"They" were saying that de Menezes was running away from the Police, and so he got what he deserved.miszt said:They are saying he claimed to have a bomb and was going to blow the flight up
Out of interest, do you know of any flight marshals who have saved any lives by killing somebody? (Not being sarcastic, I just don't know, but I doubt it)Uncyclopedia said:The following is an excerpt from an interview between Sir Ian Blair and Steve Donovan, a journalist with an ounce of brain, some dignity, and capable of independent thought. As you have probably guessed, it's completely fictional.
* Steve: So, what's this "shoot-to-kill" policy you've come up with?
* Ian: First of all, please don't call it that. It's not like we go around London trying to kill people.
* Steve: But that's exactly what happened the one and only time the police have made use of that policy...
* Ian: The tube shooting is a distraction that should not overshadow the deaths of 52 victims of the London bombers.
* Steve: What are you suggesting? That 52 lives are "more priceless" than one? Or maybe you mean that the police have not only wasted an innocent life, but also failed to save 52 more? If you like statistics, then how about this: the shoot-to-kill policy has saved ZERO lives so far, and wasted an innocent one by mistake. This is a policy with 100% failure rate. One cock-up out of one time the policy has been put to use.
* Ian: But wait, if Mr. de Menezes had been a terrorist, surely this policy would have saved lives...
* Steve: As it turns out, not even that. If, as it's likely to be the case from now on, the bombs are triggered by a timer, a remote-control (e.g. mobile phone, like in Madrid) or a dead-man switch (a switch that triggers when it's released, as opposed to when it's pushed, think hand grenade), the policy can't do any good, so we are only left with its risks.
* Ian: Oh but come on, this has just been an unfortunate accident...
* Steve: If this policy does make us safer, it must have been a hell of a fucking accident if it failed the first time it has been tested. Remember: 100% failure rate. I can imagine thousands of scenarios where this policy would have lead to an unlawful death, be it of an innocent man behaving "suspiciously" (or simply cacthing a train as in this case), or of a genuine suspect not posing a threat to the public, in which case it would be a summary execution without trial.
* Ian: You convinced me, I'm a complete idiot and I should resign.
Let's just wait for the usual cover-up + whitewash.josh (not psyforum's josh) said:As someone with a relative with schizoprenia, and another relative with a seizure disorder, I'm frightened by this sort of policy. Can police tell the difference between someone who is ill and harmless, but acting strangly and afraid of the police, from a suicide bomber?
I predict the occasional murder of schizoprenics.
The original artical posted at the top of this thread says that they have never used deadly force on a person beforejulian said:Out of interest, do you know of any flight marshals who have saved any lives by killing somebody? (Not being sarcastic, I just don't know, but I doubt it)
This however is worrying, wish I had seen it before.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/national/07cnd-plane.html?hp said:According to a witness on the plane, The Associated Press said, the man was followed by a woman who ran after him as he bolted from the plane, shouting that the man was mentally ill.