Daily Kos

View Story | 247 comments

  •  Not true (4.00 / 4)

    this changed a while ago and a quick google search turns up this article on the BBC from October 2000.  Not saying that this whole incident is not terrible, but I do think its important to get facts right.

    by Celia on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 07:49:48 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah??? (4.00 / 5)

      Well...HERE are the facts.

      Anyone in Britain who DIDN'T know what was up with the police sure as hell does NOW.

      Why did this happen? It may not have exactly been "planned", but...it pays to advertise. And the government is backing these cops. Word's out now.

      Word...

      Charles

      by Charleslives on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:10:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no explanation from government (none / 1)

        Except, of course, those who don't: especially if they speak poor English, are deaf, don't pay much attention to the news, or have come for a visit from abroad.

        Whilst most people will of course have got part of the message, the utter failure of the government to explain the policy and inform the public regarding the procedures - such as how to identify a plain-clothes shooter ( the baseball cap ) - will lead to a recurrence of this.

        by londanium on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:23:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (none / 0)

          that is true. It is just dishonest to insist that the British police don't carry guns. That has not been true for a long time. I do agree that the public should be aware of the policy.
          I also think that the police rushed into a new policy but that they had little time for measured thought and planning while in the midst of ongoing attacks. Not to excuse this but its important to inderstand.

          The whole situtation sucks and this was a horrible accident.

          by Celia on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 08:32:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rubbish (none / 1)

            Menezes could not have avoided newspaper and TV coverage of the explosions on 7 July and even the previous day. In all, police were shown with sub-machine guns wearing flack jackets and in some plain clothes police carring lighter weapons were seen. There is no way he could not know that guys were being openly carried by police in London.

            Now despite being in plain clothes, police always have identifying baseball caps they wear when using firearms. One witness describes the police running trying to get their's on. That may indicate two things, that the police did not fully wear them before starting the pursuit and the very short time they had to make any decisions about firing. In a situation where they challenged with a number, some would challenge while the rest put their caps on. Then the rest could put the caps on. That would be a very fast reaction for them so they could be identified if a firefight broke out.

            "That's an entirely valid point" - MBNYC

            by londonbear on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:18:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No doubt (none / 0)

              the coverage was unavoidable. I don't disagree with you.

              But was the public informed of the shoot to kill policy? That's what I was referring to.

              by Celia on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:37:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  These were probably not police (none / 0)

              as I read in an article from the BBC web site which I can't seem to find.

              by non cest non on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 09:40:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  we're gonna disagree on this (4.00 / 2)

              I'd have to disagree with that assumption. I didn't pay much attention to the police on July 7th because they were not relevant actors on the scene after the first set of bombings.

              On 21st July they became relevant in my perception because the BBC showed footage from Whitehall of 2 armed and uniformed police officers confronting a suspect in what was a textbook demonstration of how to challenge a potential bomber, whilst making sure that they ddin't kill someone by mistake. At that point, armed police pointing a gun at me became a relevant factor in my situational awareness of the redefined London landscape; and I then noticed that plain clothes armed officers were using baseball caps to identify themselves.

              I'm a reasonably observant person - and this shift in my perception only came on the 21st. The next morning someone is shot by the undercover police - and now I know there is a shoot-to-kill policy. My situational awareness has changed again. Please note that this is in reaction to events, and based on paying close attention to the news. I'm well aware that many people don't pay close attention to the news, aren't observant and do not act always act in unfamiliar situations in accordance with yet-to-be-defined rules of common sense.

              There has still been no coherent effort by the government to explain the policies and procedures that are now in place. In my view this is at the very least negligent and needs to be addressed.

              by londanium on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:09:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Even British experts agree: (4.00 / 2)

            Professor Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King's College London, said the officers who carried out the operation in south London were unlikely to be police.

            "These guys may have been some sort of plain clothes special forces," he said.

            Prof Clarke said police officers were not trained to carry out operations in this way.

            "Even Special Branch and SO19 (Scotland Yard's armed unit) are not trained to do this sort of thing.

            "It's plausible that they were special forces or elements of special forces."

            This guy said that British police are not trained to do this sort of thing, so either they were special forces, or they were untrained police.

            by non cest non on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:05:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

View Story | 247 comments