil who's main interest is winning the world cup
d) what each one looks like and be able to identify them when you see them living the house

_when someone leaves the house
a) you know who each one is
b) you have assessed their risk level (if he's presumed dangerous

_when someone who has left the house walks around
a) you make a decision to book him before he heads for a metro where the fatalities will be big, automatically

_if you nevertheless let him go into the metro not knowing who he is even though you have his house in surveillance
a) you yell "police freeze" at him. you dont yell get down get out and running after him with a gun
b) you make absolutely sure he knows you are the police

_if you blow all of these things up and you just go after him like you're some kind of shady character with a gun
a) if you have him pinned down, you dont shoot him in the head without knowing if he's already holding a button to detonate and him being dead will release it and boom
b) you dont fire 5 shots at him. 5 shots. the guy probably doesnt even have a face now.

_if you did all this
a) you're right to call it a tragedy

[Patroklos]

And why couldn't they shoot him in the leg or shoulder? Most cops are trained to shoot to maim, not kill.

What a naive statement.

Cops are actually trained to only draw their weapon when they deem there is a possibility of danger to themselves or others.

And trainied to shoot only if they intend to kill (except for a few snipers). They are always trained to shoot for the center of mass.

[Patroklos]

You guys just can't be pleased.

If they had said, "well, he had reason to believe he was a bomber but had just started our investigation, and had no solid proof, so we just let him walk into the Tube and kill 30 people. But we followed the rules to the T" you all would be screaming bloody murder.

[Gibsie]

Except if they suspected him of being a suicide bomber the correct procedure would not be to let him get on public transport in the first place. That is where the police failed unquestionably.

[Patroklos]

Except if they suspected him of being a suicide bomber the correct procedure would not be to let him get on public transport in the first place. That is where the police failed unquestionably.

Or perhaps they had decided to follow the rules and tail the guy first, but their common sense got the better of them at the moment of truth?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by molly bloom

He wasn't in Brazil, and neither were the police. And I seriously doubt he'd spent the preceding days in an hermetically sealed environment, either.

That's lame. I give it 2 out of 10.

People's reactions to police are hard wired by their background and circumstances in my opinion.

I wasn't surprised to learn he was from Brazil.

He could have been running for any number of reasons, like visa problems, unpaid fines etc.

I imagine the tube would be a common escape route for petty thieves etc.

This shoot to kill policy is clearly unsafe.

[Patroklos]

He could have been running for any number of reasons, like visa problems, unpaid fines etc.

Etc. including having 20lbs of TNT strapped to his chest.

If you run from the police, for whatever reason, YOU are responsible for what happens. All he had to do was stop, go to the station for a few hours, get cleared as the police were obviously capable of doing, and go home.

He was a dumbass.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Or perhaps they had decided to follow the rules and tail the guy first, but their common sense got the better of them at the moment of truth?

If you think someone might have a bomb on them, and are fearful of them blowing up the public transport system, then you challenge them at the first available opportunity, before they actually get on a bus. To wait until it's a situation of either killing them or letting them blow themselves up (if they have a bomb) represents an inherent failure in the way the situation was handled.

E.g. a suspected suicide bomber turns up at an event for the president- do you wait until he runs up on stage before you stop him, or do you challenge him at the gates? Common sense? Yes please.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Etc. including having 20lbs of TNT strapped to his chest.

If you run from the police, for whatever reason, YOU are responsible for what happens. All he had to do was stop, go to the station for a few hours, get cleared as the police were obviously capable of doing, and go home.

He was a dumbass.

He was a dumbass. I'm not disputing that - but shooting him was not the appropriate response.

There are many situations where people endanger many lives, such as drunk drivers or speeding joy riders, but very few people would think opening fire is an appropriate police response.

[Patroklos]

If you think someone might have a bomb on them, and are fearful of them blowing up the public transport system, then you challenge them at the first available opportunity, before they actually get on a bus.

Maybe for you or me, but for most of the people here leveling critisism, the right answer was not to follow him at all and let him get onto the bus and blow it up, becuase you had no evidence to even warrent following him. And once that bus does blow up they will instantly change stances and ask why they didn't shoot him five times.

It is an impossible standard to live up too.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

There are many situations where people endanger many lives, such as drunk drivers or speeding joy riders, but very few people would think opening fire is an appropriate police response.

Lots of people would – they're called right wingers. Y'know people who love force, brutally applied to preserve the social order.

NYE and others have made a classic example of authoritarian personalities. Hilarious.

[Patroklos]

There are many situations where people endanger many lives, such as drunk drivers or speeding joy riders, but very few people would think opening fire is an appropriate police response.

Untill they blow a bomb up in a subway station killing a few dozen people, then all of a sudden everyone thinks the opposite.

[Patroklos]

Lots of people would – they're called right wingers. Y'know people who love force, brutally applied to preserve the social order.

I think the best examples of that int he last 100 years are acually left thinking people