Tube shooting

In relation to this debate, someone has said to me something to the effect of “what about innocent until proven guilty”? My response is that “innocent until proven guilty” has nothing to do with it. According to the law, one is entitled to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of defence of others. That applies to cops and civilians alike. In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, the two questions are:

1. was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
2. was the force used excessive in the circumstances?

If you end up in court for your actions, the courts say that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

The result of all this is that if you honestly believe that a guy has a bomb that he is about to detonate on a crowded tube carriage, you are entirely within the law to take the guy out using lethal force and ask questions afterwards. It’s damn harsh, and I really am sorry that Mr DeMenezes got shot, but we are under attack by ruthless, dangerous people here and the stakes have unfortunately been raised beyond the whistle and the truncheon.