Reportedly this man was an electrician.

What do bombs need? Wires and electronics on that list. This man was seen leaving a house under survaillence for the bombings. He wore a heavy coat. (perhaps his delivery was already complete).

Add to that, he fled from police and I wouldn't assume he wasn't connected to the terrorist just yet. I'm sure (hope) he's being investigated further.

I agree with you completely, it is a tragic situation. People in London have to be aware of the extremely tense situation there. Any person exhibiting aberant behavior in London may draw themselves into a situation with dire consequences. Running into a tube station and entering a car with the police ordering you to halt can not be tolerated.
Regrets, yes. Apology, no.

Does this remind anyone of a carload of Italians running a roadblock? This was far from a case of shoot first and ask questions later, he denied the police the option to ever ask questions and it not only cost him his own life it endangered the lives of many others.

Jay Tea... I agree with you totally! I feel really sorry for the family...BUT... that poor policeman who shot him is probably feeling terrible now that they are saying he was not a terrorist. What is strange is how suspicious he was acting? ...AND... Why was he wearing such a big coat?...AND...What was he doing at that house? Hmmmm? You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to get a clue that something isn't right!...

I read several blogs every day and yours is one of the blogs I never miss. Your take on this reminds me of why. You offered the best and most consise analysis of anything I read. It is simple easy to understand and 100% accurate.

There is one question that I have not seen asked that I think is a possible answer to this. Could this be a suicide? I mean after all this guy was just asking to be shot.

Doug

Gotta admit though... The brits found a better way to secure the subways than the 20% spotchecks we are running.

Can't get much sympathy going for the family. Fruit doesn't fall far from the tree, and they raised him, in any case. He may have been innocent of Thursday's bombing, but I doubt he's an innocent. What was he doing? Acting as a decoy to protect someone else in the house under surveillance?

A sneaky way to gin up anti-war, appeasement feelings would be to act like a terrorist, attract the sniper bullets and be found unarmed . A suicide bomber without the goods, but a suicide bomber all the same and on purpose.

Along the lines of the title, some guy went into the woods to practice his turkey calls and got plugged by a turkey hunter. Of course, that's a TAD different; the hunter should LOOK, not just LISTEN, before firing........

Just wondering if Britain has the equivilant of Maxine Waters.

The police had no choice in the matter; the guy actually seemed a threat and was treated as one.

Cindy

A man under surveillance, for a several days (but never questioned), is chased into a subway station by plane-clothes police, with their guns drawn. Subsequently a police officer sat on the same innocent man, and then summarily shot him 5 times in the head. This doesn't even happen in Sao Paulo. Any person with any sense knows that Brazilians have are the most Catholic and Evangelical Christian country in the world,,and have nothing nothing to do with fanatical Islam or even international or national terrorism. They are in London for one reason alone, to work hard as this man was wiith to jobs to earn money to have a better life in the future back in Brazil. I have spent years with Brazilians in London, and the interior of Brazil where I now live, and I have never met one Brazilian who remotely fits a Islam terrorist suspect profile. Next time, I hope the Met asks some questions, to identify a person, before they start chasing ..and then killing him or her in cold blood..

The police did the reasonable thing here, and it really bothers me, when we second guess reasonable police work.

I can't help but wonder how the police would be treated had the man actually been a terrorist, but the police let him get away, when they could have stopped him.

Sorry, but reasonable people stop when the police ask them to stop, and they do not jump turnstiles, and continue to run-especially the day after a second bombing in the subway system.

Bad choices often end in bad consequences but the person who should be held acountable is the person who made the bad choice, and that person would be Menenze not the police. I feel for his family, I feel for the police who mistakenly shot a man, but I don't think the police are morally or criminally to blame here.

From what I read, it was plainclothes officers. Did they identify themselves as such? If they didn't then from his POV, it might have seemed a large group of guys just drew guns on him.

--|PW|--

its clear to me...he wasn't white skinned and he spoke with an accent, he wasnt one of us...he deserved to get his brains blown out even if he wasnt involved with the musl;im murderers...he wasnt innocent and even if he was he didnt have any rights...we should have this attitude in this country...including shooting those wetbacks as they come across the borders

Neil, you're dead right. That's why, in a country of about 1.6 million Muslims, there have been scores -- nay, hundreds -- of random innocent people shot to dead without warning on the streets of London by trigger-happy police in the 2.5 weeks since the first bombings.

Whoops, my mistake. There's been exactly one. One guy who apparently did EVERYTHING HE COULD to appear to be a suicide bomber except actually have a bomb on him.

Try not to be more of an ignorant asshole than absolutely necessary, Neil.

J.

Darleen ask:

Just wondering if Britain has the equivilant of Maxine Waters.

That would be the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, otherwise known as "Red Ken." Also MP George Galloway.

We still don't know the timing of when this guy started to run, etc. for all we know he was runnng to catch a atrain.

It was also not a "hot summer day" it was 68 degrees that morning and actually if you look at the photos quite a few people were wearing jackets.

Now before anyone goes off on my I am not condmening or even criticizing the cops. I think there is a high probability that given the general threat, and the waythey percieved this guys that the shooting ws a terrible accicdent.

but I am surpised at just a couple fo comments here:

1) "Sorry, but reasonable people stop when the police ask them to stop, and they do not jump turnstiles, and continue to run-especially the day after a second bombing in the subway system."

a) we don't know the guy heard the commands to stop. We do not know if ANY uniformed authorites were chasing him or attempting to givie him commands.
b) the guy was found with a train pass. in the UK this means if you are in a hurry you can (and many people do) jump the turnstyles. the ticket control is at the end of the line at your destination. if you have a weekly pass manypeopel jump the entry..

2)"A sneaky way to gin up anti-war, appeasement feelings would be to act like a terrorist, attract the sniper bullets and be found unarmed . A suicide bomber without the goods, but a suicide bomber all the same and on purpose."

OK this commentor is accusing this dead guy of doing this on purpose. nice.

3)"What is strange is how suspicious he was acting? ...AND... Why was he wearing such a big coat?...AND...What was he doing at that house?"

Again, suspicious in what way? running to catch a subway? How "big" was his "coat" whichwas actually a jacket? The "house" was an apartement block of over 30 units.

4)Lastly on the other extreme we have:
"Any person with any sense knows that Brazilians have are the most Catholic and Evangelical Christian country in the world,,and have nothing nothing to do with fanatical Islam or even international or national terrorism. "

Whoa "Steve." In fact Brazil is a HOTBED of international terrorism, sepcifically ISLAMIC terrorism. The border area with Paraguay and Argentina is the MECCA for Islamic terrorists on that half of the globe. Google "terrorism triangle" to find out more, and even how top leadership Al Qaeda summits have been held in Brazil!

Again I don;t want to condmen the London Police or even the special atuthoriteis invovled in this. In what is most likly a terrible ACCIDENT I don't seen an injustice or even poor police tactics. On the other hand, the two or three people here blaming this guy for doing what huge numbers of people in london do everyday Since 7/7 -- run for trains and wear jackets on 68d degree mornings -- does not mean this guy deserved it in way.

Er... make that "shot dead" or "shot to death." I shoulda made up my mind which I wanted to say before I hit "post."

J.

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." --Robert A. Heinlein

I wonder how many more "accidents" are going to happen before the british people just say "fuck riding the subway!". As far as all you "experts" spewing the "facts" about this guy and his behavior before his execution all i gotta say is the dictionary doesn't define fact as speculation and for fuck sake don't the london police have any TASER'S????????? when hit with a taser you can't move a muscle let alone push the button on your backpack bomb!

Hey "Jesus", what happens when the taser wires hit the bomb?

In the United States police officers would have to have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the victim had committed a crime in order to arrest. If he did jump the turnstiles he could have been arrested, but excessive force precedent clearly holds that the use of deadly force is only constitutional where there is a reasonable belief that the individual is a threat to the community. The only thing the officers could have known based on these facts is that the individual jumped the turnstile--which may justify arrest, but not deadly force; that he ran--which is not sufficient to justify deadly force; and that he was wearing a jacket--really pretty insignificant. The use of deadly force to seize someone where there is no reasonable articulable evidence suggesting they are armed, who have only violated transportation laws, and who have fled without force from law enforcement is entirely unconstitutional. If this took place in the US, the officers, and possibly the municipalities who employed them, would be subject to monetary damages for the violation of the individual's constitutional rights under section 1983 of US federal statutory law. This was a wrongful death. Policemen are not vigilantes.

Anonymous:

Thank you. I was wondering if I should reconsider my position that a huge percentage of what's wrong with this country is too many lawyers. I appreciate you reminding me that I have that opinion for a lot of damn good reasons.

J.

It's part of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable seizures. If you think the Constitution is what's wrong with the country have the balls as a man to say so instead of putting it off onto an unpopular group.

Anonymous, thank you again. I went back and re-read the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added)

Let's see... the day after the second round of bombings (the first round performed by suicide bombers), police see a man in a bulky jacket jump a subway turnstile and refuse to stop when ordered. Yeah, I guess it is pretty unreasonable of the police to presume he's of ill intent and stop him before he has the chance to set off a bomb in a crowd.

Further, Anonymous, would you mind explaining why a British officer in London would be required to obey the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution?

J.

My original post, which you responded to, made the point that this particular search is unreasonable within Fourth Amendment precedent and would have subjected the officers to liability if it had taken place in the United States. Regarding your post, a generalized suspicion cannot support the use of deadly force, nor can the mere fact of flight. The Supreme Court held in Tennessee v. Garner that flight, of itself, cannot make the use of deadly force reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. All uses of force to effect a seizure must balance an indivudals interest in liberty against the interest of law enforcement in detention and prevention of further violence. That an individual is attempting to flee from a lawful seizure is not enough to support the use of deadly force. This case seems to be on all fours factually and principally with Garner. Of course police officers are going to be jumpy the day after a second round of bombings, but the rights provided under the Constitution do not retreat into an underground bunker at each and every terroristic threat. We do not live in a police state. We ought not submit to martial law. The only way to ensure that these liberties are not taken from us full force is to enforce them with a heavy hand at the first sign of infringement.

I don't know enough of the facts to condemn the police officers involved, particularly in light of the heightened tensions in London. But I submit that none of the yahoos on this board have enough evidence to condemn the victim, either. The feverish speculation based on just about zero knowledge of the situation would be laughable if a person wasn't dead. And the fact that the police have already apologized and declared that the victim had nothing to do with terrorism should carry some weight. The guy had the misfortune to leave a block of flats that were under surveillance (a block of flats, not a single dwelling.) The flats were under surveillance for sevral days, not the victim. He jumped the turnstile and ran, which understandably drew suspicion. And the just because the heavy coat made the police understandably suspicious, it does not follow that the victim is somehow at fault for wearing it. Have you really never seen someone wearing a coat and wondered why they were wearing it in such warm weather? It's only suspicious after the fact.

But what's most disturbing are the reports from at least one witness that a policeman stood over the victim and pumped five bullets into him. We'll see if that turns out to be true, but a lot of reports say that the SAS(I believe that's the correct name) have a shoot first policy, so it seems that it's certainly possible. Again, I'm not blaming the police, but I'm mystified how so many people on this thread have come up with the fact that not only were the police not at fault, but that the guy was probably a terrorist, maybe even a deliberate suicide! Jeez, take a breat.

Just to respond to Tom71, I said it would be a sneaky way to further heat up the *anti* response, not necessarily what this man did. I think it reasonable to believe that suicide bombers could sacrifice themselves without a bomb in order to get a society to turn on itself. Yeah, I think this mindset could plan this on purpose. I don't know if that's what happened here or if we've heard the whole and last of this incident.

The problem with suicide bombers is if they don't comply 100% when initially confronted, it is assumed they will detonate in any struggle. This is taken from multiple police forces around the world that have experience with this.

Anonymous police in the US are permitted to use deadly force, when they reasonably believe the suspect they are chasing may use deadly force.

In this case the man was wearing a heavy overcoat, fled the police when asked to stop, ran into the subway, and jumped the turnstiles.

Given the circumstances-multiple bombings in subways over two different dates, and massive casualties. Also the fact that suicide bombers intend to die, but they also intend to take as many civilians with them-essentially the suicide bomber is wearing his deadly weapon, the cops appear to have reasonable suspicion to believe he was going to use deadly force.

Dealing with a suspected suicide bomber running into a subway and jumping a turnstile isn't quite the same as chasing a shoplifter into the subway.

As stated before, but very important to this whole thing - these were plain clothes officers chasing this man. Most of us would run in such a circumstance, especially if guns were drawn.

And it's never acceptable for a police officer to fire on an unarmed man, especially on the ground. Especially 5 times.

He had dark skin, ergo, he was suspect.

Amadou Dialou

Would you fundies be saying the same thing if he had blonde hair and blue eues?