Come on. It's a reasonable discussion to have, not a "why don't you apply your brain?" shouting match.
I did apply my brain, which is why I'm talking about the broader issue of the police's use of lethal force against the general public, rather than specifically the Duggan mess. "The end justifies the means" theme which keeps popping up is not a reasonable explanation of anyone's behaviour, particularly in something so serious.
If you do a bit of reading on the Brazilian fella...
"First off. The Brazilian on the tube. He was given several instructions from police to stop. I believe from what I've heard but can't be 100% sure jumped the barrier while running from police! still giving clear instructions and ran onto a train. The police involved were on a covert anti terrorist operation so had some reason to believe he was involved in something, enough to show out. He then ran on a train where if he was a terrorist, could have detonated an explosive device."
Lee Ruston, an eyewitness who was waiting on the platform, said the police did not identify themselves. The Times reported "senior police sources" as saying that police policy would not require a warning to be given to a suspected suicide bomber before lethal action was taken....The Menezes family was briefed by the police that their son did not jump over the ticket barrier and may have used a Travelcard to pass through; this was subsequently confirmed by CCTV recordings shown at the Metropolitan Police trial.
"Now I would rather the police shoot him several times and kill him than take the risk that he doesn't have anything for him to the detonate a device killing innocent people on the train."
Would you honestly feel the same if it was one of your, proven to be totally innocent, family members who was shot to death by the very people who are supposed to protect them? I don't think I would be happy to write it off as easily.
"The police did not shoot either of these men. It was a human being acting on behalf of the police and the country as a whole."
Which is why we should all have been more concerned at the time, as it reflects the state of the country as a whole and the level of accountability when an innocent man is shot to death because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, not because of ANY crime, in the name of the people.
"That human being doing a job that doesn't pay all that well considering things he will have to do. Especially when you take into account that the government are attacking his pension and pay structure while increasing there own."
I think it's clear to all that pay rates and pensions have no bearing on the discussion around the appropriateness of the use of lethal force on members of the public. By inference, this means if Officer X was paid better, then the public would have the right to question the decision making process which led up to anyone's death at the hands of the police - but if Officer X is paid less, they don't have the right to question. Surely this makes no sense?
Anyway, I wasn't trying to start an argument, just questioning the use of lethal force and the rigour of investigation into the actions which led up to it.
I think the police do an excellent job by and large, under extremely trying circumstances most of the time, and I wouldn't want to swap places with any one of them, but that's not a reason not to question some of the things they do in service of the general public.