NEWS: Man mistakenly shot dead in London was Brazilian...

DeusEx,
"If someone pulls a gun on me, I'm not going to simply fire one shot. I'm going to empty my gun into him. If neccesary, I would allocate bullets between multiple assailants. I'm pulling the trigger as fast as I can while keeping the sight picture. No, I won't simply give him two to the chest, I'm going to make sure the guy is down permenantly. Not going to give him a chance to shoot, or press a switch, or cut me."


Well if a policeman unloads his gun into you because you got a flat tire and you were trying to pull the jack out of your trunk at the wrong place and wrong time(determined by self-righteous police, of course), I would write he always supported that action.

Originally posted by devilwasp
A) The train moves quite a bit and even an inch one way moves the forsights quite a bit at any distance.
Also 1 ft , anyone could miss it if they didnt hold it right or the train moved.

So that justify's his actions of runnign away from police?

the train was not moving at that time. if you're a police officer who, and i quote from 'devilwasp' - 'The officers with hand guns are VERY well trained' cannot hit a moving target, whilst on the move, from one foot away then you should not be aloud to carry a hand gun.

him not having a visa doesn't justify his reasons for running away. i was merely pointing out the fact that he ran because he needed to stay in this country to make enough money to go home to brazil, so i can understand why he ran. witnesses say the man looked 'scared', 'petrified', 'like a corned fox' so obviously the police spooked him out and he got scared, and now that seems to be punishable by death.

Originally posted by DeusEx
2. Mwen, what magic weapon is this? There is no such thing as a 'non-lethal weapon'. There's less than lethal, yes. But if you refer to a tazer...then you are obviously not in your right mind. Electric current+any explosive=BOOM

What about tranquilizer gun...enough to put a man to sleep in seconds...

[edit on 26-7-2005 by mwen]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the train was not moving at that time. if you're a police officer who, and i quote from 'devilwasp' - 'The officers with hand guns are VERY well trained' cannot hit a moving target, whilst on the move, from one foot away then you should not be aloud to carry a hand gun.

Oh really?
So to hold a fire arm not a gun since guns are on ships, you ,must be a good shot?
Yeah so the whole test of training or understanding of the weapon does not matter?
A) If it wasnt moveing then that makes it slightly easier, a target moveing 1 ft in front of you will constantly move out of your sights more often than a target at say 30 ft (10 metres).

him not having a visa doesn't justify his reasons for running away. i was merely pointing out the fact that he ran because he needed to stay in this country to make enough money to go home to brazil, so i can understand why he ran. witnesses say the man looked 'scared', 'petrified', 'like a corned fox' so obviously the police spooked him out and he got scared, and now that seems to be punishable by death.

No running away from cops after a major terrorist incident and being a suspected terrorist means your a threat.
You can in self defence use any force necessary to defend yourself, others and property, if a suspected terrorist is running towards a crowded tube after 2 tube attacks police WILL be watching.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Oh really?
So to hold a fire arm not a gun since guns are on ships, you ,must be a good shot?
Yeah so the whole test of training or understanding of the weapon does not matter?
A) If it wasnt moveing then that makes it slightly easier, a target moveing 1 ft in front of you will constantly move out of your sights more often than a target at say 30 ft (10 metres).

you're the one who said the police were 'very well trained with hand guns'. yet, they can't hit a target 1 foot away? you don't even need to aim for that...just hold the gun infront of you and you've got your target.
i never said training or understanding of the weapon doesn't matter. i'm trying to find a reason why the man was shot when he was on the floor, when police had chances to shoot him when they right behind him. this means that they man could not have been an imminant threat as they took their time in killing him, waiting till the last moment, when the man was on the floor.

No running away from cops after a major terrorist incident and being a suspected terrorist means your a threat.
You can in self defence use any force necessary to defend yourself, others and property, if a suspected terrorist is running towards a crowded tube after 2 tube attacks police WILL be watching.

there's no evidence to suggest he knew they were police. i say again, why wait untill he was in the station to approach him? was he not then a threat when he was outside his home or on the bus? he only became a threat when he started running??

Originally posted by mwen

Originally posted by DeusEx
2. Mwen, what magic weapon is this? There is no such thing as a 'non-lethal weapon'. There's less than lethal, yes. But if you refer to a tazer...then you are obviously not in your right mind. Electric current+any explosive=BOOM

What about tranquilizer gun...enough to put a man to sleep in seconds...

Tranquilizer darts don't go through body armor, and the amount of tranq needed to knock someone my size out might kill another person. Also, the knock out effect isn't instantaneous. Didn't you ever wonder why they weren't used?

Shauny, the idea of surveillance is to watch someone. By the time he caught the bus, he was already fleeing police.

DE

I'm not sure if i've got the wrong end of the stick with this whole "firing on the move" issue? Are we talking about making a head shot at the target who is only a short distance away whilst he was running down the platform like this Brazilian guy would have been?
Remember a few points here, its hard enough to perfect a head shot EVERY time even on a normal static target although we would like to think that guys with this level of training will be able to at least master that one.
Now try and make that same shot whilst sprinting after a suspect who i doubt will be keeping in a nice straight line for you and be going at a leisurely pace. If you even stop for a second to try and take a fixed firing stance then you may have let the suspect further his distance by dozens of feet every second you are steadying your aim. Then try and make that shot whilst not standing in your usual firing stance, but instead running at full speed with your arms going all over the place. You are blowing out of your ass and this is intensified with the adrenaline that is pumping, and on top of all this there is the constant reminder that if you take the shot and it misses...which it could quite easily do with a moving head shot.....you may hit a member of the public. The average tube station in London is pretty busy on a normal day so i would'nt want to be the one to make that shot whilst chasing him in that environment, maybe that was why they found it better to make the shot once he was down on the train floor? Who knows?
I certainly don't. I do know its very easy for some people to voice opinions purely on things they've read, movies they've watched and crap they've been fed by others who will be lucky enough never to find themselves in a situation like this.
For those who like quoting excerts from websites (and on this occasion i'll do the same) there are many reports and studys out there which can pretty much hush the people who moan about the "head shot only" policy.
I quote from an old, but very good document from the FBI.....

"Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds."

BARRING A HIT TO THE BRAIN! Thats why they shoot in the head, its the quickest way to keep someone down and whilst yeah ok 8 shots may seem a lot, one certainly is'nt. I have a friend who had to leave the army after being shot through the eye with a 7.62 tracer round from a GPMG, burnt all the way to the back of his brain and apart from a bit of epilepsy and a false eye he's fine today. He walked to the medics van after being hit by that. Would've certainly been well enough to press a switch!

CX.

in all the time the man was running, over the ticket machine, through the crowds, even on the train for a while...yet he didn't set the bomb, even though he passed hundreds of people. suicide bombers aren't fussy. if he was a suicide bomber, as soon as the police shouted 'stop' he would have blown himself up. this is why the police made the mistake of shouting, as it makes a suicide bomber aware of their presence. if this was a suicide bomber then he would have blown himself up because of the way police had handled the situation.

afterall, what's the point in dressing in plain clothes when you're going to shout to suspects 'stop, police'? the whole point of plain clothes is so they can get close to suspects, aprehend them, quietly and safely.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
you're the one who said the police were 'very well trained with hand guns'. yet, they can't hit a target 1 foot away? you don't even need to aim for that...just hold the gun infront of you and you've got your target.

Shows you how much you know, if , as you say, the target was moveing then he would have moved in and out of the officers sights quickly much quicker than at a longer range.
Why?
Because a head can move quickly.
Also the kick on a 9mm will move the pistol possibly out of the way of the target.

i never said training or understanding of the weapon doesn't matter. i'm trying to find a reason why the man was shot when he was on the floor, when police had chances to shoot him when they right behind him. this means that they man could not have been an imminant threat as they took their time in killing him, waiting till the last moment, when the man was on the floor.

As I said before he was on a tube with passangers after a terrorist incident involving a tube, they gave this guy every chance to surrender but he didnt.
They followed him until the moment that the NEEDED to act.

there's no evidence to suggest he knew they were police.

And theres none to suggest he knew otherwise.

i say again, why wait untill he was in the station to approach him? was he not then a threat when he was outside his home or on the bus? he only became a threat when he started running??

He became a threat when he headed for a crowded tube car, would you take the risk of ending one mans life if it possibly saved 40?

Well I must say that after a long absence from ATS, I am suprised upon my return to find some people who claim to support this "shoot to kill policy".

An innocent man is shot dead (and joins many other slaughtered innocents) because politicians have abandoned over 2000 years of carefully thought out legal principles.

Lets not forget that the proponents of these so called "anti-terror laws", assured us that "Innocent people have nothing to be concerned about".

And to all those who think our police forces (whether in the UK, the US or here in Australia) can be trusted with this absurd power, lets not forget that these same police forces have been found guilty of drug dealing, gun running, graft, murder, verbaling planting evidence, framing innocent people.......a long list of diabolical crimes

And not just once or twice, but found guilty frequently over many many years.

And not just an isolated police force, but the majority - in nearly every major city in the western world.

And YOU trust these people?

How much easier is it going to be for crooked cops to murder people when all they have to say to avoid being called to account is, "I thought he had a bomb"

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain
Well I must say that after a long absence from ATS, I am suprised upon my return to find some people who claim to support this "shoot to kill policy".

An innocent man is shot dead (and joins many other slaughtered innocents) because politicians have abandoned over 2000 years of carefully thought out legal principles.

Lets not forget that the proponents of these so called "anti-terror laws", assured us that "Innocent people have nothing to be concerned about".

And to all those who think our police forces (whether in the UK, the US or here in Australia) can be trusted with this absurd power, lets not forget that these same police forces have been found guilty of drug dealing, gun running, graft, murder, verbaling planting evidence, framing innocent people.......a long list of diabolical crimes

And not just once or twice, but found guilty frequently over many many years.

And not just an isolated police force, but the majority - in nearly every major city in the western world.

And YOU trust these people?

How much easier is it going to be for crooked cops to murder people when all they have to say to avoid being called to account is, "I thought he had a bomb"

cheers for adding some sense to the thread...i'm getting tired of devilwasp's arguement.

we weren't even told about the shoot to kill policy until after the brazilian man was killed. whatever happened to the democratic country we live in??

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain
Well I must say that after a long absence from ATS, I am suprised upon my return to find some people who claim to support this "shoot to kill policy".

An innocent man is shot dead (and joins many other slaughtered innocents) because politicians have abandoned over 2000 years of carefully thought out legal principles.

Lets not forget that the proponents of these so called "anti-terror laws", assured us that "Innocent people have nothing to be concerned about".

And to all those who think our police forces (whether in the UK, the US or here in Australia) can be trusted with this absurd power, lets not forget that these same police forces have been found guilty of drug dealing, gun running, graft, murder, verbaling planting evidence, framing innocent people.......a long list of diabolical crimes

And not just once or twice, but found guilty frequently over many many years.

And not just an isolated police force, but the majority - in nearly every major city in the western world.

And YOU trust these people?

How much easier is it going to be for crooked cops to murder people when all they have to say to avoid being called to account is, "I thought he had a bomb"

cheers for adding some sense to the thread...i'm getting tired of devilwasp's arguement.

we weren't even told about the shoot to kill policy until after the brazilian man was killed. whatever happened to the democratic country we live in??

What do you mean we weren't told about the shoot to kill policy? It hasn't stopped being policy! When dealing with a terrorist threat, if a person is deemed an immediate threat to public safety then shoot to kill is brought into action. From the IRA in Gibralter to the Brazilian last friday, when an imminant threat is suspected they use "shoot to kill".

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain
Well I must say that after a long absence from ATS, I am suprised upon my return to find some people who claim to support this "shoot to kill policy".

An innocent man is shot dead (and joins many other slaughtered innocents) because politicians have abandoned over 2000 years of carefully thought out legal principles.

Lets not forget that the proponents of these so called "anti-terror laws", assured us that "Innocent people have nothing to be concerned about".

And to all those who think our police forces (whether in the UK, the US or here in Australia) can be trusted with this absurd power, lets not forget that these same police forces have been found guilty of drug dealing, gun running, graft, murder, verbaling planting evidence, framing innocent people.......a long list of diabolical crimes

And not just once or twice, but found guilty frequently over many many years.

And not just an isolated police force, but the majority - in nearly every major city in the western world.

And YOU trust these people?

How much easier is it going to be for crooked cops to murder people when all they have to say to avoid being called to account is, "I thought he had a bomb"

I think you forget something here mate, these are real people.
They have morals and any officer with a gun that fires it will probably lose his job, why? Because it doesnt matter if he hits a target or was shooting in the air to clear a riot around him, he will not be trusted by any of his collegues and will be watched with eagle eyes.
We trust these people with our lives and they sacrive many freedoms for it.
For one thing they cant show political intrests.
Mabye you should speak to them and find out that they are actually nice peope.

cheers for adding some sense to the thread...i'm getting tired of devilwasp's arguement.

Sense?
You mean my arguement that the police exist to save lives and are better than armed vigilante groups?
But hey if you think in a narrow view that all officers are bad then go ahead, it will only show your ignorace.

we weren't even told about the shoot to kill policy until after the brazilian man was killed. whatever happened to the democratic country we live in??

Mabye because officers who would use those weapons would shoot to kill anyway, there is rarely a need for them but when there is a need it is serios.
Any fire arm incident is deadly serios, oh and BTW, you do relise your not living in a democracy and never have.....right?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

all you supporters of the shoot to kill/public execution policy that we now have would feel entirely different if it were a close friend or family member of yours.

there will be an inquiry on this, unlike the 7/7 bombs, so hopefully we'll find out more details later.

devilwasp, the people have a right to know when the Government shift their policy especially after last time they brought the shoot to kill policy into affect.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
all you supporters of the shoot to kill/public execution policy that we now have would feel entirely different if it were a close friend or family member of yours.

I would feel the same, the officer made a call and I understand why he did it.

Originally posted by Odium
devilwasp, the people have a right to know when the Government shift their policy especially after last time they brought the shoot to kill policy into affect.

I know that od but theres a diffrence between wanting to know why and just blameing the government.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Personally id like these nice Muslim people to go back to their own Countries . Britain is a multicultural society but generally speaking the Muslims all live together in one place and carry on as if they still lived in their own Country.If they don't want to integrate into British life , they must go home. Any Asian will be suspected of being a bomber from now on, so things are going to get worse in race relations I'm afraid.

Bulldog, I will make this nice and simple for you.

The terrorists want to turn Non-Muslims against Muslims.
Well done for playing into their hands.
Cause hostility online and offline, make them feel unwelcome and put a smile on bin Laden's face while you're at it.

i understand what bulldog is saying, whether or not terrorists are trying to turn non-muslims against muslims, if all muslims left england it's pretty much problem solved. that's not a racist comment although it might look like one, but how can we be against muslims when we don't have them in our country??

"all you supporters of the shoot to kill/public execution policy that we now have would feel entirely different if it were a close friend or family member of yours."

Sorry, but i think that is a poor arguement. EVERYBODY would be devestated to lose a family member in this way (or any way for that matter). Just because it wasn't a member of "our" families that was shot doesn't make those who support the "shoot to kill" policy wrong.

If your going to use that arguement then you could say about everything - no one should comment on war unless they no someone who's died in war! No one should comment on murder unless they know someone who's been murdered!..etc etc.

The person responsible for the death of the brazilian last friday - is the brazilian. HIS actions led to his own death.

I for one am very glad this policy of "shoot to kill" is in place.