Warning given to Jean Charles de Menezes.

[Rheghead]

I just want this thread to be about this specific aspect of the case.
There has been a lot in the news about whether or not the police gave Jean Charles de Menezes a warning before they shot him. Regardless whether they did or not, what I want to know is if they actually believed he was a suicide bomber, would giving him a warning be safer for the public provided that he was actually carrying a bomb?:confused

[badger]

Think this is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. If he was a bomber I always understood they have to shoot first and ask questions afterwards as he could have detonated the bomb and killed heaven knows how many people before being killed himself. If he wasn't - the man who shot him has to live with it. So no - I think giving a warning to a real bomber is putting many lives at risk. As requested, I'm not commenting on the rest of the story.

[Bad Manners]

I agree with badger it is a situation that you have to decide if and when you are in the situation. as said you have a split second to decide if he has a bomb do you give them a chance to detonate or do you carry the guilt of shooting the wrong man. Having served in HM Forces and been in a position where I have had to decide to fire or not I chose to fire in my case they were about to fire on my comrades so IMHO I would If in my mind the target had a bomb I would fire without warning but it is a personal thing and each would have to make up their own mind as for the rest of the matter I will leave for another day

[Ricco]

I agree - no warning, for obvious reasons. Naturally, there will be mistakes but these should be kept to a minimum. You just can't take chances with a potential fanatic.

BTW, Rheghead - bit of a busy boy at the moment?

[Gizmo]

It's a no win situation really, and it's a real scary thought that police have the power to shoot first ask questions later, this leaves it open to abuse from hoax callers, how easy would it be for someone to call in a hoax giving a description of someone they have seen and say that they are carrying a bomb, it could even be done by someone looking for revenge on someone, this all may sound a little extreme, but there are some really sick people out there, i agree that no warning should be given to suspected bombers, but surely there must be a away to take them down without ending their life.

[hotrod4]

Its a case of balancing Public safety over 1 persons life.
That can sound a bit sad but if you have a decision to make in a split second, the training will automatically kick in or you freeze. Its a question that is very very hard to answer as its not a daily thing for most of the population.

I would shoot,though I would have a 50/50 chance of getting it right,you would have so many things going through your head that no-one would know if they could do it or if they would freeze unless they are actually in that situation.

Had to fire back at an unfriendly from a distance,split second to think and then squeeze the trigger,would do it again but who knows how I would react again?

[JoeSoap]

... if they actually believed he was a suicide bomber, would giving him a warning be safer for the public ...
I don't think there's a 'one size fits all' answer to this question. It's really going to come down to the situation at the time.

I mean, if you truly believed that a person was carrying a bomb and had the intent to detonate it and they had their hands in their pockets then could you really take the risk that the detonator isn't in their hand?

On the other hand, if their hands are clearly visible and are empty then it might be that that a warning could be given ... unless there is a suspicion that they have their highly-trained buttocks primed and ready to squeeze a discretely placed pressure-pad.

I think that quite a few procedural failings have been uncovered during this inquest – that no warning was given really is not the one that troubles me the most.

That said, a witness today told how the officers held the gun to a 'calm' Jean Charles de Menezes's head, then shouted amongst themselves and then shot him. I'm struggling to envisage a situation which was so imminently dangerous that no warning could be given but which did allow time for a discussion before shooting him.

It all seems messed up to me... but then I have a problem with quite a few things these days.

[JAWS]

Sorry, but if I think that at any split second I am going to be blown to tiny little pieces I would certainly not waste time saying anything before I had done what I thought necessary to make sure I was safe.

It's a bit like somebody pointing a gun at you at close range, waiting to see if they really mean it is not the wisest thing to do.

I know of somebody who did that, he had a nice funeral and everybody expressed their admiration about his bravery.