" If we're going to be terrorized by police, what the hell is the point?"

By now we've all heard of the guy who was mistakenly shot as a suspected terrorist in a London subway station, but turned out to be a catholic electrician from Brazil. Was the guy stupid? There's certainly a case to be made that tearing into the subway away from 20 armed police mere days after a terrorist attack was a Darwin-award worthy thing to do. But then you hear details that lead you to contemplate that he was at least equally unlucky. Was he challenged after he jumped a turnstile, therefore giving him a motive to run? The police were plainclothes, and followed him from his home. Why didn't they arrest him as soon as he left the house? Why did they shoot him execution style AFTER he was pinned down on the floor?

This is an inauspicious beginning indeed for the "shoot to kill" policy. As Simbaud snarks: "The threat of summary execution serves as a powerful deterrent to suicide bombers, who might think twice about blowing themselves to smithereens if they knew that police were prepared to shoot them for it." Meanwhile, Avedon Carol asks: "If we're going to be terrorized by police, what the hell is the point?"

Another thought struck me: the poor schmuck who got shot 8 times in the head wasn't even Muslim. But if this policy of 'shoot to kill' persists and more mistakes are made, the victims are more likely to be young, Muslim men. In addition to the loss of innocent lives, we are looking at deaths that will incense the Muslim community and possibly radicalize more British Muslims.