Things I'm learning from the London Police

Apparently, murdering a man isn't criminal, but it does violate workplace safety regulations.

Two particular things from the Guardian article that I'm taking issue with. The first is this:

The officers who fired the fatal shots "did so because they thought that Mr de Menezes had been identified to them as a suicide bomber and that if they did not shoot him, he would blow up the train, killing many people," he said.

Any successful prosecution would have to prove that the officers did not "honestly and genuinely" hold those beliefs, Mr O'Doherty said, something that was impossible.

The hell? There were eye witnesses. They shot him eight times, which is not "Uh-oh, dude's not listening to me and I think he's causing a problem and I need to stop him."

I know it's not a reliable source, but there's no reliable source here, so Wikipedia'll do. It says that Menezes was followed by unarmed cops from his apartment, on a bus, then down into the tube station and onto the train. At some point they called for armed backup, I suppose running on the assumption that since he possibly resembled some suspects in a failed bombing attempt, obviously he was about to blow up the train. Note: there isn't really any convincing evidence that's been released to indicate that he was running from the police or anything going into the station.

He was effectively surrounded by plainclothes police. When the armed guys got there, he stood up when confronted. They grabbed him, held him against the seat, and put seven bullets in his head. Allegedly, these shots were fired at intervals, not one after another. This, of course, implies that as they were at extremely close range, after the first shot or two, they would have been able to see that they already shot him in the head and he is no longer a threat.

But, apparently, that's not murder.

The second Guardian quote I take issue with, this one courtesy of the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone:

London Mayor Ken Livingstone added his support to police and criticised the planned prosecution.

"I doubt that al-Qaida will be considering the implications for health and safety legislation when they are planning their terrorist activities," he said. Before Mr de Menezes was shot, he had been watched by police and military surveillance officers leaving his flat in nearby Tulse Hill and followed onto a bus towards the station. Police were on high alert following the July 7 bombings a fortnight earlier, in which 52 people died and hundreds were injured.

Remember, folks. If the police stop thinking before shooting, then the terrorists have won! That's like Bush Lite. Normally, I wouldn't criticize the governing of a foreign city as strongly, but considering that I now live here and take public transportation every day, I dont' think I'm wrong saying this. Sure, al-Qaida's not going to take any notice and laugh as we work ourselves into a state of perpetual and unrelenting terror (note: al-Qaida generally has become an inclusive term for terrorist). And I'm sure that they're not at all amused by the British courts basically giving a coldblooded murder the official stamp of approval.

One final thing about that last quote: Of all the British newspapers (which are all oddly proud of being horridly biased) I usually am most in-tune with the Guardian. But what's up with saying he'd been being watched by the edgy police, and not mentioning that they were watching his entire apartment block, and they just thought that morning that he bore a resemblence to one of the people behind the attempted bombings? It's not as if he'd been a long-term person on their watch list or anything.