We Come In Peace

Apparently, armed police don’t need to give a warning to someone they suspect of being a suicide bomber – if nothing else it means that I suspect the death of Jean Charles de Menezes won’t be the last such occurrence of this sort. (<cynic>particularly if the police marksman wants a free holiday</cynic>) In addition, the New York Times is speculating about whether the bombers were actually suicide bombers at all, which I’ll write about later.

Yes, sure, a suicide bomber is likely to try and detonate their device if they know that they are being followed by police, as the Guardian article says. But equally if a suspect isn’t actually a suicide bomber then they’re far more likely to stop when being told they’re in the sights of armed police right now than they are to keep moving.

Thing is, to my mind the warning isn’t just for the sake of the suspect – it’s for the sake of the armed officer, too. If the warning’s been given, and the suspect continues to act in the same way, or to make moves to detonate their device, then it’s a justified act to stop them. If they’re not, or it turns out that (as in the case last week) they’re innocent but still ran, then the officer can at least have the reassurance that yes, they were warned, and if they ignored that warning then that’s their choice. But at least they were warned– they had the choice to stop, to halt the chain of events. Without that warning, the shooting of an innocent suspect is – to me – plain murder.

The story of Menezes’ shooting/murder will come out in the end, I’m sure – but already it’s looking smellier and smellier, the more the police backtrack and attempt to justify their actions.