Head shot
August 4, 2005 7:01 PM   Subscribe

If you plan on using the London underground anytime soon. You may want to not do the following; Wear a heavy coat in warm weather, carrying a backpack with protrusions or visible wires, appear nervous, sweat too much or not make eye contact with the police. Why? Because those are now all valid reasons for the police to shoot you in the head.
posted by Mr_Zero (9 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: kinda over done, previously discussed



 
I'm confused. Based on the London shootings, I thought the protocol was to shoot suicide bombers in the head. Would you rather in the chest where the explosives are?
It seems like this FPP is basically sensationalism based on this paragraph:
"Among signs to look for listed in the police organization's behavioral profile are wearing a heavy coat in warm weather, carrying a backpack with protrusions or visible wires, nervousness, excessive sweating or an unwillingness to make eye contact, the Post said." Or is it?
posted by jmd82 at 7:07 PM on August 4, 2005


That's certainly an odd conclusion to draw from the London shooting, jmd82, seeing as the guy was not a suicide bomber. The protocol, as described in the final paragraph: ...the new guidelines also say the threat does not have to be "imminent"...an officer just needs to have a "reasonable basis" for believing a suspect can detonate a bomb. Talk about burying the lede. The protocol is to shoot suspected bombers in the head.

But really, what legal weight does this recommendation carry anyway? Just because this association says that it's OK and just for an individual cop to shoot someone in the head if that cop thinks there is a "reasonable basis" to assume the person is a suicide bomber - does that make it legal in any given jurisdiction?
posted by pitchblende at 7:20 PM on August 4, 2005


I guess if you live in Britain and you're suicidal, this is the way to go. Particularly if you're religious and believe that suicide will send you to hell. Best to leave it to the police.
posted by tpoh.org at 7:25 PM on August 4, 2005


Intresting question pitchblende.

People often assume that killing one "dumbass" to prevent a potential suicide bombing is a good idea. This is incorrect. If the police shoot 100 people, and in the process prevent one 10 person suicide bomber from succeding, then clearly there has been a net loss of life.

The proper equation is to shoot only if the probability of a person being a suicide bomber is 1/N where N is the number of people they would kill (on average) if they were to succeed.

I'm pretty sure in the case of the Brazillian guy, P(bomber) was far less then 1/10 (the average for the last round).
posted by delmoi at 7:25 PM on August 4, 2005


Have the terrorists won yet?

Is the score final?
posted by wakko at 7:26 PM on August 4, 2005


I guess if you live in Britain and you're suicidal, this is the way to go. Particularly if you're religious and believe that suicide will send you to hell.

Well, wouldn't god know what you real plan was?

On the other hand, it would be a hell of a protest....
posted by delmoi at 7:27 PM on August 4, 2005


When has this not been the case for police anywhere? Sure there is little room for error, but what alternative is there for police?
posted by jikel_morten at 7:38 PM on August 4, 2005


Jacket in winter, sweating too much, refusing to make eye contact, weird bag?

Sounds to me like a lot of shoplifters are gonna get shot in the head.
posted by maxsparber at 7:39 PM on August 4, 2005


I'm pretty sure in the case of the Brazillian guy, P(bomber) was far less then 1/10 (the average for the last round).

Actually that's interesting. I certainly like the approach of trying to use a cost/benefit analysis in these situations. But I gotta disagree with that last line. I'd place his probability no lower then 1/5 given the circumstances: Coming out of a building being watched because of suspected terrorist ties, puffy attire out of place for the season but preferred among scofflaws for hiding contraband, failure to stop for police (which I would admit would have been more compelling if they weren't plain clothed police officers simply waving badges), and fleeing into the exact target preferred in two consecutive terrorist attacks.

That all together I'd place at a good 20%-25% of him being a terrorist, which is far too small to play judge jury and executioner in my opinion, but I think is more then enough when applying the cost benefit analysis as you outlined.

I dunno if that is an argument against your position, or an argument for the police's show of force...
posted by Jezztek at 7:45 PM on August 4, 2005


« Older ources close to the White House say...   |   A dedicated follower of fashion Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments