British Police's Handling of the Situation

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

I would hate like hell to be a non-white person living in London these days, I'd be scared shitless. If the Muslims don't get you, the cops will is what I'd be thinking.

Fortunately thats not how the majority of non-white people in London are feeling. No-one i have spoken to feels in that way at all, and you certainly don't get that feeling walking round. With the exception of the BNP/NF demo this weekend, i think most people understand that "non white" is not the same as "terrorist"

As for the brazilian guy, considering what has happened recently, running away from the police and then getting on a train?! As far as i am concerned the police did exactly the right thing. Unfortunate but right.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Newbie 0]

Quote

As for the brazilian guy, considering what has happened recently, running away from the police and then getting on a train?! As far as i am concerned the police did exactly the right thing. Unfortunate but right.

So you don't mind someone completely innocent was killed by the police? I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if they killed you close friend/cousin/spouse etc in the same circumstances.

I certainly think, under the times we are living in, a justification for the police to use these extreme measures (shoot to kill, shoot for the head) are justified....in situations where they are 100% accurate and safe in the knowledge they have, however.

They were NOT sure this guy was the guy they were meant to be tailing (he didn't even come out of the residence they had under surveilance, he came out of the same block of apartments but not the one they were watching), he was allowed to get on a bus before he was challenged (buses are active targets too, why was this allowed?) and he was then challenged directly outside the tube station with no one to bar him from entering, or at least to try to challenge him from entering with guns drawn etc.

Why? There are too many unanswered questions of the events leading upto when he ran from the police. If this was a skydiving fatality, we would point to everyone single one of those links that led to this chain, starting with several links leading up to when he decided to take off and run as being the instigators into this incident. We would not just begin with him running from the police initially. Yes, he ran, and that caused the situation to perpetuate further, but if the police were acting on good intelligence, or even had better SOPs ("suspected suicide bomber is getting onto public transport - apprehend him before he can do so" or "suspected suicide bomber is heading towards tube station, apprehend him before he can enter") he would not be dead.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

shouted in an unfamiliar language - you might run too.

Found out today, the guy has spoken fluent English for a couple years. So, this guy walks into a station wearing a thick jacket and a backpack. Police then go after them, not just one, but several, and yell to stop...in a language he completely understands. Yet, he still runs from them and onto a train. His death is practically 100% his fault. It's still unfortunate, but he made all the odds against him, he chose to wear that stuff, and then on top of it, run from the police onto a train wearing a backpack. Sorry, but this guy screwed himself. The police SOPs worked perfectly, this guy's common sense did not.

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

The police SOPs worked perfectly, this guy's common sense did not.

I pretty much agree. On the other hand, the police should still take the opportunity to examine their methods, to see if there's something that could be done better.

One mark of a good process is its ability to examine itself dispassionately when it fails. Did it fail? Yes, an innocent man died. The failure might not have been preventable or forseeable, but it should be examined.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Wow!! I cannot believe the armchair quarterbacking that's going on here. Right after an initial bombing and then a second bombing attempt in the same area, a guy is fleeing the police on a hot summer day wearing a long coat and refuses to stop. He's heading towards a train filled with people and the police have about 2 seconds to make a decision.

1. Why is he running and refusing to stop?
2. Do we take the chance that he is just trying to avoid paying a fare and let him go?
3. Is he possibly a bomber who should be stopped immediately.

I wonder how much criticism would be dished out if the police had not reacted in time and he had detinated a bomb that killed hundreds of people.

Ask yourselves what your decision would have been in the days after 9/11 in the U.S. if a plane had veered off path and was refusing to respond to ATC or Military Fighter Jets. Would you have wanted the F-16 to wait and see what was going to happen, or would you have wanted them to shoot it down immediately even knowing innocent people on board would die?

[ViperPilot 0]

Don't forget the fact that he spoke fluent English, thus completely understanding what the police were saying. Plus, I'm not so sure about this guy. He wears a thick coat and a backpack everyday. He's an electrician. Seems a bit convenient. He obviously had a very good reason to run from police if he chose to run from several of them. While the police have said he wasn't involved in the bombings, I'm not so sure this guy's as innocent as we think (maybe not linked to these bombings, but perhaps future ones).

This is just speculation. Yes, he was innocent, this time. Just some points like the clothing, the backpack, his expertise, and his running from the cops like he had everything to lose. Those points cause some suspicion to arise.

[madscape 0]

Don't fuck with nervous/edgy armed cops (who aren't used to being armed on a regular basis)...

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

(who aren't used to being armed on a regular basis)...

Regular beat cops don't simply get given guns in situations like this - this was an incident involving armed police. The US equivalent would be S.W.A.T. although in this instance they were plain clothed.

Thus the shooter was not only used to being armed he was very well trained at it too (hence the 7 head shots, several of which it now appears were delivered before the guy hit the ground).

p.s. the guy was probably running because he was an illegal immigrant. He'd been granted a student visa some years ago which had since expired and he was working illegally in a profession he was unlikely to get granted a work visa.

[wmw999 2,534]

Also, "fluent English" is a very subjective term. Would he have understood all of the context without thinking about it? Maybe, maybe not.

But, again, the police did the right thing. It had an unfortunate ending, and bears some analysis by the police themselves to see if they can perfect their process. But with what they had and what they knew, they did what looked like the safest thing for the largest number of people.

And anyone talking about the guy running from police -- no one ever thinks "it" (whatever "it" is) will happen to them. Not swoop accidents, motorcycle accidents, or anythign else.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Also, "fluent English" is a very subjective term. Would he have understood all of the context without thinking about it? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm pretty sure that whatever country I am in, if I'm running and there are Police behind me shouting something, it's probably not a solicitation for tickets to the Policemans Ball.

[wmw999 2,534]

And all I'm saying is that translating makes everything slower. Including remembering that those guys shouting at you are more likely to be concerned about the terrorist attack yesterday (that didn't have anything to do with him) than the fact that you are an illegal alien (which he probably was paranoid about every second if that's the case).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[madscape 0]

Quote

Regular beat cops don't simply get given guns in situations like this

[British Cop] "Stop, or I'll say 'Stop!' again!!!"[/British Cop]

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

The police SOPs worked perfectly, this guy's common sense did not.

I pretty much agree. On the other hand, the police should still take the opportunity to examine their methods, to see if there's something that could be done better.

One mark of a good process is its ability to examine itself dispassionately when it fails. Did it fail? Yes, an innocent man died. The failure might not have been preventable or forseeable, but it should be examined.

Wendy W.

I disagree with you completely. The SOPs worked as designed: In an elevated alert environment, kill a suspected terrorist who does not respond to officer commands by shooting suspect in the head, thus lessening the chance of a command detonation of an explosive device.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[wmw999 2,534]

Do you disagree that the process failed, or do you disagree that there should be some sort of examination? Either way, I disagree with you.

One aim of the police is to keep the London people safe. ALL of them. So, while protecting the vast majority, an innocent person was killed. That's not a failure in one sense, but it is in another. The SOP's are probably not intended to lead to the death of innocent (albeit guilty-seeming) people.

I'm not talking about being crucified by the press. I'm talking about an internal examination, and not a simple "Dick wouldn't so that so it must be OK" either. Orderly and thorough. The idea is to learn and move forward with that learning incorporated into the knowledge base and operations.

Every mistake that we find in our software, no matter how minor, is examined. If the process led to its being missed, we see if the process can be changed. If it was lack of education by a group, we bolster the education. If it was needlessly complex code, we will document it better, and bolster education. If it was plain and simple oversight, we'll see if someone else on the team should or could have caught it also, and go through the process again.

When you're dealing with important things, you should take the time to work learning from all your mistakes in whenever possible. It won't happen in the heat of battle, but why do you think that the ways of waging war have changed over the years?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,070]

>The SOPs worked as designed . . .

Unless the SOPs are intended to cause the deaths of civilians they did NOT work as designed. If a parachute opens hard enough to kill the jumper and destroy the harness, did it work as designed because it opened?

[Gawain 0]

I disagree that there should be anything of a review above and beyond the standard "After Action Review" (or AAR as used in the US) which the UK process clearly has.

You state that there should be an examination of a process when it fails and ask if it failed, answering yes.

I am saying, no. The process did not fail at all.

Look at the facts:

--Less than 24 hours after a failed attempt to attack London's mass transit system again. The country is now on high alert.
--A man, under surveillance because he is a suspected terrorist is followed to the train station.
--The man jumps the ticket gate.
--The man is approached by policemen.
--The man run down, into the subway in an effort to evade the police.
--The man, cornered, runs into the train, despite commands for him to stop.

So, the police SOP for thwarting a suspected attack is to respond with deadly force in a manner which would prevent a post-impact-nervous-system reaction to carry out a command detonated weapon. The police have the above noted facts to work with, plus what is unfolding before their very eyes. Their response was appropriate given the state of alert that existed and MO of the previous attacks (attempted and 7/7).

Had this guy actually been armed, there would be no question about the effectiveness of this process. Also remember that two others were arrested, alive the same day.

On another note, comparing software code writing with a dynamic environment of civil and/or military defense is almost enraging. The fancy systems you work on have triple, quadruple redundancies in place. That is not possible in a tactical environment.

You are saying a mistake was made. Yes, by de Melenses (or whatever his name was). The UK police responded appropriately to the threat.

As for ways of waging war over the years are concerned, the battles on the ground have not changed that much over the past 30 years. The tactics have not changed, nor has the violence of action which we train to use been lessened.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[wmw999 2,534]

Quote

You are saying a mistake was made. Yes, by de Melenses (or whatever his name was). The UK police responded appropriately to the threat.

No. I'm saying that the end result of the process was not what they wanted. Big big difference. An examination might well find that everyone did everything they could, and an innocent man died. An examination will determine that.

An AAR would probably match what I'm talking about.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mr2mk1g 10]

Police state they have arrested one of the 4 who failed to detonate their bombs last week: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1710339,00.html