Redstate

Muslims in Britain are understandably nervous that any activity that may seem suspicious in the least will result in overreaction by the police.

Now, I believe strongly that the man shot this time was a threat, and therefore I'm not worrying about him too much. However, to use the Muslim Council of Britain's fears as support for their "choosing sides" is wrongheaded and misleading. Their comments were balanced and respectful, and they merely stated what many, including myself were thinking when the first reports came through. The man was chased down, then shot five times. I trust the British police and believe that they had good reason for their action; however, isn't a slight misgiving justified?

bombings in the matter of a couple of weeks, and a suspicious man runs from cops at a subway station, and tries to jumpt the turnstiles and doesn't stop.

I think the cops have good reason to shoot.

In a climate you woudl expect the London subways to have post bombings, anyone who was not dangerous you would think would be more than happy to stop and chat with police, and probably consent to a search of their backpack (sorry, but if there was a group of terrorist white women bombing subways, and the cops asked me to stop, I probably would do it and submit to a search-I know it may offend the sensibilities of liberals and libertarians, but I like knowing the cops are trying to keep the trains I would travel safer).

I think this is going to be a totally justified shooting given witness accounts:

"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."

But the police should always explain how and why they shot someone.  Especially five times in the head while prone.  In this case I think it will be that the guy might have blown up the train and the three policemen on top of him.  

Completely justified shooting.

I think we all need to reiterate that most of us still believe it was a justified shooting..the point is that British Muslims being concerned and asking for clarification is not some indication that they're "choosing sides"

....of the background and nature of the Muslim Council of Britain or its present leader, the detestable Iqbal Sacranie.  I leave it to you to look up its members' probable links to terrorism in south Asia; its loathesome public behavior at Holocast remembrances earlier this year; and its advocacy of the suppression of free speech in Britain in the guise of official protection of Islam from ridicule.  Suffice it to say that it is difficult in the extreme to interpret its public statements here as anything approaching sincere civic-mindedness -- it has long since exhausted the ordinary presumption of constructive goodwill that might attach itself to, say, your airing the same concerns.

None of this, by the bye, prevented Iqbal Sacranie from receiving a knighthood in the past year.

I follow your conclusions and see nothing unreasonable about it.  I have one more tidbit of information that is germane to the subject at hand.

I am not aware if the policy has changed recently; however, when I was a student in Britain (Wales) for a semester in college (1999) the standard police officer was not armed with a firearm.  The equivalent of our beat cops are armed only with radios and batons/mace.  When firearms are needed they call for an "armed response unit."  In this case, that would seem to indicate that police officers who were armed with guns had been deployed to the area in response to some threat or for general security.

To summarize, police shootings of criminals are a far more rare occurence in the UK than here in America, as far as I recall.  Please correct me if I am wrong and police policies have changed in the past few years.

~Big Tom

I'm aware of the Muslim Council of Britain's despicable reaction to the Holocaust rememberences.  I'm also well aware of requests throughout Europe to prosecute the so-called slander of Islam.  (I do note, however, that most of those who call the prosecution of "Islamic slander claims" fail to advise their readership that the laws in question actually apply to the slander of any religion, and are not special "Islamic" protections.*)  

More to the point, I fail to see how your resort to the ad hominem fallacy disturbs my critique in any respect.  Assume that the Muslim Council on Britain has done bad thing X and Y; how does that prove that it also did bad thing Z -- particularly when the evidence you purport to cite is to the contrary.

von

*See, e.g., this report on a Court ruling regarding prosecutions for the slander of the Catholic faith:  (http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.159552138&a
mp;par=).

That reaction is the difference between these "moderate Muslims" and regular people.

Regular people are more worried about terrorism.  These guys are too busy trying to straddle the fence between the terrorists and regular people, so they get uptight when it looks like their ambiguity will carry consequences with regular people.

I think that's the phrase that best describes this.  You are aware, yes, that the motivating force behind anti-religious-slander laws (and similar laws, such as the French school hijab ban), are motivated by reactions for or against Islam, yes?  That they are worded to cover all faiths, presumably for constitutional purposes, is entirely beside the point: one might as well argue that anti-lynching statutes have no racial context since they protect whites as well.

If you choose to believe that the Muslim Council of Britain is indeed a constructive participant in civil society on any level simply because it raises a point that you might yourself -- have I mentioned Hitler loved dogs? -- then you are, unfortunately, emblematic of the self-delusion that afflicts so many in this war.

about the Muslim Council.

However that does NOT mean that your criticism in THIS CASE is accurate.  I believe that is Von's point.  

When you make false charges towards someone the only thing you do is lesser the impact of WORTHY charges.

You are aware, yes, that the motivating force behind anti-religious-slander laws (and similar laws, such as the French school hijab ban), are motivated by reactions for or against Islam, yes?

You have no idea what you're talking about.  The Italian religious slander law -- which has gotten a tremdous amount of press in certain circles -- had its origins during the Fascist period.*  The French school hijab ban is, of course, a different issue, although I note that it's part and parcel to the French trend toward secularizing society.

If you choose to believe that the Muslim Council of Britain is indeed a constructive participant in civil society on any level simply because it raises a point that you might yourself -- have I mentioned Hitler loved dogs? -- then you are, unfortunately, emblematic of the self-delusion that afflicts so many in this war.

Where have I ever made this point, Trevino?  I've argued that your RedHot post mischaracterizes their stated concerns regarding the UK subway shooting, and that their state concerns seem quite reasonable.  The first is an empirical question, which can be answered by looking at your post and then looking at your purported support.  The second is a question of prudence.  

have I mentioned Hitler loved dogs?

We'll have to develop a codicil to Godwin's Law to address how fast you've run to a Hitler reference.  For clarity, the Muslim Council of Britain has not always been a force for good in the UK, but there's no evidence, at present, that it was involved in the Holocaust.  (IOW, let's save Hitler references for, well, Hitler.)

von

*That's one of the reasons why Catholicism is provided additional protections -- under Article 403 -- than Islam or other religions (Article 406):  The religious slander law was written prior to the ratification of Italy's Constitution, which, broadly put, grants equal rights to all religions.  

....if I am entirely correct about the MCB, then the chances that my critique is accurate are fairly high.

Yes, the Italian exception equates to the rule, doesn't it?  Okay, von.

Since I don't believe you to be an unintelligent person, I'll simply assume that you're deliberately missing my point -- which is not, by the bye, that no one can justly state the stated concerns.

You are aware, yes, that the motivating force behind anti-religious-slander laws (and similar laws, such as the French school hijab ban), are motivated by reactions for or against Islam, yes?

Incidentally, may I suggest the following:  whatever source caused you to believe "that the motivating force behind anti-religious-slander laws [are] ... reactions for or against Islam" is about as misinformed as is possible on the subject.  I'm not sure I'd trust their other "facts" regarding Europe's allegedly impending "dhimmitude."  Your call, though.

Yes, the Italian exception equates to the rule, doesn't it?

OK, I'll play:  Identify the European religious slander laws that are the basis for your "rule".

I, too, tend to err on the side of the cops/special forces (and that's even if there's been some sort of mistake -- and I don't think there has been one).  But one can believe that this shooting is completely justified and still think that Trevino's remarks are improper.

You've got examples of such laws or attempts at such laws in the UK, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia, as I recall.

Sorry, but you're not going to win this one: the reason this has become a current legal issue in the West is because of the Muslim problem, not a coincidental spasm of social desire for enforced tolerance.

It must be a single source I'm receiving it from.  Lord knows I couldn't be drawing rational conclusions from recent events.

Fine.  Let's expand it to the West.

Identify the religious slander laws that were "motivated by reactions for or against Islam."  

(Your purported rule, to which the Italian religious slander law is an alleged "exception.")

You say that you recall such examples existing in the UK, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia?  Fine.  Provide a link to any source (media or legal) (1) identifying the law and (2) indicating that the law in question was passed as a reaction for or against Islam.*

Really, I'm tired of seeing this canard being tossed around on LGF and Jihad Watch -- and now, RedState as well.  Let's have a fact to support it.

von

*I've already googled a few -- the UK, France -- and have yet to even see a religious slander law comparable to Italy's; and, of course, passage of Italy's religious slander law was not in any way "motivated by reactions for or against Islam."

You can use Google as well as I.  And let's be clear that despite your continued redefinitions of the subject at hand, I'm 1) including not merely European, but Western examples; 2) not referring merely to slander/vilification laws, but all laws (ie, the hijab law in France) motivated by a response to the problem (or challenge, as you prefer) of Islam in the West; and 3) referring to public discussion of said laws, and not merely their enactment.

And let's be clear that despite your continued redefinitions of the subject at hand, I'm 1) including not merely European, but Western examples; 2) not referring merely to slander/vilification laws, but all laws (ie, the hijab law in France) motivated by a response to the problem (or challenge, as you prefer) of Islam in the West; and 3) referring to public discussion of said laws, and not merely their enactment.

God forbid that I continuously "redefine" the subject at hand.  Let's go back to your original assertion:

You are aware, yes, that the motivating force behind anti-religious-slander laws (and similar laws, such as the French school hijab ban), are motivated by reactions for or against Islam, yes?

My response was:

You have no idea what you're talking about.  The Italian religious slander law -- which has gotten a tremdous amount of press in certain circles -- had its origins during the Fascist period.*  The French school hijab ban is, of course, a different issue, although I note that it's part and parcel to the French trend toward secularizing society.

French head scarf law, addressed.  (Relationship to your assertions w/r/t Muslim Council of Britain, unclear.)  Religious slander law, addressed with a citation to the Italian law.  You promised that other laws exist.  You said that they were in the UK, France, and elsewhere.  I looked for relevant laws in the UK and France; I couldn't find any.  I asked for a cite.  You assured me, without support, that religious slander laws existed in the West.  I said, fine:  the entire Western world.  Give me a cite.

You respond: "You can use Google as well as I."

I'm not the one making the assertions, Chief.  And I'm pretty damn comfortable with the record that's developed between us.  My only question is, why are you?

You're telling me that law arose wholesale from the French tradition to secularize; that all else of it is ex nihilo?

Come now.  Surely you don't believe this.

And yes, you can use Google as well as I.  For my part, I am quite tired of the use of purposeful ignorance as a debating tactic: there's no reason to abet it.

Won't even provide one anti-religious slander law -- anywhere in the West, proposed or enacted -- that was motivated by reactions for or against Islam.  That's telling.

As for the French head scarf, you need only read what I've written to see the assertion "that law arose wholesale from the French tradition to secularize" is false.  I said it was part and parcel to the French tradition to secularize; it was, obviously, directed at secularizing Muslims in particular (although its effects are also felt by Sikhs, some Jews, and others).  It was also, undoubtably, a reaction to attacks on Jews and others by Algerian/Muslim street gangs.

Relationship to your assertions regarding Britain's Muslim Council and/or the anti-religious slander laws?  Still unknown.

I'm not here to argue that radical Islam is not an enormous problem; nor will I disagree that the integration of European Muslims leaves much to be desired; nor that a violent Muslim underclass has arisen in many European cities; nor that attacks on Jews and other have been on the rise throughout Europe; etc.  

Agreement with all of this, however, does not mean I will agree with every claim of the "Eurarbia crew" -- many of which fall apart the moment that you ask for a single fact in support.  (Or are based on simple ignorance, as is much of the commentary on Italy's religious slander laws.)  

...you rock, Von!!!

That's quite a back and forth between you and Josh...and let me just say how much I appreciate your efforts here.

Bottom line is Josh took advantage of this situation to get in one more jab at what he'd like to become seen as the "mythical moderate Muslim" ---at least in the rhetoric---and you called him on it.

Thank you and very well done!

Von isn't disputing the characterization of the MCB.  Read more closely, please.

he's criticizing your opportunistic cheap shot.

Count me unsurprised that you would take the lazy way out and declare victory here.  I'm really not kidding: this stuff is very easy to find.

....it was, obviously, directed at secularizing Muslims in particular....

Well, that only took a few rounds to draw out.

Refusal to take the Muslim Council of Britain at face value, given its well-documented history, is a cheap shot?

Forgive me, Edward, but your moral sense is badly askew by dint of your personal attachments.  This will doubtless enrage you; rest assured it's me being charitable.

Look more closely yourself please.

What you wrote was "the Muslim Council of Britain -- fabled "moderates" all -- complains."

I know von is taking issue with the fact that their statement was perfectly rational given the circumstances and shouldn't be framed as "complaining," but backing up one phrase, your characterization of the MCB as "fabled" moderates all suggests that NONE of them are moderate. You can point to quotes by certain members to build a case that this or that one said something extreme, but you can back-up the assertion that not one of the MCBs is a moderate.

cannot back-up  {{{frickin-frackinkeyboard}}}

Egad, it's the old:

"I have evidence but it's so obvious that I don't need to provide it!  Stupidhead!"

In other news, "I am rubber and you are glue"; "your momma wears army boots"; et cetera; et cetera.

Von isn't disputing the characterization of the MCB.  Read more closely, please.

That's true.  However, Edward is also correct:  I do indeed, abso-smurfly, positively "rock."  It has even been said that I rock-like-a-bat-out-of-hell-but-hey-wait-that-bat-is-so-rockin'-that-it's-t
urning-around-and-going-back-into-hell-my-oh-my-what-a-rockin'-bat.  (That last bit hasn't exactly been said aloud, but it has been said.  By me.  In my head.)  

I do you no favors by abetting your preconceptions.  Which is why I do it.

We know, of course, that there were Klansmen who were not racist.  Really, we do know this.  Doesn't change the organization -- nor does it ipso facto invalidate a statement that "Klansmen are racists."

Silly, silly nitpicking.  Don't rest on a defense of the MCB.  For your sake.

by accusing Klansmen of being pedophiles without any substantive proof serves no purpose and actually hurts your cause because people will consider you will to say anything to disparage the Klan.

I am in no way invested in any individual members of the Muslim Council of Britain. I'm sure there's truly horrible human beings who belong to it. But, as you note, nitpicking is silly.

So, to the point...you're applying characterizations to their actions unfairly. Perhaps they are not the ideal representatives of Britian's Muslim community, but nothing in their statement reinforces your objections to them, as you assert...you're conjuring that up out of thin air.

Sorry for the typos.

should read "by accusing Klansmen of being pedophiles without any substantive proof you actually hurt your cause because people will consider you willing to say anything to disparage the Klan"

....that I've advanced no evidence of the loathesomeness of the MCB, you haven't been paying attention.  At all.

But it's a very bad word.

Don't conflate "the Muslim Council of Britain" with "British Muslims." The former has a track record of warm and fuzzy anti-Semitism and other appealing locutions. The latter is a tad more diverse.

You haven't refuted the Klan analogy.

Yeah, Edward.  Hence, you know, the context.

Read, people.  Read the thread.

If you want to say that the Muslim Coucil is loathesome that's fine.  Probably true.  But if you say that this COMMENT was loathesome you are making a different point are stand on more tenuous ground.

say "We understand that the police may need to shoot people dead who look suspect and we understand that Muslim-looking people should expect that they might be shot if they look suspect"?

Seriously.

Don't conflate "the Muslim Council of Britain" with "British Muslims."

Again, I'm not suggesting the MCB is above criticism, but in this exact context, they issued a statement insisting that the police be forthcoming about why they shot this man. IMO that's the very least the police must do here.

Let's see if I can illustrate why this is important. Imgaine you're Pakistani and living in London. You're a decent human being, but perhaps a bit absent minded, or introverted, or possibly even mildly mentally ill, but in any case totally harmless. Often you see people looking at you funny because you're dressed oddly or perhaps arguing with someone who isn't there or a whole host of other behaviors that pass for average if not quite normal in New York. You're not a terrorist, you're just "different." Right after the shooting, everyone is cautious, but time goes on, and folks fall back into their usual patterns.

Now, until the Police explain more than the press has done about why this man was shot, "different" may seem all it takes to get you shot in London to this fellow, condemning him to a constant state of anxiety.

Again, the MCB is fully within its rights to ask that the police give a full account of what happened so that Muslim-looking people aren't afraid to ride the mass transit to get to work.

....reasonable statements in themselves, of course.

Which makes it interesting how you dismiss them as being anything but.

in which a secret service guy gives a talk on how to stop a suicide bomber.  He teaches to shoot for the brainstem so the terrorist can't press a detonator even as a reflex action.

Gory, I know.  This may explain the circumstances.

Of course the good guys always hit running targets while running themselves.  In Hollywood anyways.  Did the "agent" explain what they do with a release-activated(dead switch) suicider's bomb?  If not I'm sure it was a mere oversight on the part of the scriptwriters.

Best laugh I've had in days.  Thanks.

I'll just say that's the funniest comment I've read here.  And I give your rockin' @@@ a five.  

Keep on rockin' Von.

Hey, I know it's a movie.  The guy said to come up behind the perp and shoot him point-blank at the base of the skull.  I left that out.

I don't suppose there's much anyone can do about a dead switch.  Anyhoo, I don't really care about defending scriptwriters, so think what you want.

I mean, sure, a dead-man switch is a possibility, but for the "average" suicide bomber, it may be too clever by half — what if he's nervous, sweating a bit, and he trips and lets go of the thing on the way? Scorching a sidewalk may not get you "shahid" status. (Actually, my favorite story about premature detonations is the Palestinians who failed, when setting the timers, to account for the fact that Palestine wasn't observing Daylight Savings and Israel was, or something to that effect...)

about a terrorist using one but I don't see any reason they couldn't.  It doesn't have to be any more complex than other means and it'd be pretty easy to make it safe for the meat-puppet-in-transit.  

Yeah, I remember something about the hour-off fubar a couple years ago.  I bet the jihadi big whigs still needle the bomb maker for that one.

this is a war without end. How can you suggest it's reasonable for Muslims to live under those conditions?

....onerous with unreasonable, here.

This is exactly why the everyone calling for the police to be totally forthcoming about why they shot that man has a right to do so, regardless of their politics, and why it's so important:

The man shot and killed on a subway car by London police in front of horrified commuters had nothing to do with this month's bombings on the city's transit system, police said Saturday in expressing their regrets.

system that had recently experienced deadly attacks, and the day before a failed attack, one should stop when asked, and not jump turnstiles, and ignore police warnings.

Sorry, but one thing that bothers me is we love to cream cops, when stuff likes this happens, but we don't look at the stupidity of the idiot who got himself shot.  When a cop asks you to stop, you stop, if you feel the cop is in error, then by all means discuss it with him, but don't run away.

Also, had he in the end been one of the terrorists ready to blow up a subway, and the cops had just let him run off on his merry way, when they saw him, do you think the cops would have been given a pass had he succeeded in his mission?

think about that a bit longer...is stupidity punishable by death, really...you want to stick with that?

See, this is the problem I have with Superman. He's never there when you need him. Superman would have used his X-Ray vision to see that there was no bomb in the backback, and a life would have been saved.

But no. Once again, no one can find Superman, or Lois Lane, when this kind of stuff happens. Who knows what they were up to? It's the same thing that happened with that tsunami. No Superman, and thousands die.

Superman is no good.

yes I think so.

Given the fact that they had just had a subway bombing where over 50 were killed and hundreds injured a few weeks prior, and a failed attack with similar circumstances the day before.

Yeah I think any reasonable person would understand that they needed to stop and obey the police.

The subways were probably still crawling with police trying to investigate the prior day's incident, if I was there and a cop asked me to stop, I would have stopped.  I think that is common sense.

I think the man gave the police more than enough reason to suspect him, and he was asked repeatedly to stop.

Addressed on RedHot already: there's no evidence as yet of a need for a policy change here with regard to the shoot-to-kill rules.  In any case, this changes my argument not a whit.

However, good move abandoning our immediately prior topic.

It often enough is.

were wrong in the moment.

I'm saying that they owed the public a full explanation, and anyone calling for one was within their rights to do so.

The fact that he ended up not being connected to the bombings makes the incident tragic. The fact that the police shot him five times in the head shows that there was more wrong on that platform than an immigrant running from the police.

If anyone knows, how does the Muslim Council of Britain feel about having the various radical islamic imams deported?

me.

Apparantly anti terrorist training teaches you to shoot for the head when dealing with a suspected bomber, because you destroy the nervous system and they hopefully won't have a chance to detonate the bomb.

Your argument seemed to be that no one should complain that the police shot and killed a man.

According to one witness's statement:

"He looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox, absolutely petrified," said Mark Whitby, one of the witnesses. "They pushed him onto the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead."

According to this witness, they did not shoot the man while he was running, but after they had subdued him and were "bundled on top of him".

That may turn out to be entirely reasonable under the circumstances. But it certainly needs a detailed, thorough, and impartial investigation in any society which I would want to live in.

Trevino, the problem with your RedHot post is that you cited the demand for an investigation into the point-blank shooting of an apparently innocent man (possibly based, along with other more damning factors, on his skin color) as an example itself of MCB radicalism. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The fact that it shows 2 o'clock at 2 o'clock is not, therefore, evidence of how broken it is.

You did not make a blanket attack on the MCB (which would be warranted, without question), you made an attack on the MCB for making this demand, conflating a demand for an investigation into a police shooting with sympathy for or appeasment of terrorism. I'm all for stern measures, including deportation if not arrest for those who advocate terrorist attacks and the violent overthrow of the government. And I am all for giving police officers who are doing a difficult, demanding job a tremendous amount of latitude when they are called on to make split-second life and death decisions.

I think it quite likely that when all the circumstances finish coming out, the policemen who did this may be exonerated, given recent events. But based on things like the witness's statement above, I'm not willing to make that exoneration yet, and without a full inquiry. And the fact that a radical Islamic group agrees with this point means absolutely nothing, but is surely not itself evidence of the radical nature of that group.

Britain says man killed who no ties to bombing....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/24london.html?hp&ex=112
2264000&en=133e85131d3ecaea&ei=5094&partner=homepage

- Scotland Yard admitted Saturday that a man police officers gunned down at point-blank range in front of horrified subway passengers on Friday had nothing to do with the investigation into the bombing attacks here.

The man was identified by police as Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian, described by officers as an electrician on his way to work. "He was not connected to incidents in central London on 21st July, 2005, in which four explosive devices were partly detonated," a police statement said.

I think you can see why Muslims would be concerned about this when the police shot a Brazillian electrian on his way to work.

Officials said the Friday shooting incident, which occurred about 10 a.m., began when the man emerged from a residence that was under surveillance in connection with the bombing investigation. He spotted the plainclothesmen who were following him and fled into the nearby Stockwell subway station, one stop from the Oval station that was the scene of one of Thursday's explosions.

The man, who was wearing a baseball cap and thick coat, vaulted over ticket barriers with police in hot pursuit. "There were at least 20 of them and they were carrying big black guns," said Chris Wells, a company manager who was there. "Everyone was shouting, 'Get out! Get out!' " The man made it to the platform of the Northern Line and into a rail car before the police caught up to him. The shooting caused passengers to stampede out of the station or onto an adjoining train.

Just an observation, that according to this WaPo article the cops were plainclothes and brandishing weapons.  Unless there's evidence they identified themselves credibly as police, it's not unreasonable that anyone would have run from a posse of armed men.

him I would say you have a point, but reasonable don't jump turnstiles and fail to stop when asked by police-especially the day after a second bombin attempt.

themselves?

People don't act reasonably.  They panic and get scared.  Yes the guy should have simply stopped and done nothing.  But he obviously panicked.  

They didn't shoot him while he was running away.  They shot him in the head on the ground.  

I'm no condemning the British police.  I really don't know enough of the details.  But if you are a dark skinned person living in England you are probably more than a little concerned about this.

There's plenty we have left to learn about this which will bear on whether this shooting was justified or not, and what policies the police in Britain should adopt to reduce the risks of more innocent people being accidentally shot.

First, we know that the man was seen leaving a building occupied by terrorist suspects under surveillance as part of the investigation into the bombings. We don't know whether the police knew whether the suspects were the only occupants of that building, or if they were just watching a large block of apartments (flats). In other words, how likely was it that an individual leaving the building was from the suspects room or apartment? If all they saw was a man leaving a block of 30 apartments, only one of which was believed to contain terrorists, that makes it less likely the man had been with the suspects.

We also don't know how strong the connection was known to be between the people under surveillance and the terrorists. Were the police following up just another lead, or did they have really solid intelligence that the guys they were watching were the bombmakers? If the police were 100% certain the bombmakers were in that building, then their actions look more reasonable; if they were following up an anonymous, unsupported phone tip, then their actions seem less reasonable.

How were the police chasing the man dressed? Were they undercover, or were they all in clearly marked police uniforms? Did one or two officers approach him first and then he ran, or was it that suddenly 30 men armed with pistols and maybe automatic rifles leapt out and screamed at him? If he ran at the mere sight of 2 or 3 uniformed police officers, his running looks much more suspicious.

My heart goes out to both the dead electrician and the officers who shot him. Those officers will live with knowing they killed an innocent man long after all the reviews and legal proceedings are finished. Trying to figure out what happened is not an indictment of them but a necessary step to improve police procedures to prevent this from happening again.

now and am not involved in any crimes, then I will probably go out of the way to not make the police more suspicious of me, and doggone it, if they ask me to stop, I am going to stop.

I wonder where he put his hands, when he layed down on the ground?  Keep in mind that we are dealing with suicide bombers-not just some guy knocking off a convienient store, and suicide bombers do not care if they die in the proccess, they only care that the bomb goes off.  If he layed down but his hands weren't in clear view, the cops may have thought he was trying to detonate a bomb, which is why all the head shots.

with your entire post and I certainly have sympathy for the police officers.  I am quite certain that they truly felt this guy was one of the terrorists.

There is still a lot that needs to be learned.  And this shooting could ultimately lead to some really harsh restrictions for the police that could ultimately harm the country.

This guy was BRAZILLIAN.  Are you suggesting that anyone with darker skin than a Northern European needs to operate under the suspicion of guilt?  

I'm sure the police felt they were preventing a detonation.   That doesn't make it ok.

The reason we restrict the power of police is because people will abuse that power.  Sometimes because of greed or arrogance and sometimes because of fear.

I see cops in a city terrorised by terrorists trying to find out who was killing their citizens by bombing the subways.

I don't think they acted unreasonable at this point.

If it turns out that they didn't ask him to stop, or didn't identify themselves, then I might get into your lynching of the cops here, but given this specific set of circumstances at this juncture in time, I think it is hard to say the police were acting negligently much less criminally.

and they based that feeling on reasonble actions of the suspect then they were not acting negligiently, criminally or unethically.

of the Diallo case here in New York where the police shot a suspect about dozen times and it turns out he was the wrong guy who simply got scared when a bunch of guys waving guns at him started chasing him.

When you are given the ability to inflict deadly harm on someone you also have the responsibility to be as certain as possible that deadly harm is necessary.

As I have already said I feel sympathy for them and I believe they acted in the only way they thought was possible

However I do question the new shoot-to-kill policy they have recently implemented in London.   If they keep that policy I think they will see more innocent deaths.

this man was a suicide bomber-what due diligence do you think the cops could have/should have done?

And think of what said diligence would have likely resulted in, if the cops had been right and he was a suicide bomber.

Just Me, that wasn't an assumption by modo. According to this Washington Post article:

Plainclothes police chased a South Asian man into the crowded subway car Friday morning and shot him in front of terrified passengers, as the hunt intensified for four suspects believed to have carried out abortive bomb attacks on the transit system the day before.

It goes on to say:

Officials said the Friday shooting incident, which occurred about 10 a.m., began when the man emerged from a residence that was under surveillance in connection with the bombing investigation. He spotted the plainclothesmen who were following him and fled into the nearby Stockwell subway station, one stop from the Oval station that was the scene of one of Thursday's explosions.

Heaven knows I don't take everything the Washington Post says as gospel truth. But I haven't run across any reports contradicting these statements yet.

Fleeing a bunch of plainclothes cops is not necessarily unreasonable. We need more information to find out how well the police identified themeselves, whether any of them at all were in uniform, etc. And as I said earlier, the problem may not be with the final moment of shooting itself, but the failure to have some uniformed officers available for just such a circumstance.

Just me,

I don't think anyone is questioning that the police believed this was a suicide bomber. The question is how reasonable was that belief? The subjective belief alone may be sufficient to make the shooting not criminal, but we need a complete investigation to determine if the belief was reasonable given all the circumstances, and how policies and procedures could be improved to prevent such mistakes from being made in the future.

that intended to improve police procedure, what I oppose is the criminalizing of the cops involved here, and that is what happens everytime in these cases.

It isn't fair to the cops.

And given this specific set of circumstances, I am not seeing a way to prevent this from happening, and at the same time prevent the suicide bomber from blowing up the subway, if he was indeed a bomber.

I asked flyerhawk this-what diligence do you think the cops should have taken that would have prevented the mans death?  Now pretend like the man had a bomb belt strapped to his waist, would the same diligence have ended with a captured bomber or a blown up subway station?

...and yell for you to stop, it's generally a good idea to do so. Think of it as evolution in action.

In the first place, I haven't seen any report which fully establishes that the police officers identified themselves to the dead man as police. The reports coming from Scotland Yard continue to be sketchy and modified within hours after being made. While I feel fairly confident that the individual officers doing the shooting will be absolved in the end, I am not willing to do so based on the massively incomplete information we have right now. Let us not forget that a 100% innocent man is DEAD here. He was not a terrorist, not a terrorist sympathizer. So far as we know right now, he didn't have so much as an outstanding traffic ticket. Would you be so quick to forgive the police if it was one of your relatives who was shot point blank in the back of the head by police officers while being held down on the ground?

Many, many facts still need to come out. For example, according to this report, the police had followed the guy for some time on a bus ride to the tube station.

As for procedures needing to be improved, if they thought he was a terrorist bomber, why were they chasing him? Before they confronted him, why didn't they send a few officers ahead so that if he did start running to the Tube station, they could have stopped him before he got there. If he had been a suicide bomber, their failure to anticipate his running in that direction could have cost a lot of additional lives.

Suicide bombers tend to have two wires running down their sleeves. When it is time to detonate, they bring their hands together, completing the circuit that detonates the bomb. If you are in a subway and someone screams "Allahu Akbar!" don't punch him in the face. Grab one of his arms and keep him from making contact with the other. Punch him later.

That he had nothing to do with the bombings, was a Brazilian electrician, in fact. One may be able to think that this is both justified and a tragedy. (Two thoughts in one head? Surely not.)

But I think of it as excessive authority granted to the police.

But this guy was a victim of natural selection, plain and simple.

What, they're supposed to wait until AFTER he detonates the bomb before they shoot him?

This guy was doing a very good impression of a murder-suicide bomber.  Sorry, but this guy should get a Darwin Award - and the cops need to be told not to worry.