Fatal errors by London anti-terror police in Brazilian's death

"British police face acute embarrassment after leaked documents showed that a Brazilian killed on suspicion of being a suicide bomber was not trying to flee and was being overpowered when he was shot in the head at point-blank range.
...
Initial reports said de Menezes had been acting suspiciously -- wearing a bulky jacket, jumping a ticket barrier at Stockwell Underground station, south London, and sprinting onto the train.

But witness accounts and photographs leaked to ITV television showed him in a light denim jacket walking calmly into Stockwell station."

It APPEARS, at this point that this innocent man was shot 7 times in the head while being held down by police. Now, I am afraid of this thin line that these officers must face in this situation.

I believe that they did indeed believe that this man was a suicide bomber, and I assume that in the heat of the moment they thought they were all going to be blown up to holy hell and fired seven shots into the man's head at point blank range because they thought that even with him restrained he might be able to set off his suspected bomb.

BUT the problem is, that when I put myself in the shoes of this man, it scares the crap out of me that this could conceivably happen to anyone! I mean I think this moves our free societies a step closer to fascism. Yes I said it, I used the F word. I know no one wants to hear this, but so what, we need to think about the things that we are doing each step of the way. That is what democracy is all about. I fear we have passed the point where we can return, and the slope truly is slippery.

So lets talk about this. I want to be safe, I understand the need to use overwhelming force in the face of a suicide attack. But I don't want to be dead because someone tells the police that they think I have a bomb. I know there is basically two schools of thought here, and it applies to more than just this.

One school of thought is that it is better to kill an innocent for the good of the many, than to allow something to happen to endanger the many.

The other school of thought is that it is better to take every precaution to save the innocent and possibly risk endangering the many.

Well that is too simplified of a description, but in general I fall into the second school of thought. I believe it is of utmost importance to prevent the death of the innocent than it is to possibly prevent something bad happening to the many.

It goes along with my current opinion of the death penalty, I would rather allow guilty murders to sit in prison for life than for the government to mistakenly kill an innocent person in my name.

So what can we do here? In this very critical juncture of safety and security and of personal rights to have life and liberty, what wins out?

I don't know, but I want to talk about it.