NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

sounds to me as if he was quickly killed, as if he was about to set another bomb off remotely? otherwise why would they kill him in that way?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

sounds to me as if he was quickly killed, as if he was about to set another bomb off remotely? otherwise why would they kill him in that way?

Well, there are three possibilites:

1. He was going to remotely set off another bomb, or at least the police thought so;

2. Someone panicked, and fired.

3. Its part of a conspiracy in the government.

well whatever it is (number 3 sounds good), lets hope theyve got the right man, and its not mistaken identity.

he was shot 5 times, no uniform police involved

An east london mosque has also been surrounded. It's classed as an unrelated incident

Hey if he's running to people from police who think he's a suicide bomber, tough break bitch. Sorry you couldn't bleed out slowly and painfully over a few hours. Even if they guy was innocent, next life don't be an ass-clown prone to poor decisions. In the scenerio described by the witness, they didn't have a choice.

Well, there are three possibilites:

1. He was going to remotely set off another bomb, or at least the police thought so;

2. Someone panicked, and fired.

3. Its part of a conspiracy in the government.
Maybe my faith in police training is too great, but I honestly think we can rule out option 2. If they fired, they meant to shoot him. Option 3 I doubt very much, since I'm fairly convinced our government couldn't organise a pi... a conspiracy in a brewery. Any conspiracy by them would be as transparent as a broken window. Look at their attempts to shove all their 'emergency' totalitarian controls through Parliament (it's down to Britain's apathy that they're succeeding. Still, we'll have plenty of time to regret it later).

No, I'd tend to go with Option 1, or a variant thereof. We don't even know who did the shooting at this stage - regular police or some other agency. I'd advise against speculation until more information becomes available.

No, I'd tend to go with Option 1, or a variant thereof. We don't even know who did the shooting at this stage - regular police or some other agency. I'd advise against speculation until more information becomes available.

after i read the account of the mans death, it reminded me of when the SAS killed three (i think) IRA terrorists in gibraltar in the 80s. they were known terrorists, and a bomb was found later, but when they were killed (in quite a horrific way as in this case) they had no weapons or detonators on them, and the SAS and government came in for a lot of criticism. i just hope today they have their infomation correct.

Hey if he's running to people from police who think he's a suicide bomber, tough break bitch. Sorry you couldn't bleed out slowly and painfully over a few hours. Even if they guy was innocent, next life don't be an ass-clown prone to poor decisions. In the scenerio described by the witness, they didn't have a choice.

Running from plain clothed people pointing guns at you ?

i just hope today they have their infomation correct.
Indeed. But at the moment, we just don't know.

Let me tell you what this is. the public want to see that something is being done about the whole terrorist attacks and so they shoot a man (possibly terrorist) so that the news and tabloids can say "the police have shot a man...". even though it is only one man, it makes the public feel as if the government is doing something as nothing has been done so far

The way things are going I'm conviced that the police in England should be given greater powers and overall authority. These crazies have got to be stopped.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189920,00.html


For a little more in depth that the BBC link.

Running from plain clothed people pointing guns at you ?
It's a reasonable assumption given the story that they were plain clothes policemen. Otherwise wouldn't it mention that the shooting suspects were still at large and refrain from claiming they were plain cloathes police? It's reasonable to assume that they shouted to him to comply, that he didn't for whatever reason (including not speaking english) is to his rather permanent detriment. Unless of course the bobbies like running down and blasting people at random. But were that common, I have a feeling that curiosity would make its way through the insular fabric of the US media. Poor risk management frequently results in violent death.

And I hate to state the obvious, but if the people with the guns outnumber you and can run you down, there is no adjective that can adequately describe how screwed you are; assuming you're not a Tetragrammaton Cleric.

Let me tell you what this is. the public want to see that something is being done about the whole terrorist attacks and so they shoot a man (possibly terrorist) so that the news and tabloids can say "the police have shot a man...". even though it is only one man, it makes the public feel as if the government is doing something as nothing has been done so far

Dude, the police don't do that here. Every time a police officer discharges a weapon in this country there's an investigation, let alone any politician ordering the police to kill someone to "boost the national morale." Seriously. As in, a few years ago, a paranoid schizophrenic with a sword murdered and injured several people in a church, and SO19 shot him, and despite all the justification in the world there was still a major investigation.

Here, shooting people, even "terrorists," does not feel like progress in any meaningful way. We'd rather catch them and get information about them; this particular part of the war is a battle of information, in that regard.

The way things are going I'm conviced that the police in England should be given greater powers and overall authority. These crazies have got to be stopped.
The way things are going? Things aren't going any way Britain (as opposed to England - think America as opposed to Arizona) hasn't seen before. The police have all the powers they need already. Most of THEM think that, in my experience, but as I've said, my opinions here are my own.

And besides, the powers that are being hurried through aren't to benefit the police - they're to benefit the government. They aren't intended to fight crime (because "crime" is what terrorism is, not "war"), they're there to monitor and control the population. These 'crazies', as you put it - these are the Enemy at the Gates so useful for governments. They are the terrible threat that requires us to give up our freedoms and vote "do-what-you-need-to" powers to the government.

I don't deny that the terrorists should be hunted down. Those who don't blow themselves up or get themselves shot I think we should hang. But I know they're probably not going to be hanged, because the law doesn't allow it - and I'm quite convinced the law as it stands is adequate for the job at hand.

Pushing a man to the ground and unloading 5 bullets into him is not how we should deal with this problem. If that is how it went on then I think we have lost something

Pushing a man to the ground and unloading 5 bullets into him is not how we should deal with this problem. If that is how it went on then I think we have lost something

If another bomb's about to go off, quite possibly (for all we the still-ignorant public know now) on the self-same train they shot him on, I think I could shoot him five times. Nothing personal.

New Watenho']Dude, the police don't do that here. Every time a police officer discharges a weapon in this country there's an investigation, let alone any politician ordering the police to kill someone to "boost the national morale." Seriously. As in, a few years ago, a paranoid schizophrenic with a sword murdered and injured several people in a church, and SO19 shot him, and despite all the justification in the world there was still a major investigation.

Here, shooting people, even "terrorists," does not feel like progress in any meaningful way. We'd rather catch them and get information about them; this particular part of the war is a battle of information, in that regard.

come off it. you mean to tell me that our police - frequently charged of racism and police brutalities - do not take direct orders from politicians to help ease the public's conscience? of course they do. by doing this it helps bring panic to a minimum. people using trains etc feel safer and are less likely to panic knowing that a "terrorist" was shot the other day

If another bomb's about to go off, quite possibly (for all we the still-ignorant public know now) on the self-same train they shot him on, I think I could shoot him five times. Nothing personal.

So lets assume that he was guilty and he was going to set off a bomb. We have just executed our one link to the terrorists because we can't rule out the possibility of these incidents being linked. But hey lets forget all that and get trigger happy with a man lying on the floor.

come off it. you mean to tell me that our police - frequently charged of racism and police brutalities - do not take direct orders from politicians to help ease the public's conscience? of course they do. by doing this it helps bring panic to a minimum. people using trains etc feel safer and are less likely to panic knowing that a "terrorist" was shot the other day

Yes, I do. You obviously believe the police to suffer from widespread corruption on a hitherto unprecedented scale. Shouting racial slurs at Asian teenagers while you're arresting them is unacceptable, yes, but not wholly unexpected and certainly not equivalent, tantamount, or a step-up to murder. However, in this country we haven't even had an equivalent to Rodney King, which would be a necessary step up to this point.

What are you actually suggesting? That the police... what, found a totally innocent man in a corner somewhere, planted a detonator on him, then told him they were going to kill him and staged a highly public chase to "ease the public's conscience"? Grow up. This isn't Soviet Russia.

So lets assume that he wasw guilty and he was going to set off a bomb. We have just executed our one link to the terrorists because we can't rule out the possibility of these incidents being linked. But hey lets forget all that and get trigger happy with a man lying on the floor.

...excuse me, but... what the fuck?! You'd rather he pressed a button, sent a text message, whatever, and another 30 people died? I'm glad you're not SO19, mate.

Pushing a man to the ground and unloading 5 bullets into him is not how we should deal with this problem. If that is how it went on then I think we have lost something

Lost something? What about people whos family/friends were killed? Would you not say they "lost something"? Things need doing NOW, the PC brigade should keep a wide burth and lets start taking a few more people out, Iam sick of hearing these hate clerics slagging off Britain and calling on death to infidels yet theyre quite happy to sponge our benifit system but cant be deported because theres a chance they might be tortured or killed!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Apparently its our way of life they dispise and the freedoms it entails, lets start removing it from these people and make coming here a less attractive option... :sniper:

Things need doing NOW, the PC brigade should keep a wide burth and lets start taking a few more people out, Iam sick of hearing these hate clerics slagging off Britain and calling on death to infidels yet theyre quite happy to sponge our benifit system but cant be deported because theres a chance they might be tortured or killed!!!!!!


'lets start taking a few more people out'? So, in order to protect our democratic traditions and way of life you advocate execution without trial? Does the phrase 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' mean anything to you?

...excuse me, but... what the fuck?! You'd rather he pressed a button, sent a text message, whatever, and another 30 people died? I'm glad you're not SO19, mate.

you can't press a button with a bullet in your arms but you can answer questions. We have given what this guy what he wants, his martyrdom. I'd rather see him in custody than in a body bag. But your right if they only put two or three bullets in him he could still set off this suposed bomb.

So lets assume that he was guilty and he was going to set off a bomb. We have just executed our one link to the terrorists because we can't rule out the possibility of these incidents being linked. But hey lets forget all that and get trigger happy with a man lying on the floor.


Just as an added point - do you REALLY think if the police had done it "your way" and arrested him for questionig do you REALLY think he'd say anything to our jelly police? They cant smack hm about or issue any kind of threat as him and his family would sue the police for breaching his human rights. :mad:

Yes, I do. You obviously believe the police to suffer from widespread corruption on a hitherto unprecedented scale. Shouting racial slurs at Asian teenagers while you're arresting them is unacceptable, yes, but not wholly unexpected and certainly not equivalent, tantamount, or a step-up to murder. However, in this country we haven't even had an equivalent to Rodney King, which would be a necessary step up to this point.

What are you actually suggesting? That the police... what, found a totally innocent man in a corner somewhere, planted a detonator on him, then told him they were going to kill him and staged a highly public chase to "ease the public's conscience"? Grow up. This isn't Soviet Russia.


i think this brings in the issue of Islam, and i believe that the police did not simply "find an innocent man in the corner" as such but more looking for a man dressed representing Islam. i'm not a muslim but there is clearly a case of Islamaphobia amongst us which quite possibly led to this choice of the police shooting this man multiple times. we can all see that this was unecessary

i think this brings in the issue of Islam, and i believe that the police did not simply "find an innocent man in the corner" as such but more looking for a man dressed representing Islam. i'm not a muslim but there is clearly a case of Islamaphobia amongst us which quite possibly led to this choice of the police shooting this man multiple times. we can all see that this was unecessary

...you're still seriously proposing that the police found an innocent man, planted evidence, and shot him. I am therefore retiring from this insane conspiracy discussion (besides, I have to go to work :p). Good day, sirs.

you can't press a button with a bullet in your arms but you can answer questions.

Sorry, but you've been watching to many Hollywood style movies.

When you aim a weapon at someone - especially something with such limited acuracy as a pistol - you aim for the torso. 'Shoot to wound' doesn't occur out here in the real world.

'lets start taking a few more people out'? So, in order to protect our democratic traditions and way of life you advocate execution without trial? Does the phrase 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' mean anything to you?


If someones got a bomb strapped to them and about to press a button they are wearing it as fancy dress?

To answer your question - YES I do think we should take more people out to protect our democracy, enough people fought and died for it so I think its only right we preserve it don't you?

To answer your question - YES I do think we should take more people out to protect our democracy, enough people fought and died for it so I think its only right we preserve it don't you?

So in order to uphold our tradition of justice it is necessary to throw out our tradition of justice?

after i read the account of the mans death, it reminded me of when the SAS killed three (i think) IRA terrorists in gibraltar in the 80s. they were known terrorists, and a bomb was found later, but when they were killed (in quite a horrific way as in this case) they had no weapons or detonators on them, and the SAS and government came in for a lot of criticism.

Historical error: no bomb was actually ever found in connection with the four IRA members that were shot that day.

According to the BBC there is a very strong chance that this was linked to yesterday but now we will never know

So in order to uphold our tradition of justice it is necessary to throw out our tradition of justice?

We dont have a tradition of justice anymore, that became obsolete 50 years ago and the laws that still govern are for an era that went out with the Empire. We need a 21st century shake-up for 21st Century crimes and for things involving senslessley killing innocent people with bombs strapped to themselves requires updates. Which I hope youy'll agree was unheard of in Britain 200 years ago when your "tradition of justice" was created.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189920,00.html


For a little more in depth that the BBC link.

Even better is debka.com, an Israeli publication that holds no punches. This article is fairly short, but watch for more in the next 24 hours.

http://www.debka.com/

We dont have a tradition of justice anymore, that became obsolete 50 years ago and the laws that still govern are for an era that went out with the Empire. We need a 21st century shake-up for 21st Century crimes and for things involving senslessley killing innocent people with bombs strapped to themselves requires updates. Which I hope youy'll agree was unheard of in Britain 200 years ago when your "tradition of justice" was created.


So, you're suggesting that 'innocent until proven guilty' is just an irrelevant historical artifact then?

So lets assume that he was guilty and he was going to set off a bomb. We have just executed our one link to the terrorists because we can't rule out the possibility of these incidents being linked. But hey lets forget all that and get trigger happy with a man lying on the floor.
One link? Haha. No. He has personal effects on him. He has an identity with a financial history. He has family, presumably friends and aquaintences. He has forensic evidence on him as opposed to desposited with him in a thin film of residue on other objects. He has a residence, with more effects. Even dead, he tells a story.

To shoot him and disable both his arms quickly, so while preserving lung and heart function would be which vertebra? Watch those fragments and arteries. Naw, spend the money on the forensics, go the extra mile save the innocent bystanders, they're worth it. But I'm American, maybe Europeans see it differently.

So, you're suggesting that 'innocent until proven guilty' is just an irrelevant historical artifact then?


Not entirely, I think that part I agree is what makes our laws far better than other countries. However you cant cast-iron it the way you could before I could name you cases where it seems the law is the other way round, Iam sure we both do, the point in hand here is what I said earlier, does an innocent law-abiding man/woman starp a live bomb to themselves and be innocent? Does that law really apply then?

Sorry, but you've been watching to many Hollywood style movies.

When you aim a weapon at someone - especially something with such limited acuracy as a pistol - you aim for the torso. 'Shoot to wound' doesn't occur out here in the real world.

I think it's you who is watching too many Hollywood style movies.

If a suicide bomber has explosives wrapped around his torso, as it is starting to sound the police were suspecting in this case, if you want to stop him without discussion, you do not aim and shoot at the torso, unless you want to complete the suicide bomber's mission and blow everybody sky high, you aim for the head, to turn that brain which is about to detonate the bomb into mush, thus ceasing it's function to carry out the detonation.

In this case, the police appeared to take no chances from what eyewitnesses have said, a policeman jumped on top of the suspect, unloading 5 bullets into his skull with an automatic pistol at very close range.

Perhaps the police could have talked him out of it, but it appears they did not want to take any chances, seeing as the suspect was on a train, and it's also sounding like he was a suspect of yesterday's incidents as well.

One link? Haha. No. He has personal effects on him. He has an identity with a financial history. He has family, presumably friends and aquaintences. He has forensic evidence on him as opposed to desposited with him in a thin film of residue on other objects. He has a residence, with more effects. Even dead, he tells a story.


Still rather a live one than the next martyr

Running from plain clothed people pointing guns at you ?

With one Uniformed Officer there at the scene

Not entirely, I think that part I agree is what makes our laws far better than other countries. However you cant cast-iron it the way you could before I could name you cases where it seems the law is the other way round, Iam sure we both do, the point in hand here is what I said earlier, does an innocent law-abiding man/woman starp a live bomb to themselves and be innocent? Does that law really apply then?
While I still believe we are unwise to speculate without cause as to why this man was killed in this way, I certainly concede that there are going to have to be certain changes. Of course police cannot ignore the possible threat in a situation like that, and if that is indeed what happened here then they were right to fire. But we MUST be careful. What is necessary is not always what is desirable, and a decision to dispose of established legal principles must not be taken lightly, or embraced eagerly.

Like I said, the terrorists' objective is to frighten us into changing our way of life. If we have a set of values that they don't approve of, and we show that we're willing to throw out those values in an appeal to security, then they win. They get what they want.

To cause their hated enemy to tear itself apart in confusion and uncertainty is the most perfect result they could hope for.

The only way we - and by "we" I mean those people of whatever country and whatever culture who respect human life and dignity - can win this is to show them that they will NOT control us; that we will not surrender our way of life simply because they believe they have a God-given right to force us to submit to their will.

To answer your question - YES I do think we should take more people out to protect our democracy, enough people fought and died for it so I think its only right we preserve it don't you?

Ah yes. Democracy, the freedom to shoot other people at random since there are no limiters on your declaration.

I would prefer a tyranny that at least made no bones about itself than a hypocritical system that does the same thing as the tyranny while dressing it up as something else. At least I would know where I stood and what to expect in the former.

They should be shooting all of them . Its a disapointment that only one was shot . I guess you have to start someplace .

Pushing a man to the ground and unloading 5 bullets into him is not how we should deal with this problem. If that is how it went on then I think we have lost something

They suspected this person of being a suicide bomber enough, that they pushed him onto the ground, then jumped on top of him to try and shield any possible explosion from suicide bomb, and then shot him five times.

it takes a flick of a switch to detonate a bomb. People forget that.

you can't press a button with a bullet in your arms but you can answer questions. We have given what this guy what he wants, his martyrdom. I'd rather see him in custody than in a body bag. But your right if they only put two or three bullets in him he could still set off this suposed bomb.

Have you ever fired a weapon of any sort in your life? Trying to shot anything is difficult. Trying to shot a moving target is difficult, and made EVEN MORE difficult when you're moving as well. Shooting for the centre mass and then going for the head is the only SAFE way of dealing with any dangerous person.

Life isn't like movies.

Ah yes. Democracy, the freedom to shoot other people at random since there are no limiters on your declaration.

I would prefer a tyranny that at least made no bones about itself than a hypocritical system that does the same thing as the tyranny while dressing it up as something else. At least I would know where I stood and what to expect in the former.
So the shooting of a person thought to be a bomber running to a crowd of people, at a time when ass-clowns are trying to blow crowds of people up, fleeing police is what you consider to be a "random" use of force? Your ideas intrigue me.... Does your organization produce a pamphlet I might read, and is there free koolaid/tapioca pudding/nike crosstrainers available at the meetings?

Still rather a live one than the next martyr

Great. So you'd rather the police try and take every suicide bomber alive by all means neccessary?

Great. For every bomber you take alive, 25 more have commited suicide (duh, they already going to be Matyrs) and taken innocent people around them to paradise or hell as well?

Good one.

Have you ever fired a weapon of any sort in your life? Trying to shot anything is difficult. Trying to shot a moving target is difficult, and made EVEN MORE difficult when you're moving as well. Shooting for the centre mass and then going for the head is the only SAFE way of dealing with any dangerous person.

Life isn't like movies.

so your saying that a trained plain clothed policeman on top of a fallen suspect isn't trained well enough to shoot that he has to shoot him five times? Your actually suggesting that he can't hit a target from 3 feet maximum? If thats correct then theres a reason we didn't arm every single policeman. I'm not talking about pistols at dawn here

Have you ever fired a weapon of any sort in your life? Trying to shot anything is difficult. Trying to shot a moving target is difficult, and made EVEN MORE difficult when you're moving as well. Shooting for the centre mass and then going for the head is the only SAFE way of dealing with any dangerous person.

Life isn't like movies.

True that. Also those of you saying aiming for the body might have set off the bomb a quite good way to disarm a bomb is using a shotgun (normally on a remote control robot) because it takes a specific signal to set off comercial explosives and a shotgun blast will sever the conections to the detonator thus rendering it useless.

So in order to uphold our tradition of justice it is necessary to throw out our tradition of justice?

Firstly, that's utterly abhorrrent literary style, and secondly, there are a multitude of historical precedents wherin a nation subject to a evere threat dispenses with democratic justice to ameliorate the situation. Numerous judicial travesties occurred in Britain in the second world war, notably concerning unjustified arrests, however in comparison to the probable effects of failure, such transgressions are minor. Furthermore, the nature of the foe has altered radically, we no longer face a defined and apparent enemy, more an insidious, zealous, perfidious foe driven by a perversion of a socially repressive faith, and perpatrated by indoctrinated individuals from Britain itself (who incidentally oughn't to be in Britain anyway).

Great. So you'd rather the police try and take every suicide bomber alive by all means neccessary?

Great. For every bomber you take alive, 25 more have commited suicide (duh, they already going to be Matyrs) and taken innocent people around them to paradise or hell as well?

Good one.

when its possible to take them alive do so. So far I haven't seen any evidence to support that he was a threat on this occasion but I'm going to keep an open mind.

On a side note, every eye witness who saw the shooting said the officer fired at a laying target. Firing 5 shots

so your saying that a trained plain clothed policeman on top of a fallen suspect isn't trained well enough to shoot that he has to shoot him five times? Your actually suggesting that he can't hit a target from 3 feet maximum? If thats correct then theres a reason we didn't arm every single policeman. I'm not talking about pistols at dawn here

Have you ever served in any capacity with weapons? No. Then leave it to the professionals.

A Bullet is rather small thing. Unless you can hit the brain stem, then instanteous death will not happen. The chances of death are greater the move bullets are fired.

Heres an example. Hold a fist. stick your thumb up, and your thumb down. What muscles did you use there? How long did that take?

so your saying that a trained plain clothed policeman on top of a fallen suspect isn't trained well enough to shoot that he has to shoot him five times? Your actually suggesting that he can't hit a target from 3 feet maximum? If thats correct then theres a reason we didn't arm every single policeman. I'm not talking about pistols at dawn here
If it's a 9mm, well the skull is pretty good at it's job, and to turn someone off like a light, a bullet has to go through the midbrain. In a time compressed situation, or lacking whatever one might need to recall that fact out under pressure; better safe than sorry is the name of the game. There's a video of a guy shooting himself in the head on snopes. He wasn't searched and put in a police interregation room. He drinks from a bottle of water. Takes out a .45 (quite a bit more punch than a 9mm) and shoots himself in the temple. He then reflexively moves his arm an dies perhaps a couple seconds later. People have survived all kinds of brain injuries, including shotgun blasts that took out hemispheres! To turn someone off like a switch isn't just shooting them in the head. It's killing a very small window in the brain.

A running target, while running in a cluttered enviroment where no shot can afford to hit something unintended in the foreground or background, and the suspect needs to be turned off like a switch isn't a paper target on a firing range. You want a guy who can pull that off, he's going to be packing a bigger can of whoopass, and he probably works for the SAS.

You want to find a reason to hate on the guys who put everything they have and would ever have between the people and the ass-clown who was trying to kill them. Fine. Be proud of it. In fact, find yourself a cop, any will do, and tell him all about it. Tell the media. Tell a bunch of soccer hooligans. All your friends. Everyone you want to think well of you. Find the true measure of your thoughts on the matter. I'd love to hear how that plays out.

Have you ever served in any capacity with weapons? No. Then leave it to the professionals.


Why ask me a question when you already know the answer? Oh thats right you have no clue do you? Don't assume you know anything about me.

There is no way you need to shoot a man five times. If he has a bomb strapped to him you aim for the head, if you think he has a bomb you shoot to kill. If it emerges that he did then I agree with what happened and how it was dealt with. We shall wait and see

when its possible to take them alive do so. So far I haven't seen any evidence to support that he was a threat on this occasion but I'm going to keep an open mind.

The man ran away from Police officers who had identified themselves. Asked to comply. Jumped over a ticket barrier, down towards a train.

The man was threat. He was eliminated.

Job done.

Sit down armchair general.

Why ask me a question when you already know the answer? Oh thats right you have no clue do you? Don't assume you know anything about me.

There is no way you need to shoot a man five times. If he has a bomb strapped to him you aim for the head, if you think he has a bomb you shoot to kill. If it emerges that he did then I agree with what happened and how it was dealt with. We shall wait and see

You know nothing about weapon handling or there chararistics. That much is plain. Therefore you have no authority to contribute.

I like how you British people call subways tubes. :p

However you cant cast-iron it the way you could before I could name you cases where it seems the law is the other way round, Iam sure we both do, the point in hand here is what I said earlier, does an innocent law-abiding man/woman starp a live bomb to themselves and be innocent? Does that law really apply then?

What you said earlier: "lets start taking a few more people out" is an active policy, rather than a reactive one. Responding to a suicide bomber in the act is a very different thing from advocating a policy of intentionally 'taking a few more people out'.

You want to find a reason to hate on the guys who put everything they have and would ever have between the people and the ass-clown who was trying to kill them. Fine. Be proud of it. In fact, find yourself a cop, any will do, and tell him all about it. Tell the media. Tell a bunch of soccer hooligans. All your friends. Everyone you want to think well of you. Find the true measure of your thoughts on the matter. I'd love to hear how that plays out.

If keeping an open mind on the subject and waiting for the police report of this is me trying "to hate on the guys who put everything they have and would ever have between the people and the ass-clown who was trying to kill them" so be it but I think this is a bit much.

if this man was trying to kill these police why was he running away?

The man ran away from Police officers who had identified themselves. Asked to comply. Jumped over a ticket barrier, down towards a train.

The man was threat. He was eliminated.

Job done.

Sit down armchair general.

Since when have 'running away from police officers' or 'jumping over a ticket barrier' been on the statute book as carrying the death penalty?

You know nothing about weapon handling or there chararistics. That much is plain. Therefore you have no authority to contribute.

I know nothing about weapons because I maintain that you don't need to shoot someone lying down 5 times to make sure they are not a threat? Fair enough

3. Its part of a conspiracy in the government.
I like this possiblity! Maybe he was the rightful heir to the throne of England, who escaped after years of imprisonment carrying the Royal Seal so that he coul claim his place before Parliament.

Firstly, that's utterly abhorrrent literary style...

Huh? Pointing out a contradiction in plain language is 'abhorrent literary style'?

Police snipers reported on harrow road

If keeping an open mind on the subject and waiting for the police report of this is me trying "to hate on the guys who put everything they have and would ever have between the people and the ass-clown who was trying to kill them" so be it but I think this is a bit much.

if this man was trying to kill these police why was he running away?

He was running away to complete his mission of blowing up London civilians .
You cant have it both ways . You want to belong to a terror organization and also have the protection of law in a civilized society . We lose and die under those terms .
Fuck that terrorist bitch . Shoot the rest of them the same way and they wont be blowing up your shit .

They should be shooting all of them .

All what? Tube travellers?

He was running away to complete his mission of blowing up London civilians .


possible but no confirmation of this

possible but no confirmation of this

Would you prefer he blew up people first and then was shot ?

If they reasonably believed he intended to and could do enough harm that he might kill anyone, they're obligated to kill him first examine the evidence later. Being a threat to the lives of others, running towards them and not complying with the police have always, and will always be grounds for summary excecution. That's the way we've always rolled. He is weighing his life against people who are presumed more innocent than him. He came up short. I want the people here, who accept the newspaper account, to actually assume the risk you demand those other unfortunate people assume. I wagger that you don't find your "freedom" to be so valuable so much as other people's lives "cheap." That's what's really obscene. That he didn't follow police instructions in a life threatening situation, and lost his life is due process.

3. Its part of a conspiracy in the government.
It's all about those deep, dark conspiracies involving hundreds, perhaps thousands of government employess, none of whom could keep a secret if their lives depended on it. :rolleyes:

Would you prefer he blew up people first and then was shot ?

Obvious answer, of course I wouldn't and if it emerges he was going to blow up the train the fair enough. The story doesn't fit for me yet so I'll wait until some sort of official statement is given.

A quick question to everyone-

If you are totally innocent and someone comes alone and says
"Armed police ...... " and whatever else they say are going to run as if your guilty?

I know i wouldn't, but then im an up standing citizen

If they reasonably believed he intended to and could do enough harm that he might kill anyone, they're obligated to kill him first examine the evidence later. Being a threat to the lives of others, running towards them and not complying with the police have always, and will always be grounds for summary excecution. That's the way we've always rolled.

The key question is whether there were sufficient grounds to believe that he was a threat to others - so far I think only one eye witness has reported seeing a bomb belt.

Police policy states that use of firearms is on justified "' in self-defence or defence of another'

"Firearms are to be fired by AFOs in the course of their duty only when absolutely necessary after conventional methods have been tried and failed or must, from the nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried."

http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/Chapter3.pdf

Police snipers reported on harrow road

Hmm now they are saying it is an internet cafe on harrow road they have surrounded. Anyone still here? The gigs up guys!

A quick question to everyone-

If you are totally innocent and someone comes alone and says
"Armed police ...... " and whatever else they say are going to run as if your guilty?

I know i wouldn't, but then im an up standing citizen

Presumably you don't suffer from panic attacks, have a history of negative reactions to people in positions of authority or any major mental illnesses.

Grampus you should run the police department . After the people you are supposed to protect are all dead maybe you can get a job in an asylum .

The fact that you would expect a police officer to diddle around with a possible human bomb is amazingly FUCKIN IDIOTIC .

Grampus you should run the police department . After the people you are supposed to protect are all dead maybe you can get a job in an asylum .

The fact that you would expect a police officer to diddle around with a possible human bomb is amazingly FUCKIN IDIOTIC .

Point out to me exactly what was so 'FUCKING IDIOTIC' about providing the actual police guidelines for use of firearms? Or was it pointing out that not all people in the world are as rational as Bath proclaims to be?

Presumably you don't suffer from panic attacks, have a history of negative reactions to people in positions of authority or any major mental illnesses.
At least answer my question
But in respone to your comments, no i don't suffer from any of the above. even if i did im pretty sure i would run off jumping over railing and heading to a train (the target of choice atm it seems)
however for so many plain clothed offers to be at the station indicates that they were either watching the guy or intending to catch him there. (there have been reports of 10-20 officers, mostly armed)

Liverbreath']Hmm now they are saying it is an internet cafe on harrow road they have surrounded. Anyone still here? The gigs up guys!

There for "precaution"

From what I heard on the radio this morning a witness said the man was wearing an explosive belt. In that situation I'd have shot him rather than wait for him to explode. My feeling is that it's probably a clean shoot. The inevitable investigation will tell for sure.

The guidelines on terror suspects as reported in the US by all the stations I have seen today is " shoot to kill " . Bombing suspects who run into the tube after being confronted by the police , I believe the guidlines are " SHOOT THE BLOODY BASTARD BEFORE HE EXPLODES OR GETS AWAY " .

"Firearms are to be fired by AFOs in the course of their duty only when absolutely necessary after conventional methods have been tried and failed or must, from the nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried."
Once they suspected him, and he decided not to follow their instructions and put himself in proximity to harm others he was done. They didn't kill him. He made it so they couldn't afford not to kill him.

I don't care if he was just afraid of tweed and didn't speak english. As described in the article, that guy put the cops in a position where they couldn't take the chance. The risk was too great. He, not the police, created that risk.

From what I heard on the radio this morning a witness said the man was wearing an explosive belt. In that situation I'd have shot him rather than wait for him to explode. My feeling is that it's probably a clean shoot. The inevitable investigation will tell for sure.

I havent heard this, if this is the case then the police did the right thing

I havent heard this, if this is the case then the police did the right thing
I only heard mention of it once, and considering how confusing such a situation would naturally be, it may turn out to be false. We'll see when the investigation is conducted and the facts are in.

The guidelines on terror suspects as reported in the US by all the stations I have seen today is " shoot to kill " . Bombing suspects who run into the tube after being confronted by the police , I believe the guidlines are " SHOOT THE BLOODY BASTARD BEFORE HE EXPLODES OR GETS AWAY " .

I would like to say that there was alot of controvercy in the UK a few months back about how armed police should deal with suicide bombers. I think the legislation falls under the risk to others catagory. ie. assume no second chances and shoot to kill

So the shooting of a person thought to be a bomber running to a crowd of people, at a time when ass-clowns are trying to blow crowds of people up, fleeing police is what you consider to be a "random" use of force?

You did not use limiters to your statement, hence mine in response. Next time, word it correctly in accordance to the intent of your statement, or more may follow.


Your ideas intrigue me.... Does your organization produce a pamphlet I might read, and is there free koolaid/tapioca pudding/nike crosstrainers available at the meetings?

Would it surprise you that I do not represent any organization whatsoever? Or is membership in one a requirement to have ideas and opinions?

So far as I know, there is insufficient evidence to condemn or approve of the actions. A detailed transcript beginning from first contact with the plainsclothes officers to the killing of the suspect would be nice.

Kibolonia, your argument prejudges guilt as far as I can tell.

Remember he was wearing a large winter coat on a hot summer's day.

The guidelines on terror suspects as reported in the US by all the stations I have seen today is " shoot to kill " . Bombing suspects who run into the tube after being confronted by the police , I believe the guidlines are " SHOOT THE BLOODY BASTARD BEFORE HE EXPLODES OR GETS AWAY " .
ROFLMAO!!

I suspect they have been encouraged to act on the side of caution. It's probably not a "shoot first, ask questions later" level, but I'm sure they have been instructed that if there's any doubt, pull the weapons out.

The news just said the police are conducting what is described as "a raid" on a home on Harrow Road.

Since when have 'running away from police officers' or 'jumping over a ticket barrier' been on the statute book as carrying the death penalty?

Acutally lets get this right...

1. Jumping over a ticket barrier,
2. Running towards a train.
3. And away from Poilce officers.

After 4 suicide attacks not two weeks before.

Gee....

I know nothing about weapons because I maintain that you don't need to shoot someone lying down 5 times to make sure they are not a threat? Fair enough

Yep.

Police conference in about 5 minutes so that will shed more light on it

Historical error: no bomb was actually ever found in connection with the four IRA members that were shot that day.


erm, sorry, but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/7/newsid_2516000/2516155.stm

the BBC says im right.

erm, sorry, but...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/7/newsid_2516000/2516155.stm

the BBC says im right.

'pologies. I think what I might have been misremembering was the report at the time stating that the car they had just left was actually a carbomb, whereas the explosives were eventually located in an entirely different car.

'pologies. I think what I might have been misremembering was the report at the time stating that the car they had just left was actually a carbomb, whereas the explosives were eventually located in an entirely different car.

thats quite alright. i was just using it as an example of what might have happened today, although its looking unlikely.

You did not use limiters to your statement, hence mine in response. Next time, word it correctly in accordance to the intent of your statement, or more may follow.

Would it surprise you that I do not represent any organization whatsoever? Or is membership in one a requirement to have ideas and opinions?

So far as I know, there is insufficient evidence to condemn or approve of the actions. A detailed transcript beginning from first contact with the plainsclothes officers to the killing of the suspect would be nice.

Kibolonia, your argument prejudges guilt as far as I can tell.
Well, if Cybertia were one of my willing thralls (sorry no openings at this time), I suppose his/her posts might be written differently. And what he said was, "YES I do think we should take more people out [without trials] to protect our democracy, enough people fought and died for it so I think its only right we preserve it don't you?" It is you who infered that he ment people at random as opposed to those at war with Great Britain, America, The West, not wiping your ass with your hand, whatever. So maybe you could stick to reading what people write.

I think you're reading a little bit too much into my flip remarks as well.

Well a couple civilian eye witnesses, and a half dozen cops with the same story make a pretty convincing case. But yeah let's wait on the full report, to exhonerate the men who should be presumed innocent in the firstplace.

Yeah, that's where we differ. The dead guy. Well, he's dead, I don't care if he's innocent or not, I'm presuming he committed suicide by cop, if it was in the process of attempting to carry out a conspiracy to commit mass murder, that's not imporant as to whether or not he deserved to die. Now the police, they *should* have the rights you seem to all too willing to lavish on anyone but them. Keep in mind the British tried to assassinate Hitler, the great misfortune in that which we all agree on is that the plot failed. Cybertia has the proof of history on his side. You have...?

I like how you British people call subways tubes. :pOtherwise we'd confuse them with walkways that go through tunnels under streets or railways. They're called subways. :D

Keep in mind the British tried to assassinate Hitler, the great misfortune in that which we all agree on is that the plot failed.

Interesting hsitorical sidenote: the British attempts to assassinate Hitler were shelved in late '44, when it was decided that he was currently doing more harm than good for the German war effort.

about the shots.
Realistically, I can understand the police shooting this person several times in the head. In the situation where you have a suicide bomber who you believe is about to kill people, would you not fire repeatedly, just to make sure?

I just hope he was'nt a pickpocket. That would be such a cock-up.

Also about everything sasid about british justice, etc..

I believe treason still carries the death penalty? Well if he was a suicide bomber, working with a foreign organisation attempting to kill british civilian and damage British property, would that not be treason?

opinions?

about the shots.
Realistically, I can understand the police shooting this person several times in the head. In the situation where you have a suicide bomber who you believe is about to kill people, would you not fire repeatedly, just to make sure?

I just hope he was'nt a pickpocket. That would be such a cock-up.

Also about everything sasid about british justice, etc..

I believe treason still carries the death penalty? Well if he was a suicide bomber, working with a foreign organisation attempting to kill british civilian and damage British property, would that not be treason?

opinions?
That true you can still be hanged for treason. however it's a sentance that hasn't been used for quite some time (1900's i think). and the only thing might be used for nowadays is if someone killed the queen (or the like)

EDIT:
I was correct the police were trailing this guy, they thought he had something to do with Thursdays attack at the Oval Tube station, but events went a bit pear-shaped and they believed he was trying to redo the attack

That true you can still be hanged for treason. however it's a sentance that hasn't been used for quite some time (1900's i think). and the only thing might be used for nowadays is if someone killed the queen (or the like)

EDIT:
I was correct the police were trailing this guy, they thought he had something to do with Thursdays attack at the Oval Tube station, but events went a bit pear-shaped and they believed he was trying to redo the attack

oh ok. In my opinion a british citizen that is willing to blow-up his/her fellow citizens on behalf of some foreign group should be treated as a traitor.
Hell they are traitors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4707781.stm

"There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear," he [spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain] said.

Well, for once I agree with what a Muslim representative is saying. With too few elements to juge or even clearly understand what happened, it's natural that people are growing paranoid. They'd better give comprehensive explanations as soon as possible.

From the BBC article:
"I have just had one phone call saying, 'what if I was carrying a rucksack?'.

Ahhhh, don't run and do as the cops tell you would be a good start if you have nothing to hide

That true you can still be hanged for treason. however it's a sentance that hasn't been used for quite some time (1900's i think). and the only thing might be used for nowadays is if someone killed the queen (or the like)

Actually, the death penalty for any offense has been off the books in the UK since about 1998 and the signing of the European Convention on Human Rights. It does however contain a caveat which allows for the introduction of capital punishment 'in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation'.

Actually, the death penalty for any offense has been off the books in the UK since about 1998 and the signing of the European Convention on Human Rights. It does however contain a caveat which allows for the introduction of capital punishment 'in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation'.
Thanks for clarifying that, I wasn't certain
But i figured that if it had disappered it would be due to Europe

Edit:
wait we are at war, we're defending ourselves from Global Jihad.

Edit:
wait we are at war, we're defending ourselves from Global Jihad.

Well, we are at war with an abstract noun at present, but the point is that the ECHR requires that such capital punishment be properly legislated by the authorities, and that has not taken place.

Thank Heaven that the authorities got to him before he was able to hurt anybody.
Can you imagine anybody having the cuhones to be running through a subway station near London, ignoring police warnings, after all that is going on there?

I can imagine a connected person trying to escape.

From the evidence I have seen the Police could have arrested him easy as shooting. The guy looked panicked, according to eyewitnesses on the beeb, not what I'd expect from a guy confident in paradise's inevitability, the cops were close enough to shove him down when he stumbled, guess it really matters where his arms were, answer that and I'll tell you if it was a justified killing.

My God, no one has faith in their own officers anymore.

Someone doesn't like how things turn out, the very officers that protect you are sent to jail.

Well done on making the police feel like protecting anyone at all.

My God, no one has faith in their own officers anymore.

Someone doesn't like how things turn out, the very officers that protect you are sent to jail.

Well done on making the police feel like protecting anyone at all.

Their job is to uphold the law. Not protect us.

That's an important distinction. If the police ignore the law they may as well be the KGB and I thought we valued not having that. That's why the Rule of Law is such an impotant part of Democracy.

To those who think shooting the guy was an abuse of law or excessive force - what would be your view if it is later incontrovertibly proven that he had a bomb on? Just curious.

Huh? Pointing out a contradiction in plain language is 'abhorrent literary style'?

Evidently, or I wouldn't have suggested it was :rolleyes:

To those who think shooting the guy was an abuse of law or excessive force - what would be your view if it is later incontrovertibly proven that he had a bomb on? Just curious.

Then the police would be justified.

Unfortunately as it stands there is also the chance they picked out a panicky muslim doing a computer tech course or some other random innocent with a fancy belt.

Since when have 'running away from police officers' or 'jumping over a ticket barrier' been on the statute book as carrying the death penalty?

please dont tell me you are that niave.

You are an armed police officer, responding to a alert that a bomb risk or terroist attack is in progress, you arrive at the scene and there is someone who is suspected for whatever reason, you tell him "STOP, Police!, get down on the ground now" He then proceeds to run away from you, and JUMP OVER the train ticket lines and head towards a train.

doesn't matter if he was white, black, arab, chinese or even pink, You shoot him, no questions, no if's or bloody but's you just shoot him

I would have, without question. And i tell you im bloody glad our police did.

Also even if it turns out that it was an innocent muslim, it is a tragedy, however i would almost consider it a friendly fire casuality of war. The fact is, no one is stupid, if you ARE islamic, or an Arab and you live in LONDON after recent events, if police point guns at you GET DOWN ON THE F*CKING GROUND!

There's a video of a guy shooting himself in the head on snopes. He wasn't searched and put in a police interregation room. He drinks from a bottle of water. Takes out a .45 (quite a bit more punch than a 9mm) and shoots himself in the temple. He then reflexively moves his arm an dies perhaps a couple seconds later.I actually watched this. Some weeks ago now. I don't know why. It was there, and I guess it was just that sort of morbid fascination you get when you know there's no justifiable reason to watch it... But I did. And even as a 30-year-old male who's seen some things, I don't mind admitting I found it pretty upsetting. In fact, for some days afterwards I was wishing I hadn't watched it.

Two points spring to mind.

First (and I realise I'm a bit late in the thread now for this), yes, the video illustrates just how long a headshot can take to kill someone. And I KNEW that people don't just die straight out - but it was still unpleasantly surprising to watch that guy's facial expression change, to watch his movements, even reflexive, to realise that he was still conscious and aware even as his body was slowly shutting down. I kept trying to tell myself that this was a guy who only a short time before had been trying to murder cops - who had actually injured one officer quite badly - and therefore it shouldn't concern me that he'd taken this step; that it was probably for the best. But it didn't really work.

The second point is unrelated and off-topic, but it fits in nicely with the discussions elsewhere on the forum on the evils of videogames. The Nanny State campaigners are arguing that violent games and movies desensitize people to violence, and thus make them more prone to violence. Now, if we consider that my personal videogame death toll is well into the millions, with several thousand at least killed up close and personal, and that I watch 18-rated films quite frequently, I wonder why I found that suicide footage so profoundly disturbing? After all, it's the GAME that causes the desensitization - not the personality of the player. We know because they say so. It's the MOVIE that causes me to relish violent acts, not my own character. So I can't possibly have felt the way I did when I watched that video on Snopes.

Can anyone explain this one for me? :confused:

The fact is, no one is stupid, if you ARE islamic, or an Arab and you live in LONDON after recent events, if police point guns at you GET DOWN ON THE F*CKING GROUND!I'd say the part I've highlighted would suffice. Everything else here is an unnecessary complication.

They shot him because he was trying to activate his bomb, there was no great conspiracy. :rolleyes:

They shot him because he was trying to activate his bomb, there was no great conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Prove there was a bomb. Current reports say he was 'connected to the bombings'. If the police found a bomb on him you'd think they'd have said by now.

Name one country in the world , in that after a bombing or series of bombings , a man running from the police who have drawn guns and demanded him to stop , would NOT be shot after running into a SUBWAY STATION ( Tube for the Brits ) ? Its called suicide by cop in the US .
Why would any sane ..rational ...sentinent being , think a different result should have transpired ? You really need to get out more often .

Prove there was a bomb. Current reports say he was 'connected to the bombings'. If the police found a bomb on him you'd think they'd have said by now.

Well he was connected to the bombings wasnt he, good enough for me.

Name one country in the world , in that after a bombing or series of bombings , a man running from the police who have drawn guns and demanded him to stop , would NOT be shot after running into a SUBWAY STATION ( Tube for the Brits ) ?


In this case, however, it appears that the man had been restrained (to some extent at least), before being shot five times in the head, which is a slightly different situation.

They didnt want him wriggling around . they may have missed and had a richochet .

In this case, however, it appears that the man had been restrained (to some extent at least), before being shot five times in the head, which is a slightly different situation.
A bomb can be activated with a flip of a finger. Only way to keep that finger from flipping is to kill the guy.

A bomb can be activated with a flip of a finger. Only way to keep that finger from flipping is to kill the guy.

Just to further complicate matters: suicide bombers in the past have been known to rig up a dead man's handle.

Just to further complicate matters: suicide bombers in the past have been known to rig up a dead man's handle.
So there you got a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the authorities. Don't kill the man, and risk him setting off a bomb with a flick of a switch. Or do kill the man, and risk setting off a dead man's handle.

Not if he's on the ground restrained when you shoot him in the head ;)

Well, if Cybertia were one of my willing thralls (sorry no openings at this time), I suppose his/her posts might be written differently.

Apologies for incorrect direction of statement then.

And what he said was, "YES I do think we should take more people out [without trials] to protect our democracy, enough people fought and died for it so I think its only right we preserve it don't you?" It is you who infered that he ment people at random as opposed to those at war with Great Britain, America, The West, not wiping your ass with your hand, whatever. So maybe you could stick to reading what people write.

And how would you be able to determine who is a threat and who is not then? The person who was shot may or may not have been an actual terrorist. There is no evidence to date to say otherwise unless I have missed it. In a so called war with no actual uniforms, is it better to shoot to kill people on a suspicioun people and then to apologize later because it was a mistake? Or if we use the case of America, no apology at all because it is acceptable collateral damage?


I think you're reading a little bit too much into my flip remarks as well.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I have been told I take things too literally.



Well a couple civilian eye witnesses, and a half dozen cops with the same story make a pretty convincing case. But yeah let's wait on the full report, to exhonerate the men who should be presumed innocent in the firstplace.


Is that a factor that only applies to law enforcement or the population in general? Events as retold by eye witnesses tell of a man who was running from people who had weapons. Unless there is something new which I am not aware of, none of those witnesses heard any of the pursuers identifying themselves.


Yeah, that's where we differ. The dead guy. Well, he's dead, I don't care if he's innocent or not, I'm presuming he committed suicide by cop, if it was in the process of attempting to carry out a conspiracy to commit mass murder, that's not imporant as to whether or not he deserved to die. Now the police, they *should* have the rights you seem to all too willing to lavish on anyone but them.

[QUOTE=Kibolonia]
Keep in mind the British tried to assassinate Hitler, the great misfortune in that which we all agree on is that the plot failed.

A head of state that they were currently at war with.


Cybertia has the proof of history on his side. You have...?

Decades of legal precedence of the presumption of innocence until the proof of guilt. As with the case of any law enforcement agents discharging firearms (although it is not ascertained whether they were with law enforcement or another agency), an investigation is required as to determine the validity of their actions. I am awaiting results that can either exonerate or condemn and will accept them as such unless there is evidence of interference.

Your statement above indicates that you would only accept a result that would exonerate. Perhaps I am mistaken?

Well he was connected to the bombings wasnt he, good enough for me.

So you support killing suspects with no trial or evidence.

So you support killing suspects with no trial or evidence.
when a subway / tube bombing suspect who is dressed in a winter jacket ( in the summer ) is asked to stop and surrender by anti terror police and then decides to run into a subway train .
Yes he will have to die without a trail . If he wanted a trail he should have stood and gotten arrested .

So you support killing suspects with no trial or evidence.

In the case of terrorism definitely, who cares anyway, the scum want to blow innocent people to bits, and all you think about is your precious legalitys.

In the case of terrorism definitely, who cares anyway, the scum want to blow innocent people to bits, and all you think about is your precious legalitys.

"My precious legalities" are all that stands btween us and a police state. If he was innocent? What if he happened to be a mentally ill Muslim on his way home from a tech class? What price your petty vengeance?

So you support killing suspects with no trial or evidence.
In the case of terrorism definitely, who cares anyway, the scum want to blow innocent people to bits, and all you think about is your precious legalitys.

Are you operating on the assumption that all suspects are in fact guilty?

If this is in fact the case, then the police have become so efficient that we no longer need deal with a judiciary.

Not if he's on the ground restrained when you shoot him in the head ;)

Thus releasing his grip on the dead man's handle and so triggering the bomb.

Did the function of the dead man's handle escape you or have I missed something glaringly obvious in your response here?

Thus releasing his grip on the dead man's handle and so triggering the bomb.

Did the function of the dead man's handle escape you or have I missed something glaringly obvious in your response here?

Maybe he thinks a dead man's trigger is something that dead men can't use =p

"My precious legalities" are all that stands btween us and a police state. If he was innocent? What if he happened to be a mentally ill Muslim on his way home from a tech class? What price your petty vengeance?

Oh grow up!
You people with your precious delusional orwellian fanatasys about a police state. :rolleyes:
If you obey the laws you have nothing to fear from them, and everything to gain, the mentally ill muslim scenario, would be tragic of course, but mistakes will be made, you cant have everything perfect in volatile situations like this.
But your view of having no stepped up security would result in more people being blown up.

Oh grow up!
You people with your precious delusional orwellian fanatasys about a police state. :rolleyes:


1984 sucked. Your attitude however is the attitude of the KGB 'if they look guilty, kill 'em'.

1984 sucked. Your attitude however is the attitude of the KGB 'if they look guilty, kill 'em'.

Thats stupid, 'know' guilty you mean.

Oh grow up!
You people with your precious delusional orwellian fanatasys about a police state. :rolleyes:


Do the words 'John Stalker' and 'Shoot To Kill Enquiry' mean anything to you?

Hint: Northern Ireland.

Do the words 'John Stalker' and 'Shoot To Kill Enquiry' mean anything to you?
Hint: Northern Ireland.

No, Im Aussie, you can fill me in but if you want.

No, Im Aussie, you can fill me in but if you want.

Hokay: I'll do so tomorow. Its coming up to 6AM where I am.

Prove there was a bomb. Current reports say he was 'connected to the bombings'. If the police found a bomb on him you'd think they'd have said by now.Indeed. But we are, of course, still only speculating as to the reasons this man was shot in this way. We have assumed that the man was suspected of wearing a bomb, but the police have not yet said that they shot him for this reason.

Quite what other reason might account for what occurred I do not know. My point here is to remind the forum that every argument we have had about this so far is based on our own assumptions about what happened.

Thus releasing his grip on the dead man's handle and so triggering the bomb.

Did the function of the dead man's handle escape you or have I missed something glaringly obvious in your response here?


Yes a policeman with his grip over the bombers .

Yes a policeman with his grip over the bombers .

Hang on, your original argument here was that it was necessary to kill a potential bomber on the basis that he could with a very small movement trigger a standard switch, yes? Whereas now when the spectre of a dead man's handle is invoked you claim that the cops would in fact have time to locate such a device and keep it shut? Surely if they are able to do that then they are equally well capable of preventing a standard switch, no?

Hang on, your original argument here was that it was necessary to kill a potential bomber on the basis that he could with a very small movement trigger a standard switch, yes? Whereas now when the spectre of a dead man's handle is invoked you claim that the cops would in fact have time to locate such a device and keep it shut? Surely if they are able to do that then they are equally well capable of preventing a standard switch, no?

If he was a human bomb ( no evidence yet ) then to disarm him you shoot him to death by seperating him from his brain . If you are struggling with a human bomb and are worried about a so called "dead mans switch " then it would be prudent to keep your hand over his to prevent him from letting go of it . How long do you struggle with a suicide bomber before he finds a way to detonate ?
At any rate its all speculation . He commted suicide by cop and when more info is available we will have a better idea .
Score one for the London good guys .

If he was a human bomb ( no evidence yet ) then to disarm him you shoot him to death by seperating him from his brain . If you are struggling with a human bomb and are worried about a so called "dead mans switch " then it would be prudent to keep your hand over his to prevent him from letting go of it . How long do you struggle with a suicide bomber before he finds a way to detonate ?

If you are able to somehow cover both his hands with yours to prevent a DMH tripping, then why bother shooting him?

Does anyone here know how often dead man switches are used by terrorists? I don't know for a fact, but I'd assume they're not used very often.

Imagine a suicide bomber holding such a switch. Anyone looking at his hand might spot the wires or the fact that he's got something clenched in his fist. It looks suspicious. Also if he gets distracted or startled he might let go and detonate prematurely.

Scotland Yard say the person shot had nothing to do with terrorism and it was a terrible tragedy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

Scotland Yard say the person shot had nothing to do with terrorism and it was a terrible tragedy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

Let the cops shoot to kill and they go crazy. Jesus H....5 times.

Let the cops shoot to kill and they go crazy. Jesus H....5 times.

It's what they are trained to do. In the Iranian Embassy assault the SAS shot a wounded man because he may have had a grenade, it's the same principle. I may not like it but it's what the cops are trained to do.

Quite frankly it's all a fuck-up.

How could someone not guilty of something be stupid enough to run around looking as though he's carrying explosives, run from a house under surveillence (If he knew it was) and to ignore the multiple orders from the police to stop? Now, if they'd tackled him in an otherwise empty field and shot him, I'd still say they were justified. He ran into the tube. What the hell does anyone expect here?

I have little sympathy here. Don't act like a retard and then complain when people protect themselves.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005."

Doesn't mean he wasn't involved in other incidents, or in planning.

How could someone not guilty of something be stupid enough to run around looking as though he's carrying explosives

Yeah, it was totally his fault that the police are idiots. How do you "look like" you're carrying explosives if you aren't?

run from a house under surveillence (If he knew it was) and to ignore the multiple orders from the police to stop? Now, if they'd tackled him in an otherwise empty field and shot him, I'd still say they were justified. He ran into the tube. What the hell does anyone expect here?

They were plain-clothes cops. If you saw a group of people with guns threatening you, and making their way towards you, wouldn't you panic?

I have little sympathy here. Don't act like a retard and then complain when people protect themselves.

They forced him onto the ground, restrained him and shot him five times. I'd call that unreasonable force. Actually I'd call that trigger happy bastard pigs going crazy because they're now allowed to shoot-to-kill.


Doesn't mean he wasn't involved in other incidents, or in planning.

Yeah, he must have been guilty of something. I bet he swore vengeance on the West just that morning. Thoughtcrime, right there.

How could someone not guilty of something be stupid enough to run around looking as though he's carrying explosives, run from a house under surveillence (If he knew it was) and to ignore the multiple orders from the police to stop? Now, if they'd tackled him in an otherwise empty field and shot him, I'd still say they were justified. He ran into the tube. What the hell does anyone expect here?

I have little sympathy here. Don't act like a retard and then complain when people protect themselves.

I don't think we have the death penalty for stupidity in the UK. In fact, we don't have the death penalty at all.


Doesn't mean he wasn't involved in other incidents, or in planning.

If he was, they would have said, and they wouldn't be calling it a tragedy.

Yeah, it was totally his fault that the police are idiots. How do you "look like" you're carrying explosives if you aren't?

By wearing a fucking bulky winter coat in the middle of July.

They were plain-clothes cops. If you saw a group of people with guns threatening you, and making their way towards you, wouldn't you panic?

Ah, fair point there actually. But still, they would have identified themselves, repeatedly.

They forced him onto the ground, restrained him and shot him five times. I'd call that unreasonable force. Actually I'd call that trigger happy bastard pigs going crazy because they're now allowed to shoot-to-kill.

They should BE allowed to shoot to kill. They're cops. Cops should be out to defend us, not just pick up the pieces after someone who wasn't able to defend themselves (Because they can't own guns.) got killed. And at any rate, have you missed the entire thread we just had about how a single finger could trigger a bomb?

Yeah, he must have been guilty of something. I bet he swore vengeance on the West just that morning. Thoughtcrime, right there.

Because I so said that. Would they have surveillance on someone without good reason?

I don't think we have the death penalty for stupidity in the UK. In fact, we don't have the death penalty at all.

Two responses.

First; A crying shame, on both counts.
Second; As I'm getting increasingly irked at having to point out, the reality of a situation in the middle of the event is not the same as a court of law. It is not following the proper order of things when someone is waving a broken bottle at you. It is not following the proper order of things when someone breaks into your house and is trying to rape your wife. It is not following the proper order of things when someone likely has a bomb on the tube train. Events like that where people get killed are not equivocable with cases that go through the courts, so stop drawing the comparison.

If he was, they would have said, and they wouldn't be calling it a tragedy.

My problem with this is, all the eye-witnesses said the police chasing him were wearing plain clothes. So, let's see...

You walk out of your house to go to work same as any other morning. On your way to the train station, a couple of guys pull guns on you. You run away, into the safety of the station, where you're forced to the ground by other men in plain clothes, and shot 5 times in the back of the head.

OK, so they might have been shouting for him to stop. LOL, would you? Would you really take a chance and surrender yourself to a couple of gunmen on the assumption that they are police?

The guy was screwed whichever choice he could have made, stop and hope his assailants are not actually hostile, or run somewhere with witnesses. He was dead the moment the police wrongly identified him as someone who need to die. And let's not forget, they have admitted they made a mistake.

By wearing a fucking bulky winter coat in the middle of July.

There are a million explanations for wearing a coat at any time of the year.



Ah, fair point there actually. But still, they would have identified themselves, repeatedly.


We don't know that, do we? Even if they did, what reason would he have to believe them? What if he had learning difficulties? A hearing loss? Etc?


They should BE allowed to shoot to kill. They're cops. Cops should be out to defend us, not just pick up the pieces after someone who wasn't able to defend themselves (Because they can't own guns.) got killed.

You seriously trust the people incompetent enough to kill an innocent man by shooting 5 shots into him at point blank range in a crowded train, to shoot-to-kill? Do you feel safe now?

And at any rate, have you missed the entire thread we just had about how a single finger could trigger a bomb?

After they'd forced him to the ground and sat on him, wouldn't they know by then whether or not he was carrying a bomb?



Would they have surveillance on someone without good reason?

Errr... yes.

My problem with this is, all the eye-witnesses said the police chasing him were wearing plain clothes. So, let's see...
Wrong. The eye witnesses said that the armed police were in plain clothes. The witnesses that I heard being interviewed said that there were uniformed police in the group as well. This being the case, the rest does not proceed.

Wrong. The eye witnesses said that the armed police were in plain clothes. The witnesses that I heard being interviewed said that there were uniformed police in the group as well. This being the case, the rest does not proceed.

Maybe the guy hadn't paid for his ticket and thought he'd been rumbled? What if he had learning difficulties or was particularly paranoid?

Hurrah for a policeman's right to murder! With multiple gunshots! We're all safe now! Phew!

Wrong. The eye witnesses said that the armed police were in plain clothes. The witnesses that I heard being interviewed said that there were uniformed police in the group as well. This being the case, the rest does not proceed.
Well, my news source is the BBC and there has been no mention of uniformed police being in the group that got him. So I will continue with the quaint "innocent until proven guilty" notion. ;)

My God.

If this had happened in Los Angeles, there would be no question that the man deserved to be shot since he didn't follow police orders.

If people are screaming at you with guns, the smartest thing to do would be to do as they say and not act like a hero/some clueless idiot.

I applaud the British police for doing their job.

EDIT: Yep, I'm reading BBC's article on this incident. I see no reason for this man to not have been shot. Unless the police never told him that they were police in the first place.

Shot, Colodia, shot. Killed. Murdered. Not given a jolly good talking to. This isn't fucking LA.

Shot, Colodia, shot. Killed. Murdered. Not given a jolly good talking to. This isn't fucking LA.
Man ran like fuck. Don't you think that's a TAD suspicious? Especially hours after a failed-bombing?

Man ran like fuck. Don't you think that's a TAD suspicious? Especially hours after a failed-bombing?

So why didn't they arrest him? Why did they shoot 5 shots into his head?

Shot, Colodia, shot. Killed. Murdered. Not given a jolly good talking to. This isn't fucking LA.

He was a fucking moron.

"Oh! Police are telling me to stop and waving guns at me, what do I do? I KNOW! Let's flee into the tube while wearing a bulky winter coat, I'm sure they won't assume I'm carrying an explosive device! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!"

For all you folk saying "what would YOU do if a bunch of guys pulled guns on you!?". Kindly remember that this is NOT America and the vast majority people here do not own guns, and the ones who do don't tend to go around in gangs of 20+ yelling "Stop! Police!" at random people.

So why didn't they arrest him? Why did they shoot 5 shots into his head?

Simple. Because they thought he had a bomb that he could detonate at any moment. Believe it or not, in a situation like that you generally don't have time to sit down and think through what you're doing.

So why didn't they arrest him? Why did they shoot 5 shots into his head?
Wouldn't you be one of the very people who would be condemning the police for trying to arrest the man if he blew himself when they should've SHOT him to death?

These police are human beings. Not unlike us, they fear for their own lives. And they're trained to shoot to kill, thank God.

EDIT: It's a policy to shoot to kill anyway.

Simple. Because they thought he had a bomb that he could detonate at any moment. Believe it or not, in a situation like that you generally don't have time to sit down and think through what you're doing.

So the police can't tell whether or not someone has on a bomb on them after forcing them to the ground and restraining them? Some reports say there were 10-15 cops there. Not one of them had the sense to actually check the guy's body?

"If this had happened in Los Angeles, there would be no question that the man deserved to be shot since he didn't follow police orders."

Yes that was the thinking behind beating Rodney King wasn't it?

"If people are screaming at you with guns, the smartest thing to do would be to do as they say and not act like a hero/some clueless idiot."

I wonder if he even spoke English? (in London many recent immigrants do not). I wonder if he knew they were the police - racist groups said they would start killing asian muslims - so maybe he is asian, all of a sudden there is a gang of dudes (probably all white) screaming at you and NONE of them in uniform what are you going to do? Run maybe? Hope you see a uniformed cop who you can gt to help you.

"I applaud the British police for doing their job."

Me too!

"Yep, I'm reading BBC's article on this incident. I see no reason for this man to not have been shot. Unless the police never told him that they were police in the first place."

Latest news from the police - he should NOT have been shot and the police regret this incident.

Now I do not blame the police for this - mistakes will happen. But unlike you I do not balme this innocent victim either!

So the police can't tell whether or not someone has on a bomb on them after forcing them to the ground and restraining them? Some reports say there were 10-15 cops there. Not one of them had the sense to actually check the guy's body?
Like we do when suicide bombers run up to American soldiers?

Oh wait, never mind. The soldiers ARE FUCKING BLOWN UP by the time a search on the BLOWN UP BODY can be made.

Like we do when suicide bombers run up to American soldiers?

Oh wait, never mind. The soldiers ARE FUCKING BLOWN UP by the time a search on the BLOWN UP BODY can be made.

If he was a suicide bomber he would have detonated the bomb before he was involved in a chase with the cops.

Yes that was the thinking behind beating Rodney King wasn't it?Before my time.


I wonder if he even spoke English? (in London many recent immigrants do not). I wonder if he knew they were the police - racist groups said they would start killing asian muslims - so maybe he is asian, all of a sudden there is a gang of dudes (probably all white) screaming at you and NONE of them in uniform what are you going to do? Run maybe? Hope you see a uniformed cop who you can gt to help you.
This would be a rather dumb argument to run around in circles with. For all intents and purpose, for both our sake, let's assume he spoke English. PLEASE!


Latest news from the police - he should NOT have been shot and the police regret this incident.

Now I do not blame the police for this - mistakes will happen. But unlike you I do not balme this innocent victim either!
All police are forced to publically regret to the nation or face some really bad consequences if they ever do something the public happens to not like.

In America, a baby girl was shot dead by LAPD officers. Why? Because her father was using her as a human shield and the police were at a standoff. Both the girl and the father were killed in the standoff. The public didn't like it. Now money is being blown off on an investigation. Now officer's jobs are on the line BECAUSE A MAN DECIDED TO USE HIS DAUGHTER AS A HUMAN SHIELD!

I don't think the police should be held responsible for their actions unless they DESERVE to be held responsible for their actions. Same for apologizing. That degrades the men and women of law.

If he was a suicide bomber he would have detonated the bomb before he was involved in a chase with the cops.

Wait wait wait, you're willing to craft all these magical and wonderful little scenarios that make the police bad, but not the other way around?

Some eyewitnesses said the guy had a belt with wires poking out, given recent events what would YOU assume?

Furthermore, how do you know he didn't start to reach for it when the police knocked him down?

If he was a suicide bomber he would have detonated the bomb before he was involved in a chase with the cops.
Your telling me how a suicide bomber thinks now? I highly doubt you have psychic powers.

If you do, please tell me when I'm going to die. I'd like to know that.

My info may be out of date and apologies if so, but he was shot while being held down, no?

Really, The Arch Wobbly, people deserve to die for being morons? Please.

I don't think the police should be held responsible for their actions unless they DESERVE to be held responsible for their actions. Same for apologizing. That degrades the men and women of law.

On the contrary, the police are responsible for their actions and mistakes. If that cannot be accepted I may as well resign myself to room 101 now.

In the case of that psycho using his kid as a shield there is nothing you can do about it. The commander gave the order to hit, he may have messed up his timing and as a result she died in the firefight. No way to avoid it, no way to rescue the kid short of some Dirty Harry shooting. That's the trouble dealing with psychopaths.

In this case the man was restrained and could have been searched. he was not due to standing orders. I'd call that something to apologise for.

Wait wait wait, you're willing to craft all these magical and wonderful little scenarios that make the police bad, but not the other way around?

Sorry, I don't blame innocent people for getting shot by the police.

Some eyewitnesses said the guy had a belt with wires poking out, given recent events what would YOU assume?

As I said, there are a million explanations for anything. I wouldn't assume.

Furthermore, how do you know he didn't start to reach for it when the police knocked him down?

Well, we know he didn't reach for anything because he didn't actually have a bomb on him. It's hard to detonate a device you don't have.

Your telling me how a suicide bomber thinks now? I highly doubt you have psychic powers.


I do actually, but that's besides the point. What reason would he have to run away if was intent on being a suicide bomber?

"I have a bomb strapped to my body, but oh noes, the police are here. Abort mission!"

you can't press a button with a bullet in your arms but you can answer questions. We have given what this guy what he wants, his martyrdom.
Ever fired a weapon? Ever tried for that sort of accuracy in a real, life or death situation? Even the very best professionals wouldn't be able to assure that sort of shot.

Personally, I think that, worldwide, we should give as many as possible of these assholes what they want ... a chance to meet "Allah."

Well, we know he didn't reach for anything because he didn't actually have a bomb on him. It's hard to detonate a device you don't have.

What? There could be a million reasons he was reaching for his belt. Maybe he wanted a smoke. :rolleyes:


Really, The Arch Wobbly, people deserve to die for being morons? Please.

In this situation?

So, you guys are perfectly willing to take the risk of a whole train of innocent people being blown apart over taking the risk of one innocent person losing their life?

You have some real sick values right there.

In this situation?

So, you guys are perfectly willing to take the risk of a whole train of innocent people being blown apart over taking the risk of one innocent person losing their life?

You have some real sick values right there.
Eyewitness account (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm)

"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him," he told BBC News 24.

"As [the suspect] got onto the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified and then he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him, [they] couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand.

"He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him."
Do you understand now?

Eyewitness account (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm)


Do you understand now?

I believe we're all already aware of the fact that the police pushed him down and shot him?

If anything, that's only proving that they didn't push him down and "sit on" him or "restrain" him before they shot him - so it was a snap decision.

And?

The key question is whether there were sufficient grounds to believe that he was a threat to others - so far I think only one eye witness has reported seeing a bomb belt.

Police policy states that use of firearms is on justified "' in self-defence or defence of another'

"Firearms are to be fired by AFOs in the course of their duty only when absolutely necessary after conventional methods have been tried and failed or must, from the nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried."

http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/Chapter3.pdf

British Police are now under orders to shoot to kill if they believe someone is about to detonate a bomb, suspending that policy you posted.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1669962005

Eyewitness account (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm)


Do you understand now?
Yes. I understand the British police are highly efficient at stopping suicide bombers before they decide to detonate themselves.

Pity the man refused to not act like one.

I believe we're all already aware of the fact that the police pushed him down and shot him?

If anything, that's only proving that they didn't push him down and "sit on" him or "restrain" him before they shot him - so it was a snap decision.

And?
"Snap decision" - oh, that's OK then. I'll remember that defence for future reference.

"Sorry, your honour, I had a pint glass in my hand and it was a snap decision to shove it in the fella's face."

Yes. I understand the British police are highly efficient at stopping suicide bombers before they decide to detonate themselves.

Pity the man refused to not act like one.

A suicide bomber tends to explode before the chance of capture, they are in fact noted for it. I'm glad he didn't act like one.

A suicide bomber tends to explode before the chance of capture, they are in fact noted for it. I'm glad he didn't act like one.
Thank you for a bit of useless trivia that has absolutely nothing to do with how this man acted unless you also happen to be psychic.

"Snap decision" - oh, that's OK then. I'll remember that defence for future reference.

"Sorry, your honour, I had a pint glass in my hand and it was a snap decision to shove it in the fella's face."


Yeah, because it's SOOOOO the same thing.

Try using something relavent next time, huh?

Yes. I understand the British police are highly efficient at stopping suicide bombers before they decide to detonate themselves.

Pity the man refused to not act like one.
Christ, what culture of violence do you have to grow up in to find it acceptable for police officers to shoot a grounded suspect five times?

Frightening.

I read it in the newspaper today, wait let me find it. It's amazing how late we get the news.


London police shoot dead bombing suspect
Police hunting for a team of wouldbe suicide bombers yesterday shot dead a man in a London Underground station, deepening fears of a new attack one day after four men failed in an attmept to repeat the carnage of July 7.

In a day of rapid developments, police released the first pictures of suspects from Thursday's failed bombings, made at least three searches throughout Londond and, importantly, one arrest.

Police chief Sir Ian Blair said the man killed at Stockwell station in south London was of South Asian origin, and was linked with the couterterrorist operation. Witnesses said the man caulted the station's gates and ran after police shouted to him to stop. Officers chased the man, tackled him and shot him five times.

'They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him. He's dead,' witness Mark Whitby told the BBC. 'He looked like a cornered fox. He looked petrified.' Mr. Whitby said the man did not appear to have been carrying anything but was wearing a thick coat that looked padded.

Commuter Ben Anderson said: 'People on the tube didn't know whether it was somebody with a gun, shooting, or the police.'

The shooting raised protests from Muslim leaders rather than soothing the frayed nerves of Londoners. The Muslim Council of Britain demanded a dull explanation. 'i have just had one phone call saying "What if I was carrying a rucksack?",' said its spokesman, Inayat Bunglawala, referring to the rucksack bombs used in the July 7 attacks.

'We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot-to-kill policy,'

A backlash against Muslims intensified with at least to attemped revenge attacks. Police surrounded London's biggest mosque after a bomb threat. The cordon around East London Mosque was removed an hour later.

Police in the town of Aylesbury, 65km north of London, sealed off the home of a Muslim convert, Germaine Lindsay, identified as one of the July 7 suicide bombers, after an attempt to burn the building.

Later, police said they had arrested one man near Stockwell in connection with Thursday's attempted attacks.

The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade, an al=Qaeda-linked group which claimed responsibility for the July 7 bombings, posted a statement on an Islamist website yesterday claiming it carried out Thursday's attempted attacks.

The homemade bombs only partly detonated and the only reported casualty was a person sent to hospital for an asthma attack.

It's nice how they ended on a lighter, slightly humourous note.

Please excuse the typos.

It's quite creepy how they shot him after they had him. But I guess he did run away from the police, maybe they thought he was wired up and was worried he might detonate. Of course, shooting a man covered in explosives isn't the smarted thing to do.

But I understand the concern over the policy. It's quite scary.

Of course, shooting a man covered in explosives isn't the smarted thing to do.


That's why they shot him in the head.

Hey if he's running to people from police who think he's a suicide bomber, tough break bitch. Sorry you couldn't bleed out slowly and painfully over a few hours. Even if they guy was innocent, next life don't be an ass-clown prone to poor decisions. In the scenerio described by the witness, they didn't have a choice.I would run too...If some civilians with Guns are running at me...

Christ, what culture of violence do you have to grow up in to find it acceptable for police officers to shoot a grounded suspect five times?

Frightening.
What's it matter if he shot him one time or five time? The result was the same.

What kind of culture do you have to grow up in where you are willing to condemn a man whose job it is to protect you and twist around stories to make him the bad guy in defense of an idiot?

Christ, what culture of violence do you have to grow up in to find it acceptable for police officers to shoot a grounded suspect five times?

Frightening.

The kind where the suspect could explode at any second?

I would run too...If some civileans with Guns are running at me...
And if they shouted "Police!"?

I think your brain would hopefully kick in.

What's it matter if he shot him one time or five time? The result was the same.

What kind of culture do you have to grow up in where you are willing to condemn a man whose job it is to protect you and twist around stories to make him the bad guy in defense of an idiot?

Theres a difference between saying the cop was a bad guy and saying he made a bad decision and why is it ok that he shot someone if they are an idiot?

And if they shouted "Police!"?

I think your brain would hopefully kick in.

well if I would shout "bleib stehn, wir sind bullen" would you still stop?
hell maybe the man didn't speak english????

And if they shouted "Police!"?

I think your brain would hopefully kick in.

But maybe not before panic had already kicked in making you confused and irrational

What's it matter if he shot him one time or five time? The result was the same.

What kind of culture do you have to grow up in where you are willing to condemn a man whose job it is to protect you and twist around stories to make him the bad guy in defense of an idiot?

As I have said, they guy's job is not to protect me, it's to uphold and protect the Law. Very important difference. He acted within the law here and his actions are subsequently proven incorrect. I don't blame him myself, however, neither do I blame the poor sod he shot.

That's why they shot him in the head.

Ah well that explains it.. Five times in the head?!

I understand their actions, the had him, but if he was a terrorist, there's a chance that he could have had explosives on him, it would make him more suspicious with that jacket. I mean, it is summer, even though we're talking about england here, it's still summer.

It still seems wrong. I just can't imagine it happening, I don't want to.

But maybe not before panic had already kicked in making you confused and irrational
And the police weren't equally scared and fearful of you blowing yourself up?

Oh that's right, people with guns don't have emotions!

well if I would shout "bleib stehn, wir sind bullen" would you still stop?
hell maybe the man didn't speak english????
Hey maybe the man was deaf!

Let's not run around in circles. Then we'll never get anywhere.

Ah well that explains it.. Five times in the head?!

What does it matter whether it was five times, or once?

And the police weren't equally scared and fearful of you blowing yourself up?

Oh that's right, people with guns don't have emotions!

Well mostly policemen are trained, while the man wasn't
and if they are scared and fearful, maybe they should try another job.

Well mostly policemen are trained, while the man wasn't
and if they are scared and fearful, maybe they should try another job.

Who the hell ISN'T afraid of being blown apart?

Well mostly policemen are trained, while the man wasn't
and if they are scared and fearful, maybe they should try another job.
You have an odd view of the world. Scary view, really.

Even our nation's soldiers, with all their training, fear for their lives. Even cry when they need to. Sad when you think a man shouldn't have emotions in his job.

Who the hell ISN'T afraid of being blown apart?

well I am more afraid of policemen shooting me for looking suspicous....

What does it matter whether it was five times, or once?

I don't know. I guess it feels a bit inhumane, with one shot you've probably got his brains splattered across the pavement, maybe two. But five just seems too much.

I would run too...If some civilians with Guns are running at me...

Look at this post:

For all you folk saying "what would YOU do if a bunch of guys pulled guns on you!?". Kindly remember that this is NOT America and the vast majority people here do not own guns, and the ones who do don't tend to go around in gangs of 20+ yelling "Stop! Police!" at random people.

I don't know. I guess it feels a bit inhumane, with one shot you've probably got his brains splattered across the pavement, maybe two. But five just seems too much.
Pretend your pressing a trigger five times.

Rather quick, no? Before you fully comprehend the man's dead you could've gotten 10 shots into him with all the adrenaline rushing in your head.

You have an odd view of the world. Scary view, really.

Even our nation's soldiers, with all their training, fear for their lives. Even cry when they need to. Sad when you think a man shouldn't have emotions in his job.

I think it is more sad, when policemen kill an innocent ( I do not blame the police it was not their fault), but I think it is awful to say the man who was shot was right to be shot, just for running away and looking suspicious

You have an odd view of the world. Scary view, really.

Even our nation's soldiers, with all their training, fear for their lives. Even cry when they need to. Sad when you think a man shouldn't have emotions in his job.

They have emotions but they have also been giving extensive training. In a situation like this they should fall back on this and , if it has been drilled into them hard enough, it should be instinct. If their training was to react in the way they did then they are not to blame. If their training was not extensive enough, then they are not to blame. If they let themselves be taken over by their emotion at a time when they were most needed to remain clear headed then they made a mistake and should be investigated to determine if they are still suited to their profession

They have emotions but they have also been giving extensive training. In a situation like this they should fall back on this and , if it has been drilled into them hard enough, it should be instinct.

I believe you'll find that's what they were using in this situation.

They have emotions but they have also been giving extensive training. In a situation like this they should fall back on this and , if it has been drilled into them hard enough, it should be instinct. If their training was to react in the way they did then they are not to blame. If their training was not extensive enough, then they are not to blame. If they let themselves be taken over by their emotion at a time when they were most needed to remain clear headed then they made a mistake and should be investigated to determine if they are still suited to their profession
With an attitude like that I'm amazed the entire British police force doesn't just quit their job and do something where they'll actually be respected by their own people, and not by this random American.

I'm rather sick of dignifying the shot man by spending this much time here. I'm off to go play Superpower 2.

The rest of you, quit taking your officers for granted. They are fine men, they are humans, and their job is to protect you. Not just to uphold the law.

I believe you'll find that's what they were using in this situation.

Then ,as I said in the post you are quoting, it is not their fault

I'm rather sick of dignifying the shot man by spending this much time here. I'm off to go play Superpower 2.

What server? ;)

With an attitude like that I'm amazed the entire British police force doesn't just quit their job and do something where they'll actually be respected by their own people, and not by this random American.

I'm rather sick of dignifying the shot man by spending this much time here. I'm off to go play Superpower 2.

The rest of you, quit taking your officers for granted. They are fine men, they are humans, and their job is to protect you. Not just to uphold the law.

You don't even understand the purpose of the police. Wow. Our police do their job and do it pretty well. I appreciate it too, surprised as you may be to hear it.

I just also believe the police are as accountable as any other organ of the state.

Pretend your pressing a trigger five times.

Rather quick, no? Before you fully comprehend the man's dead you could've gotten 10 shots into him with all the adrenaline rushing in your head.

Well it really depends on what gun you're using... But I have very little knowlede in guns, and I realise there were a bunch of officers shooting at the time. And I'm not saying they did the wrong thing in shooting him...

I guess I'm just trying to say it's a horrible way to go. The man died without dignity, he was scared, cowering even, and then a bunch of officers shot him in the head five times.

I know, I know, if he was a terrorist with a bomb, he could have killed tens of people. I'm probably just overwhelmed by all of this right now. I don't deal with death, no matter the situation, very well.

"This would be a rather dumb argument to run around in circles with. For all intents and purpose, for both our sake, let's assume he spoke English. PLEASE!"

No lets not! I lived in the east end of London for many years and not everyone speaks English - a simple fact - and something that must be considered when policing.

"All police are forced to publically regret to the nation or face some really bad consequences if they ever do something the public happens to not like."

Actually the the British police usually do genuinely really regret it when they shoot to death an innocent person - I suspect other police forces to too.

"In America, a baby girl was shot dead by LAPD officers. Why? Because her father was using her as a human shield and the police were at a standoff. Both the girl and the father were killed in the standoff. The public didn't like it. Now money is being blown off on an investigation. Now officer's jobs are on the line BECAUSE A MAN DECIDED TO USE HIS DAUGHTER AS A HUMAN SHIELD!"

I can see why the public would not like it when a child is shot dead by the police. Unless the police can show that opening fire was required to save the lives of other members of the public then this police action failed. I am not sure if you know, but even in LA it is inappropriate for the police to end a standoff by shooting hostages!

"I don't think the police should be held responsible for their actions unless they DESERVE to be held responsible for their actions."

Exactly - that is why there is an inquiry in the case you mentioned - but then again you said are against inquests that determine whehter the police deserve to be held accountable - doh!

"Same for apologizing. That degrades the men and women of law."

No - quite the opposite!

Now I live in LA, and I can say the shooting was in fact justified. The man started firing at LAPD officers, and they had no choice but to return fire. The man could of killed many.

This individual who was killed in London well.. they definitely did get the right guy.

Now I live in LA, and I can say the shooting was in fact justified. The man started firing at LAPD officers, and they had no choice but to return fire. The man could of killed many.

This individual who was killed in London well.. they definitely did get the right guy.

See that now makes sense - I had a hard time thinking that the LAPD would do that unless there was real risk to others. I bet they are sorry the child got killed too! I bet nobody had to force those officers to regret the child's death.

See that now makes sense - I had a hard time thinking that the LAPD would do that unless there was real risk to others. I bet they are sorry the child got killed too! I bet nobody had to force those officers to regret the child's death.

The officers do regret the child's death (and they expressed that). They were specifically trying to avoid such a tragedy.. the man came out shooting.. using the child as a shield... it turned my stomach.

With an attitude like that I'm amazed the entire British police force doesn't just quit their job and do something where they'll actually be respected by their own people, and not by this random American.

I'm rather sick of dignifying the shot man by spending this much time here. I'm off to go play Superpower 2.

The rest of you, quit taking your officers for granted. They are fine men, they are humans, and their job is to protect you. Not just to uphold the law.

As a Londoner I'm rather sick of you making out a dead man is guilty of something when he hasn't even been accused of anything.

There is a difference between saying it is wrong to shoot an innocent man and condemning the police. It is always wrong to shoot an innocent man. Maybe you should stop speaking ill of the dead.

The idea that "oh, if he had a bomb, he could have killed people if they didn't shoot him" is rubbish for two reasons:

1. If he had a bomb, surely he would have detonated it as soon as he saw the police, not run away?
2. Once he had been restrained, there was no way he could have detonated a bomb. What, did the officers think that terrorists were now telekentic and could explode bombs with the power of their mind?

This was murder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

sounds to me as if he was quickly killed, as if he was about to set another bomb off remotely? otherwise why would they kill him in that way?


Mistaken identity is what they are saying now. Still, I cannot blame them. They commanded him to stop, and he did not. When it is suicide bombers that are being dealt with here, it is obvious that a little "shooting first, asking questions later" can be justified. This is what Israel is going through.

The officers do regret the child's death (and they expressed that). They were specifically trying to avoid such a tragedy.. the man came out shooting.. using the child as a shield... it turned my stomach.

Yes a tragedy - just like the shooting in London. And the strong and the brave will say so and will regret it, they will mourn and look for ways to learn from the event, while the weak and the feebleminded, the armchair warrior’s who have never strapped on a gun to take up the complexities of defending his or her country, will take a more simplistic view. The simplistic view, in the world in which everyone speaks English (or should do), it remains important that the police are seen to do no wrong, where black is always black and white is always white, and where shades of grey are attacked with jingoistic rhetoric before they can create anxiety and tension in a binary world view that cannot deal with the nuances of justice.

when i heard about this incident yesterday, my first thought was 'i hope they did the right thing, otherwise it will make the racial tension situation worse'

turns out my doubts were justified. id guess the victim was either mentally ill, or a non-english speaking immigrant.

if i may (feel free to ignore me), i would like to move the debate on.

who do we blame for this tradgedy? at which level of authority does the blame lie?

The idea that "oh, if he had a bomb, he could have killed people if they didn't shoot him" is rubbish for two reasons:

1. If he had a bomb, surely he would have detonated it as soon as he saw the police, not run away?
2. Once he had been restrained, there was no way he could have detonated a bomb. What, did the officers think that terrorists were now telekentic and could explode bombs with the power of their mind?

This was murder.


From what I understand, he had challenge police, refused to obay orders to stop running, and he had emerged from a building that was under surviellence. Besides, he might have been running towards an area where he could have detonated a bomb that would have killed people.

And how would you be able to determine who is a threat and who is not then? The person who was shot may or may not have been an actual terrorist. There is no evidence to date to say otherwise unless I have missed it. In a so called war with no actual uniforms, is it better to shoot to kill people on a suspicioun people and then to apologize later because it was a mistake? Or if we use the case of America, no apology at all because it is acceptable collateral damage?
If a nation decides they're at war with these people, that'd be the intelligence services. Which would be MI5. And the typical choice, in accords with the Geneva Conventions was, "Work for us to tell the greatest lie of all time, or else. Were not going to tell you what 'else' is, it wouldn't be proper and were Brithish, but it's suitably gruesome."

But it doesn't matter, Cybertia didn't include that information in his statement. One might perhaps infer that he would leave that to the highly trained experts. You however chose to assume that he advocated killing people at random. When all he really did was advocate killing the assholes, and left out the means of how that's to be determined.

The Cops thought he was involved with previous bombings, they indentified themselves, he ran to where bombers run to kill people. QED. If he's not a terrorist, it was natural selection.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I have been told I take things too literally.
I think you've mispelled, "probably" or "certainly." I can't tell, the font is smuddged.
Is that a factor that only applies to law enforcement or the population in general? Events as retold by eye witnesses tell of a man who was running from people who had weapons. Unless there is something new which I am not aware of, none of those witnesses heard any of the pursuers identifying themselves.
When someone is creating an immediate perception of great public risk, they die. They're weighing their life against the lives of those around them who aren't creating a dangerous situation. They don't get a trial, they don't deserve one, and they probably don't want one.
A head of state that they were currently at war with.
Well, as the debate over whether or not to assassinate Admiral Yamamoto notes, it's a pretty dicey prospect, both strategically and morally. But these extremists do consider themselves at war with not only Britain, but all of the West. So, by their own actions, views, and statements of their leaders, wouldn't their summary excecution be perfectly fair.
Decades of legal precedence of the presumption of innocence until the proof of guilt. As with the case of any law enforcement agents discharging firearms (although it is not ascertained whether they were with law enforcement or another agency), an investigation is required as to determine the validity of their actions. I am awaiting results that can either exonerate or condemn and will accept them as such unless there is evidence of interference.

Your statement above indicates that you would only accept a result that would exonerate. Perhaps I am mistaken?
You're not presuming the police innocent, so you don't really believe that. The dead guy isn't getting a trail, the presumtion of innocence on his part is moot but irrelevant. I'm saying that with the observations put forth by the witnesses, there's no way in hell there's enough evidence to even indict the people involved. Between their word, the word of their freinds and the lack of dissenting voices from people who saw it go down, there isn't going to be any finding of fault in their actions. The only other person who might have had something to say on the matter isn't talking. Further more, this seed of doubt you keep clinging too is ludicrious on its face. It requires the presumption of a number of police being criminally insane at the same time, or that they premeditated this man's very public murder for unknown reasons in plain sight of the rest of the law enforcement community. Yeah.... Um I think we can safely describe the alternatives as wildly improbable.

OK, so they might have been shouting for him to stop. LOL, would you? Would you really take a chance and surrender yourself to a couple of gunmen on the assumption that they are police?

The guy was screwed whichever choice he could have made, stop and hope his assailants are not actually hostile, or run somewhere with witnesses. He was dead the moment the police wrongly identified him as someone who need to die. And let's not forget, they have admitted they made a mistake.
If I can't outrun them? YES! There's zero shot of overcoming that differential. So I wouldn't provoke them and make my situation worse. He killed himself when instead of complying with a lawful order he decided to provoke the police by doing what they were most afraid he'd do.

OceanDrive: The Second Coming,

Hey, the London police are selecting for speed, and or intelligence. Wind sprints, or pop quizes, take your pick.

It turns out the guy was Brazilian.

From what I understand, he had challenge police (1), refused to obay orders to stop running (2), and he had emerged from a building that was under surviellence(3). Besides, he might have been running towards an area where he could have detonated a bomb that would have killed people(4).

1. I have not heard of him making any verbal challenge to the police.
2. We still don't know whether he could understand English, and besides, seeing a group of people in plain clothes waving guns around is going to make anybody run.
3. Is that a crime?
4. Unlikely. Suicide bombers in the past have typically detonated the bomb if they are challenged, rather than running away like that.

A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

Shit. Shit. Shit.

Articles:

"Shot man not connected to bombing" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm)

"Man Killed in U.K. Not Linked to Blasts" (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050723/ap_on_re_eu/britain_underground)

4. Unlikely. Suicide bombers in the past have typically detonated the bomb if they are challenged, rather than running away like that.
Suicide bombers do all sorts of things, like run to where they can do the most damage, panicing and blowing themselves up where they stand, and complying allowing themselves to be secured and disarmed.

Once the police had to give chase he started to throw away decisions they could make. Once he was in proximity to people, the police only had one choice left. If he has a bomb, they have to kill him, or he will potentially kill dozens, scores, or even hundreds, and there isn't the time for double checking. If he doesn't have a bomb, well everyone would want the normal rules to apply. But the police can't know, right or wrong, one way or another until after the fact. Even fighting or wreastling with a bomber can detonate it depending on how unstable the material it's made out of it. They're faced with a few seconds to chose between all the innocent people around them, and the potentially innocent suspect before them. The way this particular game theory experiment is set up, they can't afford to game the suspects possibilities.

He was a brazilian? Then he should know not to ever run from the police. I mean come on..

Once the police had to give chase he started to throw away decisions they could make. Once he was in proximity to people, the police only had one choice left.

Agreed. But the police have some questions to answer on this one. For instance, if he was a big enough threat to kill, why did they not try to stop him when he left his house and while he was walking to the subway station? The police tailed him all the way from his home - they had a choice when, where and how to take him down. For them to tail a person they thought had a bomb all the way from his house to a subway station and to then somehow let him actually skip past apparantly dozens of police officers and run right into the suspected target (a train) seems to me like a bungled operation from start to finish! Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with a shoot to kill policy - but this case needs to be examined and lessons learned.

Suicide bombers in the past have typically detonated the bomb if they are challenged, rather than running away like that.
And some had panic attacks and ran, forgetting about the detonator button. During one of the last suicide bombing in Tel-Aviv, the second bomber had a panic attack after seeing the results of the first bomb, ran away, jumped into the sea and drowned.

O.K. I'm back. Ready to defend the very police you take for granted. I'm not bothering to read any previous posts because I hate doing that. So tell me your new arguments that haven't been shot down.

O.K. I'm back. Ready to defend the very police you take for granted. I'm not bothering to read any previous posts because I hate doing that. So tell me your new arguments that haven't been shot down.

Maybe you should be less ignorant and go back and read the other posts. It's only 1 page.

O.K. I'm back. Ready to defend the very police you take for granted. I'm not bothering to read any previous posts because I hate doing that. So tell me your new arguments that haven't been shot down.


well i dont think the police in this particular case deserve defending. they made a fantastically poor error of judgement, and an innocent man has ended up being killed in a very gruesome way. these policemens actions may have added to the growing racial tensions already present in britain.

Maybe you should be less ignorant and go back and read the other posts. It's only 1 page.
Are you going to argue with me over who should bring the argument to me, or are we gonna argue about me arguing in the first place?

*thinks it over* :D

Are you going to argue with me over who should bring the argument to me, or are we gonna argue about me arguing in the first place?

*thinks it over* :D

No, I just think you're an immature idiot who should think first before casting aspersions on an innocent dead guy.

No, I just think you're an immature idiot who should think first before casting aspersions on an innocent dead guy.
Thank you. Are you quite done or are you looking for a forum ban by a passing mod? I hate reporting, but someone else or a passing mod will get you.

Thank you. Are you quite done or are you looking for a forum ban by a passing mod? I hate reporting, but someone else or a passing mod will get you.

What, while you're making smilies and saying you're "sick of dignifying" a dead innocent man? Shame they don't ban people for lack of decency around here.

What, while you're making smiles and saying you're "sick of dignifying" a dead innocent man? Shame they don't ban people for lack of decency around here.

seconded.

What, while you're making smilies and saying you're "sick of dignifying" a dead innocent man? Shame they don't ban people for lack of decency around here.
I'm sick of dignifying his actions by running away from a cop shouting at him to stop. Too bad I'm the one who can suck up a wrongful death and you can't even do that without insulting someone.

And I'll damn well make smilies whenever the hell I feel like it. :D

Try and stop me.

Jerk.

Agreed. But the police have some questions to answer on this one. For instance, if he was a big enough threat to kill, why did they not try to stop him when he left his house and while he was walking to the subway station? The police tailed him all the way from his home - they had a choice when, where and how to take him down. For them to tail a person they thought had a bomb all the way from his house to a subway station and to then somehow let him actually skip past apparantly dozens of police officers and run right into the suspected target (a train) seems to me like a bungled operation from start to finish! Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with a shoot to kill policy - but this case needs to be examined and lessons learned.
Well, they're going to answer questions so long as the people have them, particularly under a parliamentary system, I imagine. But there all sorts of scenerios we might ponder and share. But one of the things that's difficult to forsee is how the threat he poses geometrically increases when he becomes afraid, when he refuses to comply with lawful orders from a police officer, with the distance he puts between himselves and the police, and as the distence between him and members of the public at large decreases.

I don't think anyone can describe the event as anything other than an uncontrolled failure. The ends of law enforcement were certainly not achived. (In large part because the person who died, did a poor job of looking after their own self-interests.) And all failures should be examined. But that's much different from assigning blame. This one gets filed under, "Shit happens because people are stupid."

If this is true ;

Leaves a house under surveillance in connection with the terrorist bombings on London Transport two weeks ago.
Is carrying a rucksack, like the bombers in the terrorist bombings on London Transport two weeks ago.
Runs from armed police.
Makes straight for a Tube station.
Leaps over ticket barriers.
Makes straight for platform level.
Leaps onto a Tube train

Then he commited suicide by cop .

Its tragic he had to die for his stupidity . A greater tradgedy if the police hesitate at the next instance like this one .