One of the most significant, if not the most significant, editorial choices of any news organization is what story it selects to feature at the top of its newspaper or website. For CNN all weekend it has been the accidental shooting by London Metropolitan Police of a Brazilian those police thought was connected to the terror bombings in the underground and then later realized was not.
Regrettable as this accident is – and it is obviously tragic for the individual and his family – for CNN it has pushed the bombings themselves off their front page, as well as the subsequent bombings in Sharm el-Sheik in which many dozens were murdered (quite intentionally, not accidentally) by homicidal Islamists. Never mind that – those “goofballs” in the London police force made a mistake. That’s what’s important.
Unlike the actions of London police, however, CNN’s decision was not an accident. It is deeply reactionary in its implications because it distracts the public from the most serious imaginable problem into the side issue of the culpability of a few working class cops and, by implication, those in charge of them, who were only trying to react in a desperate situation. When I say many in the media have become “objectively pro-fascist,” this is an example of what I mean. And not as small a one as it may seem.
UPDATE: After at least forty-eight hours of distraction, CNN has finally (7:25AM Pacific) changed its front page to the London police naming two bombing suspects. The link above is now defunct. And Richard McEnroe is correct when he points out, in the comments, that this was a mistaken shooting, not an accidental one. The police were trying to stop the man. (And we still don’t know why he was running.)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
59 Comments
1. Robert Crawford:In early 2001, Cincinnati was torn by riots. The excuse for the riots was the oft-repeated claim that Cincinnati’s police had “murdered 15 young black men”. Any rational look at the evidence in each case showed that in 12 of the cases (this is from memory — numbers may be wrong, but are definitely close), the police had acted to defend their lives and the lives of others. In the exceptions, the officers involved were disciplined and, where appropriate, prosecuted.
In the week after the riots, the head of the local Fraternal Order of the Police held a press conference. Given his suggestive name (Roach) and an unfair reputation for being a firebrand, the press was eager to cover it; CNN even aired it live. After a short opening statement, Roach began detailing the facts in each of the 15 incidents.
Oddly, CNN developed satellite trouble, and couldn’t cover the press conference.
I’ve always thought the “satellite trouble” was just an excuse for CNN’s unwillingness to air the facts, for their preference for the race-baiting and cop-hating lie to the truth. This case just reinforces that judgement.
Jul 25, 2005 - 7:29 am 2. richard mcenroe:In the interests of accuracy, Roger, it’s more accurate to say that it was a mistaken shooting, not an accidental shooting. The police did fire deliberately ó and to my mind, correctly ó based on the information they had in hand and the guidelines they had been instructed to operate under.
And we do not have all the information about this story yet. The police have admitted that the shooting subject was not directly connected to the second bombings… but they have since arrested a third suspect at the very address the shooting subject came out of.
Jul 25, 2005 - 7:32 am 3. Roger:Correct.
Jul 25, 2005 - 7:35 am 4. PJ:CNN is catering to the foreign anti-America crowd again…I believe, however, that the world is waking up to the face of the real enemy.
Jul 25, 2005 - 7:52 am 5. Canucklehead:Applying tests of reasonableness to this situation, I wonder if the British simply accept that the Brazilian is innocent and in that way do not have to have a day in criminal court (with the implied costs) and they are able to shield their counter-terrorism infrastructure related to this case.
This situation will now proceed through the civil legal system and be addressed at some later point. Who knows, maybe additional information will come forward before this whole civil matter is settled?
Jul 25, 2005 - 7:53 am 6. Laurence Simon:If the ghost of Eason Jordan is truly alive, then which dictatorships are currently on CNN’s payroll to allow “access” to their propaganda?
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:00 am 7. richard mcenroe:Laurence Simon ó All of them, until CNN proves differently.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:10 am 8. richard mcenroe:OT, with apologies…
Joe Schmoe ó I left those directions for you in the “Is Terrorism …” thread. Many thanks.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:13 am 9. scott1798:Either this guy was a decoy or terrorist collaborator or the most stupid Brazilian that ever lived. This guy walks out of a building under surveilance wearing a long heavy coat in the middle of summer, proceeds to the train station, where bombs are going off, then runs when ordered to stop by the police?
What galls me about this sordid affair is that the British police shot five bullets and killed the suspect. Five bullets, five head shots, one dead suspect. Meanwhile, over in LA, some criminal goes berserk, and the police unload about 1,000 rounds of ammunition, shoot every building, house, car, bystander in sight, and the suspect doesn’t even get a scratch. As an American, I’m embarrassed about that.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:30 am 10. Robert Crawford:Scott, I hope you’re being facetious. In the odd case you’re not: In London, the suspect was pinned down and at close range; he was shot for fear he was trying to set off a suicide vest. In LA, the suspect was at long range, and returning fire.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:36 am 11. FastNed:Something isn’t right here – we do not have the full story yet. He was followed from a house being watched for terrorist activities. When the command to “STOP” was given, he ran. He jumped the turn-style at the Metro and ran into a subway car. He then tripped and police put five into his head to put him down. First, the police action was correct for a suspected suicide bomber – put him down before he can trigger the bomb and hope it’s not a deadman switch.
He has been identified as an electrician (from Brazil, I believe). At least one witness stated he saw “wires” handing from a belt or pocket. If police also saw such wires it adds to the necessity of putting him down as fast as possible. He ran, and the thought this conduct brings to mind is electricians are easily turned into bomb makers – they have about 90 percent of the knowledge required. Do we have here a bombmaker? It would explain his actions and his ‘clean’ record is exactly what you would wish for an undercover technician.
This needs to be watched for the rest of the story.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:40 am 12. Silicon valley Jim:I have no substantial evidence that Mr. de Menenzes had anything to do with terrorism. Suppose, however, that, a month from now, evidence is published that suggests strongly that he did. I think we already know the answers, but:
How much coverage does this get from the MSM?
Does the Brazilian government withdraw their demand for an apology (or apologize itself) as publicly as it demanded an apology?
And, scott, you’re absolutely right. I lived and worked in Chicago for a while, and I would never even have considered running away from a policeman there who ordered me to stop.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:42 am 13. PJ:Speaking of extended coverage, the story is STILL the lead story on netscape.com, which takes the CNN feed.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:44 am 14. PSGInfinity:Robert,
Of course he isn’t. Scott’s speaking in general terms. In the LA bomber incident they had good reason to be “bad” marksman. But we’ve watched many other incidents where they couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn from Inside The Barn! No wonder he’s being a litle snarky.
Good shooting, Bobbies! (still the correct term?)
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:50 am 15. flenser:In defence of American marksmanship, keep in mind that the British police in question were a group specifically tasked with tracking suspected terrorists, not just the average cop on the beat.
Jul 25, 2005 - 9:05 am 16. Warren Mason:I haven’t been by the CNN site, except on a rare occasion, in months. After living overseas for years one gets pretty tired of the CNN International, BBC World mantra which is replicated on their web sites.
Though I read a wide variety of news sources, one site I enjoy for their broad perspective, including international news is VOA News (www.voanews.com) which also contains expanded regional news (left navigation column). In addition to the typical Reuters/AP news feeds, they write their own content and are pretty neutral (I certainly have read a lot of articles that are unafraid to question US actions but in a balanced manner).
Jul 25, 2005 - 9:38 am 17. jerry:Jim:
I also suspect that there is more to this story. He could have been the bomb maker. He also could have been involved in unrelated petty crimminal activity and assumed that the police were after him for that. Unfortunately for him, it came after a terrorist attack and so bolting was not a bright thing to do. I suspect we will eventually find out.
Jul 25, 2005 - 9:52 am 18. Kevin P:Roger:
Is it bad that an innocent man dies ? Of course. But the police performed brilliantly. They were watching a house that was suspected of terror activity. A man comes out in a baggy coat. The cops order him to stop. He runs away. into the tube, where just recently terror bombs have gone off. They struggle but at thia point the cops have to assume that he might be wired for bombs and could set off a bomb. They couldn’t take that chance for themselves or for the people in the subway,
The cops are not at fault. The man, by running, gave the police no choice considering the circumstances. These gentleman do not need sensitivity training. They should not be considered anything other then gentleman who risked there lives,remember they did not know that he wasn’t wired for explosives and they jumped into the fire anyway, and this is not the story that CNN is trying to gin up. This isn’t about a baclash against dark skinned Londoners. If these cops are fired let them come to America and we will hire them to protect our cities. I want a cop to protect my family, not a guidance counselor.
Kevin Peters
Jul 25, 2005 - 10:16 am 19. jedrury:Roger’s article is important by pointing out
the inherent bias. But, there are so many television alternatives to CNN these days that its importance as the focal point of breaking news is marginal.
On these London bombings, go to the Times online to see what the latest news really is.
Jul 25, 2005 - 10:34 am 20. AisA:Kudos to Kevin Peters. He is correct. While the death of an innocent man — if he is innocent — is terrible, the moral responsibility for this death rests squarely with the suicide bombers who make this sort of police action necessary.
Jul 25, 2005 - 10:54 am 21. Prairiepundit:Civilian casualties, like the one in London, occur because the enemy violates the Geneva Convention by camoflaging himself as a civilian. Rod Nordland has a peice that was on the Newsweek online site over the weekend, that does a good job of refuting the civilian casualty claims for the war in IRaq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8679662/site/newsweek/).
The story not only explains how the enemy has put civilians at risk, it indirectly explains how reporters have been put at risk by the enemy’s conduct as unlawful combatants. Their is more on this article on my blog.
Jul 25, 2005 - 12:16 pm 22. Terrye:I think a great deal of the bias comes from the fact that the ’shoot to kill’ policy employed by the law enforcement officers is said to have been originated by the Israelis. Say Israel to a liberal reporter and you will get much the same effect has waving a red flag at a bull. They charge.
The man should have stopped and I have to wonder why he did not. Maybe he was afraid or maybe he was not aware of who was after him…I dunno.. but this is not the kind of thing that happens in London everyday so I think CNN and their ilk could give the cops the benefit of the doubt. After all, they have to live with this.
Too bad some people can not be as unequivocal in their criticism of the terrorists as they are in their criticism of cops and soldiers and other people in the front lines of this war.
Jul 25, 2005 - 12:34 pm 23. The Truth:But the police performed brilliantly.
Spoken like a [white] man who need never fear being shot accidentally by the police.
Those who are so non-chalant about this shooting, forgetting the fact that it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, betray their callousness to people of colour, who do not have the luxury of slagging off such an event because they know it can so easily happen to them. How lovely it must be to be white!
Jul 25, 2005 - 12:37 pm 24. TedM:Truth, you amaze all of us with your wit and acute sense of humor.
One could say that you do not see life through rose colored glasses.
Jul 25, 2005 - 12:43 pm 25. RBMN:He wasn’t a suicide bomber, but for all practical purposes, considering the circumstances, he committed suicide.
Jul 25, 2005 - 12:51 pm 26. JK Ribera:Those who are so non-chalant about this shooting, forgetting the fact that it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, betray their callousness to people of colour, who do not have the luxury of slagging off such an event because they know it can so easily happen to them. How lovely it must be to be white!
As person of color myself, I found the above comment stunningly racist. Does this poster have radar allowing him/her to see the color of the people posting? If I were Mr. Simon, I would ban this person from my site.
Jul 25, 2005 - 12:51 pm 27. Roger:After reading the above post by The Truth, I tried to contact him to ask him to refrain from such racially-tinged commentary on this blog. But, as it turns out, “The Truth’s” email address was a phony.
So this version of the The Truth has been banned.
Jul 25, 2005 - 1:05 pm 28. Brother Nikko:Interesting comment about de Menezes as a “person of colour.” I’ve seen native-born Welshmen with darker complexions. The unfortunate gentleman in question looks like your average, run-of-the-mill European to these eyes. To suggest that Sr. de Menezes was targetted for the “colour” of his skin not only fails the test of common sense, it flies in the face of the known facts in this case. Had a blond, blue-eyed Swedish giant left the surveilled house under the same circumstances and behaved in the same manner, he’d be just as dead. Do you think Sweden would issue a statement of protest and demand an apology? Knee-jerk, indeed.
BN
Jul 25, 2005 - 1:35 pm 29. jerry:“The Big Lie”:
Your comments show how much of racist you are. Brazillians don’t consider themselves “people of color” unless they are most of african origins. They are the opposite of Americans on this. If you have significant Portugese ancestry you are European.
Jul 25, 2005 - 1:38 pm 30. Cynic:An interesting take on this business is this piece by Tom Gross “From London to Jerusalem”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1122171719427
“For example, on Friday, at the very time British police were shooting the man in the Tube, the IDF caught and disarmed a terrorist from Fatah already inside Israel en route to carrying out a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Israeli forces didn’t injure the terrorist at all in apprehending him and disarming him of the 5-kg. explosive belt he was wearing.
And yet, for taking the bare minimum steps necessary to save the lives of its citizens in recent years Israel has been mercilessly berated by virtually the entire world.
Had Israeli police shot dead an innocent foreigner on one of its buses or trains, confirming the kill with a barrage of bullets at close range in a mistaken effort to thwart a bombing, the UN would probably have been sitting in emergency session by late afternoon to unanimously denounce the Jewish state. “
Jul 25, 2005 - 1:39 pm 31. rich:Why would he run? In a news report today, his roommate indicated that he was likely in the UK on an expired student visa.
Jul 25, 2005 - 1:49 pm 32. Morgan:rich:
An expired student visa, and nothing more, would be one of the saddest explanations for his behavior I can think of.
The police are guilty of shooting while not omniscient.
Jul 25, 2005 - 2:04 pm 33. Coisty:The police and army in Northern Ireland used to get accused by Irish Republicans of operating a shoot-to-kill policy (not that the IRA didn’t operate such a policy!). Speaking as a native of N Ireland let me tell you, with the possible exception of Finns, we are about as vanilla as human beings come! Indeed, during an anti-IRA shoot-to-kill policy being non-white could save a person who is acting suspiciously!
Jul 25, 2005 - 2:23 pm 34. scott1798:Mr. Crawford, judging from the cognitive development evidenced by your comment, I’m suprised you even know a polysyllabic word like ‘facetious’.
The police in LA were firing at the suspect’s car from opposite sides of the street and hitting each other! Now, I’ve never been to police academy, but then I don’t need to go to police academy in order to know how stupid that is.
As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and the Texas State Rifle Association, I only know this about guns: You don’t shoot something–hell, you don’t even put your finger on the trigger–unless you intend to kill something. And if you shoot it, kill it. If you don’t kill it on the first shot, shoot it again. Just DON’T shoot your friends.
I do not know whether the suspect in London had any ties with terrorists or not. That remains to be seen and may never be known. But judging from what I’ve read from a variety of sources, it would appear that he was indeed saving money to return to Brazil, as his parents (who are even now planning a lawsuit) claim, by renting himself out to terrorist cells as a decoy and propaganda tool. An “innocent” man walks out of a building under surveilance, wearing a long heavy coat in the summer, and proceeds to the train station, which has recently been and is now being bombed. Police follow him, naturally, while the real terrorist sneaks out unnoticed to wreak havoc and kill innocents. The police take out the “innocent” suspect, whose family then proceeds to file a lawsuit challenging the legality and morality of the police’s shoot-to-kill policy, thereby creating distrust of police officers and lax enforcement in dealing with terrorists. Am I the only man in the world who doesn’t find that scenario not only possible but probable? But even if the man really was completely innocent, that doesn’t change the fact that when armed police officers give you an order in an emergency situation, especially one that involves suicide bombs going off on location, you don’t run. Period. The fact that this guy did run, which by the way is an explicit sign of guilt, more than suggests to me that he was not in fact innocent.
What galls me is that the London police, who didn’t even carry guns a few years ago, could chase this guy down and take him out with 5 of 5 headshots and no colatteral damage or casualties, but the LA police can’t chase down a criminal or take him out with 1,000 shots, all misses, without shooting up the whole neighborhood, causing considerable colatteral damage and several casualties. It doesn’t require a PhD in logic to see that the LA police don’t shoot to kill. They just shoot. And let the taxpayers pick up the tab for whatever or whomever gets shot. That’s what passes for law enforcement in California these days, I guess.
Yeah, as an American, I find that embarrassing. As a Texan, I find that revolting. In a time of war, and this is a time of war–we were attacked several times before the British were–you shoot to kill. You don’t shoot to waste bullets, and you certainly don’t shoot your friends. Whether it’s in law enforcement or anti-terrorist activities, if you have to shoot, shoot to kill. The British figured this out in two weeks. Most Americans haven’t figured this out in four years. You’re damn right I find that embarrassing, and I’m not being facetious.
Jul 25, 2005 - 2:33 pm 35. Terrye:I heard that a man who at the house that young man exited before he was shot was arrested today.
I know the Brizilian was an electrician but if he was working I would think he would have tools with him..why was he at that house?
I think this might be a little more involved.
Jul 25, 2005 - 2:34 pm 36. Canucklehead:Scott1798, you don’t need to marvel at the marksmanship of the British counter-terrorist operative. It’s my understanding that once the “terrorist” was subdued, he was popped twice in the head and three times in the chest… at very close range. You can’t miss when you feel his breath…
I’ve also sent a significant amount of lead downrange and hunted my fair share. The shots weren’t difficult to make. Marksmanship wasn’t the message here. The bullet to the head of a “terrorist” was the medium…
I sense the British public support this “like-shooting-fish-in-a-barrel-like-the-lying-dogs-they-are” approach to terrorists. It’s unfortunate they took out a dumb Brazilian who has been in England for three years and apparently didn’t realize multiple subway bombings of innocents tends to “set-off” the British public. Too bad there won’t be a next time…
Jul 25, 2005 - 3:09 pm 37. Kevin P:Roger:
I don’t know whether to be happy or sad about the truth’s demise. I will be honest and tell the truth that yes, I am a white male(you know, scum of the earth) but, I have also been racially profiled by the police!
It was sprintime and the Lakers were in the playoff’s(ah, remember those days of glory Roger) and I decided to ride my bike two miles over to my sister’s house to watch the game. After the Laker victory, those were the days, it was about 10 o’clock and I was peddling home when I heard the short burst of a police siren and he wanted me to pull over. I didn’t run, I followed orders. he informed I had a broken tail light on my bike. he then began grilling me. He had me sit down on the curb while he ran the info on my ID. He shined his flashlight into my eyes and checked out my teeth.All this took about 25 minutes, and I wasn’t happy(nothing like a middle aged man sitting on the hard curb with the gutter water running by to raise the spirits} but I have always known that being polite and open with the cops is the best attitude to strike. Do what they ask and you won’t have a problem most of the time. I left without a ticket and just a warning.
I have a friend who is in city government so I called him to find out why I got pulled over. I knew the cop didn’t care about my bike light. I found out that a apartment complex that I passed by was the site of a meth lab.I live in a upper middle class sectiom of Orange County and many of the customers were middle aged white men and many of them walked or biked to the apt. So they wouldn’t get pulled over by the police. It was a warm night so I had dressed in shorts, baseball cap, and flip flops. I fit the profile. The cop was doing his job. I told my friend to thank the cop.
These cops in London were not acting in a rascist manner. The fact that the truth needs to reach for this standard cliche tells you the lack of imagination of the left in this world. From what I have read 10% of the victims of the London bombing were Muslim. most of the Egyptian victims were muslim. These London police acted to protect all people, not to harras people of color. The brazilian unfortunetly acted in a manner that gave the police no choice. If he had not run away he would be alive. The police, given the actions of the victim, had no choice but to do what they did.
Kevin Peters
Jul 25, 2005 - 3:20 pm 38. Rick Ballard:Kevin,
As a person of pallor I can certainly identify with your situation. Did you know that people of pallor are stopped and subjected to the same treatment that you received in the majority of instances in which the police take action? You can look it up. I had assumed (based upon press reports) that my pallor was a “saving grace” wrt police action. I have learned, to my dismay, that even trifling offenses like exceeding the speeed limit by 20-30 mph will result in my being singled out for retributive action on the part of those heartless minions of the state.
It’s simply unconsionable!
If this guy really was clean, then I have sympathy for him and his family. Let’s wait and see for a bit, though.
Jul 25, 2005 - 3:41 pm 39. Joe Schmoe:OT Richard-
I’ll be there.
Jul 25, 2005 - 4:06 pm 40. richard mcenroe:Scott1798– Actually, it was 120+ shots in the last incident for one hit. I think the drill in LA is
1. empty the magazine in your service weapon…
2. shout “Stop or I’ll!” shoot while performing your first tactical reload…
Jul 25, 2005 - 4:40 pm 41. ElMondo:Here’s the question I have: Why did the guy run? I mean, once he was ordered to stop, had he done so, at most he would’ve endured a period of mild to moderate public humiliation (being handcuffed, possibly being forced to lay prone on the ground) and been questioned. Not dignified, to be certain, but also not as harsh and final as being killed. Damage to dignity can be repaired. Co-operation with the constabulary would’ve definitely been an inconvenience, but my goodness, look at what the alternative turned out to be. So why did he run? To be blunt, I think that was the real mistake.
To those that would tell me I’m blaming the victim: I’m sensitive to the criticism, and I absoultely am not trying to imply that the man was a criminal, but I can’t deny the fact that I view the shooting as at the very least half his fault. I mean, that hurts, and I agree that he didn’t do anything to deserve a death sentence, but my point is that “deserves” got nothing to do with this. A law enforcement officer doesn’t have a whole lot of time to make judgements as to the legitimacy of a citizen’s actions; he or she must react in the best way possible for the largest number of people in the shortest possible time, and mistakes are inevitable when that happens. Tragic, for certain, but had he not run, he would not have been shot. So in a sense I guess I really am blaming the victim. Or more accurately, I’m assigning responsibility where it lays. Look at the circumstance: Multiple bombings in less than a week. Man was wearing heavy clothing in hot weather, planting the possibility that he was concealing something. Man refused to stop, and in fact ran away from law enforcement authorities. Did the police overreact? Definitely possible, and unfortunately probable (I’d like to hear their side of the story first, though). Did the man bring this upon himself? Well, he created a situation where malicious intent could be inferred, however incorrect that analysis would be after the fact. So to what degree he brought about his own death is arguable, but I cannot completely absolve him of responsibility in this case. I’m sorry, but I can’t. Maybe the officers should’ve tried tackling him. Maybe they could’ve thought ahead and seen if other officers could herd him away from the train. Maybe they could’ve resorted to less than lethal force (does the British Constibulary use stun-guns or pepper spray?) Maybe there’s some action that they could’ve taken.
But also, maybe the man could’ve stopped. That’s the root “maybe” in this situation. That man is responsible for his own life, so why in God’s name did he put himself in a situation where that life was at risk? Not to absolve the police before all the information is in, but doesn’t anyone stop and think about the fact that running from an officer in a train station wearing heaving clothing days after multiple deadly bombings is basically asking for problems? I’m all for an investigation, and if the police acted irresponsibly, then by all means, dole out the appropriate punishment. But during all that, please admit that the man brought at least part of this down on himself by fleeing.
Jul 25, 2005 - 5:27 pm 42. sparrow:Has it been established whether the police who chased the suspected terrorist were in uniform?
If they were not in uniform, maybe the suspect didn’t think they were really police.
Jul 25, 2005 - 5:50 pm 43. Terrye:I am not sure if the men were all in uniform. The men I saw were, save one.
I hear the Brazilians are demanding an arrest.
oh come on.
Why was he at that house? Why did he run? Who is he?
That is the spooky thing about all this. These guys don’t have two heads or something and if the man had a bomb and the police failed to shoot him and take him down when they had the chance, well…. we can imagine the outrage at that.
Jul 25, 2005 - 6:45 pm 44. Robert Crawford:Mr. Crawford, judging from the cognitive development evidenced by your comment, I’m suprised you even know a polysyllabic word like ‘facetious’.
And what, please, did I say that merited a personal attack? As I — and others — have pointed out, the fellow in London was being held down and shot at, literally, arm’s length.
He was not returning fire — as Pena was. There had not been an hour-and-a-half standoff — as there was in the Pena case.
You can wave your NRA card all you want. The two cases are not comparable.
Jul 25, 2005 - 7:11 pm 45. richard mcenroe:Terrye ó Yes, considering how little police violence there is in Brazil, they’re justifiably shocked…
Jul 25, 2005 - 7:22 pm 46. Ric Locke:Richard,
I suspect you’re being facetious, but just to be clear for everyone –
In Brazil, if you travel between population centers you are certain to pass at least one police checkpoint at which you must slow down to ensure they’ve got your tag numbers. Nowadays it’s mostly a formality, but any mature adult Brazilian remembers when it was much more than that.
Brazil isn’t a police state, but you don’t ignore or run away from policemen there. Been there, done that.
Regards,
Ric
Jul 25, 2005 - 7:55 pm 47. Brother Nikko:Brazil also has a long-standing policy of “reciprocity” when dealing with other countries. If I were a Brit electrician living in Brazil, I’d be buying my one-way ticket on the British Airways “Rio-London Midnight Express” right about now …
BN
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:01 pm 48. sparrow:From Mark Steyn’s column today in the Daily Telegraph he states the police were plainclothes:
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:09 pm 49. Moses Wine:Can’t wait for my next book where, I help the British start an extraordinary rendition program.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:34 pm 50. jane m:I lived in the UK for three years many years ago. The warmest it ever became was 72 F. I was amazed at the number of ladies wearing heavy coats in summer as the went about their shopping errands.
Does anyone know if the police shoot-to-kill policy was public knowledge? I doubt that this fellow knew. I doubt that the public at large was informed of this policy. Why did he run? Simple, he was in a state of panic and fear drove all reason from his mind. It happens and people end up dead.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:34 pm 51. Terrye:sparrow:
That may well be. The pics I saw were outside the station and the men were armed. There were four of them and one was plain clothes, the others looked like swat or something.
Jul 25, 2005 - 8:39 pm 52. Luther McLeod:Natural instinct, running from johnny law, especially if you’re guilty of something, anything. Perhaps just a confluence of bad circumstances. Biggest point to me, coming out of a watched building, but even that could have been coincidental. Sad and tragic yes, good shoot, yes as well. I do not blame the coppers.
Jul 25, 2005 - 9:02 pm 53. insatty:To “Truth” and his ilk:
If the whitest, palest, and most caucasion man in Britain would have run from police with a heavy jacket in summer, he would have been dispatched in the same way. He was not chased for his color, he was chased for his conduct.
The Left has never understood the distinction between conduct and race. I just heard the epitome of Leftist Stupidity, Keith Olberman, say that British police “assumed” the Brazilian was a terrorist. No, Keith; British police concluded he was a terrorist because of his conduct. They cared little about his skin color.
If you don’t think that whiteys can act like terrorists, just go read the hate spewed at Daily Kos, DU, Atrios, BBC, Guardian, and from Pilger and Galloway.
The War on Terror is not a color thing, no matter how much the Left tries to characterize it as such.
Jul 25, 2005 - 9:12 pm 54. scott1798:Mr. Crawford. I stand by everything I have written. Of course the two incidents are not comparable–the British shoot to kill, the Americans shoot to shoot. Nothing could be more obvious.
I am not waving my NRA or TSRA credentials, but I know how to shoot. All I know is that you don’t shoot your friends, which is more apparently than the LA police or you know.
This is a time of war. In a time of war, whether in a law enforcement or anti-terrorist situation, the only thing that matters is that the men with guns know what they’re doing. Which is to say, they know to shoot the enemy and not each other or innocent bystanders.
I would say that I’m shocked that you fail to understand this simple and fundamental point. But I’m not. As an American, I am however embarrassed.
Oh, and by the way, you cognitive development hasn’t evidenced much improvement. I suggest you try a heavy dose of reality.
Jul 25, 2005 - 9:50 pm 55. Morgan:scott1798:
I’m afraid that your gratuitous slurs against Mr. Crawford come off as absurd non-sequiturs. Please, make your argument that London cops know what they are doing with their guns and LA cops do not, explain why you think this poses problems for our ability to prosecute the war on terror, perhaps respond to his contention that the two situations are not comparable, maybe fill us in on why this is such a hot-button issue for you – and save the ad hominem attacks for the trolls, rather than honest commenters with whom you disagree.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Mark Morgan
Jul 25, 2005 - 10:15 pm 56. richard mcenroe:OK, I just sent Steyn an e-mail taking issue with his Death on the Tube column. This could get ugly early. Oh, well, if you’re gonna hunt bear, hunt the grizzly…
Jul 25, 2005 - 10:53 pm 57. majella77:The policemen involved were on undercover detail (not in uniform). To blame the victim of this tragedy is appalling. The man was not aware the building he came out of was under surveillance (why would he be if the cops were doing their job?). If the Brit cops keep shooting innocent civilians, they’ll be finishing the job the terrorists started.
Jul 26, 2005 - 11:32 am 58. Alex Fradera:1. It was not hot that day. It is currently raining in london, as it has done for days (although not that day).
2. The police were not in uniform.
3. Violent crime, and armed violent crime, is extremely high in Brazil.
4. Violent crime, and armed violent crime, is also high in the Stockwell/Brixton area, as is gang mugging.
5. The ‘house’ may, or may not be, an old Victorian or Georgian terraced house split into flats, as in non-affluent areas of central London intact houses are rare (more money in two rented flats). Hence exiting the observed ‘house’ may simply mean ‘using a common entrance with the flat under surveillance’.
6. It is currently unclear how the police challenged the man, whether they made clear their affiliation or not. They were, as stated above, not in uniform and packing guns (which is not something emblematic of police in the UK, as most police are not armed).
7. The killed man was not a native english speaker
8. People do not act rationally when panicked, as for example when armed men confront you.
I’m in no mood for blaming the police. However, the ’smoke without fire’ insinuations made on this thread are baseless and entirely inappropriate following the death due to mistaken identity.
Jul 27, 2005 - 10:30 am 59. richard mcenroe:Alex ó He was in the middle of a crowded tube station when the police challenged him. Did he assume it was a hold-up right there? He had been in Britain three years, he should have known better. Likewise, how hard is it to understand Stop! Police! in the language of a country where you have supposedly been working for three years?
Jul 27, 2005 - 8:08 pm