Wednesday, 27 July 2005

Stigamup

Some small Parisian boys, back from their Saturday morning at the pictures almost half a century ago, were anxious to know the formula spoken by a cowboy holding a gun when he required someone to raise their hands in the air. The films had sub titles, rather than being dubbed, and the boys were convinced that there ought to be a definitive, universally understood expression. To their way of thinking, saying “Stigamup”, or something like it, usually guaranteed that in the lawless western frontiers of the USA, an unnecessary shooting was often avoided. Whilst the first application of this expression would be in their games, maybe they were thinking that, were they ever to travel to the wild west, they would need to recognise the one phrase which demanded instant obedience.

Just as everyone understood the culture of American Westerns, in which the law was that of the gun, so people knew that in Britain, the law was represented by an unarmed officer of the Crown in a dark uniform, with an immensely tall, distinctive hat.

On my way to Paris, I had arrived at Euston station in the early morning on a postal train. The tube hadn’t started running, so there was nothing to do but wait. Two dishevelled, unshaven men asked me my business. They presented me with their police warrants as proof of their good intentions. Presumably they were wondering whether this schoolboy had run away from home.

I didn’t believe them. What could a police warrant mean to me? They declined my offer to verify whether they were who they claimed to be by going with me to the police office clearly visible on the station. So, after a few more questions which I refused to answer, they left, as they said “in order to preserve their anonymity”.

It is perfectly possible that a visitor to London today would still expect the capital’s police to be identifiable. A real Bobby still has a tall hat. Armed police on television are in uniform, and guns are carried with a prominent swagger. With this level of understanding by the public, any first encounter with a plainclothes officer could give rise to misunderstanding. He might be regarded as a potential thief or a mugger, which is exactly what I thought of the men who approached me. To an innocent person, an armed man with no uniform would appear to be a criminal.

Our police have obviously little idea of the huge change in culture that would be required before someone with a gun but no uniform might, on shouting “Stigamup” get the same response as that seen in old western films.

Nor do the police appear to understand the gulf in perception which being on an anti terrorist mission puts between them and the ordinary public. Statistically, our experience of the police is not about terrorism. It is confined to speeding fines and parking tickets. Our thinking and that of the police are worlds apart.

It also appears that, if the word “terrorist” appears, normal behaviour by the police is suspended. Actions can look like the result of an adrenaline fuelled high rather than following from a proper assessment of information. “Intelligence” in the case of the shooting of Harry Stanley in 1999, for carrying a chair leg in a carrier bag, or in the case of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, was woefully inadequate. The fact that the latter was killed by a hail of bullets adds to the impression that adrenaline had taken over from reason in the minds of all the officers involved. Long hours, no leave because of the current emergency, and a constant feeling of being under pressure can’t have helped.

It is difficult to see how such mistakes can be avoided, when the gap in perception between an ordinary innocent person going about their business and the police officer, pumping adrenaline and believing himself to be on an anti-terrorist mission, is so high. If Harry Stanley was shot for having an “Irish” accent, when he was clearly Scots, and a Brazilian gets shot for appearing middle eastern, the potential for further cases of mistaken identity is enormous.

What makes things worse is the attempts to blacken the name of the innocent victim. We’ve heard that he was in the country illegally, that he was fiddling with wires, that his jacket looked as though it concealed a bomb. All of this and more now seems false, and the police hadn’t even checked to see how many flats lay behind the shared entrance.

Half the population of London — that is anyone other than a white Anglo-Saxon, must feel that they are under suspicion. They must feel threatened by both terrorists and police. In the heat of the moment they won’t know whether someone in plain clothes with a gun is a police officer or a terrorist taking hostages.

It is hard to know what a Christian, particularly a white Anglo-Saxon one should do. Certainly we need to put ourselves alongside those who feel afraid. Do we need to show our solidarity with those who may be targeted by looking like them? Should we darken our complexions, dye our hair black, and for good measure adopt at least one item of middle eastern attire? Perhaps then at least, travelling around London, we might be able to experience the hostility and alienation currently felt by many Muslims. Or do we wear and wave a Brazilian flag, as the sign that the man who was killed was our brother and our neighbour?

It is even harder to know how the police should behave. But surely there is a case for continuing as normal, for engaging people in conversation in a way which does not immediately look threatening. We know how to respond to “Excuse me sir, just a routine enquiry.” We don’t know how to react to guns, and the police appear dangerously unaware of that.

It isn’t easy to know what to do in the face of a terrorist threat. But when we kill innocent citizens, the terrorists are the only people who win.

Posted by Tom Ambrose on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 at 11:12am BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: just thinking
Comments

What I think emerges from the cases of the late Mr Stanley and Senhor de Menezes is a dangerous gap in police firearms training.

Shouting "Stop! Armed police! Drop the weapon!" or something similar works very well if the suspect knows that he is a suspect. Hence, in the classic case of an armed robbery, shoot-outs with the police rarely happen. A competent armed robber reasonably concludes that an exchange of gunfire with better armed and trained police officers will probably end in his death, while surrender will merely lead to the accepted professional hazard of a period of imprisonment.

It works very badly when the challenge is shouted at a person going innocently about his business who has no reason to believe that he is a suspect. Mr Stanley and Senhor de Menezes did precisely what I would do in analogous circumstances. Mr Stanley looked round to see what was going on - construed by the police as aiming the non-existent "weapon" at them. Senhor de Menezes, pursued by armed men in a "tough" area of London, ran for what he imagined to be the safety of the tube.

Posted by: Alan Harrison on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 at 12:49pm BST

Very well said, that Tom.

And these are the police who want *more* powers?

Earlier today I read the line "What appeared to be straightforward linear thinking last week doesn't
appear to be so today". This is so true: there is still copious doubt that they were suicide bombers, on 7/7. For this reason alone, I consider it wise to have a constitution forbidding knee-jerk legislative reactions to major events for a given minimal time-period.

As for our police ... I would like to think of them as being paid to keep the peace. I'm still absolutely horrified that they managed to lose track of reality so badly as to cause the death of this innocent brazillian.

There was an article on the BBC yesterday about folks' attitudes on the Tube - shunning seats around anyone in asian / strange / foreign dress, etc. It's the natural human reaction, to be skeptical. As Christians, we should sit next to such people and engage in conversation, to restore some sense of normality.

Posted by: Tim on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 at 1:43pm BST

It is beyond me why anyone in the current circumstances would be so unhelpful to undercover police - with warrents and in the sight of uniformed officers. If they weren't asking for your bank details or your exact address etc, why on earth would you not help them?

I'm also amazed at how quick people have been to criticize the officers involved in the shooting of the Brazilian man.

I've not seen it mentioned anywhere how brave it was for these officers to do what they did, even though it was a tragic mistake.

They would not have killed this man in the way they did had they not strongly believed that he had a bomb strapped to him and was about to detonate it. They ran after him and jumped on top of him (and shot him) in precisely the place where a genuine bomber would have liked to detonate it.

They jumped on top of him and shot him when they thought he was going to explode.

To save others.

They made a mistake.

Shall we wait to see the result of all necessary inquiries before we slag off human beings who are putting their lives on the line to protect you?

In response to the extremely patronising reference to how non-white people may be feeling, I think at least those who can speak english and can clearly understand the words 'police. stop or we'll shoot' (or something similarly clear and understandable), I hope they will feel confident that if they stop and comply with instructions, they won't be in danger. I think what is infinitly more worrying than the police is the white racist backlash. That is far, far more worrying than the comparitively remote possibility of a non-white person coming to harm through a repitition of the Brazilian shooting.

I have to say, if I was on a tube train, and a man under surveillance failed to stop (despite speaking and understanding english very well) for police, ran off, jumped over barriers and ran onto a tube in the knowledge that london's transport system is now under sustained attack from terrorists and the police are on a heightened alert; I would prefer that they jump on him and shoot him rather than ask him ever so nicely until he said 'oh, alright then, but I am innocent you know'.

I think it is extremely galling that the Brazilians are so outraged at this difficult case of a police mistake under extremely unusual and pressured circumstances, when their police are known the world over for their corruption and murders. It is understandable I suppose that Brazilians should automatically think ill when police shoot innocent people, but not so understandable when the ill-thinkers are Brits of whatever hue.

It is good and useful to question policy and debate these things, but I thank God we have the police we do and that they are doing such a fantastic job in response to this onslaught.

And despite the tragic loss of a life, I still count those officers involved as true heroes.

BTW, what training exactly would you recommend to fill the gap, Alan Harrison? I'd love to know the magic formula that a copper could apply faultlessly in such circumstances to overcome all possible misunderstanding. What else is there to shout? What would you recommend be done? Exactly, please. I see a lot of presumption as to what the dead man was thinking; but not a lot of appreciation of what it is to be a police man/woman in the situation, or any real suggestions as to how it might practicably be avoided without too great a loss of wider security, or any offers to get trained up and stand in their stead.

Posted by: matt on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 at 1:58pm BST

Matt writes:

> It is beyond me why anyone in the current circumstances would be so unhelpful to undercover police - with warrents and in the sight of uniformed officers. If they weren't asking for your bank details or your exact address etc, why on earth would you not help them?

... etc etc

So. What is a person in jeans with a gun? What is someone who shouts "Police! Stop!"?

Big hint: without the uniform, they are not police, they are criminals. I certainly would look around to see who's yelling, and assessing that the shouter is not a policeman, may well get out of the way.

> I'd love to know the magic formula that a copper could apply faultlessly in such circumstances to overcome all possible misunderstanding. What else is there to shout?

I am not the Alan Harrison of whom you asked that, but I tell you now: proper regard for due procedure would have avoided this incident. Research, analysis, assessment. Arrest when you have evidence, not before. Proper trial and sentencing.

> It is good and useful to question policy and debate these things, but I thank God we have the police we do and that they are doing such a fantastic job in response to this onslaught.

When I see evidence that they have actually found the right person and apprehended and successfully prosecuted them, I shall join you. But I shall never forget their cold-blooded murder of an innocent civilian, nor shall I forget your unethical attitude that civilians can somehow be regarded as collateral damage.

Posted by: Tim on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 at 5:39pm BST

In my experience as a human being, we learn from our mistakes in most of our activities, and sadly this is no exception. We should hope the police are not put in a position where they risk making a mistake like this again. I hope we're not forgetting whose moral decisions will determine whether or not that is the case.

Posted by: Cyrus on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 at 9:14pm BST

"Matt writes:
> It is beyond me why anyone in the current circumstances would be so unhelpful to undercover police - with warrents and in the sight of uniformed officers. If they weren't asking for your bank details or your exact address etc, why on earth would you not help them?
... etc etc
So. What is a person in jeans with a gun? What is someone who shouts "Police! Stop!"?
Big hint: without the uniform, they are not police, they are criminals. I certainly would look around to see who's yelling, and assessing that the shouter is not a policeman, may well get out of the way."

There's obviously a big difference between England and, say, France or the USA. :-)

Here, when someone identifies himself as a policeman, produces his ID--especially his badge--
and demands that you halt, you're quite ill-advised to run into a bus station, vaulting a turnstyle.

Has anyone heard of any instances of assasins or other criminals saying they're police in order to murder or rob someone? I haven't but there are no doubt some.

YMMV, but I plan to halt and obey orders.

Posted by: Tim Stewart on Thursday, 28 July 2005 at 1:47am BST

"whose moral decisions"

Who would that be, Cyrus?

The "them"?

Tom asks a compelling question: "It is hard to know what a Christian, particularly a white Anglo-Saxon one should do."

In the annals of warfare, for the past century or so, there are plenty of stories of soldiers throwing themselves on top of a live grenade, to save their comrades (or perhaps even civilians).

It seems to me---especially in light of a "suspicious" case, like Mr. Menezes was said to be (w/ his summertime coat)---that this item of military history provides exactly such a pertinent model.

Think someone might be a suicide bomber? Throw yourselves on top of him (or her) . . . risking *whatever* might follow (Explosion. Death by police firing-squad. Acute embarrassment---and perhaps lawsuit---if one is in error.)

None of us can know beforehand, whether we are really up to following this c. 2005 Way of the Cross.

. . . but it's time to start thinking about it.

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Thursday, 28 July 2005 at 2:19am BST

eh? I'm bemused at why people would automatically think that people in jeans, carrying a gun (in Tom Ambrose's case showing a warrent) and declaring that they are police, are criminals and are not plain clothes police officers as they are claiming. They may possibly be criminals, but it is extremely unlikely - much, much more probable is that they are actually police officers trying to do their job in difficult circumstances. I'm astonished, that this incident has exposed the fact that normal, everyday people are unaware that police sometimes don't wear uniforms in order to facilitate the prevention and solving of crime.

I was unaware that anyone anywhere was unfamiliar with this concept, let alone against the idea of 'under cover' police work.

Cold blooded murder is commonly understood to be pre-planned and unlawful killing. You have just stated, Tim, with no evidence whatsoever, that those policemen intended to kill this man regardless of his actions and planned to do it in advance of the morning's events.

I'm struggling to identify why that suggestion could be regarded as being rational.

I don't think it is reasonable, either to border on the personal with simplistically describing my attitude as 'unethical', apparently because my opinion on the subject differs from yours.

Imagine for the moment that it had been a suicide bomber and the armed police had decided not to shoot and a carriage full of people had been maimed and killed. There would be cries of outrage at why the police failed in their duty to protect the public when they had the chance. Many would probably call it criminally negligent.

How can the poor police officer who is put in the excruciatingly difficult situation live with himself in either situation. what do people expect of them? Why don't those critics sign up to do the job themselves?

They are human - vulnerable to error. To suggest that they went out to deliberately take a human life in a premeditated way and with malice aforethought, as you have done in plain english and in a public forum, with little or no evidence to support that, I would suggest is unethical and moreover, libellous.

Posted by: Matt on Thursday, 28 July 2005 at 4:52am BST

Matt asked:
"BTW, what training exactly would you recommend to fill the gap, Alan Harrison?"

I don't know. I'm not, and don't pretend to be, an expert in that field. I assume, however, that experts do exist who could address the issue.

I make no assumptions abour Senhor de Menezes' actions or the reasons for them. There has been much contradictory speculation about what he did and what might have been his state of mind.

The Stanley case is clearer in many ways, lacking the conjectural complications arising from Senhor de Menezes' having been a foreigner. What unites the two cases is that an innocent person who had no reason to believe he was suspected of any wrongdoing was killed by the police. In Stanley's case, he behaved in a wholly predictable way - reasonably believing that the police could not be addressing him, he turned to see what was going on when he heard shouts behind him. I suggest that, in fairness to themselves, police officers need some form of training to prevent further such errors.

Posted by: Alan Harrison on Thursday, 28 July 2005 at 1:26pm BST

'"whose moral decisions"

Who would that be, Cyrus?

The "them"?'

That would be anyone who is minded to become a suicide bomber, J.C. Fisher. Some people think Bush and Blair make them do it. Me, I think they're equipped with moral faculties like anyone else, and they make a choice.


Posted by: Cyrus on Thursday, 28 July 2005 at 3:11pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.