This entry was posted on
Monday, July 25th, 2005 at
12:43 pm and is filed
under The War on Stupid.
BBC – Shot man not connected to bombing
Guardian – Short walk and the No2 bus – a very ordinary journey to death
Perfect – They shot the wrong guy
Perfect – They shot the wrong guy (redux)
Europhobia – UK race relations improve no end…
Why did he run?
My best guess is that he ran because he was the wrong colour and he knew it. I’m reminded of the woefully incomplete report of a man silly enough to run away from an explosion last week: “Suddenly, I saw a guy coming from the stairs. He was running and at the same time people were running after him. I wanted to catch him but I was carrying heavy bags. The guy said something like ‘what’s wrong with these people’. He was a skinny Asian guy, with a little beard. He was about 19.
Why was he allowed to board and ride a bus?
We can only assume that the bus was empty. Why else would officers find it acceptable to allow him to board and ride a bus when boarding a train calls for 5 bullets to the head? Perhaps the bus was only partially full, in which case they were simply playing the numbers. 5 passengers (and a varying number of bystanders)? Acceptable losses. 50 passengers? Target the brain.
Why is it so important that he’s not at all connected to any terrorist group?
For many people, this was the clincher that prompted outrage. Jean Charles de Menezes was not connected to terrorists in any way, therefore the shooting was wrong (or perhaps merely unfortunate). But how would it be OK if he had been connected to a terrorist cell? The police suspected he was connected to terrorists and further suspected that he had a bomb. Perhaps acting on this suspicion in such a way is fair enough given the circumstances, that’s not the point I’m arguing. Had they acted in this way and found that there was no bomb, but the man was directly connected to the attacks of the 7th or 21st of July, that would still make this far from OK. Unless we’re holding public executions without trial these days and no-one has told us.
Why wasn’t the public informed of the ‘shoot to kill’ policy?
Perhaps they thought it would be less distressing for us to find out about it this way.
Who’s to blame?
The message we’re being sold at the moment is that an anti-terrorist officer pulled the trigger, but the terrorists are really to blame for creating the conditions that contributed to the event. But if you dared to suggest last week that Tony Blair created conditions that contributed to the events of the 7th or 21st of July, you were constantly reminded that he didn’t actually pull the trigger.
Maybe The Sun can explain things to me. In the scant coverage they afford this today, they helpfully explain that we can expect more people to be shot as part of the ‘shoot to kill… to protect‘ policy (ah, we’re getting closer) and a further article that doesn’t appear online points out that;
The harsh reality of life in London, July 2005, is we are at war – and a war like no other that this country has ever had to fight. But the one thing this war does have in common with others is that nasty cliche “collateral damage”. That means innocent people die. But to quote another cliche, they are dying so the rest of us can live.”
Now there’s a comforting thought… but you’ll pardon me for failing to hang onto it if my brains happen to spill out onto a railway platform.
It appears that we have the right not to get blown up, but to protect that right we have to surrender a few civil liberties… like the right not to get shot 5 times in the back of the head.
UPDATES:
Better make that 8 times.
The UK Today – State of Terror
Also, given recent events, please note that I may soon have to revise this post.
By :: The Editor, United Rant :: July 25, 2005 - 12:59 pm
I’ll be honest I’m more scared of maniacal anti-terrorist police than I am of suicide bombers.Here’s a really simple question that has been totally avoided by the ‘authorities’. Why the hell did the ‘intelligence services’ (an oxymoron if their ever was one) think that an electrician from Brazil (a devout catholic country), with no links to terrorism whatsoever, was an Islamist fundamentalist suicide bomber?Could it be that the police were following the wrong guy?That they didn’t now who the hell he was?That the only grounds for suspicion was his puffer jacket?In which case half the chavs on the estates round where I live ought to be scared, very scared!
By balders July 25, 2005 - 3:13 pm
Shoot-to-kill is a symptom of the state we find ourselves in (pardon the pun). The War on Terror is not being fought for your benefit, my benefit or even for our society as a whole. It is being fought by the State on behalf of the State. And under these conditions our assumed basic freedoms and rights are worth absolutely bugger all.That Sir Ian Blair can say that the death of an innocent person is a small price to pay for increased security gives a good indication as to the price we will pay for this “War”.ID Cards, detention without trial, shoot-to-kill. These are all policies of a degenerate state, a state which would happily sacrifice centuries of hard won civil rights on the alter of its own hubris.20 years ago I reckoned society had become too complacent, too willing to taken its freedoms for granted. It would seem that my fears are coming to pass. Unless the trend is reversed, this country could very well find itself facing the sort of civil disorder not seen since 1642. Maybe not open warfare, and maybe not for another 20 or 30 years, but the sort of internecine struggle that could tear this country apart.
By The Skakagrall July 25, 2005 - 6:32 pm
The killing of de Menezes
The tragic killing of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes by the police at close range at Stockwell underground station in London raises a lot of questions. Why did the police kill de Menezes? We know that he came out of a block of flats that were under …
By Rik July 25, 2005 - 7:39 pm
Tell you what, Tim. I’m glad sites like this exist for a more “balanced” view of what’s happening. Some of the comments on the BBC site are very worrying.There’s a large number of people in this country who believe 8.. not 1, 2, or even 5 shots into an innocent man are the price to pay for freedom. It’ll be interesting to know if the officer who carried out the assassination will even receieve a smack on the wrist. I think it goes beyond being trigger happy and into the realms of raving maniac.
By Oscar Wildebeest July 26, 2005 - 3:18 pm
Cracking good post, Tim. Have pinged you, but Haloscan won’t accept it. Probably a gremlin. Keep up the good work, anyway.
By goatchurch July 26, 2005 - 4:35 pm
What’s astonishing is, in the acres of vacant newspaper speculation and ficticious does-not-meet-with-the-facts justification, I have not once seen a mention that bombers might use a “fail-dangerous” type of trigger.This is what you get from holding a grenade without its pin, or a spring-loaded button which will make electical contact on release. This trivial counter-measure will 100% totally neutralize this bonkers Wild-West policy of “shoot out their nervous system before they blow up you” that so many idiots seem to feel is worth justifying.
By Manic July 26, 2005 - 6:02 pm
Oscar, you are a genius:https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2005/07/icigsitboth_-_i.asp