July 25, 2005

A Death In London

Red Ken got it right for once, for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes is the responsibility of the terrorists, not the police. To my mind, there are still many unanswered questions here, which include why run from the police when challenged, why the heavy coat, and did he do something that appeard to be an attempted hostage taking as reported by witnesses? We may never have all the answers, but while what happened ultimately was a tragedy, it was also justified. You do not take a chance with a potential suicide bomber, for far too many can pay the price if you do. What you do is a head shot so that they don't get the chance to detonate the bomb. Since many seem to miss the obvious, you also don't shoot into the abdomen or lower chest because a bullet hitting the workings of the vest can do very bad things...

The police did as they should, and do not bear the responsibility for the mistake. That lies ultimately with the terrorists, and with the man who did not stop when challenged.

LW

Posted by wolf1 at July 25, 2005 11:52 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Sad. But if this conflict didn't have innocent casualties, it would be the first one in history not to.

The police had a terrible decision to make. It is awful all round..

Posted by: Sally at July 25, 2005 02:27 PM

I can't answer why he ran, but I MIGHT be able to explain the coat. Several years ago I went to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico in February. It was 70 degrees+ every day I was there, and many of the natives where wearing winter coats. When you're used to temperatures of up into the 100's, 70 feels arctic. Summer in the UK just might have felt like winter to him. Pity.

Posted by: Omnibus Driver at July 25, 2005 06:15 PM

Omnibus: Agree in principle, but in this case London has been in the midst of what is for them a bad heat wave. Still doesn't add up for me.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 25, 2005 07:40 PM

The heat wave had gone by Friday, and if I remember correctly, it was windy. I would have worn a coat. Not a heavy one, but then I'm not used to hot temperatures.

The thing that puzzles me is why the hell you would run away from guns? Guns, by their very design, will kill you from long range. And going into a tube station when the city is on red alert..

If it is true that the poor kid thought he was being targeted by vigilantes, or had been caught up in a drug gang thing, he must, at some point have wondered why shots weren't fired as he fled.

I am trying to be rational about this, but when it is on your doorstep, it is difficult to get perspective. As far as I know, four of these "people" are still on the loose.

I think you get an automatic five year sentence here for possession of a firearm. Can you imagine the chaos if these things weren't left to the authorities? There would be people, innocent or otherwise shot every day.

Posted by: Sally at July 25, 2005 10:05 PM

Whimsey, on the latter part I am going to have to disagree with you. Despite the horror stories peddled by the Old Media, weapons of all types are readily available here and -- outside of clear criminal use -- the cases of misuse are actually rare. It is worth noting the trends in weapons misuse and the course of attempts to ban and control weapons, along with corresponding ending of weapons safety and responsibility instruction. Despite the negatives in the Old Media, I can only think of one case of an idiot shooting someone for looking "Middle Eastern" after 9/11 -- despite the literally millions of guns and other weapons legally owned and kept by individuals here. By the same token, look at crime statistics elsewhere, including England, before and after private ownership of firearms and other weapons was effectively banned. It is also most interesting to note that here in the U.S. where violence is a real and serious problem, that they tend to cluster in areas where significant bans on weapons and self-protection are in force. Prime example is in DC, which has a significantly higher rate of injury for the average person than for soldiers in Iraq. Note also what happens to rates when such bans are reversed and people can once again defend themselves.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 25, 2005 11:27 PM

I stand corrected, Wolf :-)

Posted by: Sally at July 26, 2005 10:35 AM

I read (God knows where, at this point) that his visa had expired. That might explain why he ran. Sad, but the lesson is, particularly in London, when the police tell you to stop, you stop. You damned sure don't run into a subway.

Posted by: Jim - PRS at July 27, 2005 03:05 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?