View Full Version : What if: You're on the tube & a policemarks man thinks you're a terrorist? Catch 22...
The Menezes thing got me thinking....
What if you're getting the tube one day, you probably run for the tube as you're always late.
A copper puts his gun in your face. He may or may not say, "armed police", it won't matter by that time he's got his orders and he'll be hyped up on adrenilin.
So, the question - what do you do?
If you do nothing, then you're dead right? You've been positively id'd, you're on a tube, he's got to save innocent civilians.
Or, you do something. Likely, they're definitely going to shoot you now as you must be a terrorist - you're fighting back. Your only hope is to overpower him & get as far away as you can and hope that when they calm down it can all be sorted out.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.....
If you do nothing, then you're dead right? You've been positively id'd, you're on a tube, he's got to save innocent civilians.
:confused:
got to be better than running away though.......... innit?
I don't care, I don't use the tube because it stinks.
why are you dead if you do nothing? if you've been positively ID's then, contrary to what think the police would rather not kill you. they'd rather take you alive to question you.
Raf bought me a T-shirt with the Brazilian flag on it. I wore it on the tube a fair bit after that incident figuring they'd be unlikely to shoot me as it would start to look like targeted racism. And it worked. I didn't get shot once!
Jambo
why are you dead if you do nothing?
Menezes didn't do anything. He was in a bear hug at the time of getting shot.
contrary to what think the police would rather not kill you.
They've a funny way of showing it.
The Guru
17-12-08, 01:54 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45304000/jpg/_45304797_2849056132_e14da809a0-1.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7786462.stm
SoulKiss
17-12-08, 01:55 PM
Raf bought me a T-shirt with the Brazilian flag on it. I wore it on the tube a fair bit after that incident figuring they'd be unlikely to shoot me as it would start to look like targeted racism. And it worked. I didn't get shot once!
Jambo
Yeah?
I have some anti-elephant engine additive I can sell you.
Only guaranteed to work in London, but the guarantee is that you will not be knocked off your bike by an elephant.
Want to buy some?
wheres the "do nothing as you have done nothing wrong, and you will not come to any harm"
or
even "keithd option"
Menezes didn't do anything. He was in a bear hug at the time of getting shot.
They've a funny way of showing it.
ok...so you're taking a one off as the norm?
Yeah?
I have some anti-elephant engine additive I can sell you.
Only guaranteed to work in London, but the guarantee is that you will not be knocked off your bike by an elephant.
Want to buy some?
i can sell you some volcano insurance
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 02:14 PM
Do as we say and you will live through it, act agressively and you will be put on the deck (dead or alive will depend on your actions).
Bear in mind that if an SF man is stood in front of you he is authorised to use lethal force, we are a lot more agressive but we still have rules and laws to follow.
SoulKiss
17-12-08, 02:23 PM
Do as we say and you will live through it, act agressively and you will be put on the deck (dead or alive will depend on your actions).
Bear in mind that if an SF man is stood in front of you he is authorised to use lethal force, we are a lot more agressive but we still have rules and laws to follow.
As I understand it De Menezes was dead from at least the point he went into the station.
It had been confirmed that he was a suicide bomber.
The police has been trained to use head shots without warning in such cases to prevent suicide bombers from detonating their bombs.
Any and all fault lies with the person who looked at the information and authorised the operation.
The Officers involved directly have no case to answer.
TBH its issues like this that make me think that we should get rid of Armed Police officers entirely and have members of the Special Forces do the job while seconded to the Police force.
Those individuals should never be identified under any circumstances and their Police handler should be responsible for all actions they take.
yorkie_chris
17-12-08, 02:35 PM
I have little respect for the armed police. It's not long since they shot someone on a raid, for sitting up in bed, unarmed, as they came into room.
My question is if it's so dangerous out there that the police need arms, why is it illegal for a subject of this regime to carry any weapon so terrifying as a nail-file.
Ceri JC
17-12-08, 02:49 PM
Option C)
Stand still and, put my hands behind your head. Regardless of whether it turns out to be a copper or a mugger, you're far less likely to get shot. Unless there's only one of "them" and they are very close, in which case I'd probably grapple with them and disarm them.
Our armed police occassionally do some ****-witted things (I personally know one who accidentally shot himself in the leg and temporarily deafened his colleagues in the van on the way to a raid), but look on the bright side, at least there is some sort of vetting before they give them a gun. Unlike the septics, who hand any waddling, moustache-wearing hick a shooter.
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 03:45 PM
Any and all fault lies with the person who looked at the information and authorised the operation.
The Officers involved directly have no case to answer.
+ 1
TBH its issues like this that make me think that we should get rid of Armed Police officers entirely and have members of the Special Forces do the job while seconded to the Police force.
I agree, despite my biased opinion due to my job, I believe CO19 do not offer anything that we cannot. We have more skills, more experience, a lot more training, and a hell of a lot more dicipline. The only issue we have about anouncing SF actions within the UK is being branded as uncontrolable thugs.
Those individuals should never be identified under any circumstances and their Police handler should be responsible for all actions they take.
+ 1
I personally know one who accidentally shot himself in the leg and temporarily deafened his colleagues in the van on the way to a raid
The guy is an idiot obviously, if he managed to do that he should never of been given the chance to work with firearms.
MiniMatt
17-12-08, 05:19 PM
At the risk of going over old ground several times over I would like to point out at this time that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the various inquiries into Stockwell has concluded that there was NOTHING Menezes could have done differently that day that would have prevented him from getting shot.
I take issue with the usual suspects who continue to imply that he must have done something wrong and probably deserved it in some way.
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 06:03 PM
At the risk of going over old ground several times over I would like to point out at this time that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the various inquiries into Stockwell has concluded that there was NOTHING Menezes could have done differently that day that would have prevented him from getting shot.
+ 1, he acted in the manner he did and a reaction was made. Job done, no fault made by the armed personnel involved.
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 06:13 PM
If you do nothing, then you're dead right?
Why???
Why???
Menezes actions were all innocent & miscontrued to be terroristy.
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 06:49 PM
Menezes actions were all innocent & miscontrued to be terroristy.
No one other than those involved no that, we do not kill suspected terrorists unless they provoke/act in a threatening manner.
we do not kill suspected terrorists unless they provoke/act in a threatening manner.
But if you have a few Kg of boom powder you don't need to act threatening you just press the loud button ;)
The violent/rage ones are not the ones to be scared of, the cool as a cucumber suicide bombers are.
If I run towards a train whilst removing my Iphone they could claim I was removing a remote detonating device to attempt to blow up something, this is the problem, the other problem is by the time they have seen it is an Iphone and not a detonator it would be too late had it actually been one.
Give everyone hand guns, :D
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 08:40 PM
But if you have a few Kg of boom powder you don't need to act threatening you just press the loud button ;)
But when one of us shout don't move and you move that is a threatening act, we can't see what is concealed and you are trying to reach for it.
The violent/rage ones are not the ones to be scared of, the cool as a cucumber suicide bombers are.
No one terrorist should be feared more than the other, the quiet ones tend to carry a bigger package but the brash ones aim for significant targets.
If I run towards a train whilst removing my Iphone they could claim I was removing a remote detonating device to attempt to blow up something, this is the problem, the other problem is by the time they have seen it is an Iphone and not a detonator it would be too late had it actually been one.
If I told you not to move and you moved I will give one final warning and put a round in, we only use lethal force if there is no other means of controlling the situation. The way you act determines they way you are perceived.
Give everyone hand guns, :D
This would escalate out of control, do you really want to see the armed forces on the streets of town/villages/cities?
GazandKatie
17-12-08, 08:48 PM
I have pondered over this for a while, if a undercover Firearms officer believed that you were a suicide bomber then you would never get the opportunity to consider this question, you would be dead. If by some slim chance you did get the opportunity to ask yourself that question then you would run like hell, as you wouldnt know that the person pointing a gun at you was a cop.
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 08:52 PM
I have pondered over this for a while, if a undercover Firearms officer believed that you were a suicide bomber then you would never get the opportunity to consider this question, you would be dead. If by some slim chance you did get the opportunity to ask yourself that question then you would run like hell, as you wouldnt know that the person pointing a gun at you was a cop.
Thats why the CO19 and us shout out our identity.
GazandKatie
17-12-08, 08:55 PM
Thats why the CO19 and us shout out our identity.
Do you mean SO19?
and who are us?
Do you mean SO19?
and who are us?
the org
GazandKatie
17-12-08, 08:57 PM
the org
haha good answer :D
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 08:58 PM
Do you mean SO19?
They are called CO19 now, they are part of Central Operations.
and who are us?
SF
They are called CO19 now, they are part of Central Operations.
SF
which sf are you dave if you can say :-D
GazandKatie
17-12-08, 09:02 PM
They are called CO19 now, they are part of Central Operations.
you learn something new every day :D
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 09:03 PM
san fransisco
Correct spot on.
i recon you work in woolworths realy
He wouldnt just holda gun to your head. He would shout armed police, at which point i would spread my arms and say im unarmed.
Correct spot on.
Special Boat Service, Rapid Deployment Counter Terrorism (RDCT). sbs damn man well done tough to get in that i'd well imagine.
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 09:06 PM
i recon you work in woolworths realy
Two years in 40 Commando, one year in 539 AS, and the rest (nearly 15 years) where I am now.
GazandKatie
17-12-08, 09:08 PM
i recon you work in woolworths realy
I think you are right lol
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 09:08 PM
sbs damn man well done tough to get in that i'd well imagine.
Aye, first is RM basic training. You need two years and at least two combat tours, then SAS selection, then SBS selection, followed by Artic and Ocean survival.
Dangerous Dave
17-12-08, 09:10 PM
i recon you work in woolworths realy
I think you are right lol
Nah, that would be 99% of the people who said they were in the SAS. We have no glamorous public image to uphold, no made up stories from former (and so called former) members, so no one cares.
well prepared for when the **** hit's the fan then so to speak.
muffles
17-12-08, 10:16 PM
i recon you work in woolworths realy
Two years in 40 Commando, one year in 539 AS, and the rest (nearly 15 years) where I am now.
What, woolies? :lol:
Did Menezes get any warning? It was at the time so likely to be wrong, but I thought they just shot him. As mentioned in case he triggered the 'bomb' when he realised they were police. If you end up in that situation what can you do, really?
Kazbee79
17-12-08, 10:23 PM
Nah, that would be 99% of the people who said they were in the SAS. We have no glamorous public image to uphold, no made up stories from former (and so called former) members, so no one cares.
Oh i thought they were all real stories, like Bravo Two Zero and such?
But when one of us shout don't move and you move that is a threatening act, we can't see what is concealed and you are trying to reach for it.
Depends if you are in civvies or full black ninja gear, if you had a gun and said don't move I'd probably listen, then again French police have guns as standard, being a foreigner in another country I would just assume it was standard issue, if I hadn't done anything wrong and there was a an ordinary looking person with a gun shouting "stop" I'd probably leg it, "Stop Police" or similar may make me think twice but in reality I am unsure how I would act.
No one terrorist should be feared more than the other, the quiet ones tend to carry a bigger package but the brash ones aim for significant targets.
+1
If I told you not to move and you moved I will give one final warning and put a round in, we only use lethal force if there is no other means of controlling the situation. The way you act determines they way you are perceived.
Indeed, but what is written in the final report after the cooling off period and group discussion *may* be different to what actually happens, I'm always amazed at how "by the book" all these dodgy cases were actually handled ;)
This would escalate out of control, do you really want to see the armed forces on the streets of town/villages/cities?
I can't remember it being a major problem prior to the restriction of guns in the UK, obviously there will be nutters that shouldn't have guns, but then the nutters know exactly where to get guns, still could own a shotgun fairly easily and "legally" they don't exactly emitted fluffy kittens when fired :smt040
i always thought that specail forces and SAS etc, were not meant to discuss what they did, all top secret, like?
i always thought that specail forces and SAS etc, were not meant to discuss what they did, all top secret, like?
If you re-read every post DD has made, you'll find he hasn't commented on what he has/hasn't done. Every comment has been either theoretical (in the cases of recent threads asking questions), factual (for example "I'd give one final warning then let off a round" etc), or nothing to do with his employment.
I haven't read one thing from DD stating where he's been, or what he's been up to with work (and I don't think a U-rated forum would be the place for such material anyway).
I fail to see why "spec ops" etc shouldn't disclose their job, for the most part at least, the UK population is law abiding, and has no real reason to discuss let alone act on information on a forum.
Apologies DD if I've stolen any of your thunder there, but my other half asked the same question as hovis whilst talking about this very thread. :)
slark01
17-12-08, 11:06 PM
As a person that has been in a situation where I have had 6 officers in front of me all armed, I can only say this...DON'T FCKING MOVE A MUSCLE.
I had a can of coke and was wearing slippers in a house in Milan, an alarm had been tripped and the police arrrived without my knowledge. If I had even moved one inch from any part of my body, I would have been shot.
I'm lucky in two parts, having a father with experience and knowledge, and secondly knowing when not to move!
Just to point out something obvious... an armed police officer will not shoot a person who is suspected to be a bomber unless that person does something stupid. A dead mans switch is common practice with suicide bombers and as such a police or soldier has to assess the situation within a split second to determin if a bomb goes off, if he does fire.
In the Menezes case we cannot rule out that the officers lied, but we cannot also rule out that the witnesses also lied.
The officers are well trained but unless they have been in another similiar incident, they cannot be sure they will follow their training. As for the witnesses well, I think we all know how reliable they can be!
The Poll is ridiculous as it's completely wrong!
There are far more options to a person than those two.
On a far more lighter note, I have been drinking this evening, so may have ranted a bit much.
Sorry if I upset anyone.
Ste
Anyhow, back on topic, it depends what I were doing. If I was just in a rush for the tube, as others have stated, I'd probably just stand still, maybe instinctively put my hands behind my head.
I can only liken it to experiences I've had. I've been faced with armed response, and a dog handler on very narrow stairs. They weren't interested in me, and the armed response guy just calmly stated "move, now." I was going down the stairs as they were coming up, so I stood to the side & they just walked past me. EDIT: I did cover my bits as the dog went past though, just in case it liked sausages. :shock:
Then again, I've also had the "Police, Stop!" ... "Stop now or we will be forced to fire!"... and well, I suppose I was warned. So I had a trip to hospital. I can tell you it hurt as well. :)
SoulKiss
18-12-08, 12:32 AM
Then again, I've also had the "Police, Stop!" ... "Stop now or we will be forced to fire!"... and well, I suppose I was warned. So I had a trip to hospital. I can tell you it hurt as well. :)
See, thats why we should take the guns off the police and return to the days when they shouted "Stop, or I'll have to shout Stop again!"
northwind
18-12-08, 12:59 AM
+ 1, he acted in the manner he did and a reaction was made. Job done, no fault made by the armed personnel involved.
They didn't identify themselves (and later lied and claimed they did- twice in fact, initially they claimed he was instructed to stop outside the station, then later they claimed that they identified themselves on the train, both now found to be untrue). The cause of the death was further up but you can't say that they did nothing wrong on the ground. Even the police on the ground obviously don't believe they did everything right, or they would have had no reason to lie about it.
But when one of us shout don't move and you move that is a threatening act, we can't see what is concealed and you are trying to reach for it.
Menezes had unidentified people shouting at him on the tube. You can't talk as though he ignored instructions from the police, because he had no way of knowing who they were.
Sid Squid
18-12-08, 08:47 AM
Any and all fault lies with the person who looked at the information and authorised the operation.
The Officers involved directly have no case to answer.
My thoughts exactly, despite the fact that we most emphatically don't have the Police force we need or deserve, I argued exactly this when Menezes was first shot, if the decision has been made that the man is a risk and has been positively identified, then those responsible for actually shooting him should face no censure at all.
Then we found out that they lied repeatedly, that no warning was given, (which might be the right course of action - but if it is why lie about it?), and that their handling of the affair was fundamentally different to the way that they claimed, the whole affair stinks and it's stunningly unlikely we'll ever know the truth of the circumstance.
But when one of us shout don't move and you move that is a threatening act
And it's been established quite firmly that that simply didn't happen, no warning was given, again this may have reasonable, but if so, then why repeatedly lie about it?
The whole business is bloody impossible, and I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions, the big problem is that the Police don't feel they are in anyway in error and that they are apparently not willing to accept that they have operatives who might be less than suited to the job, until responsibility for that is shouldered it'll be damn hard for the Police to re-establish any sort of public confidence.
And it's been established quite firmly that that simply didn't happen, no warning was given, again this may have reasonable, but if so, then why repeatedly lie about it?
The whole business is bloody impossible, and I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions, the big problem is that the Police don't feel they are in anyway in error and that they are apparently not willing to accept that they have operatives who might be less than suited to the job, until responsibility for that is shouldered it'll be damn hard for the Police to re-establish any sort of public confidence.
I can't comment on what is/isn't policy when an armed officer is staring a suspected suicide bomber in the face, so I won't.
It's just that IMO, if it were policy not to forewarn a suspected bomber they're about to be shot, it would merely serve to cause mass panic if that fact was public knowledge.
That would only serve to further damage what little confidence people have in the police. Much better to show a handful of officers as 'liars' rather than a whole force as 'willing to shoot on sight without warning.'
Hypothetically being in the position of those with the guns, I'm quite confident my fight or flight response would of pulled the trigger without having to think about it much. As others have said, the officers on the ground at the time have nothing to answer for. Someone told the officers to be there.
SoulKiss
18-12-08, 09:05 AM
And it's been established quite firmly that that simply didn't happen, no warning was given, again this may have reasonable, but if so, then why repeatedly lie about it?
[
As Baph said, it would be expected that they would give warning before shooting - which in my opinion given what was suspected WOULD have been the wrong action.
Quite possibly during the "Shoot to the head 1st, scrape up the brains later" training they were instructed that these tactics were NOT to be disclosed to the general public, hence come the 1st time they are used they tried to disguise it, and failed magnificently.
Again, I have no problems with their actions up to the point that De Menezes was dead, its the amount of lies and the pathetic cover up that stinks.
Dangerous Dave
18-12-08, 09:51 AM
i always thought that specail forces and SAS etc, were not meant to discuss what they did, all top secret, like?
And here is your answer....
If you re-read every post DD has made, you'll find he hasn't commented on what he has/hasn't done. Every comment has been either theoretical (in the cases of recent threads asking questions), factual (for example "I'd give one final warning then let off a round" etc), or nothing to do with his employment.
I haven't read one thing from DD stating where he's been, or what he's been up to with work (and I don't think a U-rated forum would be the place for such material anyway).
Apologies DD if I've stolen any of your thunder there, but my other half asked the same question as hovis whilst talking about this very thread. :)
No apology needed, thank you for jumping in.
Obviously i have not read all posts Dave has made, however one very obvious thing that stands out is nearly 6000 posts in a year from a man who claims to be in the SF world. From what I know from my hubbythe SF are very very busy people at the moment, unlikley to have so much time on their hands to post as often.
Not saying Dave is lying, just an observation.
and here is your answer...
Again, not in the attempt to steal DD's thunder, but his previous posts mention that he has been out of service due to injuries, having only recently returned back to something resembling active duty.
That, and he rides one of the few 800cc SV's. So he's bound to be drawn to here. :)
Since my return to work I have been actively deployed twice, if I am not training I am over seeing actions we are involved in overseas. I am not a runt, I am a Senior NCO with fifteen years service and experience in this unit. I am proud to serve in this unit, I am proud to serve in the armed forces, but that does not make me any better than any one of you. I may do some things that others may dream off, I am sure you all do the same.
Call me a liar, call me what you want, but I will remember it. I am here following two major road accidents which nearly killed me. I am here to pass on my info/experience about the SV and any other bikes. I never came here looking for friends, although I have found many in my time here.
I have nothing more to say about the original post, too many newspaper experts. Any issues feel free to PM.
The Guru
18-12-08, 09:55 AM
Since my return to work I have been actively deployed twice, if I am not training I am over seeing actions we are involved in overseas. I am not a runt, I am a Senior NCO with fifteen years service and experience in this unit. I am proud to serve in this unit, I am proud to serve in the armed forces, but that does not make me any better than any one of you. I may do some things that others may dream off, I am sure you all do the same.
Call me a liar, call me what you want, but I will remember it. I am here following two major road accidents which nearly killed me. I am here to pass on my info/experience about the SV and any other bikes. I never came here looking for friends, although I have found many in my time here.
I have nothing more to say about the original post, too many newspaper experts. Any issues feel free to PM.
+1
The Guru
18-12-08, 09:56 AM
.... too many newspaper experts..
Especially that
KnightRider
18-12-08, 10:07 AM
To answer the original question - option 3 - strip naked as you run away. At least that way old bill knows that you have no boom boom on you when you finally let them catch up.
There are far more options to a person than those two.
I don't see any other options - get killed by a gun toting, trigger happy, Bruce Willis type or attempt to not get shot.
That's all it boils down to.
The police shot the wrong guy. You could be the next wrong guy on the tube/bus/train etc...The poll stands simply to gauge whether, with what you know about the police tactics (shoot & be damned?) what would you do in a similar circumstance.
In all reality I'd probably poop myself, but I like to think that if I wasn't the coward you see before you, then I'd defend myself!
To answer the original question - option 3 - strip naked as you run away. At least that way old bill knows that you have no boom boom on you when you finally let them catch up.
They'll then do you for being a nonce or something!
Hovis would demand you hanged for that - again you're dead! ;o)
I don't see any other options - get killed by a gun toting, trigger happy, Bruce Willis type or attempt to not get shot.
As I stated above, if I were just in a rush for the tube, I'd probably stand still (perhaps let a little poop pass), and possibly instinctively go to put my hands behind my head - or spread wide
I don't know if those actions would stop me getting shot, but I like to think that when my time is up, my time is up.
SoulKiss
18-12-08, 10:22 AM
In all reality I'd probably poop myself, but I like to think that if I wasn't the coward you see before you, then I'd defend myself!
Well as all the muscles relax at death you would anyway AFTER you were shot :)
Well as all the muscles relax at death you would anyway AFTER you were shot :)
Oh no! They'll then do me for having a dirty bomb!
And here is your answer....
.
If you re-read every post DD has made, you'll find he hasn't commented on what he has/hasn't done. Every comment has been either theoretical (in the cases of recent threads asking questions), factual (for example "I'd give one final warning then let off a round" etc), or nothing to do with his employment.
I haven't read one thing from DD stating where he's been, or what he's been up to with work (and I don't think a U-rated forum would be the place for such material anyway).
I fail to see why "spec ops" etc shouldn't disclose their job, for the most part at least, the UK population is law abiding, and has no real reason to discuss let alone act on information on a forum.
Apologies DD if I've stolen any of your thunder there, but my other half asked the same question as hovis whilst talking about this very thread. :)
i know DD has never given any info of what he has done, or where he has been etc, but it comes across quite stongly that he is in the SAS or somthing simerler, i just thought that they were not meant to tell any one,
but considering nobody knows who he is, i guess he has not done anything wrong
:p
i know DD has never given any info of what he has done, or where he has been etc, but it comes across quite stongly that he is in the SAS or somthing simerler, i just thought that they were not meant to tell any one,
but considering nobody knows who he is, i guess he has not done anything wrong
:p
You also have to take into consideration the fact that this is an internet forum, and anyone can claim to be whoever they like.
For all you lot know, I could be a 19 year old sweedish blonde. :D
You also have to take into consideration the fact that this is an internet forum, and anyone can claim to be whoever they like.
For all you lot know, I could be a 19 year old sweedish blonde. :D
you mean your not?
pffffffffft;)
For all you lot know, I could be a 19 year old sweedish blonde. :D
Hello! Do you have a hi-vis jacket?
Flamin_Squirrel
18-12-08, 10:46 AM
I don't see any other options - get killed by a gun toting, trigger happy, Bruce Willis type or attempt to not get shot.
That's all it boils down to.
The police shot the wrong guy. You could be the next wrong guy on the tube/bus/train etc...The poll stands simply to gauge whether, with what you know about the police tactics (shoot & be damned?) what would you do in a similar circumstance.
In all reality I'd probably poop myself, but I like to think that if I wasn't the coward you see before you, then I'd defend myself!
All just speculative nonsence.
We can't have armed police wandering around ready to blow the head off of anyone who looks a bit foriegn, I mean, shifty. There has to be intel gathered on potential suspects first, to stop things like this happening. Intel was terrible so it did happen.
Ms D!ck who ran the operation, or rather didn't, was also apparently not trusted to make the difficult decision on whether to use lethal force or not. So perhaps in some respects it's understandable they lied about what happened. They were essentially being given the responsibility for making decisions it wasn't their job to make with the knowledge they were the ones that would get strung up if it went wrong.
Ms D!ck utter incompetance cost a young man his life. I don't know how she can live with herself, let alone remain in the same job. Accepting a promotion as well, the woman has no shame.
thank christ for that! i was wondering when squirrel was going to pitch up!! was thinking he'd gone and disappeared on us...
Ceri JC
18-12-08, 11:27 AM
Not defending the actions of the people who made the (in this case wrong) decision based on the intelligence they had, but out of interest, what do people think is an acceptable degree of certainty?
No intelligence is 100%, even the most trusted sources can be wrong (or even choose to intentionally mislead you). At what point does information become too risky to trust? 99%, 80%, 70%? One figure an ex-MI chap I studied under cited 60% as the general accepted level of certainty before acting on intelligence. The reason being, it's just like playing the odds; if it is more of an advantage overall (over hundreds of cases), it's still a good thing. Of course, this figure is a generalisation and in reality it depends on the risk vs. the benefit. For example, if acting on the intelligence, regardless of whether it turns out to be correct or not will cost you £100,000, but only 'save' you £110,000 if it turns out to be true, it has to be at least 90% certain before it makes sense to act on it. Given the inherent woolyness in predicting intelligence accuracy, in this instance you would probably not act unless either the cost to act was less or the saving was greater.
Easy enough to accept when it's cash on a balance sheet, but a bit harder when human lives are the "commodity" involved. In a purely logical, dispassionate sense, you should weigh up likely number of victims vs number of suspects and the greater the ratio of victims to suspects, the less certainty in the intelligence is needed in order to justify acting. At the same time, it's untenable to have a suspect you're only 10% certain about (so you're actually 90% sure they're innocent) shot, just because you think if the intelligence is correct, that they'll kill more than 10 people. And how do you accurately quantify things like number of victims? On a fast moving train it could possibly be hundreds if it's a well made bomb. If it's some shoddy DIY attempt by someone who doesn't know what they're doing, it might not even be 2 or 3 people. How do you quantify the 'value' of suspected injuries vs deaths?
As with all Risk (mis)Assesment, the "Outrage Factor" (the emotional factor in things which cause outrage which skews our judgement) unfortunately plays a huuuuge part in our response in how we perceive the outcome of such things*. The powers that be are well aware of this and will factor in this rather emotional aspect into their decision whether or not to act. The Menzies case and subsequent public outcry will have temporarily moved the goalposts as to what is deemed an acceptable level of intelligence on which to act.
*The police are supposed to be good guys, so it's more "acceptable" to be blown up by terrorists, rather than shot by police, even though the net result is the same: You're dead.
Not defending the actions of the people who made the (in this case wrong) decision based on the intelligence they had, but out of interest, what do people think is an acceptable degree of certainty?
Easy enough to accept when it's cash on a balance sheet, but a bit harder when human lives are the "commodity" involved. In a purely logical, dispassionate sense, you should weigh up likely number of victims vs number of suspects and the greater the ratio of victims to suspects, the less certainty in the intelligence is needed in order to justify acting. At the same time, it's untenable to have a suspect you're only 10% certain about (so you're actually 90% sure they're innocent) shot, just because you think if the intelligence is correct, that they'll kill more than 10 people. And how do you accurately quantify things like number of victims? On a fast moving train it could possibly be hundreds if it's a well made bomb. If it's some shoddy DIY attempt by someone who doesn't know what they're doing, it might not even be 2 or 3 people. How do you quantify the 'value' of suspected injuries vs deaths?
I disagree there.
If I were in the position of being an armed response officer, on an operation to prevent a suicide bomber, being given the target and told "this is the man you are after." Assuming I was authorised to use lethal force then TBH, I don't think I would of been that keen to stop & shout words to the effect of "Stop you terrorist, or I'll give you a slap with a wet fish"
I think I'd be more inclined to view it as "my life & the lives of my team mates are on the line here. Screw the public, I'm looking at maybe getting myself blown up whilst on duty today." Bang. He's dead, quick check, nope, I'm still breathing.
My point is, if faced with a terrorist, be they proven or suspected, I'd act accordingly to ensure my own survival - since I'm not trained nor authorised to use a gun, that would most likely manifest itself by me being able to run faster than the blonde in Heros.
jimmy__riddle
18-12-08, 11:44 AM
alerting someone to your presence who is in your mind a suicide bomber would probably end up in them pressing the button.
Flamin_Squirrel
18-12-08, 11:56 AM
Not defending the actions of the people who made the (in this case wrong) decision based on the intelligence they had, but out of interest, what do people think is an acceptable degree of certainty?
Not sure, but just having a quick check to see if the person they're about to kill is actually the person they were supposed to be after would be a start.
*The police are supposed to be good guys, so it's more "acceptable" to be blown up by terrorists, rather than shot by police, even though the net result is the same: You're dead.
Probably right, but damn well shouldn't be that way.
SoulKiss
18-12-08, 11:57 AM
Not sure, but just having a quick check to see if the person they're about to kill is actually the person they were supposed to be after would be a start.
What, go up to him and say "Excuse me sir, are you a suicide bomber?".
The (mis)identification had been made higher up the chain already, they guys with the guns had been told that he was the one.
Flamin_Squirrel
18-12-08, 12:10 PM
What, go up to him and say "Excuse me sir, are you a suicide bomber?".
The (mis)identification had been made higher up the chain already, they guys with the guns had been told that he was the one.
Yeah that's what I ment. But I see that's not the question Mr JC asked :oops:
So to answer the actual question, if the orders are to shoot without warning, I don't think the officers on the front line should have to make a decision based on the certainty of the intel. The time for that is before the operation.
MiniMatt
18-12-08, 12:44 PM
... good commensense well thought out stuff...
Good points about the degree of certainty required. I'd say there are several different levels, and they're all weighted in the presumption of innocence. And yep, that will result in bombers getting through, and cops and civilians being blown up. I would rather see ten criminals walk free than one innocent person being wrongly convicted - it's an illogical position I know, but it's the only possible position for a fair and free society with the presumption of innocence. The alternative is a society where your life is both controlled and owned by the state. The natural extrapolation of this position is that I would rather see ten bombers get through than kill one innocent. "Collateral damage" is all well and good until it's you or your child who has his/her face obliterated by hollow points just in case.
Whatever stance we take however, innocent people will still get killed by the police getting the wrong people and bombers will still get through. As the IRA said back in Brighton bombing - you have to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once.
In the mind of the person on the front line:
Does this person present an immediate threat to life and limb? Ie. not only is this person a supected bomber but do I believe that they are carrying a bomb right now and are minded to use it?
Is this person a suspected suicide bomber but I'm not sure they are carrying a bomb?
Is this person a suspected suicide bomber trying to escape?
Is this person a suspected suicide bomber, but I don't believe they're currently carrying a bomb, but they're not complying with orders?
All of these scenarios are a massive grey area but ultimately I'd say that only the first instance is one where I'd be comfortable with immediate execution. But every instance is different, every instance relies on human judgement and ultimately there will be c0ck ups that end in innocent people having their heads blown off by the police and there will be c0ck ups that end in innocent people having their heads blown off by terrorists.
Flamin_Squirrel
18-12-08, 01:20 PM
I would rather see ten criminals walk free than one innocent person being wrongly convicted - it's an illogical position I know, but it's the only possible position for a fair and free society with the presumption of innocence.
Nah, it's a perfectly logical position to want the guilty to be set free rather than prosecute (or even kill) the innocent. I wrote this in another thread a while back:
If someone who's actually guilty is acquitted reason it will, bar the very rare exception, be because the police/CPS haven't managed to build a convincing case.
Therefore should the above happen your reaction should be to ask why the police/CPS failed to do their job, not how can we lower the burden of proof enough that an incompetent police force/prosecutor can achieve a conviction. That will breed complacency within the police/CPS so they'll get lazy, will result in even more innocent people being locked up and ultimately, said innocent people will end up serving the sentences of guilty people who're left free to roam the streets.
Justice demands we do much as we possibly can to prevent locking up the innocent, even if it does mean the occasional guilty person getting away with it. Sadly, the government doesn't agree - it would appear justice and due process are beyond them.
Quite frankly I consider being locked up and having the key thrown away for a crime you didn't commit as one of the most horrific things that can happen to someone.
I must admit I know hardly anything about this case (it happened in London, who cares? :p) but a few things strike me;
1) Having only two options in the poll is ridiculous. It's obviously not as black and white as that. The police were acting on (apparently wrong) information and had orders to use lethal force against the identified individual.
2) Assuming that the police were acting on information that there was going to be someone with a bomb in London on that day - presumably the real 'terrorist' got away to plot for another day? A bit worrying.
3) Whether the police identified themselves or not seems to be the real question mark for me. If they did, and he ran, then that would appear to be the actions of a guilty person. In this case, he wasn't, but the only time I ran from police I had done something wrong (throwing fireworks).
If they didn't identify themselves and they should have (I don't know whether they have to or not) then I can understand them lieing about it - everyone tries to cover their ass don't they? :smt083
There were obviously huge mistake made in this case. Kinvig, you appear to feel threatened or worried that it might happen to you too? A bit alarmist perhaps?!
Kinvig, you appear to feel threatened or worried that it might happen to you too? A bit alarmist perhaps?!
A question I often-times ask myself: I may be paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Ceri JC
18-12-08, 05:03 PM
Just to clarify my POV: I was talking about the intelligence officers who made the decision to trail him, not the "grunts" with the guns and the way they behaved. Irrespective of whether or not their behaviour was right (which in this instance seems most likely to be wrong, although in all honesty, we have no real way of knowing for sure), the people who made the decision based on the intelligence were also in the wrong.
As Minimatt says, it's worth a certain degree of "cost" in terrorist-caused death, just to avoid the unpleasentness of the alternative (a police-state, where the police can go around shooting people largely without accountability or consequence). As to,
"Collateral damage" is all well and good until it's you or your child who has his/her face obliterated by hollow points just in case."
I'd suggest that argument works both ways; if you or your child (not to mention the dozen other innocent people) are blown to bits by a terrorist and it was found out that the police were 90% sure it was going to happen, but did nothing for fear of a backlash following a "false positive" shooting of the suspect, there'd (quite rightly) be an outcry rivalling that of the Menzies case!
Dangerous Dave
18-12-08, 08:34 PM
i know DD has never given any info of what he has done, or where he has been etc, but it comes across quite stongly that he is in the SAS or somthing simerler, i just thought that they were not meant to tell any one,
The * are not a secretive service and we have no hyped up public image to uphold. We try to stay out of the public eye so we can live our private lives in an ordinary manner. We have no wannabes either, after all who wants to be in a * unit which takes no credit, and who would want to brag about being in a lesser known unit. We do the job which is asked of us, we do it to the best of our abilities. It is just a job.
but considering nobody knows who he is, i guess he has not done anything wrong:p
Exactly, nobody on here has knowingly met me and I have not made one breach of the Official Secrets Act.
yorkie_chris
18-12-08, 08:41 PM
Also not much connection between SF and the police, except for knowing roughly which end the bullets come out of.
Also not much connection between SF and the police, except for knowing roughly which end the bullets come out of.
lol!
My comments were directed towards the Armed police rather than SF, between the two I would rather the situation was handled by he SF, but would prefer Police shooting at me rather than SF as SF will hit the target.
yorkie_chris
18-12-08, 09:00 PM
On a tube train at contact range? Doesn't matter.
Difference is the SF are less likely to get the buck fever like the armed police have done repeatedly and shot people for the sake of it.
davepreston
18-12-08, 10:23 PM
sf are trained to shoot to kill police are trained to imobilise apart from that there just some lads who have to worry about worst case sinarios and have the bottle to put there necks on the line ethier way slag them off all you want but a could you do it b would you walk a mile in there shoes ( or 50+ in some cases ) c while you walk around at work or shopping unaware that some bad people what to do bad things these lads keep you safe without your knowlage giving up more than you will know for an ideal. everyone makes mistakes try playing at there level see who is so judgemental after that
Flamin_Squirrel
18-12-08, 10:29 PM
sf are trained to shoot to kill police are trained to imobilise apart from that there just some lads who have to worry about worst case sinarios and have the bottle to put there necks on the line ethier way slag them off all you want but a could you do it b would you walk a mile in there shoes ( or 50+ in some cases ) c while you walk around at work or shopping unaware that some bad people what to do bad things these lads keep you safe without your knowlage giving up more than you will know for an ideal. everyone makes mistakes try playing at there level see who is so judgemental after that
... what? I gather you're trying to say, cut the police some slack? Well noone here would criticise the police if they'd just made an innocent mistake, but the cockups made in this case go far beyond that. I suggest you educate yourself about the details of this incident before accusing people of being 'judgemental'. The police deserve all the flack they've got for this atrocious blunder, and then some.
northwind
18-12-08, 10:40 PM
On a tube train at contact range? Doesn't matter
Especially when the target's already being restrained.
TBH it seems like a lot of people in the thread still believe the lies and the confusion, and are making judgements based on that. DD included despite his talk of "newspaper experts", he's still reciting the line from immediately after, which has now been totally discredited by the investigations and by every eyewitness.
Me, I think it's ridiculous to say the police did nothing wrong, it's a matter of record that they did. I just don't think they should be subject to a witch-hunt because of that, because they were operating with bad information, and under huge pressure, when you consider the timing.
Dangerous Dave
18-12-08, 11:31 PM
"newspaper experts"
This comment is aimed at the people who seem to think they can do this job better, it is nothing like the movies or games.
Look deep inside yourself, could you really do it? Many think they can, and yet many fail selection and not because of physical fitness.
northwind
18-12-08, 11:47 PM
I couldn't, wouldn't want to for that matter, but that's hardly the point is it? I know this, and so don't put myself in that situation. Nobody forced these guys into an armed unit, they were there to do the job they're paid to do.
I do get your point though, and there's also the benefit of hindsight with this. You just can't expect infallability, and in this sort of situation the stakes are just so high that simple mistakes cause big problems. People tend to forget the timing now too. It doesn't seem like it'd have happened on a typical week, but it wasn't that. But there's a difference between understanding how mistakes happen, and saying "No mistakes happened". The deceit makes it a lot worse to me mind.
Interesting read so far. For what it's worth, to answer the OP, I hope I would freeze and make sure my hands could be seen, as this gives the highest likelihood of coming out alive and un-injured. Give the armed ones as little to respond to as possible.
Personally I don't subscribe to the theory that police firearms officers are simply armed adrenaline fuelled thugs. I have respect for the training they have done and I believe that the vast majority take their lethal force responsibility very seriously. Their training and experience may not be as extensive as most SF, but they still do a good job in difficult, and usually very public, circumstances.
From what I've read here and in other threads, I also have no reason to believe that DD is anything other than what he has said he is.
The issues in the Menezes case have been argued many times. Whilst it is shameful that a cover up was attempted, and I agree with others' posts that it's the back office senior officers who should take responsibility for their errors, I have always been more intrigued that few have been willing to explore the hypothetical other side of the coin: What if the intel had been correct but the police didn't intervene and a bomb was detonated?
What if the intel had been correct but the police didn't intervene and a bomb was detonated?
Like 7/7 ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/03/july7.topstories3
Don't mind if they go Rambo, but they have to do it on all the suspects.
northwind
19-12-08, 01:35 AM
I have always been more intrigued that few have been willing to explore the hypothetical other side of the coin: What if the intel had been correct but the police didn't intervene and a bomb was detonated?
Yeah, people forget that effect (you get the same in all sorts of situations). For me, the counter is that if he'd been a bomber, they'd have failed anyway- they let him leave the house, get on a bus, walk through a busy street and underground station, and then only shot him when he was in a quiet underground car. So if he was going to blow himself up, he'd passed up better opportunities.
yorkie_chris
19-12-08, 02:31 AM
Look deep inside yourself, could you really do it? Many think they can, and yet many fail selection and not because of physical fitness.
I'm intriuged as to what "do it" means, but sadly my physical fitness is nowhere near what is required to get near selection never mind pass...
But what does that have to do with things? This case is on about the armed police who don't ressemble the SF in any way.
Ruffy, as far as I'm aware noone is trained to "shoot to kill" just as noone is trained to "shoot to wound," people are trained to negate a threat, whether that be a bullet through the T or telling them to put hands up. Even armed police aren't out to shoot a gun out of someones hands, because it's a really hard shot more likely to further antagonise...
yorkie_chris
19-12-08, 02:33 AM
What if the intel had been correct but the police didn't intervene and a bomb was detonated?
On the tube car? Where most of the amatuer bombs would have killed the coppers and bomber only, which would have been a a fair effort at self defence in this case!
On the tube car? Where most of the amatuer bombs would have killed the coppers and bomber only, which would have been a a fair effort at self defence in this case!
You're talking about British based suicide bombers!
What if it was a bomb of similar magnitude to the one in/near Madrid at roughly the same sort of time? 11/03/04 191 people died, 1755 wounded, across 10 bombs on 4 trains. Thats 170 people wounded on average per bomb. Three further bombs were detonated safely.
So, with a bomb of that magnitude, corerct intel, and the police don't act for some reason, anyone care to predict the reaction of the masses?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't... if you ask me!
The Guru
19-12-08, 08:14 AM
Ruffy, as far as I'm aware noone is trained to "shoot to kill" just as noone is trained to "shoot to wound," people are trained to negate a threat, whether that be a bullet through the T or telling them to put hands up. Even armed police aren't out to shoot a gun out of someones hands, because it's a really hard shot more likely to further antagonise...
Of course armed Officers are trained to kill. If a situation deteriorates and the Officer has to fire a shot… it will be a deadly shot. There is no “Shoot to kill” policy or orders as all shots (when fired correctly) will kill.
Of course armed Officers are trained to kill. If a situation deteriorates and the Officer has to fire a shot… it will be a deadly shot. There is no “Shoot to kill” policy or orders as all shots (when fired correctly) will kill.
It's a slow death to die of a hole in your knee.
The Guru
19-12-08, 08:44 AM
It's a slow death to die of a hole in your knee.
Ok Mr Bauer :rolleyes:
Getting shot in the knee is not going to stop you shooting back or detonating an explosive device..
Havent had time to read all the posts on this thread, but, my younger brother (18) was faced with this exact situation about 3 weeks ago at crewe train station, he was running for a train that he was late for and he was carrying his backpack (full of college work), 2 policemen steped out infront of him grabbed both of his arms and said he was being detained under section ?? of the terrorist act. He was then questioned as to what was in his backpack and asked why he was running towards a train. Anyway after searching his backpack they let him on his way, and because of this he missed the train that he was running for. Thank god the police officers were unarmed
SoulKiss
19-12-08, 09:10 AM
Havent had time to read all the posts on this thread, but, my younger brother (18) was faced with this exact situation about 3 weeks ago at crewe train station, he was running for a train that he was late for and he was carrying his backpack (full of college work), 2 policemen steped out infront of him grabbed both of his arms and said he was being detained under section ?? of the terrorist act. He was then questioned as to what was in his backpack and asked why he was running towards a train. Anyway after searching his backpack they let him on his way, and because of this he missed the train that he was running for. Thank god the police officers were unarmed
Thats completely ridiculous.
Running for a train is an excuse for the cops to stop you ?
The terrorist act needs to be abolished - it causes more hassle than its worth to everyday UK citizens.
I am sure we already had laws in place that should be used instead.
Just like we dont need specific laws against using mobile phones.
While we are at it, why should I as an adult not be able to carry a knife, after all for years before the laws got tightened, I carried at least one (at one point my belt had 2xLeatherman multi-tools and 1x Leatherman Knife on it) which I used regularly at work, and never once did I stab anyone.
Make people responsible for their actions, no excuses about upbringing, deprivation etc and let the rest of us get on with our lives.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.