The Third Tube Tradegy, but who to blame?
I'm sure you've all heard about Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazillian man accidentally killed on the Tube a few days ago by British police who thought he was a suicide bomber. (see the BBC story of you haven't)
Clearly, it is a tragedy in which an innocent man died who shouldn't have. At the same time, the rush to fault the police for undue force seems a bit misplaced as well. After all, the full context of the story must be taken into account. The fact that just two weeks and a day before the shooting London experienced its worst attack since WWII, and that only a day before the shooting four men (who "are still free and may have access to explosives" according to the BBC) tried to pull off a similar attack, the police were right to be on the lookout.
It was not just that the police "just killed the first person they see, that's what they did," as Menezes' cousin asserted. Instead, it was a tragic mix of signals that all led to the wrong place. Menezes lived in an area under surveillance in the bombing investigations, chose to wear a "padded jacket" on a hot summer day (as the BBC notes, "often worn by suicide bombers in other parts of the world to help them disguise their bombs"), and, most tragically of all, he "was killed after fleeing armed police" who sought to stop and question him because of these signals. And where did he flee to? Onto a train in the Tube.
That's not to say he should have been shot. But, as former PM Sir John Major is quoted as saying in the BBC article, "They had to make a decision. Do we take this dreadful decision to shoot, or do we face the risk that conceivably, if our worst fears are right, a bomb could be detonated that could kill people, including them, in the next second or so?" Under the circumstances, I cannot even conceive of questioning the decision made by those police. I am sure it was a decision none of them wanted to make, and I can't imagine having to make that decision myself. Its so much easier to question their decision, of course, when those questioning will likely (and hopefully) never be in the shoes to have to make that decision themselves.
If it is true that Menezes "may have run from police because of his visa situation," as the article suggests, that explains why Menezes didn't stop when told to by the police, but it certainly does not excuse it. Menezes was in violation of the law, but that is not the reason he is somewhat responsible for his own death. His irresponsible behavior in not responding to (and fleeing from) police who sought to question him is.
Had the police have stopped a real terrorist at that moment, they would have been heros. And rarely do police even have as many signs as Menezes seemed to display. As another Menezes cousin noted, "If you are going to have a war on terror, you have got to use brains to fight it not just brute force." Those officers were using their brains. As far as Menezes, though, if he was going to live in an age of terrorism, he should have used his brains and not just his feet.
The job of identifying a terrorist in a crowded city is one that has no easy answers, no easy police solution to catch the bad guys if they just "use their brains." Individual people, then, must use their brains and cooperate with the police rather than avoid them.
The Tube shooting incident was a tragedy. Yet, if Menezes' family sues and makes it to court, I hope whatever court it is does not side with the family. While he certainly did not deserve to die, it was Menezes who was irresponsible and not the London police who were, in incredibly difficult conditions, only trying to do their job keeping the city safe from terror.
Clearly, it is a tragedy in which an innocent man died who shouldn't have. At the same time, the rush to fault the police for undue force seems a bit misplaced as well. After all, the full context of the story must be taken into account. The fact that just two weeks and a day before the shooting London experienced its worst attack since WWII, and that only a day before the shooting four men (who "are still free and may have access to explosives" according to the BBC) tried to pull off a similar attack, the police were right to be on the lookout.
It was not just that the police "just killed the first person they see, that's what they did," as Menezes' cousin asserted. Instead, it was a tragic mix of signals that all led to the wrong place. Menezes lived in an area under surveillance in the bombing investigations, chose to wear a "padded jacket" on a hot summer day (as the BBC notes, "often worn by suicide bombers in other parts of the world to help them disguise their bombs"), and, most tragically of all, he "was killed after fleeing armed police" who sought to stop and question him because of these signals. And where did he flee to? Onto a train in the Tube.
That's not to say he should have been shot. But, as former PM Sir John Major is quoted as saying in the BBC article, "They had to make a decision. Do we take this dreadful decision to shoot, or do we face the risk that conceivably, if our worst fears are right, a bomb could be detonated that could kill people, including them, in the next second or so?" Under the circumstances, I cannot even conceive of questioning the decision made by those police. I am sure it was a decision none of them wanted to make, and I can't imagine having to make that decision myself. Its so much easier to question their decision, of course, when those questioning will likely (and hopefully) never be in the shoes to have to make that decision themselves.
If it is true that Menezes "may have run from police because of his visa situation," as the article suggests, that explains why Menezes didn't stop when told to by the police, but it certainly does not excuse it. Menezes was in violation of the law, but that is not the reason he is somewhat responsible for his own death. His irresponsible behavior in not responding to (and fleeing from) police who sought to question him is.
Had the police have stopped a real terrorist at that moment, they would have been heros. And rarely do police even have as many signs as Menezes seemed to display. As another Menezes cousin noted, "If you are going to have a war on terror, you have got to use brains to fight it not just brute force." Those officers were using their brains. As far as Menezes, though, if he was going to live in an age of terrorism, he should have used his brains and not just his feet.
The job of identifying a terrorist in a crowded city is one that has no easy answers, no easy police solution to catch the bad guys if they just "use their brains." Individual people, then, must use their brains and cooperate with the police rather than avoid them.
The Tube shooting incident was a tragedy. Yet, if Menezes' family sues and makes it to court, I hope whatever court it is does not side with the family. While he certainly did not deserve to die, it was Menezes who was irresponsible and not the London police who were, in incredibly difficult conditions, only trying to do their job keeping the city safe from terror.
posted by Dennis at
8:41 AM
|
0 comments
