London Terrorism

July 22, 2005 3:45 AM

Man shot 5 times in London. Around 10am, suspected suicide bomber runs into a tube station and is shot and killed at close range by plain-clothes police officers. News still developing, high risk of further incidents.
posted by Acey (247 comments total)

East London mosque was also cordoned off after a specific threat, Police have now given the all-clear.
posted by Acey at 3:46 AM on July 22, 2005

Mr Whitby, told BBC News: "I was sitting on the train reading my paper. I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down'! I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers. One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw the gun being fired five times into the guy - he's dead."

Sky news:

Teri Godly, who was also in the carriage when the suspected bomber boarded, said: "A tall Asian man with a beard and a rucksack got on after me. Then about eight or nine police with shotguns boarded after him and started shouting to us all 'get out, get out of the station'."

"People started screaming and we all started running quite calmly up the stairs. There were six or seven gunshots behind us. It was very surreal. No one was pushing or shoving. We were in a state of shock. It was only afterwards that I realised how lucky we had been."

Chris Wells, a 28-year-old company manager, said he was travelling on the Victoria Line towards Vauxhall when he left the train at Stockwell. He saw about 20 police officers, some of them armed, rushing into the station before a man jumped over the barriers with police giving chase. He said: "There were at least 20 officers and they were carrying big black guns. The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting 'get out, get out'."

Christopher Scaglione, 35, a fashion designer, was also on a Victoria Line Tube train shortly before the incident. He said: "The train didn't stop at Vauxhall and so I got out at Stockwell. I was just on my way out when I heard at first a little bang, not like a bomb more like a gun, and then people were shouting. People then started to run and I heard two or three more bangs like people shooting."
posted by Acey at 3:49 AM on July 22, 2005

they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him.

If verified, I guess the new policy in our post-renewed-PATRIOT empire is shoot first, ask questions later. What if he wasn't a terrorist, or didn't have a bomb? If he was a terrorist, can't we try to keep these folks alive so we can ask some questions, like, "Are you part of a larger attack"?
posted by Rothko at 3:50 AM on July 22, 2005

One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him.

yeah that freaked me out as well, Rothko. I figured they would want to question him...
posted by Livewire Confusion at 3:51 AM on July 22, 2005

Rothko, you seem to be confusing the US and the UK.

I think there's a case to be made for shooting people who wear rucksacks on a crowded Tube train.
posted by veedubya at 3:52 AM on July 22, 2005

Rothko, you seem to be confusing the US and the UK.

No, not really. Read the Ireland thread further down the blue to see what I'm hinting at. Sovereignty apparently is a quaint notion to neocons.
posted by Rothko at 3:53 AM on July 22, 2005

Rothko, you seem to be confusing the US and the UK.

I think there's a case to be made for shooting people who wear rucksacks on a crowded Tube train.

Not when he's already apprehended.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 3:54 AM on July 22, 2005

"Unloaded". And I bet they held their guns sideways too so it looked cool.
posted by ciderwoman at 3:55 AM on July 22, 2005

they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him.

If true, this is scary. It sounds like an execution. If five officers have him pinned down, wouldn't it be more useful to arrest and question him?
posted by aidanf at 3:58 AM on July 22, 2005

Early indications are that he was one of yesterday's failed bombers, and the police had reliable intelligence that he was a suicide bomber, so of course they would shoot to kill.
posted by Acey at 3:58 AM on July 22, 2005

so of course they would shoot to kill

rather than all that messy internment camp stuff.
posted by machaus at 4:00 AM on July 22, 2005

So, you're seriously suggesting that armed Metropolitan police are roaming the underground, looking to shoot brown people, at the request of the US government?

As a Brit, living in London, who also happens to be an Irish citizen, I can safely say that you're getting your underwear knotted over nothing. We don't know how the bombs yesterday was triggered. The police do. Maybe they had good reason to suppose that even though apprehended, a bomb could still be detonated.
posted by veedubya at 4:00 AM on July 22, 2005

Since when have British plain clothes police been carrying automatic handguns? Or by "Police" do they mean "MI5"?
posted by chill at 4:01 AM on July 22, 2005

s/was/were/
posted by veedubya at 4:02 AM on July 22, 2005

Early indications are that he was one of yesterday's failed bombers, and the police had reliable intelligence that he was a suicide bomber, so of course they would shoot to kill.

I could see shooting him if he wasn't already caught. Arrest him and put him on trial. Don't shoot him when he already down. I don't care is he was Osama Bin Laden, everyone deserves a trial. That is what makes us democratic.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 4:08 AM on July 22, 2005

Hmmm Think I'll probably avoid wearing a backpack when I visit in a few weeks...
posted by doogyrev at 4:09 AM on July 22, 2005

What if he was about to blow himself up? I understand the concerns spoken here, and they tell a worrying story, but that is the angle the BBC are giving; that it was correct procedure.
posted by Acey at 4:11 AM on July 22, 2005

As a Brit, living in London, who also happens to be an Irish citizen, I can safely say that you're getting your underwear knotted over nothing. We don't know how the bombs yesterday was triggered. The police do. Maybe they had good reason to suppose that even though apprehended, a bomb could still be detonated.

Via what, telepathy? If his hands are bound then he's not gonna trigger anything and if it's a cell phone trigger shooting him will make no difference.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 4:11 AM on July 22, 2005

Suicide bombers just have to flick a switch on their belt. If I was the police I'd be concerned that the guy could just wiggle and toggle the switch, with his waist or finger or someone else's shoe.
posted by faux ami at 4:13 AM on July 22, 2005

Don't shoot him when he already down.
I'm pretty sure these guys would have loved to have been able to take him in for "questioning", so it is inconceivable to me that they would shoot him dead without a damn good reason.
posted by chill at 4:15 AM on July 22, 2005

the angle the BBC are giving; that it was correct procedure.

Clearly possible, BUT the eye witness didn't tell it that way. BTW, the TV lies... So do papers too though.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 4:16 AM on July 22, 2005

What's the lady from Sky News talking about/smoking? Her account differs greatly from the others. Rather than being chased onto the train, she says the guy was wearing a rucksack and got on just after her, and then the police boarded with shotguns.

I am also finding it hard to believe that the police had this guy cornered and "cowering like a fox/rabbit" (again depending on which source you read) but still emptied a pistol into him. Surely they could have restrained him enough to stop him triggering a device (there were 15-20 police according to different accounts).
posted by bpdlr at 4:16 AM on July 22, 2005

If I was a police man sitting on top of an unexploded suicide bomber I'de just captured, I'de probably prefer he was dead.
posted by Damienmce at 4:17 AM on July 22, 2005

His hands weren't bound, at least not from all the reports I see. He was running from them, tripped and they unloaded. Word is he was wearing a big, bulky coat and they suspected he had explosives underneath. Shooting him in the head would probably seem like a good idea if that's all true.
posted by grey_flap at 4:18 AM on July 22, 2005

Getting the guy onto the floor is probably not going to stop him detonating his bomb. I'm sure there are ways of doing it from the floor. Similarly, it's conceivable that a bomber could detonate a bomb while handcuffed. Who knows what methods they have for detonation...the Police who shot him maybe?
posted by fire&wings at 4:19 AM on July 22, 2005

Newspapers have been running headlines of '4 suicide bombers on the loose', so I think the atmosphere is pretty jumpy. I really hope this doesn't prove to be a horrible mistake, but we have to have some faith that our intel/mi5 know what they are doing.
posted by Acey at 4:20 AM on July 22, 2005

I'm pretty sure these guys would have loved to have been able to take him in for "questioning", so it is inconceivable to me that they would shoot him dead without a damn good reason.

That's what I would hope, but again, the EYE WITNESS was pretty clear about the event.

I just hope shoot to kill isn't the new London Police moto.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 4:20 AM on July 22, 2005

I guess the new policy in our post-renewed-PATRIOT empire is shoot first, ask questions later.

Or is it assume you know what happened first, then find out what actually happened later?
posted by shoos at 4:24 AM on July 22, 2005

His hands weren't bound, at least not from all the reports I see. He was running from them, tripped and they unloaded. Word is he was wearing a big, bulky coat and they suspected he had explosives underneath. Shooting him in the head would probably seem like a good idea if that's all true.

Agreed.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 4:24 AM on July 22, 2005

the EYE WITNESS was pretty clear about the event
Yeah, he SAID the guy was "was WEARING a thick coat THAT looked padded.".
posted by chill at 4:25 AM on July 22, 2005

While I don't disbelieve the eye witness, an eye witness can also be wrong. It will be a while before we know what is going on or already happened.
posted by skarmj at 4:27 AM on July 22, 2005

Or is it assume you know what happened first, then find out what actually happened later?

Shoos, thanks for omitting "IF VERIFIED" from what I actually said. Very convenient of you.
posted by Rothko at 4:27 AM on July 22, 2005

Eyewitnesses aren't so reliable. Many of these reports conflict and lots of people only heard what happened. We may never know what really happened unless it was caught on security camera.
posted by Acey at 4:29 AM on July 22, 2005

Getting the guy onto the floor is probably not going to stop him detonating his bomb. I'm sure there are ways of doing it from the floor. Similarly, it's conceivable that a bomber could detonate a bomb while handcuffed. Who knows what methods they have for detonation...the Police who shot him maybe?

"Yes, let us not question the leader or his minions." We've used that logic in the states and it hasn't exaclty paid off, if you know what mean
posted by Livewire Confusion at 4:36 AM on July 22, 2005

Another eyewitness account on BBC news said that the man actually made it onto the train and grabbed someone, police rushed in another door and shouted for everyone to get out, and the eyewitness heard shots behind him as he left.
posted by Acey at 4:40 AM on July 22, 2005

Also, according to my coworker here in London (I'm new here), the attitude towards police from people in Stockwell isn't great. So the guy might be remembering from a pretty police-hostile point of view. Eyewitnesses will often report something that fits their existing prejudices.
posted by wilberforce at 4:43 AM on July 22, 2005

"Yes, let us not question the leader or his minions."

In the hours after the event, when all we know officially is that "a man has been shot and he died at the scene," then that is a fair course of action. Shooting people dead in the street isn't a common occurance here.
posted by fire&wings at 4:43 AM on July 22, 2005

Eyewitnesses aren't so reliable. Many of these reports conflict and lots of people only heard what happened. We may never know what really happened unless it was caught on security camera.

Very true.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 4:43 AM on July 22, 2005

Similarly, it's conceivable that a bomber could detonate a bomb while handcuffed. Who knows what methods they have for detonation

Yeah, I hear that they sell hands-free kits for suicide bombers now.
posted by tapeguy at 4:49 AM on July 22, 2005

If I were a suicide bomber...

You know, I just thought of two separate reasons why they'd want to pile onto the guy AND make sure he was dead, having to do with dead-man switches and all. I'll bet that at least one officer on each side of the suspected bomber was assigned to keeping the man's hands closed TIGHTLY. And I wouldn't be suprised if one or more of the cops was carrying a cell-phone jammer, just to be on the safe side.

Then again, I don't know just how sophisticated these bombs are. Setting up a SPNC (single pole, normally closed) handswitch wouldn't be hard at all.

I can't say this was the wrong course of action. It would have been nice to take the guy alive, but if it comes down to possibly taking him alive or risking a trainload of people, the police have an obligation to go for the lesser risk.

JB
posted by JB71 at 4:49 AM on July 22, 2005

I feel sorry for the police in this situation, because, reading the response to this thread, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. I suspect that many of the same people complaining that the suspect was shot would have been moaning about police inaction if the police hadn't shot him and he detonated a bomb.

It's probably best to reserve judgment until all of the facts come out, but my admittedly uneducated opinion is that, when a suspected suicide bomber is running into a crowded subway station, it's probably not the time to worry about intelligence gathering.
posted by MegoSteve at 4:50 AM on July 22, 2005

>the attitude towards police from people in Stockwell isn't great
Say what you mean, why don't you? I'd point out that the vast majority of people travelling through Stockwell on the tube don't actually live in Stockwell.
Anyone know why Angel station was evacuated? I'm sitting in an office block right on top of it.
posted by mleonard at 4:52 AM on July 22, 2005

> Since when have British plain clothes police been
> carrying automatic handguns?

Up here in Liverpool, it's been a fairly common sight to see the armed response units sporting their Heckler and Koch sub-machine guns for at least the last ten to fifteen years now.

As for plain clothes police, guns are issued to those officers who are trained to use them on a case-by-case basis. Presumably, hunting suicide bombers is just another one of those cases.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:53 AM on July 22, 2005

MLeonard:

Hmmm. Don't you have a rather long dentist's appointment scheduled after lunch today? Why, you might not be able to make it back into the office until tomorrow. (grin)

JB
posted by JB71 at 4:54 AM on July 22, 2005

"Arrest him and put him on trial. Don't shoot him when he already down."

It seems fairly common for suicide bombers to have manual control of the detonation, if so and your information is realiable it would be folly to "try and apprehend this guy alive.

If he was already in proximity to civilians, then the only real option is to kill him as soon as possible, as dead as possible.
posted by soulhuntre at 5:02 AM on July 22, 2005

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."

If this is true, I don't see how they could not shoot the guy.

BTW, I had to evacuate a Brixton-bound Victoria line train at Oxford Circus and people mentioned the closure of the Northern line, which would explain the closure of the Angel station.
posted by zarex at 5:02 AM on July 22, 2005

Livewire Confusion : "BUT the eye witness didn't tell it that way"

True, but one of the eye witnesses also reports him wearing a rucksack, whereas others say he had none.

Livewire Confusion : "the EYE WITNESS was pretty clear about the event."

Again, the EYE WITNESS was pretty clear about the event. The other EYE WITNESSES were also clear about the event, but say things that disagree with the first EYE WITNESS. Being an EYE WITNESS, and clear about something, does count for something, but it doesn't count for everything.
posted by bugbread at 5:03 AM on July 22, 2005

- The guy in question was specifically targeted by police before he entered the station. He vaulted the barriers to get in, and kept running.

- He was wearing a bulky winter coat in London at this time of year. It would be an understatement to say that you rarely see that; you never see it.

- Mobile phones don't work on the deep-line stations in London. You can't even send a text to someone sitting next to you. No signal.

Given all the above, I'm not surprised they opted to pile on top of the man and kill him. Remember that these weren't just some random police guys that saw a suspicious-looking brown guy and decided to chase him. They were previously armed officers, specifically chasing him, and they opted for what they would have seen at the time to be the lesser risk.

Whether or not they were right to do so will emerge in time.
posted by paperpete at 5:06 AM on July 22, 2005

- The guy in question was specifically targeted by police before he entered the station. He vaulted the barriers to get in, and kept running.

- He was wearing a bulky winter coat in London at this time of year. It would be an understatement to say that you rarely see that; you never see it.

- Mobile phones don't work on the deep-line stations in London. You can't even send a text to someone sitting next to you. No signal.

Given all the above, I'm not surprised they opted to pile on top of the man and kill him. Remember that these weren't just some random police guys that saw a suspicious-looking brown guy and decided to chase him. They were previously armed officers, specifically chasing him, and they opted for what they would have seen at the time to be the lesser risk.

Whether or not they were right to do so will emerge in time.
posted by paperpete at 5:09 AM on July 22, 2005

sounds like a beauty bit of zero-tolerance
posted by Frasermoo at 5:11 AM on July 22, 2005

Some of you people... so quick to blame the police.

Here is a summary of what is known.

Stockwell is the next station on the Northern line next to Oval, which is where one of the "explosions" occurred yesterday.

An Asian man, dressed in a bulky coat, jumped the gates and was challenged by police. He ran.

It is 70 degrees Fahrenheit today in London.

Three plainclothes police chased this guy down the escalator, he ran into a train that was stopped at the station, tripped as he got onto the train and the cops jumped on him.

He was shot five times. He is dead.

The rumor is that this is one of the four bombers from yesterday. He had been identified by the plainclothes officers who were chasing him.

Draw your own conclusions. My immediate reaction is to wonder why the police didn't shot him dead earlier.
posted by three blind mice at 5:13 AM on July 22, 2005

If verified, I guess the new policy in our post-renewed-PATRIOT empire is shoot first, ask questions later. What if he wasn't a terrorist, or didn't have a bomb? If he was a terrorist, can't we try to keep these folks alive so we can ask some questions, like, "Are you part of a larger attack"?

It's amazing that some people are more concerned with vilifying police rather than worrying about public safety. The suspect was running from police after acting suspiciously the day after a series of attempted suicide bombings.

Instead of saying the police were being reactionary and stupid for shooting the guy instead of contemplating whether he was still capable of destroying everyone in the area, how about saying the suspect was being reactionary and stupid for running from armed police in the situation (assuming the he wasn't a bomber)?

For the record, I think that cops are generally stupid bullies in place to protect the staus quo. But JESUS H. CHRIST! Can you see why they didn't stop to have a dialogue about whether the guy was still dangerous? It's really easy to condemn them from the safety of your desk. So easy, in fact, that everyone who wants to politicize the cops' actions as part of some police state machine is a huge (let me emphasize this-- huge!) fucking asshole.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:13 AM on July 22, 2005

The BBC reported that the police issued a warning, fired a warning shot, and that an air ambulance was on the scene within minutes of them firing. But, given that the guidelines on suicide bombers are to go for a headshot to minimise the risk of hitting explosives, the air ambulance didn't do him much good.
posted by influx at 5:14 AM on July 22, 2005

Oh one more detail: the train was full of passengers.
posted by three blind mice at 5:15 AM on July 22, 2005

I think this means 3 out of the 4 are in custody or dead now... can anyone back this up?
posted by Acey at 5:17 AM on July 22, 2005

Well, I'm tolerant of a lot of things, but having a suicide bomber go off next to me is something I'm pretty intolerant about. What, should we arrange "Bombing" and "No Bombing" zones? Or special hours for it, with severe fines for blowing yourself up outside of posted hours?

No, in this case 'Zero Tolerance' is a wise policy, IMHO.

And on preview... What Mayor Curley said.

JB
posted by JB71 at 5:17 AM on July 22, 2005

chill - plainclothes officers of SO19 and associated units are issued firearms when plainclothes on a by case basis. Special Branch and MI5 would usually defer to SO19 on issues like since they crosstrain regularly with CT units such as the SAS and since MI5 (at least to my knowledge) are not allowed to prosecute actions within the UK.

Oh, and ARU teams dont carry submachinegunes - the MP5s they are issued are semi-auto carbines (I know that sounds petty, but the distinction is important - no UK police force issues fully automatic weapons).
posted by longbaugh at 5:23 AM on July 22, 2005

From what's been reported, it sounds to me as though the officers responded in precisely the correct manner.

I'd have tried to take him down before he got on the train, but maybe they couldn't get a clear shot.

The five shots to the head thing sounds a bit excessive, but after the first one the guy in the padded coat probably didn't care all that much.
posted by dsquid at 5:23 AM on July 22, 2005

I agree with Major Curley, but isn't firing five shots potentially dangerous considering he was likely covered in explosives? I wouldn't like to see his head if they were all headshots!

As an aside, we had a bomb scare at my work today. The Melbourne Police's bomb squad got called in with their robot but it turned out to be a hoax. Apparently the cops said there's a lot of hoaxes going on at the moment, suprise, suprise.
posted by Onanist at 5:29 AM on July 22, 2005

Of course they should have killed him. Why the fuck would anybody run away from armed police? You don't run away from armed police unless you want to get shot! It's all very well analysing logically the hypothetical hand positions of the guy in the exact instant he was apprehended using nothing but pure conjecture and declaring that he most probably posed no threat, but the fact is that the police had just chased this guy down the escalators not knowing whether there was about to be a major tragedy which they would fail to avert, and their utmost priority was to do anything they could to try to ensure that there wasn't one. I think shooting him was the safest course of action considering that they could not be certain that he didn't pose a threat. In my view the consequences of him having had a bomb and detonating it, claiming more innocent lives, fully justify what they did.
posted by mokey at 5:29 AM on July 22, 2005

Rothko, I think the account can be considered basically "verified." Whether they "bundled" on top of him, or just "tackled" him or "tripped" him, may, however, indeed be left for our speculation. Or if they fired 3 or 5 rounds.
posted by shoos at 5:32 AM on July 22, 2005

Also, if you know the layout of Stockwell Tube station, it's a pretty long way from the barriers down to the platform (with long stretches of fairly straight corridor and escalator). He would have had plenty of opportunity to stop when ordered to, and equally the police would have had plenty of opportunity to shoot him before that if they just were feeling a bit trigger-happy, and weren't genuinely concerned about a bomb risk.
posted by flashboy at 5:38 AM on July 22, 2005

Good for London.
I like to think of these follow-up bombings as a venting of the neophyte terrorist pool. Maybe they overslept two weeks ago, but the hasty deployment of further terrorists is lowering their effectiveness (especially when countered with elevated British police force).

If he had a bomb belt, I see no problem with shooting him. You don't know where the detonator is, and while interrogation might prove fruitful, that's an awful risk they don't need to be taking.

So I guess I concur with Curley.

Good show, London!
posted by Busithoth at 5:38 AM on July 22, 2005

It's alway scary when the police shoot someone. It's more scary when bombers blow themselves and everything near them to high heaven. Bombers tend to be less discriminating than police are in even their worst moments.

Mayor Curley is right.
posted by OmieWise at 5:41 AM on July 22, 2005

Livewire Confusion : "BUT the eye witness didn't tell it that way"

True, but one of the eye witnesses also reports him wearing a rucksack, whereas others say he had none.

Livewire Confusion : "the EYE WITNESS was pretty clear about the event."

Again, the EYE WITNESS was pretty clear about the event. The other EYE WITNESSES were also clear about the event, but say things that disagree with the first EYE WITNESS. Being an EYE WITNESS, and clear about something, does count for something, but it doesn't count for everything.

Talk about kicking a dead horse. I already agreed to as much. Jesus.
posted by Livewire Confusion at 5:43 AM on July 22, 2005

I trust the British police far more than the US police. It's not as if many US police officers carry arms in the first place. So if they send armed officers out there, one has to assume they're targeting a particular threat. That's not to say the armed squad haven't made mistakes before, but on balance I trust them.

The bigger issue now, I think, must be: is the five shots thing true? And if so, could there be any justification for more than two or three shots to the head? It's only going to inflame the situation more.
posted by skylar at 5:44 AM on July 22, 2005

Ah, sorry, I posted that as I read through the thread. I missed your "Very true" agreement. Apologies.
posted by bugbread at 5:45 AM on July 22, 2005

skylar : "And if so, could there be any justification for more than two or three shots to the head?"

Once you've shot someone two or three times in the head, additional bullets are nothing more or less than a few pounds of expense. It's not like additional bullets are cruel or evil. They're the equivalent of waiting 15 minutes for your cookies to cool, instead of 10 minutes, or taking 12 quarters to the coin laundry instead of 10.
posted by bugbread at 5:47 AM on July 22, 2005

The bigger issue now, I think, must be: is the five shots thing true? And if so, could there be any justification for more than two or three shots to the head? It's only going to inflame the situation more.

How is that at all an issue? This is complete armchair quarterbacking. I commend the UK police for accurately firing their weapons, and doing it accurately. Who are you to say whether or not five shots is enough? Depending on the caliber of the weapon, stopping power can be an issue, for example. A .45 cal round has a lot more knockdown power than a 9 mm. The man could have been amped up on PCP and thus much harder to stop than you can imagine. Head shots don't necessarily kill, and due to the lack of information, I find it interesting that so many here are having difficulty wrapping their heads around the concept that sometimes shooting someone can be a perfectly legitimate course of action.
posted by tweak at 5:57 AM on July 22, 2005

eh, strike 'and doing it accurately'
posted by tweak at 5:58 AM on July 22, 2005

"They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him. He's dead,"


What, no hugs?

All the "Monday morning quarterbacks" should take a pill and relax.
posted by a3matrix at 6:02 AM on July 22, 2005

You cannot question a suicide bomber if he is strapped with death, as the weapon he must be disarmed. I wish there had been a fast shooting undercover on every 9/11 plane.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:04 AM on July 22, 2005

It is .... difficult ... to break out of old thought patterns when faced with conflicting information and changing situations.

On the one hand, if the police hadn't shot him, would he have set off a bomb? Obviously, they thought that was a very distinct possibility.

On the other hand, would you prefer that the guns remained unused even if it meant that a tubeful of people were hurt or killed?

We are entering a time where such questions aren't simple academic speculation but the stuff of cold reality. It's fun to argue about such stuff, people have been doing it for decades. The best thing about such arguements is that you don't have anyone losing their life if you choose the wrong answer.

If you're anti-gun and anti-police, that's your priveledge - but I'd think you'd be anti-bomb even more than you'd be anti-gun, and anti-bomber even more than anti-police. The police, at least, make SOME attempt at discrimination as far as their targets go. Terrorists just go for body count, and could care less beyond that.

I myself wish the terrorist wasn't dead, simply because with him dead it's harder to find the information needed to roll up his cell and hopefully find links to cells above them. But better him than a trainful of people. The results do justify the means.

JB
posted by JB71 at 6:15 AM on July 22, 2005

Gunshots in the head are like prunes; Three, enough? Six, too many?
posted by Floydd at 6:16 AM on July 22, 2005

Now let's just hope he wasn't a random immigrant who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
posted by smackfu at 6:17 AM on July 22, 2005

If he was already in proximity to civilians, then the only real option is to kill him as soon as possible, as dead as possible.

No, the best thing to do would be to issue the police a small katana they could carry around with them, then in such a situation they could quickly "disarm" the individual without killing them, and without risking detonation.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:17 AM on July 22, 2005

"If verified, I guess the new policy in our post-renewed-PATRIOT empire is shoot first, ask questions later. What if he wasn't a terrorist, or didn't have a bomb?"

What does "if verified" mean? How do you know the police do not know anything? They said the man was identified from CCTV footage from yesterday? How do you know what they saw? Why do you assume you know more about this man's innocence than the police? I'm as liberal a s the next guy. When there's evidence the police are abusing their powers, I want to hear about it: until then, I take their word against idle conjecture from antiestablishment internet no-clues.

"Via what, telepathy? If his hands are bound then he's not gonna trigger anything and if it's a cell phone trigger shooting him will make no difference."

Yes! Please don't shoot the insane terrorist! There's a good chance he might not detonate the bomb intended to kill lots of people! Please. Put yourself in the practicalities of the situation for just a moment.

I'm all for reason. I'm all for caution. I'm against the nanny state. But for God's sake let's be realistic, and remember that the UK legal system, for all its failings, isn't a patch on the horrors of the U.S. system.
posted by nthdegx at 6:19 AM on July 22, 2005

It's a dark day when suicide bombers can't go about their business without being shot at. And FIVE times? That's just disrespectful. The terrorist community is going to be up in arms about that and the out-of-control London PD.
posted by shoos at 6:20 AM on July 22, 2005

The police may or may not have been justified, depending on what the circumstances turn out to have been. If they were shooting him just because he was running, for instance, then I think they were possibly wrong - in that case he may, for instance, have just been some gutter criminal who panicked when he realized how suspicious he looked with such a big coat. I'll decide how I feel about it when I found out what really happened and justified the police were in feeling certain he was carrying a bomb.

Either way, I don't think there's such a thing as too much scrutiny of a police shooting. It's essential, if we're to keep our current style of unarmed British policing. On-the-street execution must be kept to an absolute minimum.
posted by Drexen at 6:21 AM on July 22, 2005

This latest news comes as no surprise really. And you can bet it's highly likely more stuff will happen. I mean there's still three alleged suicide bombers at large for example. Last I heard they really want to kill themselves too.
posted by sjvilla79 at 6:24 AM on July 22, 2005

Another incident at Harrow Road according to BBC TV.
posted by nthdegx at 6:30 AM on July 22, 2005

If he were wearing a thick winter coat he sounds like he was cut from the same cloth as Richard Reid. An abaya would have been a much better way of hiding a belt bomb, or an entire bomb laden jacket. Not that his bombs would have detonated, or been fatal to him if they had, if they were from the same manufacturer as yesterdays.
posted by asok at 6:30 AM on July 22, 2005

Some of you are barking up the wrong tree. I think what some people are missing in this thread - and what I tried to suggest but must now make more explicit - is what the PERCEPTION will be of the five shots story, especially here in London.

Whether five shots is necessary in a medical or financial sense is neither here nor there. As a Londoner, what I'm more concerned about is what happens as the story about police firing five shots into the head of an Asian gets out.

The denizens of MeFi can cheer from the sidelines all they like, but I live in the epicentre of this month's terrorist attacks.

I don't want a generation of Moslems being given any cause to think that London's police are anything other than reasonable. The last thing we need is for stories such as the "five shots" account to become memes which spur on another round of terrorist attacks.
posted by skylar at 6:35 AM on July 22, 2005

No police quarterbacking here - but smackfu's scenario "a random immigrant who was in the wrong place at the wrong time" has been flickering through my brain...
Gets off the plane - unaware of yesterday - wearing all his heavy clothes (i.e. padded appearance) because unsure when UK winter starts, tube travel to link up with relatives - Very Stupid Panic Behavior...no idea that backpack wearing is a red flag...
Agree we should all wait - but those alternative scenarios do flicker.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 6:35 AM on July 22, 2005

A little off-topic, but couldn't suicide bomber easily set up a trigger that acts when a circuit is broken? Then he could put two contacts on his thumb and finger and hold them together. If he broke the circuit by, say, getting shot and involuntarily moving his hand, he'd still trigger his bomb.

Do any suicide bombers do stuff like that, or would we even know?
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:36 AM on July 22, 2005

1300: The Muslim Council of Britain calls for the police to explain why the man at Stockwell Station - described as Asian in appearance - was shot dead. A spokesman says Muslims are concerned police may have a "shoot to kill" policy in force.

The MCoB sounds a little Sharptonesque here. (Assume racism first, ask questions later).

I haven't read anything suggesting the actions of police today were anything that could've have been prevented. And what Mayor Curley said.
posted by dhoyt at 6:40 AM on July 22, 2005

Blah, skylar. Being in London gives you less perspective, not more. I know. I'm in London too.
posted by nthdegx at 6:42 AM on July 22, 2005

For the record, I think that cops are generally stupid bullies in place to protect the staus quo.

This kind of thing is usually said by people who would last about 3 seconds in a world without them.
posted by jonmc at 6:46 AM on July 22, 2005

It's fascinating to watch positions harden and calcify in the presence of nothing more than hearsay.
posted by aramaic at 6:46 AM on July 22, 2005

Also, the five shots is based on a witness account. Another witness says three.
posted by nthdegx at 6:47 AM on July 22, 2005

shoot to kill orders indeed:

here
and here
posted by Substrata at 6:47 AM on July 22, 2005

Assuming someone's behaviour is reasonable until there is evidence to the contrary is not "hardening". The Guardian take on the Stockwell situation. Has anyone more on the Harrow Road story?
posted by nthdegx at 6:48 AM on July 22, 2005

sonofsamiam - that's called a dead man switch ... the chechen bombers used them in moscow when they invaded that theatre ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:50 AM on July 22, 2005

Since when have British plain clothes police been carrying automatic handguns?

By the way folks, by automatic they mean your standard police handgun, ie 9mm Automatic or .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol), we're not talking about submachine guns of a paramilitary nature (though I have seen some of those around Britain, I think there would have been more than 5 shots fired).

It simply means that when you pull the trigger the gun automatically cycles so that when you pull the trigger again it fires again. I would assume that someone at the London police have been carrying automatic handguns since the turn of the 20th century if not earlier with some sort of double action revolver.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:50 AM on July 22, 2005

Sky News, quoting its own correspondent ( wtf? - but still):

AIM WAS TO ARREST MAN

Specialist officers had been tailing the man shot at Stockwell Tube station from his home, says Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt.

Police believed the Asian man was responsible for an attempted attack on the nearby Oval Tube on Thursday and had set up surveillance on him.

Brunt said officers had followed the man from his home and that the initial plan was to arrest him.

But from his home to Stockwell Tube, events overtook police and marksmen were forced to shoot.
posted by nyterrant at 6:55 AM on July 22, 2005

I'd like to repeat that they'd identified this man from CCTV footage. I refuse to believe, as some of you have implied, that it is dangerous to get on the tube with a back-pack. He was an identified suspect, not merely suspicious looking.
posted by nthdegx at 6:58 AM on July 22, 2005

It simply means that when you pull the trigger the gun automatically cycles so that when you pull the trigger again it fires again.

Not to get off topic, but isn't that generally known as a semi-automatic?
posted by unreason at 6:58 AM on July 22, 2005

sonofsamiam: that's called a dead man's trigger.

with all the unexploded bombs left behind, I'd guess they aren't using them (yet).
posted by modernerd at 7:01 AM on July 22, 2005

You know, I think it's pretty great that these officers didn't worry about getting themselves blown up, but rather jumped all over the guy they were pretty sure had a freakin' bomb attached to himself. Jebus, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I'd want cops here in DC to do the same thing if an identified suspect were running onto a crowded train a day after a bombing. I don't know much about suicide bombs, but it'd seem that a dead-man switch would be pretty much standard issue, so the multiple shots at point-blank range sounds right, too. Sure, they'd rather have him alive--that's why they didn't shoot him earlier, outside, when they had the chance. But, c'mon, this appears pretty justified, to me.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:03 AM on July 22, 2005

skylar : "I think what some people are missing in this thread...is what the PERCEPTION will be of the five shots story, especially here in London."

Ah, sorry, I didn't realize that was the angle you were after (though on reread, it was pretty clear. Sorry about that.)

Pollomacho : "It simply means that when you pull the trigger the gun automatically cycles so that when you pull the trigger again it fires again."

As with unreason, I was under the impression that that was the definition of semiautomatic. An automatic being that a single trigger pull can fire multiple bullets. Is my impression incorrect?
posted by bugbread at 7:09 AM on July 22, 2005

Now let's just hope he wasn't a random immigrant who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Note to future random immigrants to London: A day after an attempted bombing attack, don't run away from armed police officers while wearing unseasonably bulky clothing.
posted by dsquid at 7:11 AM on July 22, 2005

Please note these cops jumped on what they believed to be a live bomb carried by a guy who ran into a crowd. They put their lives at risk to save other people.

As far as shoot to kill orders go, anytime police fire a gun they have already lost all the options and will always shoot to kill. Nobody is trained to do otherwise.

Put yourself in their shoes for just a minute and imagine what had to have been going through their heads. They wanted this guy alive real bad.
posted by warbaby at 7:15 AM on July 22, 2005

If verified, I guess the new policy in our post-renewed-PATRIOT empire is shoot first, ask questions later. What if he wasn't a terrorist, or didn't have a bomb?

My main concern will be whether we find out if people like this were actually terrorists or innocent victims -- and not after a spirited campaign to hide the truth. Do we even get to find out about the mistakes so that we can evaluate the methods used is what I want to know.
posted by dreamsign at 7:18 AM on July 22, 2005

Note to future random immigrants to London: A day after an attempted bombing attack, don't run away from armed police officers while wearing unseasonably bulky clothing.

For God's sake read the news stories. He was identified from the previous day's activites, and they were attempting an arrest. Are you at all interested in the facts, or do we want MetaFilter to become a nutball conspiracy-theory discussion site? Honestly: do better.
posted by nthdegx at 7:19 AM on July 22, 2005

The Scotsman article linked above, about a potential shoot to kill policy, actually only seems to say that armed police have been told to aim for the head instead of the chest. I don't think it's at all true that the policy used to be to incapacitate, and I think this is just a case of the media sensationalising a story -- this Guardian article from 2001 states unequivocally that police marksmen have always had a shoot to kill policy, even when dealing with ordinary criminals:

But experts point out that it is not practical for a firearms officer to attempt to wound a suspect. The officer would open fire in any case only if he or she believed an officer or member of the public was in mortal danger. And merely to wound a suspect armed with a gun would not necessarily stop the suspect returning fire.

Firearms specialist Mike Yardley, who gave evidence to the Cullen inquiry after the Dunblane tragedy, said: "The police are taught to shoot to kill. They shoot for the centre of the chest. The idea is to instantaneously stop the suspect."

Also, note re. the five shots that this same article is about a man erroneously killed because he was carrying a silver cigarette lighter shaped like a gun -- he was shot six times. Perhaps repeat shots are also part of standard marksman training.

(on preview, warbaby's "already lost all the options" comment succinctly echoes the point the Guardian are making here...)
posted by melmoth at 7:20 AM on July 22, 2005

For God's sake read the news stories.
On the first day, I don't believe the news stories. They are often based on single sourcing and turn out incorrect.
posted by smackfu at 7:22 AM on July 22, 2005

"Our attack in the heart of the infidel British capital is nothing but a message to all European governments that we will not rest until all the infidel troops leave Iraq," said the statement by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades dated July 22."

Same group claims responsibility.
posted by nthdegx at 7:25 AM on July 22, 2005

Unreason & Bugbread:

Yep - semi-automatic IS the pedantically correct term for handguns. Calling a semi-automatic handgun an automatic saves a half-second of time when creating sound bites, and a scattering of letters when typing out the story. Besides, "He was shot with a semi-automatic handgun" sounds so much less serious than "He was shot with an automatic." Kind of 'semi-serious', so to speak. It's simply a convenient contraction.

An 'automatic' rifle is one that fires one shot per pull of the trigger. A 'selective fire' rifle will fire either semi-automatically, or fully automatic.

Unfortunately, when you get into convenient contractions a lot of precision in the definition is lost.

JB
posted by JB71 at 7:25 AM on July 22, 2005

bugbread, unreason: I think it's likely that J. Random Joe on the tube, who's also now supremely freaked out by having seen a dude get shot to death and realizing that he was almost blown to little bits, isn't employing dictionary-correct definitions of words. Realistically, "automatic" in common use probably just means "scary-looking and fast." "Automatic" in handguns also seems to get used in place of semi-auto, hence the old term .45 auto for the classic pistol.

My first reaction to "they looked automatic" was "What, not single-shot muzzleloaders?"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:26 AM on July 22, 2005

melmoth writes "police marksmen have always had a shoot to kill policy"

Sure, but then marksmen aren't called in at the slightest hint of anything irregular as they tend to be in the US.
posted by clevershark at 7:26 AM on July 22, 2005

Yeah, but that group claims responsibility for everything. They claimed responsibility for dismissing England's five top-order batsmen yesterday...
posted by flashboy at 7:27 AM on July 22, 2005

Our attack in the heart of the infidel British capital

What is this, 1066?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:28 AM on July 22, 2005

On the first day, I don't believe the news stories. They are often based on single sourcing and turn out incorrect.

I agree that details can be sketchy, and it can be frustrating getting a clear picture. All the more reason, in my opinion, to deal with what we have realistically rather than using the situation to expound political ideology. It's not necessarily conjecture that I have a problem with, it's bloody-mindedly skewed conjecture that's the problem. Whether it's people with the same ideology as me, I really don't want MetaFilter to be a place where people go to find out what the liberals are saying.
posted by nthdegx at 7:30 AM on July 22, 2005

Not to get off topic, but isn't that generally known as a semi-automatic?

Semi-automatic handguns and shotguns are referred to as automatic (particularly in British English), as in the examples I gave, 9mm automatic or .45 ACP. Gandhi was killed by a Beretta 9mm Automatic, this gun was not a machine gun. Rifles on the other hand when called automatic generally mean machine guns. Here is an other explanation (though it claims there are no true automatic handguns, which is not correct).
posted by Pollomacho at 7:31 AM on July 22, 2005

They claimed responsibility for dismissing England's five top-order batsmen yesterday...

Are there no depths to which they will not sink?!
posted by nthdegx at 7:32 AM on July 22, 2005

Automatic, I thought, was used to distinguish between "revolver" and "self loading cartridge fed." When you pull the trigger and the gun continues to fire until you let up, it's called "fully automatic"

So, an old west .45 is a revolver.

A colt 1911 (.45 ACP) is an automatic.

A Thompson .45 submachine gun is fully automatic. (not sure if thompsons can be set to selective fire)
posted by Yellowbeard at 7:34 AM on July 22, 2005

ROU, JB71, Pollomacho, Yellowbeard, thanks for the answers.

Just for reference, I wasn't particularly concerned that anyone else (especially a random and shaken witness) was "using it wrong", I was more worried that I was using it wrong.
posted by bugbread at 7:38 AM on July 22, 2005

Note to self, leave black trenchcoat and fake beard at home before taking the subway into the office.

I haven't had a chance to read through all the comments yet so maybe this has been covered but did they find a bomb strapped to his chest after they killed him? Okay, finally got to that point in the article.

Isn't he less a suspect and more of a failed suicide bomber if they find a bomb strapped to his chest?
posted by fenriq at 7:41 AM on July 22, 2005

So...did they guy have a bomb or not? Or have they just left him lying on the platform and haven't looked yet?
posted by cmonkey at 7:43 AM on July 22, 2005

The Harrow Road situation is apparently a house-raid following yesterday's attacks. "Shots fired". "More soon". This from the BBC news front page. Can't get the ticker-tape links to do anything useful.
posted by nthdegx at 7:44 AM on July 22, 2005

On the "five shots" topic ...

My understanding of police firearms training in the UK is that once the officer has made a decision to shoot, they're trained to fire two groups of two shots. Two trigger-pulls to the torso (or head, if the suspect is believed to be carrying explosives), then pause to adjust aim, then two more shots. The point being, even a .45 doesn't kill someone instantly: normally shots won't be fired at all unless the officer believes there's a clear and present danger to somebody (including themselves or members of the public), so if shots are fired the intent is then to take the target down hard enough that they won't be able to fire back.

I would hazard a guess that a single warning shot might have been fired first, along with an order to "get down". The target failed to comply, tripped, and was then treated to the takedown procedure outlined above.

Caveat: I'm probably wrong (I am, after all, blowing smoke and speculating wildly here). However, there will have been continuous CCTV footage of the incident from the moment the subject of the shooting entered the station, and there is always an enquiry -- it's mandatory -- when officers discharge a firearm, even if nobody is actually shot. (Officers have also been charged with murder or manslaughter -- involuntary homicide -- if the public enquiry decided they'd behaved recklessly.) There'll also be a major politican incentive to answer the questions fast (to damp down concerns raised by the muslim community). So I expect we won't have to wait long for at the very least a press conference and then an enquiry.
posted by cstross at 7:45 AM on July 22, 2005

I really don't want MetaFilter to be a place where people go to find out what the liberals are saying.

Ease up on the stereotyping a little, please. A liberal versus conservative political leaning doesn't automatically define how you are viewing this specific (or any) situation. We're all much more complex than that...I believe our reactions exist on a spectrum. For example, if forced to choose in black and white terms between shacking up with liberals or conservatives, I would choose to stand with the liberals. But I am inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt in this instance.
posted by jeanmari at 7:45 AM on July 22, 2005

" For example, if forced to choose in black and white terms between shacking up with liberals or conservatives, I would choose to stand with the liberals. But I am inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt in this instance."

jeanmari -- that's my whole point.

We're all much more complex than that

On the evidence of this thread? Nope.
posted by nthdegx at 7:47 AM on July 22, 2005

What is this, 1066?

Uh, dude, that's Hastings. I don't think the Normans and Saxons saw each other quite that way ;)

Maybe you're thinking of the sack of Jerusalem in 1099?
posted by mkultra at 7:49 AM on July 22, 2005

Does "Asian" include "Arab" in England?
posted by callmejay at 7:52 AM on July 22, 2005

More on shoot to kill at the BBC from the horse’s mouth so to speak.
posted by jackiemcghee at 7:56 AM on July 22, 2005

Does "Asian" include "Arab" in England?

It wouldn't obviously rule it out -- put it that way.
posted by nthdegx at 7:57 AM on July 22, 2005

Regarding the five shots: law enforcement is trained to use different rates of fire at different ranges - the closer the target, the more rapidly you fire. A tour of the FBI building in Washington used to end (and maybe still does - haven't been in years) with a demonstration of this technique. We also don't know how many shooters there were, or whether all shots were aimed at the head. To be honest, we don't know shit.
posted by theinsectsarewaiting at 8:00 AM on July 22, 2005

"Will police now shoot to kill?"
posted by Rothko at 8:00 AM on July 22, 2005

callmejay : "Does 'Asian' include 'Arab' in England?"

Normally, no. But it does include Pakistani (as Pakistan is, in fact, in Asia), which is what the terrorists from last week (2 weeks ago?) were.
posted by bugbread at 8:01 AM on July 22, 2005

Callmejay - I believe that whereas in the USA the term Asian is used to apply to Japanese, Chinese people etc, in the UK it is more often applied to people of Indian descent, and sometime to Middle Eastern, and then only to a lesser degree people from China and Japan.
posted by skylar at 8:04 AM on July 22, 2005

I don't think the Brits use revolvers anymore. Browning Hi-Power (9mm) is the most common sidearm, though Walther PPK (9mm) was widely used undercover.
posted by warbaby at 8:05 AM on July 22, 2005

Maybe you're thinking of the sack of Jerusalem in 1099?
posted by mkultra at 7:49 AM PST on July 22 [!]

Yes, yes I am. Thank you!
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:05 AM on July 22, 2005

this gun was not a machine gun

Just some more clarification:

The term "automatic," when applied to handguns, refers to the feeding mechanism. When applied to a rifle, applies to both the feed and firing system.

A fully-automatic weapon that uses handgun ammunition is called a submachine gun. A fully-automatic weapon that uses rifle ammunition is a full-blown machine gun.

"Automatic" handguns are really semi-automatic, as mentioned previously, because they do not use the energy derived from the initial firing to sustain fire. You have to keep pulling the trigger, but you don't have to load the bullet into the chamber -- this is done automatically. If you want to use proper terminology, semi-automatic handguns are appropriately called pistols.

I can't think of any manufacturers that produce fully automatic handguns, though some enterprising (and stupid) individuals have modified pistols to be full-auto.

An "assault rifle" is a full-auto rifle chambered for smaller rounds. Originally stemming from the German sturmgewehr (Storm rifle), the idea was that regular rifles were far too high-powered for most normal combat situations, and that in a close-quarter battle, putting out a bunch of smaller rounds continuously was more useful than just a few high-powered rounds.

Finally, bullets aren't the things you load into guns. Those are called cartridges. Bullets are the things that come out of the cartridge when it's fired, and into whatever you're shooting. What's left over are the cartridge cases. So:

1. Case + Bullet = Cartridge. This gets loaded into the gun.
2. Cartridge - Case = Bullet. This is the little piece of metal you find in whatever got shot.
3. Cartridge - Bullet = Case. These are the empty shells that are ejected after shooting a gun.

posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:08 AM on July 22, 2005

Gunfilter - heh. Carry on.
posted by warbaby at 8:12 AM on July 22, 2005

C_D: Wow. Thanks.
posted by bugbread at 8:13 AM on July 22, 2005

Police issue bomb suspect images.
posted by nthdegx at 8:14 AM on July 22, 2005

British Met Police use Glock 17s and H & K MP5SF carbines (they've also recently taken on G36SF carbines). They are trained to double tap the torso or aim for the head in instances where instant kills are preferable (if the gunman has a weapon pointed at a bystander or directly at the officer. SO19 are probably the best trained armed police unit in the world (discounting the FBIs HRT who are effectively a paramilitary unit).

Right now I am trying to get in touch with an old friend who is a training officer for SO19 to see if I can get hold of some more info regarding today's events and any changes in "unofficial" policy.
posted by longbaugh at 8:18 AM on July 22, 2005

Who are SO19?
posted by nthdegx at 8:21 AM on July 22, 2005

nitpick: H&K made an experimental select-fire version of the P9S. Nice job, C_D.
posted by warbaby at 8:23 AM on July 22, 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SO19
posted by fire&wings at 8:24 AM on July 22, 2005

isn't firing five shots potentially dangerous considering he was likely covered in explosives

Not as dangerous as allowing someone to press a trigger. I remember my dad saying they used to dispose of C4 by burning it. Without a fuse, some explosives aren't very . . . explosive.
posted by yerfatma at 8:25 AM on July 22, 2005

>For the record, I think that cops are generally stupid bullies in place to protect the staus quo.

This kind of thing is usually said by people who would last about 3 seconds in a world without them.

Aren't you the one who's deathly against generalizations? I just wanted to make it clear that I hate pigs. But they occasionally get it right.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:28 AM on July 22, 2005

Not to nitpick your nitpick warbaby, but that would be a machinepistol - much like the Glock 18C, the Stechkin, the Beretta M951R/93R etc.
posted by longbaugh at 8:30 AM on July 22, 2005

From those CCTV shots, though admittedly not of the best quality, these guys look more Ethiopian / Somali to me rather than "Asian" in the British sense.

Of course, your mileage may vary.
posted by LondonYank at 8:33 AM on July 22, 2005

SO19 are the Metropolitan Police's firearms unit, similar to SWAT teams in the US.
posted by influx at 8:35 AM on July 22, 2005

Via WaPo:
Britain is drawing up a new blacklist to block alleged terrorist sympathizers from entering the country and deport those already here, officials announced Wednesday, detailing expanded efforts to head off violence such as the July 7 bombings.

For London's sake, I hope the deportations include people like this.
posted by dhoyt at 8:40 AM on July 22, 2005

dhoyt writes "For London's sake, I hope the deportations include people like this."

Did you notice that the very headline of your linked article mentions that the guy was born in the UK?
posted by clevershark at 8:52 AM on July 22, 2005

I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that you can deport people from the country they were born in.
posted by bugbread at 8:54 AM on July 22, 2005

So if they were following this guy from the moment he left his apartment, why did they wait until he was in a crowd on the train to attempt to apprehend him?

Wouldn't it be wise to keep a suspected suicide bomber from getting near big crowds of people? It sounds like the police lost control of the situation well before they shot him.
posted by beth at 8:57 AM on July 22, 2005

"People like this" : radical clerics who pose violent danger, from any country or any religion

I was also under the impression that native citizens can be exiled/deported -- it has happened in extreme situations throughout history

/countdown to comments about Pat Robertson and the dangers he poses...
posted by dhoyt at 8:58 AM on July 22, 2005

Man, I tell you, that Pat Robertson poses a danger!
posted by flashboy at 9:05 AM on July 22, 2005

Thanks for the answers on the "Asian" description. I was wondering what effect it would have on the racial profiling debate.
posted by callmejay at 9:12 AM on July 22, 2005

Man, I tell you, that Pat Robertson poses a danger!

(Uses best Robot for Lost in Space voice)

Danger! Will Robinson! Danger! Pat Robinson approaching!
posted by unreason at 9:12 AM on July 22, 2005

For America's sake, I hope the deportations include people like this.

``I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say "you helped [9/11] happen."'

``AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.'

etc. etc.

Were it only convenient to expel hate-filled people for beliefs we don't agree with. Life would be so much easier and safer, right?
posted by Rothko at 9:13 AM on July 22, 2005

One little voice in the back of my head says "good. he was running around in a fucking station with a rucksack disobeying police after these bombings" and another part of me dies a little bit as well.
posted by Dean Keaton at 9:16 AM on July 22, 2005

The police say the man they shot is not one of the four men from yesterday: bbc
posted by handee at 9:16 AM on July 22, 2005

It seems like every other post is someone else guessing the situation that happened, then criticizing the police for their actions. You probably weren't there. Guess all you want, but keep that in mind.
posted by Dean Keaton at 9:18 AM on July 22, 2005

I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that you can deport people from the country they were born in.

Er, no, because if they're born there, it means they're citizens. Where could a British citizen arrested in Britain be deported, if not to a British prison?
posted by funambulist at 9:26 AM on July 22, 2005

funambulist : "Er, no, because if they're born there, it means they're citizens."

Yes and no. I'm not sure about the birth location=citizenship angle (as that probably varies from country to country), but setting that aside: the assumption would be that the person would be stripped of citizenship, and then deported. I don't know exactly where they would deport you to, though. Perhaps it would just result in incarceration, as they would have to deport you for being an illegal alien, but having no location to deport you to.
posted by bugbread at 9:30 AM on July 22, 2005

Sorry, "Perhaps it would just result in incarceration" → ”Perhaps, as you say, it would just result in incarceration"
posted by bugbread at 9:31 AM on July 22, 2005

if they're born there, it means they're citizens

No it doesn't. I mean, I agree with your main point, but no, being born in a country does not necessarily confer citizenship. I believe that currently the requirement is that at least one of your parents must be either a British citizen or permanently resident here. Which probably is the case in this situation. But if they have citizenship rights within another country as well, I think the government's looking at if they're allowed to strip them of their citizenship rights here. Or, you know, something.
posted by flashboy at 9:36 AM on July 22, 2005

Some interesting eyewitness accounts on BBC Have Your Say.
posted by Idiot Mittens at 9:43 AM on July 22, 2005

I don't think you can just strip someone of UK citizenship and deport them to a random country. Where would they be deported to?
posted by laukf at 9:43 AM on July 22, 2005

Regarding birth and citizenship in the UK: It really depends on the exact situation (age, parentage, etc.) of the person in question.

1. Before 1 January 1983, almost every child born in the United Kingdom...was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The only exceptions were children who were born to certain people holding diplomatic or consular status...

2. A child who was born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983 will be a British citizen if either the father...or the mother is a British citizen. A child who was born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983 will also be a British citizen if either the father or mother, although not a British citizen, is legally settled...in the United Kingdom...

posted by bugbread at 9:44 AM on July 22, 2005

laukf : "Where would they be deported to?"

Depends on the situation. If the person has dual citizenship, it would be the other country of which they're a citizen, for example. If they have made official oaths or served in the military of another country, they would also be deported to that country. But, for the most part, as you say, there would be nowhere to send them.
posted by bugbread at 9:46 AM on July 22, 2005

bugbread, yes, of course incarceration is enough, because deportation is by definition deportation of foreign citizens, back to the country they are citizens of (and yeah, I was assuming birth location equals citizenship, as in someone registered there as a citizen since birth).

If they're not foreigners, they definitely cannot be deported anywhere. It wouldn't even be necessary. They can be arrested and tried right there, exactly. It would be crazy otherwise.

(And you can't strip someone of their citizenship anyway, can you? I mean, unless they've taken another).
posted by funambulist at 9:47 AM on July 22, 2005

flashboy: yes you're right of course, I was assuming the case of a citizenship by birth in which whatever requirements for citizenship to be assigned at birth are already satisfied (as opposed to becoming a citizen later as an adult, like).
posted by funambulist at 9:50 AM on July 22, 2005

funambulist : "If they're not foreigners, they definitely cannot be deported anywhere."

Again, not true. At least with what I've Googled of US law (which may, of course, be different), if someone is a dual citizen, they are not a foreigner, and if they then do something that would result in their being stripped of their citizenship, they would be deported to their other country of nationality. (Strictly speaking, they would become a foreigner a few minutes before they were deported).

And a person can be stripped of their citizenship (again, in the US, so UK law my well vary), even if they haven't taken another, if they've served in the military (any level, I believe) of an enemy nation, or if they've served as an officer in the military of another nation (enemy or friend), or if they've taken other "equivalent oaths" (dunno what those entail).
posted by bugbread at 9:51 AM on July 22, 2005

To clarify: the conditions for being stripped of citizenship are (from what I can tell) considered to be "functionally equivalent" to taking another citizenship. That is, from the point of view of the US, once you've served in Kim Jong Il's army in an official capacity, you have taken on North Korean citizenship. However, that's the rub with functional equivalency: it is possible for you to satisfy the conditions of being stripped of country A's citizenship, without necessarily being granted country B's citizenship. So country A would then try to deport you to country B, but country B may or may not take you (and I don't know what happens with folks like that, or which country's prisons get to host them in the meantime)
posted by bugbread at 9:55 AM on July 22, 2005

BBC:

1700: Police sources say the man shot at Stockwell was not one of the four men whose photos were released earlier in connection with Thursday's blasts.

posted by warbaby at 9:57 AM on July 22, 2005

non-citizen = deportation to home country

citizen = extradition to a different country.


Loss of citizenship must more or less be a voluntary act right now. In the past people could lose it by joining the military in another country or becoming president in another country and such.

Dual or even triple citizenship is allowed by many countries. However, if you commit a crime in a country in which you are a citizen, you cannot be deported, only tried in that country.
posted by turner13 at 9:58 AM on July 22, 2005

bugbread writes "I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that you can deport people from the country they were born in."

Where do you send them then? If one is born in one country he (normally) will only have citizenship in his country of birth.
posted by clevershark at 10:08 AM on July 22, 2005

if someone is a dual citizen, they are not a foreigner, and if they then do something that would result in their being stripped of their citizenship, they would be deported to their other country of nationality

bugbread: yes, that's what I was thinking when I said "unless they've taken another" (or had another citizenship already).

(And even then, we're talking the UK, and laws in the UK may be different from the US. I really don't know what the conditions for stripping someone of a second UK citizenship are, if any, but I don't think it involves serving in the military of some enemy nation... The UK doesn't even have designated enemy nations as such, does it?).

Anyway, that's a different case from someone who is only a Biritish citizen, no dual citizenship, just someone ordinarily born and lived in Britain, that's what I assumed was being talked about here?
posted by funambulist at 10:09 AM on July 22, 2005

clevershark : "Where do you send them then?"

Countries to which they've declared allegiance or countries which they have dual-citizenship with.

I'm not saying that you can deport anyone from the country they were born in, just that deporting people from the country they were born in is sometimes possible.

(And, for the record, I was born in the UK but have citizenship in the US. My mom was born in Spain and has citizenship in the US. Konishiki was born in the US but has citizenship in Japan. Being born in a country ≠ being a citizen of the country. However, that's not the hair I'm trying to split, I'm just mentioning it because many people are talking about "the country you are born in" instead of "the country you are a citizen of", which is much more germaine)
posted by bugbread at 10:12 AM on July 22, 2005

Arab or Asian Repellant
'Squishi' repellant gel will deter A suspected Black/Asian man from your property, when smeared liberally. Also cats.
posted by lunkfish at 10:18 AM on July 22, 2005

funambulist : "Anyway, that's a different case from someone who is only a Biritish citizen, no dual citizenship, just someone ordinarily born and lived in Britain, that's what I assumed was being talked about here?"

I've actually lost track of the original discussion, but I think it was about whether Mufti Zubair Dudha could be deported, even though he was born in the UK. I've looked at the Central Mosque's homepage, but I can't find anything about what country he is a citizen of, whether he has dual or not, etc. He was born in 1976, so he definitely qualifies to have UK citizenship, but then again, I had triple citizenship (US, Spain, and UK) until I was 16, and gave up UK and Spain, so it's possible that he has his parents' citizenship (South African), or dual, or UK only.

If we're talking about someone who is only a British citizen, no dual citizenship, no renunciation, no overseas military duty, etc., then I agree deporting cannot happen. My initial comment was just in response to the implication that you can't deport someone from the country they were born in.

(Obvious evidence being that I can be deported from the UK to the US if I commit some greivous crimes during a visit to the UK, despite the fact that I was born near Lakenheath)

Still, I'm an incredibly anal person, so I'm not trying to argue that it's common or frequent, just that it can happen in some cases, and, as I don't know enough about Mufti Zubair Dudha's case, I can not categorically deny that it couldn't happen to him.
posted by bugbread at 10:20 AM on July 22, 2005

bugbread, now I'm really confused. How does one get triple citizenship? I never imagined it was possible to have more than dual.
posted by warbaby at 10:27 AM on July 22, 2005