A Fatal Shooting on the Tube

The men who tried and failed to set off bombs yesterday are evidently still out there trying to massacre as many people as they can.

A man has been shot dead by armed officers at Stockwell Tube station, as police hunt four would-be bombers.

Passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen a man of Asian appearance shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers" with a handgun.

"I saw the gun being fired five times into the guy - he is dead," he said.

[...]

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man had been wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

"I've seen these police officers shouting, 'Get down, get down!', and I've seen this guy who appears to have a bomb belt and wires coming out.

As ruthless as the actions of the police may seem, I don't see that they had any choice but to shoot this man dead as soon as they cornered him; just because he was on the floor doesn't mean he couldn't still have triggered whatever device he was wearing. Of course, all this assumes he was carrying an explosive device of some sort, but I see no reason why he'd have been running from the police if he wasn't.

PS: CNN has more. According to their report, he was of South Asian descent and wearing a thick coat (in summer?), and he'd leaped over a ticket barrier in order to get onto a train ...

PPS: I knew that MeFi would be the place to look for pantywaist condemnations of the police for not taking chances with their lives and those of tube passengers, and sure enough, I haven't been disappointed. By God, some people are so damn predictable!

Comments

[Factory]

Hmm this new batch of terrorists does seem to be somewhat incompotent. Jumping over the barrier? Why doesn't he just wear a neon sign reading 'hey! look at me!' on his head.

[dsquared]

errrr ... I can think of about a million reasons why you might run away from the police and wear a big coat. Mainly because you were stealing something. (btw, Factory: he jumped the barrier because the police were already chasing him, which in itself suggests that there is more to this than meets the eye).

In principle I am all in favour of shooting suicide bombers but I would have hoped that things hadn't reached the point where we had a shoot-on-suspicion policy - obviously it makes a big difference if they were actually following this guy for a reason. I would really like to see some proper public statement by the Home Secretary if we are going down this road; it's a pretty fundamental change to the British way of policing and it ought not to be done by unnanounced administrative order of the Met.

[Abiola Lapite]

"I can think of about a million reasons why you might run away from the police and wear a big coat. Mainly because you were stealing something."

One would have to be lethally stupid to decide to flee armed policemen in a thick padded coat the day after a second wave of suicide bombings was attempted - one would have to be prime Darwin Award material to do such a thing.

"In principle I am all in favour of shooting suicide bombers but I would have hoped that things hadn't reached the point where we had a shoot-on-suspicion policy - obviously it makes a big difference if they were actually following this guy for a reason."

But why would he start running if he had nothing up his sleeve (or vest)? Why jump a turnstile and attempt to force your way onto a train?

"it's a pretty fundamental change to the British way of policing and it ought not to be done by unnanounced administrative order of the Met."

I don't see that there's anything "unannounced" about it. Do a Google News search for "shoot to kill" and see for yourself: the Met have been planning for this eventuality for quite some time, having made visits to Israel and Sri Lanka, and the "shoot to kill" policy was a long anticipated response to dealing with potential suicide bombers, not something drafted overnight.

[Andrew]

Obviously, we don't know all the facts yet; I am inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt for now and agree with Abiola. Hopefully we will hear more information soon indicating that the police had a good reason to chase and shoot this guy. However, I would note that it's pretty cool today so the "heavy coat in summer" thing isn't *so* weird. (weather.com says 18C - not heavy coat weather, but certainly not t-shirt and shorts weather either...)

[Abiola Lapite]

"but certainly not t-shirt and shorts weather either"

I'm no Scandinavian, but that's just what I'm wearing at the moment!

[Andrew]

Ah, well I guess you've got a tougher constitution than I do... :)

[dsquared]

[But why would he start running if he had nothing up his sleeve (or vest)? Why jump a turnstile and attempt to force your way onto a train?]

If you've stolen something, you run away from the coppers, surely? Although the question is now rather moot since it was just on Sky news that they had been following this guy from his house, I don't think you can make the leap of logic from "he's running away, he must be a bad lad" to "obviously a suicide bomber, better shoot him" and I would be really quite worried if I thought that the police were under that kind of orders.

As to the new policy ... no this is just not satisfactory. The UK has not had armed police on the streets for 150 years. We have never had a shoot-to-kill policy on the mainland. I do not think it is good enough that a change in policy of this magnitude can be made and the public are expected to use Google to find it out. If I was a South Asian shoplifter or petty criminal (and thus someone whose working life included a lot of wearing a big coat with something stuffed underneath it and dodging coppers), I would be absolutely outraged.

And there are no specifics of this policy available. Does it only apply to London, or to the whole UK? Does it only apply on the Tube? Does it mean that British police will be going armed as a matter of course? Importantly as with any new powers for the state, what are the conditions under which this policy will be reversed? Call me "Mr Picky Good-Government Guy Who Doesn't Realise We Are At WAR!" but these things bloody well do matter and someone has to make a fuss about them.

[Abiola Lapite]

"The UK has not had armed police on the streets for 150 years. We have never had a shoot-to-kill policy on the mainland."

There have never been suicide bombers on the mainland either. New times call for new measures.

"I do not think it is good enough that a change in policy of this magnitude can be made and the public are expected to use Google to find it out."

It was actually in the Sunday the 16th edition of the Times, so this was hardly some sort of well-hidden secret.

"If I was a South Asian shoplifter or petty criminal (and thus someone whose working life included a lot of wearing a big coat with something stuffed underneath it and dodging coppers), I would be absolutely outraged."

Since when did criminals earn the right to be outraged at suffering the risk of a fatality from practicing their craft? If more people got it through their heads that they could be shot for stealing, there'd be far fewer thieves out and about, which would be an excellent development. A shoplifter or petty criminal *is* a "bad lad" by definition, and a fatally stupid one too, if he can't get it through his head that the risk of running from armed policemen a day after 4 suicide attacks far outweighs the likely consequences of a visit to the Old Bailey - especially when he fits the profile of a likely suicide bomber so closely.

"And there are no specifics of this policy available."

On the contrary, I know of at least two papers which published details of this new policy after the 7/7 bombing, the Belfast Telegraph and the Sunday Times. You just weren't paying attention.

[dsquared]

[Since when did criminals earn the right to be outraged at suffering the risk of a fatality from practicing their craft?]

Abiola, that was in the nature of being what we call a joke ...

I don't understand why you're defending this one. It actually looks as if there is no general STK policy and that these officers were Special Branch specifically assigned to this man (obvious really as you would not normally get three armed rozzers just hanging round Stockwell tube on a normal patrol). But if there was, it ought to be done officially and openly. Of course it should. I would be annoyed if a change to the planning regulations on out-of-town supermarkets was sneaked through in an administrative order and then allowed to percolate through to the Belfast Telegraph and this is more important.

[Abiola Lapite]

"I don't understand why you're defending this one."

Because from what I know of suicide bombings elsewhere in the world, it looks like the only sensible policy to take in such circumstances. In fact, I'd be outraged to discover that the police planned on using anything less than lethal force to deal with potential suicide bombers.

"It actually looks as if there is no general STK policy and that these officers were Special Branch specifically assigned to this man"

These particular officers may have been assigned to this man, but it is a fact that the national papers carried information about a "shoot-to-kill" policy several days ago, so they haven't been secretive about it.

"I would be annoyed if a change to the planning regulations on out-of-town supermarkets was sneaked through in an administrative order and then allowed to percolate through to the Belfast Telegraph and this is more important."

A news periodical could hardly be less marginal than old Ruper Murdoch's "Times," could it? As I mentioned, there's an article in last Sunday's edition about the change in policy, so no one has been trying to sneak this through.

[Abiola Lapite]

By the way, here's an Evening Standard article dating to the 16th outlining the change in policy.

http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/WorldNF.asp?ArticleID=173220

So that's two widely read papers I'm personally aware of in which the new "shoot to kill" policy has been explained.

[dsquared]

Abiola, there are two types of "shoot-to-kill policy".

You might have one in which identified targets are to be shot (to kill) if they are about to do something dangerous. This has been in place for ever, and indeed it's difficult to see why Special Branch officers have been given guns in the first place if it wasn't.

Or you might have one like the informal policy in Northern Ireland (which I've just remembered was never actually officially recognised and they obstructed John Stalker's investigation into it). Under this policy, RUC officers decided that they were going to assume the worst of anyone they came across on a dark patrol and shoot them if they felt worried.

The UK does not, in fact, have a policy of the second type; ordinary armed officers have not been instructed to bust a cap on anyone they don't like the look of. It would be a massive change in things if they did (for one thing, it would involve having armed officers on ordinary patrol duty which is not what they do at present). The second type of policy (which I repeat, we do not have) would pose a material risk of death to ordinary shoplifters who happened to be Asian and have beards. The first type of policy (which we do have) virtually ensures death of anyone who is a sufficiently high profile terrorism suspect to have a Special Branch tail and who goes near a Tube stop while wearing a coat.

This guy was not shot because he looked or behaved suspiciously; he was shot because he was a known al-Qaeda suicide bomber wannabe who was going into a Tube station. Since there are many more suspicious looking and acting people in England than there are al-Qaeda members, STK policy number 1 involves much less violence than STK policy number 2.

Even if the government had taken out front page adverts on every newspaper and booked TV slots in the middle of "Coronation Street", by the way, I would still say that the correct place to make major public policy changes is the House of Commons.

[Abiola Lapite]

"The UK does not, in fact, have a policy of the second type; ordinary armed officers have not been instructed to bust a cap on anyone they don't like the look of."

Good. I wouldn't wish for them to be able to do such a thing either.

"The first type of policy (which we do have) virtually ensures death of anyone who is a sufficiently high profile terrorism suspect to have a Special Branch tail and who goes near a Tube stop while wearing a coat."

And that is as it should be, though why the Evening Standard and the Times would write of this as a new policy is unclear to me, if what you say about it being nothing new is true.

[dsquared]

It's new news that they are specifically going for the Israeli-style head shot.

[radek]

"material risk of death to ordinary shoplifters who happened to be Asian and have beards"

Strangely enough on my way from London Archives yesterday afternoon a few hours after the attacks an Asian (in the British sense - Indian or Pakistani, not the American sense - East Asian) young man with a beard ran into me knocking me over and then continued running. Seconds later a police car peeled around the corner and took off after him. I don't think it was at all related though. He did look like your regular honest ol' shoplifter.

[hercules]

"If more people got it through their heads that they could be shot for stealing, there'd be far fewer thieves out and about, which would be an excellent development."

Is there any way to test that hypothesis ? Does anyone have data on criminality in Islamic states where the Sharia is enforced. The Sharia does, after all, deal rather strictly with criminals.

[dsquared]

For what it's worth, it turns out that the bloke was innocent (in the sense, innocent of the actual bombings yesterday and of having a bomb on him at the time; given that he had a tail of three Special Branch officers, I doubt he was pure as the driven snow) and the Met have issued a statement regretting his death.

[rmiles]

Looks like it was an Asian shoplifter after all. So if you're an Asian (or black) shoplifter, don't be surprised if you're executed with 5 shots to the head at point blank range. If you don't fit that description, then shoplift away!

[rmiles]

The Daily Express has a similar take to Abiola:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/today/html/1.stm

"Shoot all bombers: After police kill terrorist, demand grows for suicide fanatics to be shown no mercy"

[Abiola Lapite]

"Looks like it was an Asian shoplifter after all."

Whatever he was, he was also a deserving Darwin Award recipient for acting so stupidly the very day after the second terrorist incident in two weeks. It shouldn't take a triple-digit IQ to realize that it's life-threatening to run from armed policemen after they've identified themselves to you and asked you to halt.

[rmiles]

He deserves a darwin for not speaking english?

[Abiola Lapite]

How do you know he didn't speak English? Is that your initial presumption on seeing a brown face in London? Besides, does the sight of police badges and guns need translating?

[dsquared]

It turns out that they had been keeping an eye on the entire block of flats and then decided that they were worried about this bloke (who was Brazilian and in fact did not speak English all that well) who was going down to the tube station. To be honest the Met are unlikely to come out of this one looking all that good as things appear at the moment.

[Abiola Lapite]

What will be a real tragedy is if all this handwringing over one guy's stupidity leads to a fatal hesitation on the part of the police somewhere down the line, with far many more lives lost than just that of a single incredibly feckless character. The only thing I think needs doing at this point in time is to get a very simple message out to all those people who are a little slow on the uptake: DON'T RUN FROM ARMED POLICEMEN UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET YOUR *SS SHOT.

[john]

"A shoplifter or petty criminal *is* a "bad lad" by definition, and a fatally stupid one too, if he can't get it through his head that the risk of running from armed policemen a day after 4 suicide attacks far outweighs the likely consequences of a visit to the Old Bailey - especially when he fits the profile of a likely suicide bomber so closely."

Abiola,

My common sense confers with you on this point.

However, you mention fitting a "profile." How would you persuade liberals that this disproportionately hurts minorities and infringes on their civil rights?

John