Scotland Yard kicking a**

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:48 am

Man, the Brits don't f*ck around when it comes to sniffing out terror suspects: CNN is reporting that Scotland Yard has made a major raid in London and nabbed some pretty heavy terror suspects.

I know the London police screwed up by shooting that dude last week, and that was tragic. But still mega props to the British authorities for moving quickly and efficiently on this.

Does Scotland Yard offer seminars for other nations?

Take care,
PK

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:08 am

Doesn't it seem like they've accomplished more in the 3 weeks since their attack than we did in 3 months after? While we sit and argue about how arabs should not be singled out in searches so we don;'t violate anyones rights, the brits are taking care of business.

I also don't think that shooting last week was a mistake, at least not at the time. The guy was carrying a backpack, and when asked to stop he took off, even jumping a gate of some sort. Under those circumstances, I would have shot the guy too.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:12 am

matthewk wrote:Doesn't it seem like they've accomplished more in the 3 weeks since their attack than we did in 3 months after? While we sit and argue about how arabs should not be singled out in searches so we don;'t violate anyones rights, the brits are taking care of business.

Indeed. That was the point I was trying to make subtly, without fanning flames.

But screw subtlety -- you're right. It seems like the Brits are getting a lot more done in the aftermath than setting up extra metal detectors at airports and making people take off their shoes at airport security.

Take care,
PK

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:18 am

without wishing to denigrate the activities of the boys and girls in blue, but it seems to me that they've obviously had tabs on a lot of these people already, but felt they were unlikely to have the organisation or capacity to start a major offensive.

Once they did, SY, MI5 etc look like they have been using pre-available intelligence to move - there is no way that info and arrests on this scale could have been done from scratch in this time, I think.

Sudz · Post by **Sudz** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:48 am

all that f***er had to do was stop. that is it. and he would still be alive.

and they are....hope they get them all....

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:52 am

The U.S. arrests people all the time. They just hide their identities and refuse to charge them with a crime or see an attorney. The material witness law allows for it.

Britain is having to be quite a bit more flamboyant, since news leaked that they stopped the U.S. from arresting one of the bombing suspects some time before the bombings in London.

So now we have an innocent man being shot to death, and lots of public arrests, and they get credit? Sounds more like they are just trying make their citizens feel safe. Well, unless you happen to be a Muslim citizen. Then you better be freaking terrified.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:55 am

Not to take away anything from our friends across the pond, but they have A LOT less ground to cover than we do. Plus no land borders to defend -- not too many can swim the Channel.

I am not a Bush supporter (as many know), but it has been nearly 4 years since we've had a domestic attack, and we have nabbed a few who have tried. I don't think you can pin that on luck.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:56 am

Heard the Brazilian guy that got shot was probably there illegally. That is why he didn't stop.

Interesting poll, it sounds like some ethnic tensions or resentment, probably extant long before the bombings>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphic ... l23big.gif

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:58 am

Jayhawker wrote:The U.S. arrests people all the time. They just hide their identities and refuse to charge them with a crime or see an attorney. The material witness law allows for it.

Britain is having to be quite a bit more flamboyant, since news leaked that they stopped the U.S. from arresting one of the bombing suspects some time before the bombings in London.

So now we have an innocent man being shot to death, and lots of public arrests, and they get credit? Sounds more like they are just trying make their citizens feel safe. Well, unless you happen to be a Muslim citizen. Then you better be freaking terrified.

I agree with Sudz. When the police say stop, you f***in stop. Especially if you're carrying a backpack shortly after a suicide bombing. Maybe the guy didn't understand, maybe he was guilty of something. I don't see how you can't shoot in that situation. It's tragic if he was innocent, but it's not like they shot first and then said stop.

spooky157 · Post by **spooky157** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:27 pm

Police don't have the right to open fire 8 times on an unarmed man. I don't care how many times they say "stop". I know these are crazy times but are we going to throw all civil rights out the window because of this paranoia?

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:34 pm

Don't know if I'd give them too much credit. If the reports from yesterday were correct about the CIA wanting the one fellow named in the London attacks and England denying the request since he was a British citizen, I'd say our guy (and gals) are on the offensive rather than the defensive here. Sounds like 50+ lives could have been saved if the Brits listened to us.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:38 pm

I was watching a documentary on A&E how Britain allows muslim extremists to openly recruit in the country. They showed footage of how these members of these groups would dress up with guns in their arms and hoods and pose in front of their gathering grounds looking like middle east terrorists. While I was watching this I thought to myself how they would ever allow this to happen.

Good for them that they have files on all these extremists but stuff like this shouldn't be allowed in the first place. If they outlawed this practice in the first place, maybe all these bombings wouldn't happen. I am for religious rights but guys dressed up with automatic rifles with hoods looking like terrorists doesn't really count as religious practice imo.

Later on in the piece they were saying how this same extremist group tried to infiltrate the US in the 80s but the muslim people in our country wouldn't go for it. Main reason they said was that in our country, we make it easier for people from other lands to assimilate while countries in Europe, the majority of those people don't or it's harder for them to do so.

Hopefully the Brits get all these guys and find their mastermind and put a end to it.

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:39 pm

spooky157 wrote:Police don't have the right to open fire 8 times on an unarmed man. I don't care how many times they say "stop". I know these are crazy times but are we going to throw all civil rights out the window because of this paranoia?

Dude, he had a BACKPACK.

Seven shots to the head alone. Reports now say he used his pass and did not vault the turnstiles. He was wearing a jean jacket, and not a "bulky coat". He was being chased by non-uniformed men with guns.

There have been 250 bomb scares in London since they hit the trains. Police have shoot to kill orders. I'd say the terrorists have gotten just what they wanted.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:00 pm

spooky157 wrote:Police don't have the right to open fire 8 times on an unarmed man. I don't care how many times they say "stop". I know these are crazy times but are we going to throw all civil rights out the window because of this paranoia?

Sure they have the right. You say he was unarmed. Right after bombings where the murderers were known to be a) Arab and b) carrying bombs in backpacks, this arab guy with a backpack takes off when police tell him to stop. It's his own fault. I'd rather see this than have the guy get away and 2 hours later find out he was carrying a bomb and blew peopoe up.

What about the civil rights of the law abiding citizens?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:04 pm

The guy was Brazilian.

The bombers were Pakistani.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:11 pm

Yep, the guy was Brazilian. And multiple shots to the head? That seemed excessive.

Take care,
PK

Jayhawker · Post by **Jayhawker** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:13 pm

matthewk wrote:
What about the civil rights of the law abiding citizens?

That's the end of freedom, right there.

spooky157 · Post by **spooky157** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:17 pm

matthewk wrote:Sure they have the right. You say he was unarmed. Right after bombings where the murderers were known to be a) Arab b) carrying bombs in backpacks, this arab guy with a backpack takes off when police tell him to stop.

Wasn't he Brazilian? Even if he wasn't Brazilian by this rationale any guy with skin a shade darker than your average Brit is a target.

EDIT: I guess he was Brazilian

matthewk wrote:It's his own fault. I'd rather see this than have the guy get away and 2 hours later find out he was carrying a bomb and blew peopoe up.

What about the civil rights of the law abiding citizens?

I'd rather see kittens get mauled than have a guy get away and 2 hours later find out he was carrying a bomb blowing people up on a train. It doesn't mean that it's right to maul kittens. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Cops don't have to shoot every olive skinned guy who runs from them. They don't have the right to do so in the States and I'm pretty sure they don't have that right in the UK

What about the civil rights of olive skinned people? Do you think they would've shot him 8 times if he was a white teenager? I've seen a few of them running from cops.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:23 pm

I don't think it was racial profiling. Look at the pictures of the guys who got caught today, they look more African than Arab.

If you've travelled to the UK , there are thousands of different nationalities living there, especially London. So the cops know not everyone with a tan is dangerous.

It's bad that the innocent guy got killed but I think it's an isolated incident with this cop or group of cops. Alot of their police corp consist of non-white officers also.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:10 pm

I am a firm believer in civil rights -- I certainly don't condone some of the extra-legal steps we're taking to keep people locked up for years because they might be terrorists.

But civil rights doesn't excuse you from common sense. I assume that the police in question, undercover or not, identified themselves as police and told this man to stop. He did not and, unfortunately, he fit the profile of a group of terrorists who had struck weeks before. As for the shots to the head, the policy is shoot-to-kill, to try and incapcitate a potential bomber before they can detonate their bombs.

It's terrible that an innocent man was killed. It's good that there is an investigation about the use of force the protocols used. But these officers were trying to prevent another attack from occuring. This man's behavior forced them to make the choice they did.

spooky157 · Post by **spooky157** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:45 pm

Brando70 wrote:I am a firm believer in civil rights -- I certainly don't condone some of the extra-legal steps we're taking to keep people locked up for years because they might be terrorists.

But civil rights doesn't excuse you from common sense. I assume that the police in question, undercover or not, identified themselves as police and told this man to stop. He did not and, unfortunately, he fit the profile of a group of terrorists who had struck weeks before. As for the shots to the head, the policy is shoot-to-kill, to try and incapcitate a potential bomber before they can detonate their bombs.

It's common sense for people like you and I because we're law-abiding citizens but this man is an illegal alien. He's obviously not a law-abiding citizen but I recently watched "Dirty Pretty Things", which is a film about illegal immigrants living in the UK, and I do have a lot of sympathy for what they have to go through.

As for fitting the profile, the only 2 ways he fit the profile were his skin tone and the backpack. And I still believe they would not have shot him 8 times if he was a white man with a backpack.

NoJoke · Post by **NoJoke** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:07 pm

I almost think, that given the circumstances, the force used almost needs to be excessive. Say you order a suspicious character carrying a backpack to stop, he ignores you and starts to run towards a train. He somewhat fits the description of previous bombers, and his actions fit the MO of the prior bombings. Can you only shoot him in the leg, which conceivably would still permit him to detonate the package he is carrying? I think if the decision is made to shoot, you must shoot to kill. Anything less, and the bomb could still go off in a crowded area.

That said, the first seven shots to the head probably should have done the job.

Joe

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:08 pm

spooky157 wrote:
Brando70 wrote:I am a firm believer in civil rights -- I certainly don't condone some of the extra-legal steps we're taking to keep people locked up for years because they might be terrorists.

But civil rights doesn't excuse you from common sense. I assume that the police in question, undercover or not, identified themselves as police and told this man to stop. He did not and, unfortunately, he fit the profile of a group of terrorists who had struck weeks before. As for the shots to the head, the policy is shoot-to-kill, to try and incapcitate a potential bomber before they can detonate their bombs.
It's common sense for people like you and I because we're law-abiding citizens but this man is an illegal alien. He's obviously not a law-abiding citizen but I recently watched "Dirty Pretty Things", which is a film about illegal immigrants living in the UK, and I do have a lot of sympathy for what they have to go through.

As for fitting the profile, the only 2 ways he fit the profile were his skin tone and the backpack. And I still believe they would not have shot him 8 times if he was a white man with a backpack.

I have a lot of sympathy for illegal immigrants of all sorts. I know immigrants in the UK face a lot of the challenges that our own face, and that the vast majority of them are in countries like the US and UK to better their lives.

But what should the police have done? Chased him? Let him go? Put yourself in their shoes -- they probably thought they were risking their lives by following him. There's clearly an ongoing pattern of bombings and terror threats in Britain. Yes, this man was dark skinned, yes he had a backpack. So did the other terrorists. Had the officers opened fire on him because of those two things, I would completely agree with you. But he also ran. An officer making a split-second decision doesn't have time to decide if a suspect understands him or surmise his country of origin.

Look, it completely sucks that this happened. It is awful that these fundamentalist, psychotic f***ers have gotten everyone so on edge that the act of a man running away convinces officers to shoot him. But I also understand why they did what they did and don't begrudge them.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:43 pm

Jayhawker wrote:
matthewk wrote:
What about the civil rights of the law abiding citizens?
That's the end of freedom, right there.

Care to elaborate on what you mean by that?

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:01 pm

spooky157 wrote:Wasn't he Brazilian? Even if he wasn't Brazilian by this rationale any guy with skin a shade darker than your average Brit is a target.

I didn't know he was Brazilian. Still, he fit the description of a bomber based on 3 things: Skin color, backpack, running from the cops into a train station. It is unfortunate that skin color is used in part to target a suspect, but I'd rather have the police lookijng for someone that fits the profile rather than wasting time strip searching 80 year old grandmas.

spooky157 wrote: I'd rather see kittens get mauled than have a guy get away and 2 hours later find out he was carrying a bomb blowing people up on a train. It doesn't mean that it's right to maul kittens. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Cops don't have to shoot every olive skinned guy who runs from them. They don't have the right to do so in the States and I'm pretty sure they don't have that right in the UK

How does this guy equal a kitten getting mauled? At that moment in time I think it had to be either a) kill the guy and possibly prevent many more from being hurt, or b) chase him and possibly let the guy detonate a bomb. If he had not been carrying a backapck and running into a train station, maybe they would not have shot him. Given the recent events I support what they did. It's unfortunate that he was not a terrorist, but like Brando has stated, it's his own fault for running.

spooky157 wrote: What about the civil rights of olive skinned people? Do you think they would've shot him 8 times if he was a white teenager? I've seen a few of them running from cops.

Oh please. If a group of white teenagers had commited the first bombings, then yes, they'd have shot a white teen with a backpack running from them. When's the last time a group of white teens carried out a bombing attack? It's not like they are shooting at every person who has olive skin.

Everyone has the same rights, but come on, if a person fits a profile that has carried out these kinds of attacks they should expect a little more scrutiny. That's just reality. I don't condone locking them up "just in case", but if a cop wants to stop you and check you out because you look suspicious that's fine.