Do you fit the “terrorist” profile?

[tex]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/peters/peters8.html

A man with curly black hair and olive complexion set out on his early morning run in the downtown section of a major metropolitan area. Uncertain of the fall weather, he dresses in layers, the last of which is a billowy parka. In a pack strapped to his waist is a music-playing device, with wires running from his pack to earpieces tucked almost invisibly into his ears.

Toward the end of his run he is breathing heavily, his face dripping with sweat. As the music continues to play loudly in his ears, he is singing along with it. Remembering that there is a coffee shop in the nearby transit station, he turns to jog up the stairs into the station, passing police officers on the way. Before entering the shop, the man, slows to a cool-down walk, pacing back and forth to slow his breathing. He continues to listen to the music and repeat the lyrics to himself.

Minutes later, a crowd gathers, as the man lays dead on the pavement, the victim of a single gunshot wound to the head, music still playing into his now blood-filled ears. What happened?

Welcome to USA 2005. No, this is not a new video game. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, following a week of schooling in Israel, decided that they liked what they saw and heard enough to recommend its adoption on America’s streets.

New guidelines issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police authorize a police officer to shoot-to-kill any suspected terrorist by shooting him in the head. "You need to get him dead as soon as possible." Says Miami Police Chief John F. Timoney. (Washington Post.com, August 3, 2005).

How will police identify a terrorist before they put a bullet through his head? The IACP lays down the following terrorist profile: "wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather" (no definition of what constitutes a heavy coat or what is considered warm weather) "carrying a briefcase, dufflebag or backpack with protrusions or visible wires" (make sure it zips neatly shut and get Bluetooth) "might display nervousness" (take a Xanax before leaving your house) "unwillingness to make eye contact" (shyness is now punishable by death) "excessive sweating" (no definition of how much you are permitted to sweat without risking your life) "might mumble prayers" (such as praying that nobody shoots you in the head) or "pacing back and forth in front of a venue" (no definition of what constitutes pacing or what constitutes a venue).

Think this scenario cannot get worse? Think again. While previous use-of-force guidelines required police officers to be faced with an imminent threat before deploying deadly force, the new guidelines eliminate this pesky threshold. "An officer just needs to have a ‘reasonable basis’ to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb" under the new guidelines. (Washington Post.com, August 3, 2005).

[dks1240]

i can't imagine being a police officer and shooting someone in the head because i have a "reasonable basis" to believe that a suspect might detonate a bomb. ending someone's life without being even 99% sure that he/she is a terrorist...how can someone do this??

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by dks1240
i can't imagine being a police officer and shooting someone in the head because i have a "reasonable basis" to believe that a suspect might detonate a bomb. ending someone's life without being even 99% sure that he/she is a terrorist...how can someone do this??

It's fiction. Nobody did this.


Hey Tex, what's yer preference? Would you rather cops not try to identify terrorists? Or that there's proof positive (i.e., something blown up) before they do anything? Or do you want the police to apprehend a bomber using non lethal techniques? How many police are you willing to sacrifice that way?

Those are not incindiary questions -- no more so than that article.

Who the heck goes running in multiple layers of clothing in warm weather (topped with a billowing cloak) anyway?


In England, the poor Brazilian was running from cops, dressed in multiple layers and looking very suspicious in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. It was tragic, yes, but understandable.

[dks1240]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


It's fiction. Nobody did this.



i realize it's fiction. im just saying, if the situation came up (like the innocent man shot in London), it could be very hard for police to make that final decision to kill the person when you arent 100% sure.

[Kilmer17]

While the man in England was NOT a terrorist. He still failed to comply with police.

[codeorama]

When you don't listen to the police, you SHOULD get shot.

[The Showstopper]

Originally posted by codeorama
When you don't listen to the police, you SHOULD get shot.

couldnt agree with ya more

[chomerics]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


It's fiction. Nobody did this.

Yea, tell that to the man who was kiled on the London subaway two weeks ago.

I guess that was fiction in your world too huh.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
While the man in England was NOT a terrorist. He still failed to comply with police.

Last I heard, failing to comply with police is not an offense punishable by death without jury.

This is America, why do you hate freedom?

[chomerics]

Originally posted by codeorama
When you don't listen to the police, you SHOULD get shot.

And if you are deaf?

[Kilmer17]

If you're deaf, you dont run from the cops.

I know in your liberal world, cops are bad, the US is evil and all. But dont you think from time to time people should take responsibility for their own actions.


It's a simple process. If the cop tells you to stop, you stop.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by chomerics


And if you are deaf?

If the guy had been deaf, the command from the police to "STOP!" wouldn't have been a stimulus to run.

[Destino]

Originally posted by codeorama
When you don't listen to the police, you SHOULD get shot. No.

Cops usually arrive at a scene not knowing what the hell is going on and emotionally cold. The people involved however could be in shock, afraid, or even under the influence. Telling police to shoot people that don't listen would only result in the death of innocent people and an increase in fear of the police.

Yeah it sucks having to deal with people that run or don't listen, but deadly force should be reserved for only the worst situations.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
It's a simple process. If the cop tells you to stop, you stop. The only thing simple is your thought process and ability to reason. If a cop tell me to stop when I'm minding my own business I'll stop. If a cop tells me to stop when I know there's a lunatic with a gun around the corner, he can kiss my ass. I'll stop when I'm safe.

The problem is a cop doesn't know the difference between a bad guy and victim when he arrives on the scene. Shooting anyone that doesn't obey is a bad idea. I've flat out refused to obey cops in teh past and when it was all said and done no one ever accused me of doing anything wrong.

But hey, maybe I should have let the dog rip me apart to keep from getting shot at. Because in your simplified imaginery conservative world the cop is always right.

[Kilmer17]

When you refused to obey the cops, you broke the law. That they allowed you to get away with breaking the law is immaterial.

Restraint should be used whenever possible, but I will not ever say the cops were wrong for acting.

If an otherwise innocent man (ie the only crime is disobedience) is killed because the cops made a decision based on his actions, then HE ALONE bears the blame for those actions.

[Darth Tater]

If cops truly wanted to prevent terrorism, they'd get to know their communities. This just increases peoples fear of cops making cops nothing more than enforcers who work for the gangsters called government.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
When you refused to obey the cops, you broke the law. That they allowed you to get away with breaking the law is immaterial.

Restraint should be used whenever possible, but I will not ever say the cops were wrong for acting.

If an otherwise innocent man (ie the only crime is disobedience) is killed because the cops made a decision based on his actions, then HE ALONE bears the blame for those actions. It's easy to look down from the ivory tower and say things like "hey he shouldn't have ran" while ignoring all other factors. Last I checked running while being chased isn't puishable by death....unless simplisitc idealists get their way.

[Kilmer17]

You're the one making it simplistic Des.

It's not punishable by death. But Cops do have the duty to protect us all. I trust their judgement, why dont you?

If they start shooting every person who runs from them, I'll change my view. But it seems you want to take one incident and state that it is the absolute every time.

[36SKINS56]

Thank god the people in this thread are reasonable. If you disobey cops you get shot. I dont care if you are a terrorist or not.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
You're the one making it simplistic Des.

It's not punishable by death. But Cops do have the duty to protect us all. I trust their judgement, why dont you?

If they start shooting every person who runs from them, I'll change my view. But it seems you want to take one incident and state that it is the absolute every time. Why don't I trust cops? Because they are human, and I know this goes against simplisitic idealism, but whenever humans are involved it is 100% certain that some of them will be bad folks. Passing laws that basically make it ok for a cop to make a bad call and kill someone who was not a threat is not something I can get behind. Saying that I'll change my mind after a whole bunch of innocent people are killed is just more ivory tower idealism.

The rules are simple, deadly force is used as a response to deadly threats. It's perfect and requires no shift at all. The guy that was shot in the train station in the UK made a deadly threat. Terrorism is going on and the guy runs towards the train, thus he got shot. Sucks that he wasn't a bad guy but the cop had to act.

That is worlds away from "if you run you should get shot." That is over simplification and IMO the product of arrogant ivory tower idealism.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
If you're deaf, you dont run from the cops.

And if you don't hear them? Too bad.



I know in your liberal world, cops are bad, the US is evil and all. But dont you think from time to time people should take responsibility for their own actions.

No, in my world, not a libral one BTW, the evil people are the ones ruining our freedom.

You never answered my question, why do you hate freedom so much? It wasn't a joke, but a question. Obviously, you are against freedom, otherwise you'd be standing up for liberty, justice and the American way instead of some Nazi police state run by big brother.



It's a simple process. If the cop tells you to stop, you stop.

And if you are deaf???? How do you know the cop is telling you to stop?

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
When you refused to obey the cops, you broke the law. That they allowed you to get away with breaking the law is immaterial.

Restraint should be used whenever possible, but I will not ever say the cops were wrong for acting.

If an otherwise innocent man (ie the only crime is disobedience) is killed because the cops made a decision based on his actions, then HE ALONE bears the blame for those actions.

According to Kilmers world, you can be shot for speeding, shot for being deaf, scared, or completely freaked out.

Why do you hate freedom and liberty? Why do you want to give law enforcement the right to shoot at will? You must agree with the SS ideology of Nazi Germany, because this is what the SS troops did.

Read Destino's comments and absorb them, he is spot on.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Destino
Why don't I trust cops? Because they are human, and I know this goes against simplisitic idealism, but whenever humans are involved it is 100% certain that some of them will be bad folks. Passing laws that basically make it ok for a cop to make a bad call and kill someone who was not a threat is not something I can get behind. Saying that I'll change my mind after a whole bunch of innocent people are killed is just more ivory tower idealism.

The rules are simple, deadly force is used as a response to deadly threats. It's perfect and requires no shift at all. The guy that was shot in the train station in the UK made a deadly threat. Terrorism is going on and the guy runs towards the train, thus he got shot. Sucks that he wasn't a bad guy but the cop had to act.

That is worlds away from "if you run you should get shot." That is over simplification and IMO the product of arrogant ivory tower idealism.

That's been my point all along.

Not "if you run you SHOULD get shot". But "If you run, you CAN get shot".

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by chomerics


According to Kilmers world, you can be shot for speeding, shot for being deaf, scared, or completely freaked out.

Why do you hate freedom and liberty? Why do you want to give law enforcement the right to shoot at will? You must agree with the SS ideology of Nazi Germany, because this is what the SS troops did.

Read Destino's comments and absorb them, he is spot on.

I have, and I agreed with them. You have a problem chom. And a serious one. You think that anyone who opposes your view is an extemist. And then you take huge leaps to compare them with Nazi's the SS etc. It's sad. I have no doubt you are very bright guy. But your ability to grasp two sides of a debate is nil. People like you are responsible for the wedge driving in this country.

From time to time, I truly enjoy debating you. But times like this when you come out swinging with Nazi comparison, it becomes old and tired fast.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17


That's been my point all along.

Not "if you run you SHOULD get shot". But "If you run, you CAN get shot". You are missing my point. If a cop shoots a innocent guy that is posing no threat for running, he deserves to be fired immediately and possibly jailed. Thus a rule saying "you CAN shoot him" is something I am completely and totally against because it allows bad decision making to occur.

[Funkyalligator]

hmmm....the situation in London was a little more involved than you guys seem to be describing....the guy fit the profile of a terrorist....he ran from police into the subway and jumped a turnstile....what a dumbass........I would have shot him myself after what happened the week before...

[bird_1972]

Originally posted by Kilmer17


I have, and I agreed with them. You have a problem chom. And a serious one. You think that anyone who opposes your view is an extemist. And then you take huge leaps to compare them with Nazi's the SS etc. It's sad. I have no doubt you are very bright guy. But your ability to grasp two sides of a debate is nil. People like you are responsible for the wedge driving in this country.

From time to time, I truly enjoy debating you. But times like this when you come out swinging with Nazi comparison, it becomes old and tired fast.

I've seen people on both sides of the issue throw out the "Nazi" card pretty readily as well.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Destino
You are missing my point. If a cop shoots a innocent guy that is posing no threat for running, he deserves to be fired immediately and possibly jailed. Thus a rule saying "you CAN shoot him" is something I am completely and totally against because it allows bad decision making to occur.

I agree. And that is PRECICELY what happens now. A trial takes place and if the Cop is found to have acted innapropriately, he goes to jail. Deservedly so.

[Funkyalligator]

As for everyone that b*tches about profiling....shut the f*ck up....it is a necessary evil in todays day and age and will help us become safer......

[Destino]

Originally posted by Funkyalligator
As for everyone that b*tches about profiling....shut the f*ck up....it is a necessary evil in todays day and age and will help us become safer...... What kind of profiling, the use of race as PART of a profile, or the use of race as the profile?

[36SKINS56]

AMEN funkyalligator

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
I agree. And that is PRECICELY what happens now. A trial takes place and if the Cop is found to have acted innapropriately, he goes to jail. Deservedly so. Then we agree and I've wasted my blow hard quota for the day on nothing. Thanks "buddy" pffft :)

[Kilmer17]

This is disagreements. Arguments are 2 doors down.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Shoot to kill? Are you f'ng kidding me?

The scenario is something that I can see myself in. During the summers early in the morning I may have multiple layers on to drop some fat that I inivetably gain during the winter.

My running path takes me up to Loehmans Plaza, where I chill out in front of the 7-11 for a few minutes, go in, get drink, and walk home.

There are always 2 cop cars stationed at Loehmans, one right by the 7-11.

Now if a cop tells me to stop and freeze, yeah I will definitley do it. But cripes I hope I get a friggin warning first before my brains are on the sidewalk

[Funkyalligator]

Loemans...I used to live back there on Camp Alger....as for profiling.....it is never just about race.....

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
This is disagreements. Arguments are 2 doors down.

"I came here for a good argument"

"No you didn't, you came here for an argument"

[Thiebear]

Everyone knows what is going on their neighborhood. D.C. or London.

If your in a bad neighborhood.
If you match the profile
If your going to the scene of the crime persay.
If your dressed "up"
If you can't hear people shouting
If you run

You are in a position that anything can happen... no blame on anyone as it is a "match" on way too many things...

Horrible but a reminder... be aware or your situation right after a catastrophe....

[Baculus]

If an otherwise innocent man (ie the only crime is disobedience) is killed because the cops made a decision based on his actions, then HE ALONE bears the blame for those actions.

Kilmer, we don't know what happened. For one thing, the "cops" weren't uniformed officers, they were part of an undercover special team, part of some task force, so it's not like he saw police officers and just bolted from them. Heck, for all we know, he didn't even HEAR the officers and was late for the train. Also, as someone had mentioned in another post, he lived in a bad part of town, and if someone starts to chase you, you don't stop.

Second, do we really know he jumped turnstyles? As new story developments have been produced, it was said that he actually use his subway card/pass/whatever, so he didn't jump the turnstyle or any other blocking device.

Also, it was first reported that he had "wires" sticking out of his body, then it became evident he didn't. This story has transformed several times, to the point that much of the original story isn't even correct: He wasn't a man, with wires sticking out of his body, running from uniformed officers and bounding over turnstyles. And it's possible that he wasn't even wearing a heavy jacket. He also didn't come from a house that was under watch - his entire block or series of block was under watch. And, finally, if what the police claim took place, wouldn't we have video of the guy? We know they have cameras everyone, and not a single image has been produced to support the assertions of the police. Not a single one - why is that?

This article discusses this shooting:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1711303,00.html

Was it really just all the Brazilian's fault?

God forbid if we now have American officers that have such an incredibly easy reason for shooting someone: "He looked like a terrorist threat." And a reason that now has people like Kilmer even blaming a shooting on the victim. It's amazing. But that is OK, this has been happening for a while - remember that guy in NY that was shot dozens of times as he reached for his wallet?

"It was his fault for standing in the way of that bullet."

By the way, perhaps if the UK are so keen on killing terrorists, they shouldn't have them working for their government. As it turns out, Rashid Aswat, the "London Master" may very have worked, or be currently working, for Mi-6, which is British military intelligence. This is a video, from Fox News of all places, with a discussion of this tidbit of information.

(Video and audio, may not be work safe.)

http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Aug05/020805Aswat.html

So, what's happening with that?

[Kilmer17]

Bac, we can "what if" it to death. And still reach the same conclusion.

If it turns out that the cops shot him without reason, then they should face punishment for it.

[Baculus]

Bac, we can "what if" it to death. And still reach the same conclusion.

That is the whole point - this whole story was a "what if" from the beginning, and many people ate up the details and basically said, "Good, it was his fault for running" without even knowing the whole story. Even earlier, you were blaming his death solely on him, but perhaps you are starting to agree that maybe it wasn't just the Brazilian's fault that he was shot seven times in the head.

I have a feeling, though, that nothing will come of this incident. In fact, it wil be used as an example of what police "need to do."

[Kilmer17]

Based on the info I have heard, it was ENTIRELY his fault.

I havent heard anything like what you have claimed.

IE- that he didnt jump the turnstyle, turn and run when told to stop, etc.

If you have that info, please share it. I'll keep an open mind. But at this point, Im basing my conclusions on the info that is out there.

[Baculus]

Based on the info I have heard, it was ENTIRELY his fault.

I havent heard anything like what you have claimed.

IE- that he didnt jump the turnstyle, turn and run when told to stop, etc.

If you have that info, please share it. I'll keep an open mind. But at this point, Im basing my conclusions on the info that is out there.

I've already posted one article in my previous post that discusses what the family has said. A few other articles that discusses disputed facts:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1707262005

A quote from the article:

Initial witness accounts suggested the Brazilian had vaulted over the ticket barrier at Stockwell station, causing further fear and alarm. Police now say he had in fact used his weekly Travelcard to get through. It now appears that the description of someone jumping over the barriers could in fact have been of a police officer in pursuit of his quarry.

Also, this Wkipedia article discusses the various disputes in the incident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

The more recent articles discussing this story usually contain the details that contradict the earlier police story. But to me, the biggest smoking gun is the police's refusal to release security camera footage of the pursuit and shooting. If they had nothing to hide, and their assertions are correct, then they'll simply release the footage.

[Kilmer17]

Based on that info, I would think an investigation is needed and possibly a trial.

I dont know why they wont release the tape, but I'll hazard a guess. The officers were undercovers, and releasing the tape might blow their covers and hurt on going investigations.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
If it turns out that the cops shot him without reason, then they should face punishment for it.

Agreed. However, it's a little late for the dead guy. ;)

[Kilmer17]

Let's play the other "what if"

What if he WAS a terrorist? What if he did have a bomb under his jacket, ran when confronted by police, jumped the turnstyle and detonated a bomb killing a thousand people.

Do you think the cops would be scorched for not firing at the guy?

I know I do.

[Baculus]

What if he WAS a terrorist? What if he did have a bomb under his jacket, ran when confronted by police, jumped the turnstyle and detonated a bomb killing a thousand people.

If everything you said was true, especially if they could see the explosives, then action probably would been necessary. But this didn't seem to be the case in this situation, unless you are suggesting that the police should use extreme measures in any situation because of a "what if."

All the "what if's" in the world would kill us all if taken to their ultimate conclusion.

[Kilmer17]

My point entirely Bac.

We MUST trust the police to make that call. And if they make a mistake, they should face a punishment. BUt we shouldnt take that right to make the call in the first place away from them.

EX- a guy points a gun at a cop and the cop shoots him dead. And it turns out it's not a gun, but a black cellphone. Is the cop wrong for shooting him?

[NoCalMike]

The way this country treats drug offenders, it is highly unlikely people will stop running from the cops anytime soon.

[NoCalMike]

Also, I thought police weren't supposed to shoot unarmed people in the back!?!

[Kilmer17]

Nice.

Justifying criminals actions.

The solution is for people to STOP BEING CROOKS. Not for the cops to change their ways.

[Baculus]

Kilmer, the entire issue is that what was reported before, which seemed to have justified in some way his shooting, isn't quite what it seemed. And I never suggested that all police powers should be taken away from cops. In this case, it does not even appear if it was the police, as in the constables, that shot him, but this "special" unit.

You mentioned criminal actions - that is the crux of this shooting, which is whether or not he was showing criminal actions, especially ones that justifies his shooting. And that goes to the heart of law enforcement and their actions against civilians.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by NoCalMike
Also, I thought police weren't supposed to shoot unarmed people in the back!?!

Not intentionally.

[Mooka]

If you run from the cops you should get shot?

Those 14 year old kids smoking pot in the parking lot better watch out :rolleyes:

[Thiebear]

The 14yr old kids smoking pot in the parking lot better watch out..

if 14 year olds start blowing up parking lots
if they match the identity of the bomber
if they are running towards the parking lot with a 20bag
if they don't listen to the police telling them to stop running towards the parking lot
if they are running from an area being watched on the way to the parking lot..

get it.. its not a vacuum of just 1 individual minding his own business listening to an ipod.. There is a multitude of things that lead to a catastophe listed above...

[riggins44]

Originally posted by dks1240
i can't imagine being a police officer and shooting someone in the head because i have a "reasonable basis" to believe that a suspect might detonate a bomb. ending someone's life without being even 99% sure that he/she is a terrorist...how can someone do this??

How would you like to be a police office and hesitate, because
not 99% sure, then he blows something up and many are
killed or injured?

It's a no win situation for a cop, but sign of the times. Have to agree with Code.

[riggins44]

** double post...my bad

[tex]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


It's fiction. Nobody did this.


Hey Tex, what's yer preference? Would you rather cops not try to identify terrorists? Or that there's proof positive (i.e., something blown up) before they do anything? Or do you want the police to apprehend a bomber using non lethal techniques? How many police are you willing to sacrifice that way?

Those are not incindiary questions -- no more so than that article.

Who the heck goes running in multiple layers of clothing in warm weather (topped with a billowing cloak) anyway?


In England, the poor Brazilian was running from cops, dressed in multiple layers and looking very suspicious in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. It was tragic, yes, but understandable.

I for one want the cops to do their job. I respect them and am very glad they are on the job everyday. Without them we would have anarchy. Especially so since my wife's uncle was killed in the line of duty.

But a bullet in the head based on appearances is way past the line. If the cops can preempt a suspected bomber then why not preempt others suspected of violence as well; say for instance gang bangers. For that matter why even bring suspected murders to trail? Just shoot'em in the head and call it a day.

Not trying to be a wisenheimer, I guess my point is you have to draw the line on police powers somewhere and I think the line should be drawn somewhere back of the point where it’s ok for a cop to shoot a SUSPECT in the head. Sounds a little to much like "shoot them all and let God sort them out".

[tex]

nm

double post

sorry

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by tex
I for one want the cops to do their job. I respect them and am very glad they are on the job everyday. Without them we would have anarchy. Especially so since my wife's uncle was killed in the line of duty.

But a bullet in the head based on appearances is way past the line. If the cops can preempt a suspected bomber then why not preempt others suspected of violence as well; say for instance gang bangers. For that matter why even bring suspected murders to trail? Just shoot'em in the head and call it a day.

Not trying to be a wisenheimer, I guess my point is you have to draw the line on police powers somewhere and I think the line should be drawn somewhere back of the point where it’s ok for a cop to shoot a SUSPECT in the head. Sounds a little to much like "shoot them all and let God sort them out".

The England example wasn't just based on appearances, it was based on appearances + behavior + circumstances. And if gang bangers are caught in the act of murdering or raping or assaulting, the police have an obligation to the victims to stop the acts. If they refuse to stop, if they turn it into a hostage situation, if... If it means shooting them in the head, so be it.

Their suspect status doesn't bother me. For cryin' out loud, news reporters could have a video of a guy blowing someone's head off, and they still call him an "alleged perpetrator" or "alleged murderer". That convict who told his wife to kill the guard, and his wife (who then killed the guard) were "alleged suspects" during the reporting of that entire fiasco. People are technically only suspects until tried and convicted. That leaves a lot of wiggle room if we're not supposed to shoot any suspects because they're only suspects.

[tex]

Like I said, you got to draw the line somewhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm

Investigators looking into how police mistook a Brazilian man for a suicide bomber and shot him, are concerned over an alleged leak of sensitive documents.

The documents seem to cast doubt over the police's version of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July.

The statements suggest Mr de Menezes had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers and had started to run when he saw a train arriving.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, police said Mr de Menezes had been acting suspiciously and suggested he had vaulted the ticket barriers.

Police also said the Brazilian electrician had worn a large winter-style coat - but the leaked version suggested he had in fact worn a denim jacket.

The leaked version said Mr de Menezes was being restrained by a community officer when he was shot by armed police.

[Larry]

A somewhat more sensational version of the story, from the UK, in this thread (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109523) .

[Larry]

But at least this guy wasn't two years old (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109438).

[MaddogCT]

The profile presented is ineffective. A man running to the bus and then missing it and then waiting for the next one fits the profile.
If such a common occurrence fits the criteria of a terrorist, how effective of a tool to fight terrorism can it be? It can't.
But that's ok....

The profile is a fabrication anyway.

Ok, maybe not a total fabrication, but its is a compilation taken from two separate sources and taken completely out of context.

I make that statement because of my mom. "Conceder the source!" she always said. I do and I did:

In responding to the post and trying to back up my argument against the profile being used to shoot people, I decided to find the "profile" my self.
I googled IACP.
Went to the IACP web site.
And spent a half hour searching the site for related articles...
Guess what? There are none.
No articles anyway.

The IACP has what are called training keys. It is from two separate, keys the "profile" was compiled.

One example of a miss-quote:
Blog:
"wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather"
Training Key:
The wearing of heavy clothing, no matter what the season. Long coats or skirts may be used to conceal explosive
belts and devices.

The following are links to the Training Keys from IACP:
Part one:
http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/IACP581SuicideBombersPart1.pdf
Part two:
http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/IACP582SuicideBombersPart2.pdf

Having read the training keys...I think lew Rockwell is being less than honest with us...but then again he probably got the "profile" from someone else...

Is deadly force talked about? Sure is:
"Lethal force is justified if the suspect represents a significant
threat of death or serious injury to an officer or others."

Aiming for the head of a bomber is two fold:
If you shoot the bomber in the head he can not detonate the bomb.
If you hit the bomber in the head and not the chest, YOU can not detonate the bomb.

Deadly force and head shots are in the context of KNOWING the suspect has a bomb. Not, as Lew Rockwell reports, in the context of determining someone is a bomber.

Ok..I gotta go but I think I made my point......maybe..... :)

:logo:

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
Based on the info I have heard, it was ENTIRELY his fault.

I havent heard anything like what you have claimed.

IE- that he didnt jump the turnstyle, turn and run when told to stop, etc.

If you have that info, please share it. I'll keep an open mind. But at this point, Im basing my conclusions on the info that is out there.

Well?

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109523

[ATLANTASKINSFAN]

Originally posted by chomerics


Last I heard, failing to comply with police is not an offense punishable by death without jury.

This is America, why do you hate freedom?

But your talking about london