NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, a recent family debate, which very nearly ended in a fist fight has prompted me to get a wider consensus on the opinions people have over the British Police shooting an innocent man at a tube station in the head SEVEN TIMES! Personally I think that the person who gave the order should be thrown away for murder. One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement. Another thing to bear in mind is if 3 plain clothed people run at you with guns, would you stop?

oh another quick note, in my family debate it was the older people (with the exception of my dad) who agreed with the shooting, they also viewed foriegners as second class citizens and confessed to being racist, the young members of the family, who have had less time to build prejudice minds, disagreed with it as they can see it for what is was alot easier. As people on nation statestend to be younger but we do get older people on, please state your age

Yes, he wasn't a suicide bomber, but as far as the officers on the ground were told he was, and the only way to deal with potential suicide bombers is to kill them before they can detonate. Therefore, regardless of the actual guilt of the person, the police were justified in shooting to kill, because if they hadn't and the man had turned out to be a suicide bomber after all, many more people would be dead.

If three plain clothed people ran at me with guns shouting "police, stop or you'll be shot", I'd probably stop.

The police trailed the guy for 3 days, there entire evidence for him being a suicide bomber was he came out of a house that they thought MAY have had potential suicide bombers in it. People react differently to situations and if somebody has commited a crime, for instance this guys visa had expired, they are goingto be more likely to run, the likelyhood that they are a suicide bomber is very very minimal, so if you shoot anyone thatt runs from the police you're going to end up killing more people than the suicide bombers do. I personally dont want to live in a police state

Seriously, all political correctness aside, the guy was an idiot to run from people shouting that he'd be shot if he didn't stop. Though I'm generally not a Utilitarian, one death compared to fifty, sixty or even one hundred is nothing.

Yes, he wasn't a suicide bomber, but as far as the officers on the ground were told he was, and the only way to deal with potential suicide bombers is to kill them before they can detonate. Therefore, regardless of the actual guilt of the person, the police were justified in shooting to kill, because if they hadn't and the man had turned out to be a suicide bomber after all, many more people would be dead.

If three plain clothed people ran at me with guns shouting "police, stop or you'll be shot", I'd probably stop.

Are you listening to yourself?

So you say it was ok, becuase the man "Could have been a suicide bomber."

Man...any of us, at any time, COULD be suicide bombers.


"Regardless of the actual guilt"....

So.. your saying its ok for the police to shoot innocent people, now?

The guy "could" have been anything....what happened was that the police were highly stressed out, jumpy, and panicky,,and killed an innocent man.
Whatever the reasons....the outcome was the death of another innocent.

I say manslaughter, at the most. What's the reason for not equipping those guys with non-lethal weapons? I don't remember it.

Those officers should be hung, because it is wrong to kill someone just because they made a mistake!

Oh wait...

The Police did the right thing. The guy failed to stop when they shouted "stop police or we will shoot". Regardless.

OK, a recent family debate, which very nearly ended in a fist fight has prompted me to get a wider consensus on the opinions people have over the British Police shooting an innocent man at a tube station in the head SEVEN TIMES! Personally I think that the person who gave the order should be thrown away for murder. One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement. Another thing to bear in mind is if 3 plain clothed people run at you with guns, would you stop?

oh another quick note, in my family debate it was the older people (with the exception of my dad) who agreed with the shooting, they also viewed foriegners as second class citizens and confessed to being racist, the young members of the family, who have had less time to build prejudice minds, disagreed with it as they can see it for what is was alot easier. As people on nation statestend to be younger but we do get older people on, please state your age

Im 17, and i cant understand why you would question the integrity of our police force for one isolated incident when they have done such a good job dealing with the attacks and attempted attacks. I support the man who shot the Brazilian man dead, because i want him to feel no doubt in his mind when the time comes that a REAL suicide bomber needs to be shot before killing hundreds of innocent people.

The Police did the right thing. The guy failed to stop when they shouted "stop police or we will shoot". Regardless.


No.

Incapacitating the man through the use of gunfire would have been the right thing.
Wounding him, in the legs, or any hit that could have taken him down would have been sufficient.

Shooting a man 7 times in the head, is not "Nescessary Force".

Its murder.

No.

Incapacitating the man through the use of gunfire would have been the right thing.
Wounding him, in the legs, or any hit that could have taken him down would have been sufficient.

Shooting a man 7 times in the head, is not "Nescessary Force".

Its murder.

Any hit to take him down would not have been sufficient if he had been a suicide bomber, the fact that he wasnt a bomber is irrelevant because youre using the benefit of hindsight. Shooting a suicide bombers legs will not stop him detonating the bomb strapped to him.

No.

Incapacitating the man through the use of gunfire would have been the right thing.
Wounding him, in the legs, or any hit that could have taken him down would have been sufficient.

Shooting a man 7 times in the head, is not "Nescessary Force".

Its murder.


Take a suicide bomber down WITHOUT killing him and there's a high probability that he'll detonate his bombs, killing not only the policemen involved but bystanders as well: If somebody genuinely IS a suicide bomber, and they've reached a crowded location as that man had done, then shooting to kill IS "necesary force" becaue anything else would probably lead to a greater number of deaths.
It isn't the policeman who fired the shots that should be punished, it's the higher-ups who mistakenly told him that this suspect was probably a suicide bomber and who didn't authorise stopping the man before he reached a crowded location...

Any hit to take him down would not have been sufficient if he had been a suicide bomber, the fact that he wasnt a bomber is irrelevant because youre using the benefit of hindsight. Shooting a suicide bombers legs will not stop him detonating the bomb strapped to him.


So every suspect that must be apprehended violently, should have lethal force used against them?

Shoot first ask questions later?

The fact remains he WASNT a bomber.
The issue is that the police used unnescessary force to restrain him.

So every suspect that must be apprehended violently, should have lethal force used against them?

Shoot first ask questions later?

The fact remains he WASNT a bomber.
The issue is that the police used unnescessary force to restrain him.

I believe that every potential suicide bomber should have lethal force used against them because there is no other way to stop them.
All the police at the scene knew was that the man was a suicide bomber, the fact that he wasnt a bomber therefore is not an issue when dealing with the policeman who shot the man, its an issue for higher up the command chain.

I believe that every potential suicide bomber should have lethal force used against them because there is no other way to stop them.
All the police at the scene knew was that the man was a suicide bomber, the fact that he wasnt a bomber therefore is not an issue when dealing with the policeman who shot the man, its an issue for higher up the command chain.


Very well..what qualifies someone as a "Potential Suicide Bomber"?

OK, a recent family debate, which very nearly ended in a fist fight has prompted me to get a wider consensus on the opinions people have over the British Police shooting an innocent man at a tube station in the head SEVEN TIMES! Personally I think that the person who gave the order should be thrown away for murder. One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement. Another thing to bear in mind is if 3 plain clothed people run at you with guns, would you stop?

oh another quick note, in my family debate it was the older people (with the exception of my dad) who agreed with the shooting, they also viewed foriegners as second class citizens and confessed to being racist, the young members of the family, who have had less time to build prejudice minds, disagreed with it as they can see it for what is was alot easier. As people on nation statestend to be younger but we do get older people on, please state your age


For me the persons race etc doesn't come in to. So I'm not even gonna comment on that part.

What the police did was wrong, very wrong. I think that there policy of using a stun gun is more beneficial. You must consider the facts. London has suffered 2 terrorist attacks in the space of 2 weeks. Birmingham city centre was evacualted for supposed 'unrelated issues' (I don't believe that for a second'). The police have publically announced that there are still more terrorist cells out there. The public is sacred, high terrorist alerts have been announced. A man-in the middle of a heat wave is in the underground-where temps are even hotter then they are outside-a man who was wearing a big puffy black jacket, which could have easily have concealed something-wouldn't stop when policed called out to him.

I understand having 5 police men chasing you would make any one run. Initailly I thought that shooting to kill was terrible as all the guys were trained marksmen and could have shot him in the leg. I still think that it was terrible that he was shot but what if he had a bomb? And more ppl died? People would then have been questioning why the trained police officers didn't shot to kill. To say what happened to that Brazilian man was unfortunate is an understatement, but remember the British government have a) learned from their mistakes in Northern Ireland b) they were conferring with governments such as Israel on how to deal with sucide bombers. Its not ok to kill innocent people, unfotunatly there were extenuating circumstances. I think that the police will try there upmost to prevent this happening in future.

Very well..what qualifies someone as a "Potential Suicide Bomber"?

A potential suicide bomber is someone that police BELIEVE to be linked with a terrorist cell that doesnt obey police commands and is running in the direction of a crowded area.

If, like the statements suggest, he was in fact challenged in the station and then proceded to jump the barrier and head down to the tube trains, then the police following him did the only thing they could - they killed him. Don't forget if he had been a bomber then those police officers would have been killed trying to wound him or restrain him.

As for non-lethal weapons, they are ineffective against suicide attackers for the follwoing reasons;

CS Spray - they are still capable of detonating the bomb
Tazer - the electrical discharge may detonate the bomb
Wounding with firearms (legs) - still capable of detonating
Wounding with firearms (chest) - may detonate the bomb

If anyone out there knows a way to render a suicide bomber harmless without killing them, then Israel, Iraq, Egypt, Spain, the USA and the UK would all love to hear from you.

I think the most important issues were whether the police identified themselves, why they didn't confront him earlier, and if/when they warned him he might be shot.

I believe that every potential suicide bomber should have lethal force used against them because there is no other way to stop them.
All the police at the scene knew was that the man was a suicide bomber, the fact that he wasnt a bomber therefore is not an issue when dealing with the policeman who shot the man, its an issue for higher up the command chain.

So, what you are saying is that the police can kill anyone they believe to be a threat to society? Personally I believe the police made a big mistake on this occasion, they had followed him from his house to the tube station and tried to stop him there, why didn't they just stop him the moment he got out of his house, instead of letting him take a bus which he could've blown up?
Justifying this sort of police brutality makes way for a police state.
(I am 18 years old)

A potential suicide bomber is someone that police BELIEVE to be linked with a terrorist cell that doesnt obey police commands and is running in the direction of a crowded area.

Those are pretty specific circumstances, and yes..if such a situation did in fact fit that very specific situation, those actions might be exceptable.
Trouble is, not all situations are going to happen like that.

Variables happen and the Police should never have the right to kill anyone who fits a profile.
The fact that he didnt obey police commands is ulitmately why this situation doesnt warrant the criminal prosecution of the officer.
However, one shot to the chest, would have put this guy down, and perhaps not even lethally.
Sadly, and this has been true in Iraq as well, when a soldier shot an unarmed suspected terrorist, the man was too nervous, over-reacted, and killed a man who turned out to be innocent, the methods used to apprehend thisn guy, was too..final.

So, what you are saying is that the police can kill anyone they believe to be a threat to society? Personally I believe the police made a big mistake on this occasion, they had followed him from his house to the tube station and tried to stop him there, why didn't they just stop him the moment he got out of his house, instead of letting him take a bus which he could've blown up?
Justifying this sort of police brutality makes way for a police state.
(I am 18 years old)

Dont twist my words please, a threat to society doesnt have to be a suicide bomber, but when somebody is willing to die to kill people, then the only way to truly restrain him is to kill him.
Justifying the police does not make way for a police state, it makes way for a police force that is confident that their actions will not lead them to be prosecuted, it allows police to act on the moment and save lives, it allows the police to do their job.

Those are pretty specific circumstances, and yes..if such a situation did in fact fit that very specific situation, those actions might be exceptable.
Trouble is, not all situations are going to happen like that.

Variables happen and the Police should never have the right to kill anyone who fits a profile.
The fact that he didnt obey police commands is ulitmately why this situation doesnt warrant the criminal prosecution of the officer.
However, one shot to the chest, would have put this guy down, and perhaps not even lethally.
Sadly, and this has been true in Iraq as well, when a soldier shot an unarmed suspected terrorist, the man was too nervous, over-reacted, and killed a man who turned out to be innocent, the methods used to apprehend thisn guy, was too..final.


One shot to the chest could detonate a bomb.

Those are pretty specific circumstances, and yes..if such a situation did in fact fit that very specific situation, those actions might be exceptable.
Trouble is, not all situations are going to happen like that.

Variables happen and the Police should never have the right to kill anyone who fits a profile.
The fact that he didnt obey police commands is ulitmately why this situation doesnt warrant the criminal prosecution of the officer.
However, one shot to the chest, would have put this guy down, and perhaps not even lethally.
Sadly, and this has been true in Iraq as well, when a soldier shot an unarmed suspected terrorist, the man was too nervous, over-reacted, and killed a man who turned out to be innocent, the methods used to apprehend thisn guy, was too..final.

One shot to the chest would have put this particular person down, but it could detonate a bomb on another suicide bomber. Wouldn't you be nervous if you thought a suicide bomber was in front of you and was ready to blow himself up and kill you?

A potential suicide bomber is someone that police BELIEVE to be linked with a terrorist cell that doesnt obey police commands and is running in the direction of a crowded area.

Personally I know a lot of people who would run from 3 men with guns who claim to be police. Anyone for example who had simply smoked a joint would run because he wouldn't want his parents to find out. The guy would reason like this: "I am not a threat to them since I don't show a firearm and am running AWAY from the police, so they wouldn't dream of shooting me"

And now I would like 1 minute of silence for all the future victims of police force.

Dont twist my words please, a threat to society doesnt have to be a suicide bomber, but when somebody is willing to die to kill people, then the only way to truly restrain him is to kill him.
Justifying the police does not make way for a police state, it makes way for a police force that is confident that their actions will not lead them to be prosecuted, it allows police to act on the moment and save lives, it allows the police to do their job.


The problem with that is that police, like anyone else, are susecptible to corruption.
Giving them free reign to to act, without fear of legal reprocussion, opens the door for all sorts of actions, that we'd all be better off if our police force didnt do.

Holding police to the LAW...is the best way to go.

I don't see how there can even be an argument over this. A suspected suicide bomber disregarded multiple people armed with weapons shouting 'Armed police, freeze' (or something along those lines) and fled to a crowded train in the wake of train bombings. They had no choice. I'd take him down, and were you in the police guys shoes, you'd do exactly as they did. The consequence of not, and him actually being a bomber, would be catastrophic.

(18)

The problem with that is that police, like anyone else, are susecptible to corruption.
Giving them free reign to to act, without fear of legal reprocussion, opens the door for all sorts of actions, that we'd all be better off if our police force didnt do.

Holding police to the LAW...is the best way to go.

Yes holding to the police to the law when they have done something intentionally wrong, like any other criminal. Giving them the confidence to kill suicide bombers without fear of reprisals is not allowing the police to do whatever they want.

So, what you are saying is that the police can kill anyone they believe to be a threat to society? Personally I believe the police made a big mistake on this occasion, they had followed him from his house to the tube station and tried to stop him there, why didn't they just stop him the moment he got out of his house, instead of letting him take a bus which he could've blown up?
Justifying this sort of police brutality makes way for a police state.
(I am 18 years old)

This is how I understand it;

He was no directly a suspect until he headed for the tube wearing a large coat. So far as they knew he was just some random bloke. Then, when they realised he was heading into the tube, they challenged him. Then he fled, leaping the barrier into the tube and ran down to the trains.

So they did no challenge him outside the flat because he was not certainly a suspect.

One shot to the chest would have put this particular person down, but it could detonate a bomb on another suicide bomber. Wouldn't you be nervous if you thought a suicide bomber was in front of you and was ready to blow himself up and kill you?


Nervous?

No...I'd probably soil myself and be done with it.

But Im not a cop.

The problem with this particular incident was that they were not sure about his intentions.
This means there was doubt, as to his threat to others.
That doubt..should have been enough to apprehend him before he got to a populated area.

Secondly, I think lethal force should be used a last resort.
Was there any other options?
Shoot the guy in the chest, rather than a headshot?

and why seven rounds to the head?

Heres an example for you:
One of my closest freinds father was a policeman.
He answered a domestic dispute call one day, and soon found himself on the business end of a revolver.
His partner, who was close by, was trying to talk the man into giving up his weapon.
The man, who was drunk, as well....pulled the trigger.
The partner, managed to quickly shove his finger in between the hammer and stock of the gun...thus preventing the weapon from being fired.

The man was attempting to use lethal force against an officer of the law.
They could have legally drew thier own weapons and killed the man.
They didnt.
They had other options.
Both men were prolific martial artists as well, and were able to restrain the man within seconds.

The question in regards to this incident, is where there any other options, rather than using lethal force?

Nervous?

No...I'd probably soil myself and be done with it.

But Im not a cop.

The problem with this particular incident was that they were not sure about his intentions.
This means there was doubt, as to his threat to others.
That doubt..should have been enough to apprehend him before he got to a populated area.

Secondly, I think lethal force should be used a last resort.
Was there any other options?
Shoot the guy in the chest, rather than a headshot?

and why seven rounds to the head?

Heres an example for you:
One of my closest freinds father was a policeman.
He answered a domestic dispute call one day, and soon found himself on the business end of a revolver.
His partner, who was close by, was trying to talk the man into giving up his weapon.
The man, who was drunk, as well....pulled the trigger.
The partner, managed to quickly shove his finger in between the hammer and stock of the gun...thus preventing the weapon from being fired.

The man was attempting to use lethal force against an officer of the law.
They could have legally drew thier own weapons and killed the man.
They didnt.
They had other options.
Both men were prolific martial artists as well, and were able to restrain the man within seconds.

The question in regards to this incident, is where there any other options, rather than using lethal force?

Again, a chest shot could have detonated the bomb and killed the 3 officers as wells as the suspect and several bystanders.

Why seven rounds? If you want to make someone dead, why not 7 rounds?

As for doubt, they (by the official accounts) attempted to apprehend him at the top of the tube. He jumped the barrier and fled towards the trains. At that point, the police have 2 choices;

1 - leave him be, he might no be a bomber
2 - kill him, he might be a bomber

After 4 successful bombings and 4 attempted bombings the day before, how would the police look and feel if they let him go and detonate a bomb on the train?

Nervous?

No...I'd probably soil myself and be done with it.

But Im not a cop.

The problem with this particular incident was that they were not sure about his intentions.
This means there was doubt, as to his threat to others.
That doubt..should have been enough to apprehend him before he got to a populated area.

Secondly, I think lethal force should be used a last resort.
Was there any other options?
Shoot the guy in the chest, rather than a headshot?

and why seven rounds to the head?

Heres an example for you:
One of my closest freinds father was a policeman.
He answered a domestic dispute call one day, and soon found himself on the business end of a revolver.
His partner, who was close by, was trying to talk the man into giving up his weapon.
The man, who was drunk, as well....pulled the trigger.
The partner, managed to quickly shove his finger in between the hammer and stock of the gun...thus preventing the weapon from being fired.

The man was attempting to use lethal force against an officer of the law.
They could have legally drew thier own weapons and killed the man.
They didnt.
They had other options.
Both men were prolific martial artists as well, and were able to restrain the man within seconds.

The question in regards to this incident, is where there any other options, rather than using lethal force?

That is an example of good policing, and long may it continue.
Again, a shot to the body was not an option to the policeman, seven rounds to the head? ok, a bit excessive, but youve got to make sure the guy is dead.
And im sorry but lethal force is the only resort when dealing with people that are willing to die to kill others.

Again, a chest shot could have detonated the bomb and killed the 3 officers as wells as the suspect and several bystanders.

Why seven rounds? If you want to make someone dead, why not 7 rounds?

As for doubt, they (by the official accounts) attempted to apprehend him at the top of the tube. He jumped the barrier and fled towards the trains. At that point, the police have 2 choices;

1 - leave him be, he might no be a bomber
2 - kill him, he might be a bomber

After 4 successful bombings and 4 attempted bombings the day before, how would the police look and feel if they let him go and detonate a bomb on the train?

A chest shot MAY have detonated a bomb...if he were wearing one..wich he wasnt.

As for the 7 rounds.....one to the head will do nicely.
7 is excessive...like using a hammer to swat flies.

The problem is this:

This will happen again.
The next time, how do we spot a "terrorist"?
They could be anyone, of any color, at any time.
So how do you begin to make sure EVERYONE is not a bomber?
You cant.

Winter is around the corner, and people usually wear big heavy coats that could easily hide a bomb.
How on earth are police going to inspect everyone coming into a subway?

How do you deal with that kind of situation?

I dont have any answers, and neither do you, but I do know, that killing anyone who gets scared and runs, probably isnt the way.

A chest shot MAY have detonated a bomb...if he were wearing one..wich he wasnt.

As for the 7 rounds.....one to the head will do nicely.
7 is excessive...like using a hammer to swat flies.

The problem is this:

This will happen again.
The next time, how do we spot a "terrorist"?
They could be anyone, of any color, at any time.
So how do you begin to make sure EVERYONE is not a bomber?
You cant.

Winter is around the corner, and people usually wear big heavy coats that could easily hide a bomb.
How on earth are police going to inspect everyone coming into a subway?

How do you deal with that kind of situation?

I dont have any answers, and neither do you, but I do know, that killing anyone who gets scared and runs, probably isnt the way.

The simple fact is that if he had obeyed the police he would still be alive.
I don't think we can blame the police, they really had little choice.

The only real solutions are to get the non-muslim and muslim communities to engage more, to get rid of faith schools (which just ferment feelings of segregation) and to give the youth in this country a way to object to things like the iraq war that is actually effective. Don't forget the mass protests before the war started.

A chest shot MAY have detonated a bomb...if he were wearing one..wich he wasnt.

As for the 7 rounds.....one to the head will do nicely.
7 is excessive...like using a hammer to swat flies.

The problem is this:

This will happen again.
The next time, how do we spot a "terrorist"?
They could be anyone, of any color, at any time.
So how do you begin to make sure EVERYONE is not a bomber?
You cant.

Winter is around the corner, and people usually wear big heavy coats that could easily hide a bomb.
How on earth are police going to inspect everyone coming into a subway?

How do you deal with that kind of situation?

I dont have any answers, and neither do you, but I do know, that killing anyone who gets scared and runs, probably isnt the way.

You can't make sure that everyone is not a bomber, you have to rely on intelligence. The underground system in London seriously needs to be modernised, i live on the outskirts of the tube network where some of the stations dont even use their ticket barriers at times, we need to be able to detect these devices at the entrance of the station and stop the individuals that use them.

That is an example of good policing, and long may it continue.
Again, a shot to the body was not an option to the policeman, seven rounds to the head? ok, a bit excessive, but youve got to make sure the guy is dead.
And im sorry but lethal force is the only resort when dealing with people that are willing to die to kill others.


See, thats where I disagree.
If these guys were marksmen, a body shot was perfectly reasonable, and easy to do before this guy got anywhere.

If this guy did indeed have a bomb, the police were risking setting it off REGARDLESS of where they were aiming.
As you have said...a shot to the chest may have detonated a potential explosice device, and bullets dont always hit the intended area.
Any of those bullets may have gone astray, and hit such a device.

However...he wasnt wearing one.

The simple fact is that if he had obeyed the police he would still be alive.
I don't think we can blame the police, they really had little choice.

The only real solutions are to get the non-muslim and muslim communities to engage more, to get rid of faith schools (which just ferment feelings of segregation) and to give the youth in this country a way to object to things like the iraq war that is actually effective. Don't forget the mass protests before the war started.

I agree that the reason the man is dead, is becuase he chose to run and resist apprehension.
That cost him his life, in a very serious situation.
However, I also think that the intelligence must have been poor, because the man was innocent, wasnt he?

I dont blame the police, but I think they used an extreme measure, in an uncertain situation.

See, thats where I disagree.
If these guys were marksmen, a body shot was perfectly reasonable, and easy to do before this guy got anywhere.

If this guy did indeed have a bomb, the police were risking setting it off REGARDLESS of where they were aiming.
As you have said...a shot to the chest may have detonated a potential explosice device, and bullets dont always hit the intended area.
Any of those bullets may have gone astray, and hit such a device.

However...he wasnt wearing one.

none of their bullets hit his chest. 7 hit his head and 1 his shoulder. That did not risk a detonation. They also cannot shoot a bloke just walking down the road. Once he was challenged and ran, were could they had shot him in the chest that wouldn't risk the lives of bystanders?

See, thats where I disagree.
If these guys were marksmen, a body shot was perfectly reasonable, and easy to do before this guy got anywhere.

If this guy did indeed have a bomb, the police were risking setting it off REGARDLESS of where they were aiming.
As you have said...a shot to the chest may have detonated a potential explosice device, and bullets dont always hit the intended area.
Any of those bullets may have gone astray, and hit such a device.

However...he wasnt wearing one.

The fact that the guy wasnt wearing a bomb is IRRELEVANT TO THE SITUATION BECAUSE THE POLICE DIDNT KNOW THAT HE DIDNT HAVE A BOMB. A shot to the head will not detonate a bomb strapped to the chest, and as you said, they are marksman, it is their job to hit the intended area and not to have their bullets go astray.

I agree that the reason the man is dead, is becuase he chose to run and resist apprehension.
That cost him his life, in a very serious situation.
However, I also think that the intelligence must have been poor, because the man was innocent, wasnt he?

I dont blame the police, but I think they used an extreme measure, in an uncertain situation.

what laternative measures were there?

You can't make sure that everyone is not a bomber, you have to rely on intelligence. The underground system in London seriously needs to be modernised, i live on the outskirts of the tube network where some of the stations dont even use their ticket barriers at times, we need to be able to detect these devices at the entrance of the station and stop the individuals that use them.


How?

Trained dogs?

Metal detectors?

Can you imagine the number of people that would set off a metal dectector everyday, and people who simply had a metal thermos full of coffee or something.

Were talking about a looooooot of people who use the tube..

How?

Trained dogs?

Metal detectors?

Can you imagine the number of people that would set off a metal dectector everyday, and people who simply had a metal thermos full of coffee or something.

Were talking about a looooooot of people who use the tube..

I dont know how it would work, im not a security expert, all i know is that some sort of detection needs to be installed.

I dont know how it would work, im not a security expert, all i know is that some sort of detection needs to be installed.


agreed.

I personally would advocate the use of bombsniffing dogs at all subway entrances.

I dont know how it would work, im not a security expert, all i know is that some sort of detection needs to be installed.

the question is does such a system exist?

And then the bombers would just move to the buses, or trains, or shopping streets

do you even know how many tube stations there are?

There aren't enough sniffer dogs in the UK I am sure

Surely you can agree that some system needs to be installed?

do you even know how many tube stations there are?

There aren't enough sniffer dogs in the UK I am sure


Im from the US.

We have subways too...

and Dogs....a whole plethora of them.

Im sure we'd loan you a few.

agreed.

I personally would advocate the use of bombsniffing dogs at all subway entrances.

274 stations, open from about 5am to 1am with multiple entrances.

We'd need thousands of sniffer dogs and officers.

And then they'd bomb the buses.

274 stations, open from about 5am to 1am with multiple entrances.

We'd need thousands of sniffer dogs and officers.

And then they'd bomb the buses.


Oh wait they've already tried.

precisely.

You can't stop them. You have to fight the roots - dissaffected muslim youth, the bombmakers, the planners.

Like the IRA, you don't win with police or army. You win by talking and working at the roots.
Yeah our government really needs to learn from the lessons of the IRA when dealing with this new terror threat.

274 stations, open from about 5am to 1am with multiple entrances.

We'd need thousands of sniffer dogs and officers.

And then they'd bomb the buses.


Whats the alternative then?

There is obviously severe security issues on the subways.
Steps must be taken to reduce, or eliminate them as much as possible.
Sniffer dogs may not be entirely practical, but they are also practically foolproof.

Metal detectors would be too inefficient, and would choke and clog busy stations.
A sniffer-dog, however....you can have a few molecules of explosives on you, and that dog will take a severe interest in you, and all you have to do is get near it.

Oh wait they've already tried.

precisely.

You can't stop them. You have to fight the roots - dissaffected muslim youth, the bombmakers, the planners.

Like the IRA, you don't win with police or army. You win by talking and working at the roots.

As for the 7 rounds.....one to the head will do nicely.
7 is excessive...like using a hammer to swat flies.

I think if you did any research at all you'd find they showed restraint. It's not uncommon for a person when stressed to empty an entire clip before they realize it. Meaning they'd of fired closer to 100 shots. Considerable restraint.

security can't beat them. That's the fact.

Sniffer dogs is not a viable solution.


and yet..one must be invented, or there will be more innocent blood spilt in the same way.

That must not be.

So then....what does one do?

I think if you did any research at all you'd find they showed restraint. It's not uncommon for a person when stressed to empty an entire clip before they realize it. Meaning they'd of fired closer to 100 shots. Considerable restraint.


Oh please..dont give me that research crap.

How many shots were fired?

How many officers had drawn weapons and actually discharged them?
At one time did the officers in question clearly identify themselves, before firing thier weapons?

Did any of the officers miss the target?

If you dont have the answers to these questions..dont give me any pretentious crap about "research."

security can't beat them. That's the fact.

Sniffer dogs is not a viable solution.

I know this sounds a little far-fetched, but have you seen the film Total Recall? They have those screens that use x-rays to show exactly what the person is carrying, whats wrong with that?

Whats the alternative then?

There is obviously severe security issues on the subways.
Steps must be taken to reduce, or eliminate them as much as possible.
Sniffer dogs may not be entirely practical, but they are also practically foolproof.

Metal detectors would be too inefficient, and would choke and clog busy stations.
A sniffer-dog, however....you can have a few molecules of explosives on you, and that dog will take a severe interest in you, and all you have to do is get near it.

security can't beat them. That's the fact.

Sniffer dogs is not a viable solution.

This thread wins my FOR.FCUK.SAKE award of the day.


The police were right to shoot this man.

All the people who says "oh but he was innocent". Yes it turns out he was, But what if he wasn't, What if he was a suicide bomber and blew himself and other people up. Then you lot would be saying, "Well why didn't the police shoot him".

It was unfortunate BUT it was the right choice. I mean he ran AWAY from the police ONTO a tube train, A few days AFTER the bombings, please people get some common sense ffs.

I know this sounds a little far-fetched, but have you seen the film Total Recall? They have those screens that use x-rays to show exactly what the person is carrying, whats wrong with that?

1 - you cannot legally dose people with X-rays that often - you will give 100s of people cancer

2 - where would you put the scanners? How would you protect buses, shopping streets, churches, parks, town halls...

edit: plus they show skin surface so make you look naked, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable

This thread wins my FOR.FCUK.SAKE award of the day.


The police were right to shoot this man.

All the people who says "oh but he was innocent". Yes it turns out he was, But what if he wasn't, What if he was a suicide bomber and blew himself and other people up. Then you lot would be saying, "Well why didn't the police shoot him".

It was unfortunate BUT it was the right choice. I mean he ran AWAY from the police ONTO a tube train, A few days AFTER the bombings, please people get some common sense ffs.

You appear to advocate killing on an "If"..therefore...you should shaddap.

At that spilt second he posed a threat, The police WERE right to shoot him.

END OF.

At that spilt second he posed a threat, The police WERE right to shoot him.

END OF.


But the guy was unarmed.

He posed no threat.

But the guy was unarmed.

He posed no threat.

all they knew was he could have a bomb and fled from them into the tube when challenged.

What would you do in the same situation?

OK, a recent family debate, which very nearly ended in a fist fight has prompted me to get a wider consensus on the opinions people have over the British Police shooting an innocent man at a tube station in the head SEVEN TIMES! Personally I think that the person who gave the order should be thrown away for murder. One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement. Another thing to bear in mind is if 3 plain clothed people run at you with guns, would you stop?

oh another quick note, in my family debate it was the older people (with the exception of my dad) who agreed with the shooting, they also viewed foriegners as second class citizens and confessed to being racist, the young members of the family, who have had less time to build prejudice minds, disagreed with it as they can see it for what is was alot easier. As people on nation statestend to be younger but we do get older people on, please state your age

Why was he running from the Police in the first place who clearly identified themselves and ordered him to stop? If any kind Police officer points a gun at you and orders you to stop then YOU STOP!!!!

How is a Police officer going to know if the man is innocent is he ignores the order to stop and dashes into one of London's tube stations, which have previously been targeted by suicide bombers? They're not going to wait until an explosion just to make sure.

In my opinion if the guy had stopped he would be alive now. Instead he ignored the order and the Police officers acted accordingly. It's not a perfect system, but we live in an imperfect world during a time of global terrorism.

I am 23 and consider myself to be a realist.

One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement.

Frankly it is a reasonable argument because the Police didn't know beforehand and were certainly not going to wait and find out. It was only AFTER the shooting that he was discovered to be an 'innocent'.

all they knew was he could have a bomb and fled from them into the tube when challenged.

What would you do in the same situation?

My guess is he would of offered the man in the bulky coat in JULY a cup of tea and talked him to death.

all they knew was he could have a bomb and fled from them into the tube when challenged.

What would you do in the same situation?


Asking me what I would do is pointless, as Im not a trained Police officer.
If I were,, my training may tell me to do the same as the officer did.
I dont know.

Also, Im a touch more colder than the average human being, and putting one through his lung would suffice nicely for me.

I also believe that if the police did actually think this guy may have had an explosive device, to open fire on the man at all...is to risk detonation of the device.
So basically..the police decided to risk it.
As it turns out, they were wrong about the man, and he was innocent, if stupid.
But stupid isnt a reason to kill someone.

But if they had happened to be right...the man...and the officers..would all be dead, and either way...several lives would have been lost.
This way...one innocent man was killed.

It all sucks, and I dont see a way out of it.
Furthermore..I think actions like this one, bring the western world one step closer to a police state.
How many more attacks will happen in Britian and the US, before we find more and more of our civil liberties taken away?

Is it better to be safe from terrorism, if we arent allowed to come and go as we please?

I dont think so.

Asking me what I would do is pointless, as Im not a trained Police officer.
If I were,, my training may tell me to do the same as the officer did.
I dont know.

Also, Im a touch more colder than the average human being, and putting one through his lung would suffice nicely for me.

I also believe that if the police did actually think this guy may have had an explosive device, to open fire on the man at all...is to risk detonation of the device.
So basically..the police decided to risk it.
As it turns out, they were wrong about the man, and he was innocent, if stupid.
But stupid isnt a reason to kill someone.

But if they had happened to be right...the man...and the officers..would all be dead, and either way...several lives would have been lost.
This way...one innocent man was killed.

It all sucks, and I dont see a way out of it.
Furthermore..I think actions like this one, bring the western world one step closer to a police state.
How many more attacks will happen in Britian and the US, before we find more and more of our civil liberties taken away?

Is it better to be safe from terrorism, if we arent allowed to come and go as we please?

I dont think so.

Hitting him in the head had no risk of detonating a bomb. If he had been a bomber, they'd have saved 10 or 20 lives.

Again, shooting a lung might detonate the bomb. Is this concept too difficult for you? Home-made explosives are volatile, and a projectile like a bullet might set them off.

You have to go for a headshot, know what happens when a bullet meets a bomb? Gee the bomb goes off, so if they've got a bomb strapped to their chest. KABOOM. In that instance you either kill him or he explodes, those are the options. Either you take him out or he takes out dozens of innocent people. Don't use the benefit of hindsight to judge these officers. The day the shooting was announced I supported their actions because it was the right thing to do given the information. Few days later when it came out he was just a stupid goat farmer from Brazil I still supported them, the call that had to be made in that split second did not change. Kill him or he kills a whole mess of others. You can't shoot to wound, you can't talk him out of it, and he's ignoring demands to stop and running onto a crowded train after the subway has been attacked twice before. Shoot him, and make damn sure he's dead before he has a chance to trigger the device.

Hitting him in the head had no risk of detonating a bomb. If he had been a bomber, they'd have saved 10 or 20 lives.

Again, shooting a lung might detonate the bomb. Is this concept too difficult for you? Home-made explosives are volatile, and a projectile like a bullet might set them off.

Dont be a rude ass.

Opening fire on the man AT ALL was risky for the same reasons.
Shooting a moving target in the head isnt easy, and shot go astray all too easily.
Once they decided to open fire....they made the decison to risk it.

Dont be a rude ass.

Opening fire on the man AT ALL was risky for the same reasons.
Shooting a moving target in the head isnt easy, and shot go astray all too easily.
Once they decided to open fire....they made the decison to risk it.

7 hit his head, one his shoulder.

That doesn't sound like they risked hitting a bomb to me.

There is another thread on this around here you might like to check out

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433892

I’m Brazilian, and I’ll give my opinion based on the information I could gather about the incident.

First, police said that the house where my countryman was living was under surveillance for many days, they suspected that suicide bombers could be living there. I accept that.

Second, they said that they followed the suspect after he left the house; he walked to a bus stop, got a bus and headed to the subway, all his steps tracked down by the police. Good.

Third, policed said that he was behaving in a suspect manner, and wearing a heavy jacket, unfit for the summer. So the police challenged him, he fled, was pursued and shot seven times (I heard eight times, and after he was captured by the police, but I can’t maintain this).

Let’s analyze it all: A guy leaves a house under surveillance, wearing a heavy jacket, looking like a suicide bomber. The police allows him to walk freely in the streets, get in a bus, where he could have detonated the bomb (it actually happened on July 7th) and challenged him only in the subway? Very strange.

Is very strange also, to shoot a guy carrying a bomb. I’m not sure if this is a good idea. The bomb could have exploded anyway. I think.

If think that the police made many mistakes managing this issue and an innocent man was killed. The responsible must be punished (forget about hanging and impaling them; punish them according to the law. Maybe some compensation can be sent to the deceased’s family, because they are incredibly poor, I think you guys who live in Europe and US can not imagine the living conditions under which many Brazilians live. That’s because many of us left the country, and many send money back to their families.

I also think that police need to be hardliners against terrorist, and act swiftly to avoid mass murders. I also accept that this challenge is new and sometimes the policemen aren’t prepared to deal with these issues.

Sorry about my bad English.

Alexandre,

Chairman of Pensadores Livres (Free Thinkers)

1) Address of this chap found in rucksack containing bomb on 7th

2) Chap wearing unusual clothing for Summer (not much on it's own, but when added to other info)

3) Chap challenged by armed police. He runs, he hurdles barrier and jumps onto crowded tube

4) 7 shots fired because low velocity bullets in use (specifically for this eventuality - chances of passers-by being hit are hugely minimised, but to take out suspect, multiple shots are required).

Unfortunate, but police did the only thing they could do.

All this bollocks about "ooh, just hit him in the leg" is pathetic.

No.

Incapacitating the man through the use of gunfire would have been the right thing.
Wounding him, in the legs, or any hit that could have taken him down would have been sufficient.

Shooting a man 7 times in the head, is not "Nescessary Force".

Its murder.


Deliberately attempting to just incapacitate someone believed to be a dangerous felon is absurd, learned from too many movies.

Police trained to use firearms are trained to put down their target, not wound or "wing" them. There are no degrees of shooting-there is no situation where they are trained to just shoot a foot or an ear. By virtue of using a gun firing bullets into the target's center mass is fully intended to kill the target. Some happen to live, but that isnt the intention.
Police bullets ideally are to hit the target and stop the target completely without penetrating through and through and without hitting unintended targets.

The police did their job in this instance and they did it well. Its a terrible shame that their intelligence was flawed.
They hit their target and only their target. This wasnt a wild west shoot-out.
They showed considerable skill and control.

And I'm sorry these poor bastards have to live with killing an innocent man.
None of them planned to kill an innocent man that day.

I think you're missing the point here, we have to have evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" to be allowed to putsomeone in prison, but we can kill someone on a whim? Thats not exactly justice is it? The man ran because his visa had expired (anyone who says then he should have been shot because of that deserves to be shot themselves). The fact is, there are lots of reasons someone could run from the police when told to stop, especially if you realise they've been following you all day. Lets do this mathamatically, say theres a 1 in 100 chance he was a bomber, which i think is giving rather generous odds, and if he had have blown himself up he would have killed 30 people, that means u have to kill 100 people to save the lives of 30, is that right?

What would you do in the same situation?


You know-just talk some more.

oh and has everyone forgot they pinned the guy down and then shot him at almost point blank range, could he not have set the bomb off on the floor?

I think you're missing the point here, we have to have evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" to be allowed to putsomeone in prison, but we can kill someone on a whim? Thats not exactly justice is it? The man ran because his visa had expired (anyone who says then he should have been shot because of that deserves to be shot themselves). The fact is, there are lots of reasons someone could run from the police when told to stop, especially if you realise they've been following you all day. Lets do this mathamatically, say theres a 1 in 100 chance he was a bomber, which i think is giving rather generous odds, and if he had have blown himself up he would have killed 30 people, that means u have to kill 100 people to save the lives of 30, is that right?

The point is, this wasnt a trial. Trained men had to make a split second decision. They had just seen, many first hand, the aftermath of bombs being detonated by scumbags in their beloved civilized city. Innocent people traveling that were blown to bits while going about their business.
Now they have a suspect, already acting suspiciously, attempt to flee. They followed their training and exercising skill and restraint, put the target down.
Its a terrible circumstance-and a terrorist's wet dream.
Can you imagine how happy terrorists are when they learned that this happened?

There was no "whim". And the worst outcome now will be well trained officers all hesitating and second guessing years of training and good intentions because of this.

They need to know they have the support of the very people they are struggling to safeguard and serve.

A shoot to kill policy isn't going to get my blessing, especially when in the first instance its used an innocent person is killed. Does this not prove the policy doesnt work? How many innocent people have to be shot before they realise it doesnt work? 2? 3? 4? 5? 25? what would you say is a reasonable figure to start thinking about abolishing the policy? It's another way of getting us to do as we're told. Dont run from a cop or you'll get shot. How long before the local bobby patrols the street with a semi automatic? Why cant people see what we need to do is get the fuck out of the middle east and meddling in other peoples affairs and then we wont get bombed and wont shoot innocent people.

A shoot to kill policy isn't going to get my blessing, especially when in the first instance its used an innocent person is killed. Does this not prove the policy doesnt work? How many innocent people have to be shot before they realise it doesnt work? 2? 3? 4? 5? 25? what would you say is a reasonable figure to start thinking about abolishing the policy? It's another way of getting us to do as we're told. Dont run from a cop or you'll get shot. How long before the local bobby patrols the street with a semi automatic? Why cant people see what we need to do is get the fuck out of the middle east and meddling in other peoples affairs and then we wont get bombed and wont shoot innocent people.

How does it prove the policy does not work? You'll be hard pressed to come up with any statistics to prove one way or the other whether it "works". If the policy prevents one potential suicide bomber from becoming an actual suicide bomber, does that mean it works?

Unfortunately, the authorities need to be able to disable threats to the public, and in the world as it is right this very second, that means that sometimes they have to kill people. Are there no situations that you can think of that it may be necessary for the police to shoot someone to kill?

How the policy is worded and applied, now that's a whole other ballgame.

A shoot to kill policy isn't going to get my blessing, especially when in the first instance its used an innocent person is killed. Does this not prove the policy doesnt work? How many innocent people have to be shot before they realise it doesnt work? 2? 3? 4? 5? 25? what would you say is a reasonable figure to start thinking about abolishing the policy? It's another way of getting us to do as we're told. Dont run from a cop or you'll get shot. How long before the local bobby patrols the street with a semi automatic? Why cant people see what we need to do is get the fuck out of the middle east and meddling in other peoples affairs and then we wont get bombed and wont shoot innocent people.


It isnt "shoot to kill"- its shoot to stop. Often this will result in death.
So far, not to minimize an innocent being killed, one was shot.

Not obeying a policeman is a seperate crime. You're not allowed to disobey the order of a policeman, even if you think its wrong.

next you're going to have bullshit defense attorneys arguing their clients resisted or fled from police in self defense.

no, i agree with the policy IF it kills suicide bombers, but it should still work like a trial, the police can "suspect" they have to be certain this person is a threat to the public. The fact is a shoot to kill policy as it is, kills innocent people as has been proved, so it needs changing, and in a large way. The intelligence system needs looking at. How we can have the confidence in our intelligence after iraq to be able to shoot at people is beyond me. You cant continue the same policy after this incident cos its been proved it doesnt work!

"Police Shooting Innocent People"

As usual, it's not nearly as "black and white" as you, among lots of others who should know better, seem to believe. In the heat of the chase, the agonizing suspense of never knowing of someone is going to blow themselves up right in your face, and all the other stresses associated with being in this position, it's a miracle that more cases like this one don't occur.

Police are just as human as the rest of us, although hopefully trained considerably beyond the rest of us. Their responsibility is to protect as many of the rest of us as they can. The stress of all of this responsibility leads to all kinds of problems for those in the protective services.

To hold them responsible for making an incorrect spur-of-the-moment decision which arm-chair critics later decide is wrong would be dysfunctional in the extreme. You weren't there, you're not a peace officer, you have no training or experience in making split-second life or death decisions ( so far as I know ), and thus your opinions on the matter carry very little weight.

It only became a spur of the moment decision after a mess up in intellgence, you cant shoot people if you dont shoot the right people. We have seen now that people who arent bombers run from police onto tube trains, they might not do it again now, but is a persons life justifiable taken just to make an example? IF you cant get it right, you cant shoot people simple as that

A shoot to kill policy isn't going to get my blessing, especially when in the first instance its used an innocent person is killed. Does this not prove the policy doesnt work? How many innocent people have to be shot before they realise it doesnt work? 2? 3? 4? 5? 25? what would you say is a reasonable figure to start thinking about abolishing the policy? It's another way of getting us to do as we're told. Dont run from a cop or you'll get shot. How long before the local bobby patrols the street with a semi automatic? Why cant people see what we need to do is get the fuck out of the middle east and meddling in other peoples affairs and then we wont get bombed and wont shoot innocent people.


So what, anyone who disagrees with our foreign policy can bomb us and we'll change it?
Nice solution, we know that conceding to terroist demands NEVER encourages more attacks.

You can run from the police all you like. But if you run onto a crowded train the day after attempted suicide bombings when armed police challenge you, you can't really expect much else.

our foriegn policy is wrong, even the British people demonstrated that when 2 million people marched through London to say no to the Iraq war. You'd think logic would tell you we're doing something wrong. Killing thousands of people in the middle east over the last 15 years has meant that we are a terrorist target. We disagreed with the war to start with and now what we thought would happened has happened, we dont want to change our policy? how does that make sense

our foriegn policy is wrong, even the British people demonstrated that when 2 million people marched through London to say no to the Iraq war. You'd think logic would tell you we're doing something wrong. Killing thousands of people in the middle east over the last 15 years has meant that we are a terrorist target. We disagreed with the war to start with and now what we thought would happened has happened, we dont want to change our policy? how does that make sense

You should never change foreign policy just to suit terrorists. If you do that, you encourage more to attack you.

And don't forget that the British people re-elected those same MPs who voted for war.

voted them in because the opposition party agreed with the war. The fact is if you dont do anything to piss off terrorists, they wont attack you. These people are giving their lives dont forget, they wont do that over a much smaller, more petty thing. This isnt like giving into a bully and giving him your lunch money, its like YOU beating up the kid and taking his lunch money, then he stabs you. Not continuing to steal his lunch money is probably a good idea after that isnt it?

Even if the man that was shot wasn't a bomber is irellevant. At the time all they knew was that this man was. The higher ups are to blame. The police that shot the guy had no reason to believe the he wasnt a bomber. Since the officers were told that he was. A stun gun wouldn't help the situation. Since a stun gun uses electrical current there was a chance it would make any bomb explode if there was one.

no, i agree with the policy IF it kills suicide bombers, but it should still work like a trial, the police can "suspect" they have to be certain this person is a threat to the public. The fact is a shoot to kill policy as it is, kills innocent people as has been proved, so it needs changing, and in a large way. The intelligence system needs looking at. How we can have the confidence in our intelligence after iraq to be able to shoot at people is beyond me. You cant continue the same policy after this incident cos its been proved it doesnt work!

The police clearly were certain that the individual was a threat to the public, their actions proved this. Tragically they were wrong. You are never going to get anything right 100% of the time, but you shouldn't completely scrap a whole policy over one incident. Hopefully good will come out of this terrible incident by allowing the policy to be refined to minimise the risks of innocent people being killed in this way, but there is no foolproof plan. Innocent people are still found guilty in courts of law, but I hope you are not suggesting the legal system is removed. All we can do is learn from our mistakes and make every effort for them not to happen again.

voted them in because the opposition party agreed with the war. The fact is if you dont do anything to piss off terrorists, they wont attack you. These people are giving their lives dont forget, they wont do that over a much smaller, more petty thing. This isnt like giving into a bully and giving him your lunch money, its like YOU beating up the kid and taking his lunch money, then he stabs you. Not continuing to steal his lunch money is probably a good idea after that isnt it?

What if you were being beaten up for looking at someone "funny"? Unfortunately terrorists aren't generally logical people who can be reasoned with - they are by their very nature extremists who could quite easily launch an attack because they disagree with people doing anything they don't like. What if they decided that the UK should all be a certain religion, or dress a certain way?

voted them in because the opposition party agreed with the war. The fact is if you dont do anything to piss off terrorists, they wont attack you. These people are giving their lives dont forget, they wont do that over a much smaller, more petty thing. This isnt like giving into a bully and giving him your lunch money, its like YOU beating up the kid and taking his lunch money, then he stabs you. Not continuing to steal his lunch money is probably a good idea after that isnt it?


We don't have a two party system. People COULD have voted for other candidates if they considered the war in Iraq to be as important as you suggest.

Many people in Iraq are happy we invaded, many are not. But we should not make policy decisions based on how likely we are to be attacked by terrorists. We could have been neutral in WW2, we could have let Saddam invade Kuwait, we could have handed northern ireland to EIRE. But we don't do things just because we might be hurt if we don't.

No,i'm not suggesting we remove the law system, and no i'm not entirely against the shoot to kill policy but it does need changing to say that the person has to be thought to be a suicide bomber beyond all reasonable doubt, not by the officers on the ground but by the intelligence services. If innocent people are killed, the person who gave the order on insufficient evidence should be charged with murder, if a man is pinned down by 2 officers and doesnt set off a bomb, the man who shoots him 8 times, 7 times in the head, should be tried with murder


If we follow your suggestion the police can have no means to stop a suspected suicide bomber. They'd just have to follow them to the train and watch them kill people.

How do you know beyond reasonable doubt? When he runs? When he is wearing unusually heavy clothes? When he heads into a crowded train?

Comeon, what is your evidence that you can use to prove "beyond reasonable doubt"?

No,i'm not suggesting we remove the law system, and no i'm not entirely against the shoot to kill policy but it does need changing to say that the person has to be thought to be a suicide bomber beyond all reasonable doubt, not by the officers on the ground but by the intelligence services. If innocent people are killed, the person who gave the order on insufficient evidence should be charged with murder, if a man is pinned down by 2 officers and doesnt set off a bomb, the man who shoots him 8 times, 7 times in the head, should be tried with murder

For all you eople saying that the fact that we wasn't a suicide bomder doesn't matter then you must feel that what happened during the Salem witch trials were correct and justified.

No,i'm not suggesting we remove the law system, and no i'm not entirely against the shoot to kill policy but it does need changing to say that the person has to be thought to be a suicide bomber beyond all reasonable doubt, not by the officers on the ground but by the intelligence services. If innocent people are killed, the person who gave the order on insufficient evidence should be charged with murder, if a man is pinned down by 2 officers and doesnt set off a bomb, the man who shoots him 8 times, 7 times in the head, should be tried with murder

you sit on a guy who might have a bomb and tell me whether you'd like to wait and see

Isn't the idea to have them pinned down with their hands behind their backs? It looks more like the guy was executed then a legitimate police shooting

This whole foriegn policy thing would be fine if we invaded countries for the reasons you state, but we dont, the first Iraq war itr wasnt just Saddam killing innocent people. We and america gave him weapons to invade Iran and turned a blind eye as he massacred kurds, then when he invaded Kuwait with out weapons we got pissed off cos we have oil fields there, that kind of behaviour is wrong and stimulates terrorism, simply protecting Kuwait wouldnt have. In Ireland we didnt listen to what the people of Northern Ireland wanted, we didnt ask them if they wanted to be part of the Republic Of Ireland did we? We just said no and therefore invited in Terrorists. Lying about our reasons for war in the second Iraq war also helped to breed more terrorism and ultimately forming Israel by taking other peoples land also caused terrorists. World War 2 was justified because we did it to protect people honestly, THAT didnt cause terrorists because people thought we were doing the RIGHT thing

This whole foriegn policy thing would be fine if we invaded countries for the reasons you state, but we dont, the first Iraq war itr wasnt just Saddam killing innocent people. We and america gave him weapons to invade Iran and turned a blind eye as he massacred kurds, then when he invaded Kuwait with out weapons we got pissed off cos we have oil fields there, that kind of behaviour is wrong and stimulates terrorism, simply protecting Kuwait wouldnt have. In Ireland we didnt listen to what the people of Northern Ireland wanted, we didnt ask them if they wanted to be part of the Republic Of Ireland did we? We just said no and therefore invited in Terrorists. Lying about our reasons for war in the second Iraq war also helped to breed more terrorism and ultimately forming Israel by taking other peoples land also caused terrorists. World War 2 was justified because we did it to protect people honestly, THAT didnt cause terrorists because people thought we were doing the RIGHT thing


The UN resolution on Kuwait was about agression from Iraq, not oil

The Northern Irish majority did (and still do) want to remain part of the Union. That's where the loyalist groups came from. If we had caved to the IRA most of the people (ie the protestants) would have been very upset.

WW2 - london was bombed. If we had stayed out of it, london would not have been bombed. By your logic then, we should have been neutral.

hows he going to set off a bomb when he's pinned and you have him secure enough to let someone accurately shoot him in the head consecutively? He must have been unable to move and therefore couldnt have set off a bomb

one free hand is all it takes

you sit on a guy who might have a bomb and tell me whether you'd like to wait and see

hows he going to set off a bomb when he's pinned and you have him secure enough to let someone accurately shoot him in the head consecutively? He must have been unable to move and therefore couldnt have set off a bomb

hows he going to set off a bomb when he's pinned and you have him secure enough to let someone accurately shoot him in the head consecutively? He must have been unable to move and therefore couldnt have set off a bomb


Just because he was in a crowded area and couldnt run away from the police, does not mean that his arms were pinned at his sides and he was totally incapable of ANY movement whatsoever. All he would have needed was one hand.

And sadly, this entire debate is flawed. While this is fun to do, everyone who is arguing that the police should not have shot the man because he actually was not a bomber needs to relize that we DO have the benifit of hindsight. If you had been watching a man for three days, recieved intel that he was very likely a suicide bomber, and when you told him to stop, he ran, would you consider attempting to shoot him in the legs *in a crowded area where a shot to the legs would be nearly impossible through several other pairs of them* or would you consider taking him out and removing a deadly threat to hundereds of people? And to top it off, they just recently had FOUR bombings that killed quite a few people.

Do you honestly think that you could have stood there and NOT shot to kill? Honestly?

Just because he was in a crowded area and couldnt run away from the police, does not mean that his arms were pinned at his sides and he was totally incapable of ANY movement whatsoever. All he would have needed was one hand.

And sadly, this entire debate is flawed. While this is fun to do, everyone who is arguing that the police should not have shot the man because he actually was not a bomber needs to relize that we DO have the benifit of hindsight. If you had been watching a man for three days, recieved intel that he was very likely a suicide bomber, and when you told him to stop, he ran, would you consider attempting to shoot him in the legs *in a crowded area where a shot to the legs would be nearly impossible through several other pairs of them* or would you consider taking him out and removing a deadly threat to hundereds of people? And to top it off, they just recently had FOUR bombings that killed quite a few people.

Do you honestly think that you could have stood there and NOT shot to kill? Honestly?


firstly, there was no specific intel about the gentleman in question, only the block of flats.

Secondly, it was tens, not hundreds, of people at risk.

Thirdly, 4 bombs went off, but the day before the shooting 4 more were attempted, but were duds

The UN resolution on Kuwait was about agression from Iraq, not oil

The Northern Irish majority did (and still do) want to remain part of the Union. That's where the loyalist groups came from. If we had caved to the IRA most of the people (ie the protestants) would have been very upset.

WW2 - london was bombed. If we had stayed out of it, london would not have been bombed. By your logic then, we should have been neutral.

For a start how do you know the people of Northern Ireland wanted to remain with Britain, was a vote ever casted?

By my "logic" WW2 was justifiable because we were in a state of war, we werent being attacked by people after a war, we were being attack during the war. When we defeated Germany we werent bombed, when we defeated Iraq, we were. The bombing of London lasted a few months. Terrorist bombings could last a lot longer than that because an injustice has been done on our part, which is the difference to world war 2

For a start how do you know the people of Northern Ireland wanted to remain with Britain, was a vote ever casted?

By my "logic" WW2 was justifiable because we were in a state of war, we werent being attacked by people after a war, we were being attack during the war. When we defeated Germany we werent bombed, when we defeated Iraq, we were. The bombing of London lasted a few months. Terrorist bombings could last a lot longer than that because an injustice has been done on our part, which is the difference to world war 2


read up on Wikipedia about Northern Ireland.

An "injustice" by your view, but not by many iraqis.

hows he going to set off a bomb when he's pinned and you have him secure enough to let someone accurately shoot him in the head consecutively? He must have been unable to move and therefore couldnt have set off a bomb


Whats your goal here? To have intelligent people with experience concede to your emotional arguement and say- "You're right- the police went out that day intending to kill someone and he fit the bill. they caught him,and executed him with forethought and malice?"

Ever think that these men-the police- are risking their lives every day-even more so now that they have suicidal zeolots blowing themselves up? That they are trying to protect and serve their public with good intent?
And now some have to live knowing that despite their intentions, they killed an man who was innocent of terrorist activity.

I dont want to hear the "reasonable doubt" in this situation again. Reasonable doubt is established in a courtroom, sometimes taking months and months.
A police officer has moments to react. Unfortunately the stakes are sometimes life and death.
Lets not support a trend that will have policemen doubting their honed intuitions and second guessing everything they do in the future.

It certainly not a widespread problem of the wrong man being killed. Its an exception. A tragic exception.

hows he going to set off a bomb when he's pinned and you have him secure enough to let someone accurately shoot him in the head consecutively? He must have been unable to move and therefore couldnt have set off a bomb

Read the other thread, there is a lot of interesting discussion about just this. Summarised it reads: if you and three of your mates can tackle someone to the ground and keep them held there without them clicking a ballpoint pen that they have in their hand, then suicide bombers can be efecitvely pinned down.

A man-in the middle of a heat wave is in the underground-where temps are even hotter then they are outside-a man who was wearing a big puffy black jacket, which could have easily have concealed something-wouldn't stop when policed called out to him.
Yes. And this is precisely why he was shot. He was a textbook example of what many, many previous suicide bombers have done -- worn inappropriately heavy, bulky, concealing jackets for the weather to hid the fact that they were wearing a suicide vest just before they murdered dozens of people.

I understand having 5 police men chasing you would make any one run. No, it wouldn't. Someone flashes a badge and tells you they are a cop, stop or they'll shoot, you stop. It's not Grand Theft Auto. Running from police is an idiotic idea, unless you are a criminal and have little to lose. If he had stopped, he'd be alive today.

Initailly I thought that shooting to kill was terrible as all the guys were trained marksmen and could have shot him in the leg. Most police and armed forces will tell you this is crap. They are trained to go for the head or for the chest -- the kill shot -- because an arm or leg is a real easy target to miss, and does not at ALL ensure incapacitation.

I still think that it was terrible that he was shot but what if he had a bomb? And more ppl died? People would then have been questioning why the trained police officers didn't shot to kill. To say what happened to that Brazilian man was unfortunate is an understatement, but remember the British government have a) learned from their mistakes in Northern Ireland b) they were conferring with governments such as Israel on how to deal with sucide bombers. Its not ok to kill innocent people, unfotunatly there were extenuating circumstances. I think that the police will try there upmost to prevent this happening in future.

This much I agree with entirely. I wish he were still alive. It is VERY unfortunate that an innocent man died, but his behavior was the most major contributor to his death. He literally sealed his own death by running from police to a crowded area -- precisely what a suicide bomber would have to be prevented from doing.

Personally I know a lot of people who would run from 3 men with guns who claim to be police. Anyone for example who had simply smoked a joint would run because he wouldn't want his parents to find out. The guy would reason like this: "I am not a threat to them since I don't show a firearm and am running AWAY from the police, so they wouldn't dream of shooting me"

And now I would like 1 minute of silence for all the future victims of police force.

Ridiculous. First of all, apples and oranges -- being arrested for smoking a joint and being told to stop by five armed police are completely different things. I highly doubt someone simply smoking a joint would have a gun pointed at them unless they were dumb enough to come at a policeman and threaten him or her.

Secondly: You are saying that someone would risk death for smoking a joint (not that big a deal) so his MOM would not find out?

The problem with that is that police, like anyone else, are susecptible to corruption.
Giving them free reign to to act, without fear of legal reprocussion, opens the door for all sorts of actions, that we'd all be better off if our police force didnt do.

Holding police to the LAW...is the best way to go.

Nothing suggests these police were corrupt, and they are being held to the law.

Iraq hasnt worked out well though has it? Rather than 1 evil dictator killing people we now have 1000's of people killing 50+ people a day. "injustices" were done when we were in iraq, something that Iraqi's agree with. For instance the Abu Graib prison atrocites and the "shoot anything that moves" policy in Fallujah which killed much more civilllians than Resistance Fighters.

Whats your goal here? To have intelligent people with experience concede to your emotional arguement and say- "You're right- the police went out that day intending to kill someone and he fit the bill. they caught him,and executed him with forethought and malice?"

Ever think that these men-the police- are risking their lives every day-even more so now that they have suicidal zeolots blowing themselves up? That they are trying to protect and serve their public with good intent?
And now some have to live knowing that despite their intentions, they killed an man who was innocent of terrorist activity.

I dont want to hear the "reasonable doubt" in this situation again. Reasonable doubt is established in a courtroom, sometimes taking months and months.
A police officer has moments to react. Unfortunately the stakes are sometimes life and death.
Lets not support a trend that will have policemen doubting their honed intuitions and second guessing everything they do in the future.

It certainly not a widespread problem of the wrong man being killed. Its an exception. A tragic exception.


A tragic exception? oh i'm sorry i must have forgotten about all those times we've shot real suicide bombers.

Iraq hasnt worked out well though has it? Rather than 1 evil dictator killing people we now have 1000's of people killing 50+ people a day. "injustices" were done when we were in iraq, something that Iraqi's agree with. For instance the Abu Graib prison atrocites and the "shoot anything that moves" policy in Fallujah which killed much more civilllians than Resistance Fighters.


Way off topic. But I'm sure thats your intent.

Im from the US.

We have subways too...

and Dogs....a whole plethora of them.

Im sure we'd loan you a few.

I LIVE in NY. We do NOT have detection devices at subway entrances, NOR do we have bombsniffing dogs in every station. We don't even have uniformed police in most stations (though I wouldn't be sure there aren't undercover cops on trains and in stations.)

We DO have armed National Guards at the Amtrak and commuter hubs walking around with rifles, but that's about it.

Please do NOT start with 'we're America and we do it better than everyone else', because honestly, the LACK of security on our rails has been next to criminal. Up until last month, I could get on an Amtrak with whatever I could drag behind me and no one would have questioned me about it, examined it, even made sure that I stayed with it.

Iraq hasnt worked out well though has it? Rather than 1 evil dictator killing people we now have 1000's of people killing 50+ people a day. "injustices" were done when we were in iraq, something that Iraqi's agree with. For instance the Abu Graib prison atrocites and the "shoot anything that moves" policy in Fallujah which killed much more civilllians than Resistance Fighters.

don't forget the foreign suicide bombers from Iran, Jordan, Syria etc killing innocent Iraqis looking for jobs.

Saying we shouldn't have gone to war because of the civilian cost is one thing, but saying we shouldn't have because we might be attacked by terrorists is quite different.

Don't forget, the people who are killed by these bombs might well have marched against the war and even voted for a candidate that opposed it.

I LIVE in NY. We do NOT have detection devices at subway entrances, NOR do we have bombsniffing dogs in every station. We don't even have uniformed police in most stations (though I wouldn't be there aren't undercover cops on trains and in stations.)

We DO have armed National Guards at the Amtrak and commuter hubs walking around with rifles, but that's about it.

Please do NOT start with 'we're America and we do it better than everyone else', because honestly, the LACK of security on our rails has been next to criminal. Up until last month, I could get on an Amtrak with whatever I could drag behind me and no one would have questioned me about it, examined it, even made sure that I stayed with it.

Remember soldiers at the George Washington Bridge and Lincoln Tunnel checking trucks?

don't forget the foreign suicide bombers from Iran, Jordan, Syria etc killing innocent Iraqis looking for jobs.

Saying we shouldn't have gone to war because of the civilian cost is one thing, but saying we shouldn't have because we might be attacked by terrorists is quite different.

Don't forget, the people who are killed by these bombs might well have marched against the war and even voted for a candidate that opposed it.

I'm perfectly aware that people on the trains may have "marched against the war and even voted for a candidate that opposed it." And I havent said the attacks were justified, i just said we have done things which were unjustified to cause terrorism I dont support terrorism, mainly because it isnt productive, it doesnt make people see the truth as to whats happened, it just angers them and makes them hate the perputrators even more, which is how u lot react, which means more bad wars, which means more terrorism, it needs a country to stop attackingothers to stop terrorism. If we hadnt invaded Iraq,would your life be worsened? would the people on the tube be dead? and dont give me the we needed to get rid of suddam bollocks, because we're not in Korea, or zimbabwae or any else with a corrupt dictatorship are we?

I'm perfectly aware that people on the trains may have "marched against the war and even voted for a candidate that opposed it." And I havent said the attacks were justified, i just said we have done things which were unjustified to cause terrorism I dont support terrorism, mainly because it isnt productive, it doesnt make people see the truth as to whats happened, it just angers them and makes them hate the perputrators even more, which is how u lot react, which means more bad wars, which means more terrorism, it needs a country to stop attackingothers to stop terrorism. If we hadnt invaded Iraq,would your life be worsened? would the people on the tube be dead? and dont give me the we needed to get rid of suddam bollocks, because we're not in Korea, or zimbabwae or any else with a corrupt dictatorship are we?

As far as I was aware, the motive for these specific attacks hasn't been determined. Terrorist attacks took place before 9/11 and before the most recent Gulf War. It is very easy to blame these attacks on the Iraq conflict, that doesn't mean that Iraq was the motivating factor though.

but we can kill someone on a whim? Thats not exactly justice is it? The man ran because his visa had expired (anyone who says then he should have been shot because of that deserves to be shot themselves). The fact is, there are lots of reasons someone could run from the police when told to stop, especially if you realise they've been following you all day. Lets do this mathamatically, say theres a 1 in 100 chance he was a bomber, which i think is giving rather generous odds, and if he had have blown himself up he would have killed 30 people, that means u have to kill 100 people to save the lives of 30, is that right?


He was not killed on a whim.
And while I don't think he deserved to be shot BECAUSE he had an expired visa, what you are saying is it is ok to run from the police because you've broken the law.

Unbelievable.

He was not killed on a whim.
And while I don't think he deserved to be shot BECAUSE he had an expired visa, what you are saying is it is ok to run from the police because you've broken the law.

Unbelievable.

No, dont be so incredibly ignorant, i AM NOT saying its ok to run from the police if you've broken the law, i'm saying its not ok for police to shoot people who are running from the law.

Going back to one of the original questions raised about the split of opinion by age group - that I can understand that... As you get older you notice there is never enough justice in the world - bad things happen to good people. It's nice to be young and idealistic about it, and I truely hope that the young will make a better future, but it's a slow painful, uphill, struggle. In context, 100 years ago civil liberties and human rights like we enjoy today were non-existent. In 100 years time we'll all look like primitive savages.

The UK police forces are amongst the best in the world and therefore amongst the best ever seen in human history. We are a very, very, very long way from a police state. They're not perfect, but it's not yet time to march on the street to overthrow the whole corrupt system.

If I'd been that policeman I'd have shot him, and kept shooting until he was no longer a threat.

The fact is the man was never a threat, he walked out of a block of flats that may have had dangerous people in it, they didnt know what room from, just a block of flats, So here he is less likely to be a bomber. A heavy coat on a summers day? It wasnt hot, the man was from Brazil and used to hot climates, THATS more likely than it containing a bomb. Running from plain clothed people with guns? Lots of reasons for that, maybe he had commited a crime, which it turns out he had, maybe he had some people who wanted him dead so he thought it was them. The fact of the matter is there wasnt one shred of hard evidence, we havent even been told how he was acting suspiciously in the THREE DAYS that they tailed him.

he wasnt innocent, his visa had expired and he wanted to stay in the country, when they shouted at him he instinctively ran so he could stay here...

I won't say the police did the "right" thing, because they clearly made a terrible mistake. I can certainly see how it is a reasonable mistake given the circumstances and I can't say that I would have done any differently. Anyone who says they would run from police if they were innocent should really rethink that tactic, as doesn't typically work out well for anyone who tries it.

Remember soldiers at the George Washington Bridge and Lincoln Tunnel checking trucks?

There are still checkpoints at bridges, and trucks do get stopped, though no longer by soldiers in my experience. And yes, I remember quite well the cold feeling that washed over me as I passed soldiers with rifles longer than the soldiers were tall aimed directly at my car.

The implication that "America is doing it so much better than the UK" that was made is ridiculous, because honestly, we've a lot to learn from the UK. They, along with France, btw, have been dealing with terrorist bombings for decades longer the the US has.

The fact is the man was never a threat, he walked out of a block of flats that may have had dangerous people in it, they didnt know what room from, just a block of flats, So here he is less likely to be a bomber. A heavy coat on a summers day? It wasnt hot, the man was from Brazil and used to hot climates, THATS more likely than it containing a bomb. Running from plain clothed people with guns? Lots of reasons for that, maybe he had commited a crime, which it turns out he had, maybe he had some people who wanted him dead so he thought it was them. The fact of the matter is there wasnt one shred of hard evidence, we havent even been told how he was acting suspiciously in the THREE DAYS that they tailed him.

I've searched and searched but can't find the information about Mr Menezes being under surveillance for three days. I thought the address had only been under surveillance for about 24 hours since the discovery of the address in one of the failed bombs the day before. If someone could post a link I'd be most grateful.

There are still checkpoints at bridges, and trucks do get stopped, though no longer by soldiers in my experience. And yes, I remember quite well the cold feeling that washed over me as I passed soldiers with rifles longer than the soldiers were tall aimed directly at my car.

The implication that "America is doing it so much better than the UK" that was made is ridiculous, because honestly, we've a lot to learn from the UK. They, along with France, btw, have been dealing with terrorist bombings for decades longer the the US has.
But one point Kat... Weeks after 7/7, there was another attempt, and the only reason why that failed was because the bombs either a) didn't go off, or b) the detonators failed to trigger the explosives.

and these bombs were again found on trains and buses... If London had tightened security to the point of the U.S. (security check points as well as random searches.) Would those bombs have even gotten to the trains? Much less, the bombers making another attempt.

Remember soldiers at the George Washington Bridge and Lincoln Tunnel checking trucks?

There are still checkpoints at bridges, and trucks do get stopped, though no longer by soldiers in my experience. And yes, I remember quite well the cold feeling that washed over me as I passed soldiers with rifles longer than the soldiers were tall aimed directly at my car.

The implication that "America is doing it so much better than the UK" that was made is ridiculous, because honestly, we've a lot to learn from the UK. They, along with France, btw, have been dealing with terrorist bombings for decades longer the the US has.

A few things that made me chuckle.

Shoot the guy in the chest, rather than a headshot?

Erm...you DO realize that there are a lot of vital organs in your chest? You DO realize that a bullet is going to cause severe damage, and if you get hit in the chest you are very likely to die. Even low caliber bullets can go straight through bone, so a 9mm to the chest would certainly put a man down, most likely for good.

As for the 7 rounds.....one to the head will do nicely.
7 is excessive...like using a hammer to swat flies.

One bullet or seven, he's going to die either way. There was a story from Iraq where a soldier was hit in the head by an AK-47, but was still alive and with it long enough to roll on top of a grenade that was thrown near his body. He saved his squad by doing that. Imagine what a single 9mm to the head can do. Yeah, he most likely will die either instantly or close to it, but you never know. If he was indeed a suicide bomber, he may of had enough life in him to press that button and take some people with him.

Plus in the heat of the moment, your heart is racing and your adrenaline is pumping. I'm sure each officer fired at his head, I'm sure it wasn't one cop standing over the guy's body pumping round after round into a dead man.

But the guy was unarmed.

He posed no threat.

This information came out AFTER THE FACT, there was no way for the officers to know if he was armed or not as the event unfolded. Exibiting suspicious behavior in a setting that was already hit by several bomb attacks is probably the dumbest thing you can do (well, I can think of a few other things, but this is definately one of them).

Several other people in this thread have already said it best, so I won't go on repeating what has already been said. I do not blame the officers for doing what they felt was necessary to protect the populace. It is easy for anyone to be an armchair critic when they are not out on the streets risking their lives with every footstep.

and these bombs were again found on trains and buses... If London had tightened security to the point of the U.S. (security check points as well as random searches.) Would those bombs have even gotten to the trains? Much less, the bombers making another attempt.

Unfortunately a determined bomber will almost always get through. If they introduced compulsory bag searches, I for one would stop probably stop using the tube. At my particular stop the trains are about 2 minutes apart and on average about 30-70 people get on at my stop (which is going in one direction, so assume half of that number again are going the other way). Having a bag searched properly takes a good few minutes in my experience, let's call it three. That makes 75 people entering the station every 2 minutes during the peak hours (08:00 to 10:00). There are only 2 "in" gates a this station, sometimes 3, so 3 people checking bags at 3 minutes per bag, it'd take 75 minutes to check the flow of traffic you normally get in 2. It takes me less than that to walk across London to my office, whereas the tube journey takes about 10.

In addition to this, you'd have to have all bus stops with people searching bags and the terrorists would either hit the queues of people waiting to be searched, just blow themselves up in the streets (which will be thronged with people walking) or resort to car bombings.

The onyl practical way to reduce the risk of bombs getting onto the public transport network is to stop the individuals becoming suicide bombers in the first place, or obtaining the intelligence and acting on it to stop them before they get to their targets.

OK, a recent family debate, which very nearly ended in a fist fight has prompted me to get a wider consensus on the opinions people have over the British Police shooting an innocent man at a tube station in the head SEVEN TIMES! Personally I think that the person who gave the order should be thrown away for murder. One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement. Another thing to bear in mind is if 3 plain clothed people run at you with guns, would you stop?

oh another quick note, in my family debate it was the older people (with the exception of my dad) who agreed with the shooting, they also viewed foriegners as second class citizens and confessed to being racist, the young members of the family, who have had less time to build prejudice minds, disagreed with it as they can see it for what is was alot easier. As people on nation statestend to be younger but we do get older people on, please state your age

I'm not British but here's my take. I dont' feel foriegners are second class and I strive not to be racist. That being said, this guy was hardly innocent. He wasn't what they thought he was, but he ran for a reason. I don't know what it is, but I think I heard he had some other problems going on. I dont' think any of those problems desrved the death penalty but I don't fault the cops for doing their jobs. He should have stopped when they called for him to do it. I don't feel he should have died but I don't blame the cops for they had to do. I hadn't heard it was 7 shots though. I can't imagine how you can shoot a guy 7 times in the head.

Unfortunately a determined bomber will almost always get through. If they introduced compulsory bag searches, I for one would stop probably stop using the tube. At my particular stop the trains are about 2 minutes apart and on average about 30-70 people get on at my stop (which is going in one direction, so assume half of that number again are going the other way). Having a bag searched properly takes a good few minutes in my experience, let's call it three. That makes 75 people entering the station every 2 minutes during the peak hours (08:00 to 10:00). There are only 2 "in" gates a this station, sometimes 3, so 3 people checking bags at 3 minutes per bag, it'd take 75 minutes to check the flow of traffic you normally get in 2. It takes me less than that to walk across London to my office, whereas the tube journey takes about 10.

In addition to this, you'd have to have all bus stops with people searching bags and the terrorists would either hit the queues of people waiting to be searched, just blow themselves up in the streets (which will be thronged with people walking) or resort to car bombings.

The onyl practical way to reduce the risk of bombs getting onto the public transport network is to stop the individuals becoming suicide bombers in the first place, or obtaining the intelligence and acting on it to stop them before they get to their targets.but if there was a check point at the train station, think that could've stopped that person from "running" onto the train and thus sparing the tragic shooting and loss of an innocent life?

but if there was a check point at the train station, think that could've stopped that person from "running" onto the train and thus sparing the tragic shooting and loss of an innocent life?

There was, it's called the ticket barrier and the underground staff who police it.

There was, it's called the ticket barrier and the underground staff who police it.and where where the staff? He 'Vaulted' the ticket Barrier and ran onto the train.

Why were the security people not there to stop him?

perhaps because the Ticket Barrier is just to ensrue that only ticketed people can enter, and that there really wasn't anyone there to stop him.

that is not a security checkpoint.

Isn't the idea to have them pinned down with their hands behind their backs? It looks more like the guy was executed then a legitimate police shooting

I suggest you know the exact meaning of executed before you decide to use it.
The policeman killed the man, but that doesnt make him guilty of murder looking at the evidence, and every citizen of Britain should be behind that policeman for not being afraid to shoot a potential suicide bomber.
The fact that the guy wasnt a bomber is utterly irrelevant to the argument, intelligence suggested that the guy could have been a bomber, and when he doesnt stop when told to by armed officers and runs onto a crowded train a day after 4 failed bombings, he can only expect to be shot.

Just out of curiosity, after you shoot someone in the head seven times, is there even a head to shoot at anymore?

Those are pretty specific circumstances, and yes..if such a situation did in fact fit that very specific situation, those actions might be exceptable.
Trouble is, not all situations are going to happen like that.

Variables happen and the Police should never have the right to kill anyone who fits a profile.
The fact that he didnt obey police commands is ulitmately why this situation doesnt warrant the criminal prosecution of the officer.
However, one shot to the chest, would have put this guy down, and perhaps not even lethally.
Sadly, and this has been true in Iraq as well, when a soldier shot an unarmed suspected ist, the man was too nervous, over-reacted, and killed a man who turned out to be , the methods used to apprehend thisn guy, was too..final.

This thing in Iraq with one of our soldiers an unarmed iraqi really gets on my nerves. The environment was a warzone, meaning soldiers have to act pretty much instinctively or they run at the risk of a sorrowful visit to their families by a couple of men in uniform. Keeping in mind that a 19 year only a couple blocks away was involved in a ing by an insurgen who was suspected to be (he and his squad may possably have been killed, my memory fails me), he had a choice between an iraqi insurgen or risking his own life and the lives of his sqaudmates. This isn't a video game, in the similar case in Britain, merely to incapacitate would most certain not have stopped a sucide er from blowing himself up in the midst of a crowed of people. In fact, being cornered and unable to run would have given him even more desperate. The alternative, of course would have been for the officer to risk his own life and the lives of everyone in the blast radius of the suspect on the hope that he may, infact not be a er. I also believe the suspect may have complicated things a bit by running away upon seeing the policemen.

exactly. sit on the fence then take the moral high ground

Shooting a man 7 times in the head, is not "Nescessary Force".


The police are told to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head in case the man is carrying a bomb and it detonates it if the bullet hits it.

The police trailed the guy for 3 days, there entire evidence for him being a suicide bomber was he came out of a house that they thought MAY have had potential suicide bombers in it. People react differently to situations and if somebody has commited a crime, for instance this guys visa had expired, they are goingto be more likely to run, the likelyhood that they are a suicide bomber is very very minimal, so if you shoot anyone thatt runs from the police you're going to end up killing more people than the suicide bombers do. I personally dont want to live in a police state



:sniper: :mp5: the thing thats mest up about you guys is that if that had been a suicide bomber and the policeman hadn't shot him then he blew people up you would be criticizing the policeman for not shooting him

:sniper: :mp5: the thing thats mest up about you guys is that if that had been a suicide bomber and the policeman hadn't shot him then he blew people up you would be criticizing the policeman for not shooting him

Look please dont be so thick, you cant use that as an arguement because ITS NOT WHAT HAPPENED and therefore is completely irrelevant, we are critizizign intelligence and police conduct because an innocent man has been killed.

Look please dont be so thick, you cant use that as an arguement because ITS NOT WHAT HAPPENED and therefore is completely irrelevant, we are critizizign intelligence and police conduct because an innocent man has been killed.

Maybe he wouldnt have used that argument if people would stip using the argument: he wasnt a bomber so the policeman is guilty.
The debate at hand is that whether the policeman made a wrong decision based on the events that were taking place before him, not on whether the man was innocent or not.

i'm aware of what we are debating i started the forum. In which I stipulated i didnt want to here those precise words because its unrelated.

i'm aware of what we are debating i started the forum. In which I stipulated i didnt want to here those precise words because its unrelated.

Do you also think that 'he wasnt a bomber so the policeman is guilty' is irrelevant?

I dont think its irreleant but i think its wrong, I think the intelligence is wrong and that we shouldnt have a shoot to kill policy until we can get it right

You can't charge the Police officer for 'murder' just because the dead man turned out to be innocent. That is stupid. The officer had a split-second decision to make and he made the right one in my opinion. The Metropolitan Police have already PERSONALLY apologised to the guy's family. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4737003.stm )

But in the end if he had stopped when he was ordered to, he would be alive today.

I dont think its irreleant but i think its wrong, I think the intelligence is wrong and that we shouldnt have a shoot to kill policy until we can get it right

If we waited until the intelligence was picture perfect we'd get nothing done.

if we waited for it to be right, we also wouldnt kill innocent people

He wasnt innocent!
He wasnt guilty of that crime though shootong him in the circumstances was acceptable.

if we waited for it to be right, we also wouldnt kill innocent people
and if we waited to make sure of that, more bombers would still get onto trains and more innocents would die.

but then that's London's transit systems, people and security... it's really up to the Londoners how they treat their security and the mistakes they make.

It's interesting that they were able to shoot him, seven times, and every shot hit him in the head without fail. These police must be incredible marksmen!

Oh, wait, that's right. They had him pinned down under three people, then shot him seven times in the head. That's a much easier target.

It's wrong, definitely. Seven times is a bit extreme.

But it's always difficult deciding where to shoot when it comes to dangerous 'criminals'.

I don't know if anyone's already said this, but the LAPD recently shot a baby in the head during a shoot out with her dad.There are lawsuits about to be thrown around , but what do you expect the police to do if they're being shot at?

Look please dont be so thick, you cant use that as an arguement because ITS NOT WHAT HAPPENED and therefore is completely irrelevant, we are critizizign intelligence and police conduct because an innocent man has been killed.

Are you not so wise with the benifit of 20/20 vision, hindsight it's sometimes called?

The only person at fault was the man running from the armed police. He'd been here for three years, he knew what 'Stop, police' meant, but he still ran. If this had happened anywhere else, nobody would have been surprised. As for disabling him by shooting him in the legs, if he had a detonator, it wouldn't have stopped him setting off the bomb.
Yes, it was unfortunate, but it was stupid of this man to have run, especially at a time of hightened alert. It's just a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't and a great opportunity for anyone with a grudge against police, government and just about anyone else to have a go.

if we waited for it to be right, we also wouldnt kill innocent people

Rubbish. One person's perspective on the 'right' intelligence isn't necessarily the same as someone else’s. We could argue/debate about how good the intelligence was until the world ended and we'd still get no further with it.

For whatever reason, the intelligence the Police had on this guy made him a suspect. Add to the fact that he was wearing a bulky coat during the summer weather (which could have easily concealed explosives) and had ignored police warnings to stop as he ran down into the underground.

Now surely with all those circumstances, how could any Police officer with a duty to protect the public and prevent terrorism possibly have any doubt in his mind that the guy would still be innocent? Especially in the heat of the moment.

I don't blame them.

I love the feeling of slamming a bullet into someone's shoulder. :p



Just kidding, BTW.

OK, a recent family debate, which very nearly ended in a fist fight has prompted me to get a wider consensus on the opinions people have over the British Police shooting an innocent man at a tube station in the head SEVEN TIMES! Personally I think that the person who gave the order should be thrown away for murder. One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement. Another thing to bear in mind is if 3 plain clothed people run at you with guns, would you stop?
As people on nation statestend to be younger but we do get older people on, please state your age

Im 15 (thort id get that out of the way)

Ok first of all he was only shot 5 times

Second,

I am fully behind the British Police's shoot to kill policy.

Thirdly,

If hes told by the police to stop and to get on the ground and he runs away, then thats his problem that he dies, not mine, not the British Police's and not the Governments problem.

(Sorry this is slightly off topic but ya know) Fourthly

Britain needs to stop this human rights crap

One of the failed bombers from 21/7 that was caught shouted "I have rights" (basically)

Id like to say Im sorry but you tried to blow up hundereds of innocent people so you have no human rights whatsoever and you deserve to die, you piece of shit

Im 15 (thort id get that out of the way)

Ok first of all he was only shot 5 times

Second,

I am fully behind the British Police's shoot to kill policy.

Thirdly,

If hes told by the police to stop and to get on the ground and he runs away, then thats his problem that he dies, not mine, not the British Police's and not the Governments problem.

(Sorry this is slightly off topic but ya know) Fourthly

Britain needs to stop this human rights crap

One of the failed bombers from 21/7 that was caught shouted "I have rights" (basically)

Id like to say Im sorry but you tried to blow up hundereds of innocent people so you have no human rights whatsoever and you deserve to die, you piece of shit

I think The Sun said it best: Got the Bastards

Let's see...

8 shots fired + distance + man running + bomb = very good chance of detonating bomb

The police couldn't have been nervous if they can hit a running man from a distance with 7 direct headshots. That isn't easy; even if you are a good shot, the bullet doesn't go in a perfectly straight line and the man isn't staying still.

So if he did have a bomb, there is a good chance they could have set it off. You can argue against it; you'd just be showing off your foolishness to everyone.

But more importantly, he didn't have a bomb. He was a guy. And his like was taken as a result of police brutality.

8 shots is unnecessary force. It only takes one to kill him, plus there's less chance of a round detonating a bomb, IF it was there.

And don;t go saying "he might have been a threat because of intelligence reports saying..." crap. I could just as easily report you to the police saying that I had found out you were going to blow up a bus. You just as easily could have been in a public place, just as easily have panicked and ran, and just as easily been shot dead.

shooting someone several times in the head is not justified under any condition

Let's see...

8 shots fired + distance + man running + bomb = very good chance of detonating bomb

The police couldn't have been nervous if they can hit a running man from a distance with 7 direct headshots. That isn't easy; even if you are a good shot, the bullet doesn't go in a perfectly straight line and the man isn't staying still.

So if he did have a bomb, there is a good chance they could have set it off. You can argue against it; you'd just be showing off your foolishness to everyone.

But more importantly, he didn't have a bomb. He was a guy. And his like was taken as a result of police brutality.

8 shots is unnecessary force. It only takes one to kill him, plus there's less chance of a round detonating a bomb, IF it was there.

And don;t go saying "he might have been a threat because of intelligence reports saying..." crap. I could just as easily report you to the police saying that I had found out you were going to blow up a bus. You just as easily could have been in a public place, just as easily have panicked and ran, and just as easily been shot dead.


Right let me get this straight


1) 5 Shots fired
2) Police warned several times before shooting
3) Police chased for 10 minutes before shooting
4) Police tackled him as he ran on to a PACKED TRAIN ON THE UNDERGROUND (Ya know like the ones that got blown up on 7/7)
5) Then they shot him

*Requote*

8 shots is unnecessary force. It only takes one to kill him, plus there's less chance of a round detonating a bomb, IF it was there.

6) Thats why they shot him in the head, so a bomb wouldnt go off
7) He was in the country illegally, his Visa had run out 2 years ago or summin.

and the man isn't staying still.

8) Yes he was, he was pinned to the ground, and before you go saying that he didnt need to be shot, he was on a a packed tube, Police used the best option

Won't happen to me. why? when the police identify themselves and tell me to stop, you bet your @$$ I'll stop. infact, most INNOCENT people will stop. if You run, then that's because you don't want the police to stop you. and that I cannot help you with.

Yes I would like to say the same

Let's see...

8 shots fired + distance + man running + bomb = very good chance of detonating bomband hitting innocent bystanders...

The police couldn't have been nervous if they can hit a running man from a distance with 7 direct headshots. That isn't easy; even if you are a good shot, the bullet doesn't go in a perfectly straight line and the man isn't staying still.

So if he did have a bomb, there is a good chance they could have set it off. You can argue against it; you'd just be showing off your foolishness to everyone. agreed

But more importantly, he didn't have a bomb. wasn't know at the time of the chase... wasn't known when he was followed. wasn't known when he vaulted the barriers and entered the train full of people...
He was a guy. And his like was taken as a result of police brutality.nope, by his own stupidity. he ran when they told him to stop... the ran faster when they chased. he ran into the train when he knows that within 4 weeks earlier bombs were exploded and more were found.

8 shots is unnecessary force. It only takes one to kill him, plus there's less chance of a round detonating a bomb, IF it was there.one shot would kill, but not from a police gun, and not if the officers were not train to kill someone with one bullet.

And don't go saying "he might have been a threat because of intelligence reports saying..." crap. I could just as easily report you to the police saying that I had found out you were going to blow up a bus. You just as easily could have been in a public place, just as easily have panicked and ran, and just as easily been shot dead.Won't happen to me. why? when the police identify themselves and tell me to stop, you bet your @$$ I'll stop. infact, most INNOCENT people will stop. if You run, then that's because you don't want the police to stop you. and that I cannot help you with.

thats bull if several men NOT IN UNIFORM pulled guns out, in a croweded subway and said frezee OF COURSE ID RUN, i dont wanna get shot and most ppl lose their sense when they hav a gun pointed there way, so i am sure most others would run to

thats why cops who dont normally carry guns, should never even be allowed to touch one. trigger happy mother fuckers should get it 10 times as worst.

thats bull if several men NOT IN UNIFORM pulled guns out, in a croweded subway and said frezee OF COURSE ID RUN, i dont wanna get shot and most ppl lose their sense when they hav a gun pointed there way, so i am sure most others would run to

They didnt pull their guns out in subway

They identified themselves fully as Police Officers

Their were Uniformed Officers at the scene, not in the chase, but at the scene. Dont you think if they werent real police then the Uniformed Guys would have stepped in

One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement.

Er, yes it is because you unlike them have the benefit of heinsight. They didnt, and they had to make a split second judgement.

:sniper: :mp5: the thing thats mest up about you guys is that if that had been a suicide bomber and the policeman hadn't shot him then he blew people up you would be criticizing the policeman for not shooting him
EXACTLY! There are people on here who would criticize the government if it were perfect. They must have had very ... interesting childhoods.

thats bull if several men NOT IN UNIFORM pulled guns out, in a croweded subway and said frezee OF COURSE ID RUN, i dont wanna get shot and most ppl lose their sense when they hav a gun pointed there way, so i am sure most others would run to
If several people pull out guns in a crowded terminal, I would stop...why? all those witnesses! When the officers approach.. I would demand to see ID. (here in the US anyway)

If people draw guns and chase you, running will still kill you. Police or not.

And if there were a uniformed officer there, then I would go to him.

If several people pull out guns in a crowded terminal, I would stop...why? all those witnesses! When the officers approach.. I would demand to see ID. (here in the US anyway)

If people draw guns and chase you, running will still kill you. Police or not.

And if there were a uniformed officer there, then I would go to him.

Of course, as we know the police who committed this shooting were in civilian clothing. No witness has reported that they identified themselves as Police (no witness heard them shout "armed Police!" as one would expect in such a circumstance). Why did they then feel the need to shot seven times into the head when witnesses all said they had the guy on the ground and contained. More than one witness reported it looked like an execution rather than a police operation.

The Police are very much at fault in this instance. Human rights and responsbile policiing can not be thrown away because of terrorism - that's exactly what the terrorists would want - so in affect it is creating a partial victory for them. The Police who did this should be punished.

Of course, as we know the police who committed this shooting were in civilian clothing. No witness has reported that they identified themselves as Police (no witness heard them shout "armed Police!" as one would expect in such a circumstance). Why did they then feel the need to shot seven times into the head when witnesses all said they had the guy on the ground and contained. More than one witness reported it looked like an execution rather than a police operation.

The Police are very much at fault in this instance. Human rights and responsbile policiing can not be thrown away because of terrorism - that's exactly what the terrorists would want - so in affect it is creating a partial victory for them. The Police who did this should be punished.

Yep great plan. Punish them for doing their jobs. Genius. All we need right now is armed policemen who don't want to shoot terrorists because they could end up being jailed for it. Make 'em hesitate, fantastic. I mean, whats the life of fifty to a hundred innocent law-abiding people when we can save one illegal alien who, for all the police know could be a part of a terrorist network, from dying.

Lets just roll over and let the terrorists blow up half our capital shall we? Yes, thats obviously the best solution....

Make 'em hesitate, fantastic. I mean, whats the life of fifty to a hundred innocent law-abiding people when we can save one illegal alien who, for all the police know could be a part of a terrorist network, from dying.


You do realise that by dragging this issue down to racism you approach the intolerant viewpoint of the terrorist.

I would far rather live in a society that respected the rule of law, human rights and the principles of equality and wouldn't let the evil of terrorism drag it away from these principles.

(no witness heard them shout "armed Police!" as one would expect in such a circumstance). .
I've heard this several times and every time I just want to know one thing. How do you know this? Did you interview every person at the scene? Or did you just read this in some Indymedia website where they had a couple of people who said they didn't hear the police say anything? Because I seriously doubt you have done a full investigation of the shooting to be able to make a statement like this.

Racism? What now?

I'm talking about people who break the laws of the society they choose to live in.

You want racist? Try a massive national media campaign over several days when a black student is murdered, possibly by a white gang (no witnesses as far as I'm aware), whilst when a white man is stabbed to death by a black youth on a crowded bus for stopping him throwing chips at said white mans girlfriend, it gets a quarter of a page in one days newspaper.

That's racist.

Racism? What now?

I'm talking about people who break the laws of the society they choose to live in.

You want racist? Try a massive national media campaign over several days when a black student is murdered, possibly by a white gang (no witnesses as far as I'm aware), whilst when a white man is stabbed to death by a black youth on a crowded bus for stopping him throwing chips at said white mans girlfriend, it gets a quarter of a page in one days newspaper.

That's racist.

Yup, got it right in one

I've heard this several times and every time I just want to know one thing. How do you know this? Did you interview every person at the scene? Or did you just read this in some Indymedia website where they had a couple of people who said they didn't hear the police say anything? Because I seriously doubt you have done a full investigation of the shooting to be able to make a statement like this.

It's been very widely reported in the media, both British (including BBC) and Swedish. Of course I didn't interview every person at the scene, don't be crazy! However, a large number of the witnesses have made statements to the British police and to media outlets, none of them heard the Police identify themselves as being Police.

Expert analysts (as you point out so correctly, I am not expert) have also stated that it is highly likely that the Police didn't identify themselves as apparently the English police plan for following people they suspect as terrorists (rightly or wrongly) calls for them not to do so...

You could adapt your argument to the fact that "how do you know he was a suspect terrorist" just as easily.

Racism? What now?

I'm talking about people who break the laws of the society they choose to live in.

You want racist? Try a massive national media campaign over several days when a black student is murdered, possibly by a white gang (no witnesses as far as I'm aware), whilst when a white man is stabbed to death by a black youth on a crowded bus for stopping him throwing chips at said white mans girlfriend, it gets a quarter of a page in one days newspaper.

That's racist.

I really don't think the crime of overstaying a visa by a year or two and shooting an innocent man dead are comparable activities.

I really don't know enough about your newspaper story you quote I'm afraid, so I can't comment on it directly. However, I do know that because someone else is being racist, that does not legitimise everyone else to also be racist. In much the same way, because the terrorists brake the conventions of human rights, equality, tolerance, democracy, rule of law etc that should not mean that civilised society does the same thing.

I really don't think the crime of overstaying a visa by a year or two and shooting an innocent man dead are comparable activities.

I really don't know enough about your newspaper story you quote I'm afraid, so I can't comment on it directly. However, I do know that because someone else is being racist, that does not legitimise everyone else from also being racist. In much the same way, because the terrorists brake the conventions of human rights, equality, tolerance, democracy, rule of law etc that should not mean that civilised society does the same thing.

Funnily enough, suicide bombers don't wear flourescent turbans, have six foot long pink beards, and huge glowing neon signs saying "I'm a suicide bomber, stand still while I maim you" whilst playing a muzak versions of jingle bells. In the field, a suicide bomber looks just like anyone else. So to spot one, you have to make decisions based on body language and actions. Running from the police onto a crowded tube train is probably not the most sensible of options.

Oh, and I'd quite like you to retract your statement about me being racist. No, let me rephrase that. I want you to. I am NOT a racist.

Funnily enough, suicide bombers don't wear flourescent turbans, have six foot long pink beards, and huge glowing neon signs saying "I'm a suicide bomber, stand still while I maim you" whilst playing a muzak versions of jingle bells. In the field, a suicide bomber looks just like anyone else. So to spot one, you have to make decisions based on body language and actions. Running from the police onto a crowded tube train is probably not the most sensible of options.

Oh, and I'd quite like you to retract your statement about me being racist. No, let me rephrase that. I want you to. I am NOT a racist.

In your post number 169 (at 1.32 CET) you clearly seem to state the life of any "alien" is not of signficant value to worry about. You also seem to state that it is more likely for an "illegal alien" to be a member of a terrorist network than someone else. If this is not what you believe, then please do let me know, and I will be very happy to retract my statement.

I should point out then generally speaking you don't get followed out of your residence by several large men armed to the teeth in civilian clothing clearly following you, I suggest if you were you would try to avoid them also. As they were not advertising themselves as being Police, you can imagine that you might think that these are criminals wanting to rob you etc, particularly if you grew up in a Brazilian favela.

That is not what I was implying. I was trying to point out that the man was in this country illegally. He was a lawbreaker. A criminal. In my opinion, a criminal of any creed is worth less, if we must (as you seem to think I want to) put a vlaue on life, than that of a innocent mother of two who is just trying to get on with her life.

I don't know how many Brazilian favelas you've been to, but I'm guessing the standard shout from an armed criminal is not "Stop, Police. Stop or I'll shoot" in English. Maybe it is, but that'd be a hell of a surprise for me.

OK, a recent family debate, which very nearly ended in a fist fight has prompted me to get a wider consensus on the opinions people have over the British Police shooting an innocent man at a tube station in the head SEVEN TIMES! Personally I think that the person who gave the order should be thrown away for murder. One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement. Another thing to bear in mind is if 3 plain clothed people run at you with guns, would you stop?

oh another quick note, in my family debate it was the older people (with the exception of my dad) who agreed with the shooting, they also viewed foriegners as second class citizens and confessed to being racist, the young members of the family, who have had less time to build prejudice minds, disagreed with it as they can see it for what is was alot easier. As people on nation statestend to be younger but we do get older people on, please state your age

For the love of god, Seven times in the head? they use guns not waterpistols.... there would be no head left.

Anyway. The IDIOT should not have run away from them, they saw he had a backpack, like the one used in the bus explosion and chased him, he ran, why would you run if your not a terrorist?

get a life, get his hes not needing it lol

anyway, if i were one of those officers i would have shot him also, and without a second thought.

my email address is remylebeau6201@aol.com , anyone who wants to discuss this with me please email me!

That is not what I was implying. I was trying to point out that the man was in this country illegally. He was a lawbreaker. A criminal. In my opinion, a criminal of any creed is worth less, if we must (as you seem to think I want to) put a vlaue on life, than that of a innocent mother of two who is just trying to get on with her life.

I don't know how many Brazilian favelas you've been to, but I'm guessing the standard shout from an armed criminal is not "Stop, Police. Stop or I'll shoot" in English. Maybe it is, but that'd be a hell of a surprise for me.

I am afraid that you can not lump all people who break the law into the same extreme category, I simply can't accept that. He was not a dangerous criminal, he was guilty of nothing more than staying longer than his visa allowed - he originally entered UK on a visa which shows that the British authorities were happy to let him enter the country originally so clearly they believed him not to be dangerous (which of course is correct). I assume that under your argument people who park or drive over the speed limit also deserve to be shot at random with no one to blame other than themselves for being a "worthless" law-braker?

I have been to a favela in Rio de Janeiro in fact - quite a depressing scene. And, of course you are right about the police, in the unlikely event that Police enter a favela to protect it's residents... well, that's so unlikely in itself (but that's a whole different subject). The point I was trying to make is that the crime rate (particularly armed crime) in the favelas is astronomical. Hence, someone who grew up in a favela is likely to have a fear of armed civilian people following him at an even greater level than you or I would (although I should imagine we'd be pretty petrified also!).

For the love of god, Seven times in the head? they use guns not waterpistols.... there would be no head left.

Anyway. The IDIOT should not have run away from them, they saw he had a backpack, like the one used in the bus explosion and chased him, he ran, why would you run if your not a terrorist?

get a life, get his hes not needing it lol

anyway, if i were one of those officers i would have shot him also, and without a second thought.

my email address is remylebeau6201@aol.com , anyone who wants to discuss this with me please email me!

I dont remember anyone saying he had a backpack. I thought it was just a heavy jacket (denim jacket).

I am afraid that you can not lump all people who break the law into the same extreme category, I simply can't accept that. He was not a dangerous criminal, he was guilty of nothing more than staying longer than his visa allowed - he originally entered UK on a visa which shows that the British authorities were happy to let him enter the country originally so clearly they believed him not to be dangerous (which of course is correct). I assume that under your argument people who park or drive over the speed limit also deserve to be shot at random with no one to blame other than themselves for being a "worthless" law-braker?

*Twisting other peoples words and ignoring what they are saying, la la la la*


You seem to have this remarkable selective reading ability. The whole point is, not many civilians run around shouting "Stop, Police", unless of course, they are identifying themselves as police officers, shock horror.

I'm not saying that all criminals should be shot, so stop trying to blatantly twist my words, as liberals like yourself spend their entire lives doing. I'm saying that someone who runs is suspicious. Why did he run? Because he was here illegally. He is therefore... a criminal. Running from police officers onto a crowded train days after people did exactly the same thing, then BLEW THEMSELVES UP, is not the move of a wise person.

Oh, and funnily enoguh, he wasn't shot at random. Dunno what it's like where you live, but here, armed police don't hide round corners dressed in hoodies and randomly kill people. He was warned, and officers fired to protect innocent lives. Stop trying to change that. They acted to protect, not to deliberately kill an innocent man. We leave that to coloured youths with a food throwing fascination.

You seem to have this remarkable selective reading ability. The whole point is, not many civilians run around shouting "Stop, Police", unless of course, they are identifying themselves as police officers, shock horror.

I'm not saying that all criminals should be shot, so stop trying to blatantly twist my words, as liberals like yourself spend their entire lives doing. I'm saying that someone who runs is suspicious. Why did he run? Because he was here illegally. He is therefore... a criminal. Running from police officers onto a crowded train days after people did exactly the same thing, then BLEW THEMSELVES UP, is not the move of a wise person.

Oh, and funnily enoguh, he wasn't shot at random. Dunno what it's like where you live, but here, armed police don't hide round corners dressed in hoodies and randomly kill people. He was warned, and officers fired to protect innocent lives. Stop trying to change that. They acted to protect, not to deliberately kill an innocent man. We leave that to coloured youths with a food throwing fascination.

Can you give me a link that will confirm the police actually identified themselves? I thought I read something the other day about them being trained not to alert a suspected bomber but I cant find anywhere that will tell me if this happened in this instance.

Another thing i'm interested in. It has been confirmed that he didnt jump the turnstile but used a pass. If he was running away from the officers at that point would the use of a pass not have alerted them. I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons for this though. At least I hope so

Can you give me a link that will confirm the police actually identified themselves? I thought I read something the other day about them being trained not to alert a suspected bomber but I cant find anywhere that will tell me if this happened in this instance.

Another thing i'm interested in. It has been confirmed that he didnt jump the turnstile but used a pass. If he was running away from the officers at that point would the use of a pass not have alerted them. I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons for this though. At least I hope so

Yes, because suicide bombers can't afford tube tickets....

Of course, as we know the police who committed this shooting were in civilian clothing. No witness has reported that they identified themselves as Police (no witness heard them shout "armed Police!" as one would expect in such a circumstance). Why did they then feel the need to shot seven times into the head when witnesses all said they had the guy on the ground and contained. More than one witness reported it looked like an execution rather than a police operation.all the reports i've read placed the witnesses in the train or the loading platform.
now, even if several armed men came at me with guns, I would still not run for all the witnesses there. now if they are cops, I can demand to see ID. if not cops, they would be stupid to draw weapons and cause a scene in broad daylight with all the witnesses... and two, was the guy running yelling for help? if not, could it be because he knew they were police?

As for Pinning the person down and shooting them multiple times in the head... grab 4 friends... have one hold a pen light, then you and your remaining friends chase him. tackle him and pin him down, and imbolize him before he clicks on his pen light. if you fail, BOOM.

now before you say "HE WAS NOT A BOMBER, THUS DID NOT HAVE A BOMB!" realize you know that now, but during the chase, the officers didn't. so how do you prevent a suicide bomber from detonating his bombs in a crowded train?

The Police are very much at fault in this instance. Human rights and responsbile policiing can not be thrown away because of terrorism - that's exactly what the terrorists would want - so in affect it is creating a partial victory for them. The Police who did this should be punished.and so, when they are chasing the next suspect, pin him down and they don't shoot, and he does blow up killing 4-5 officers, plus several innocent passengers and injuring dozen more, I expect you see you praising and defending the officers for not shooting the terrorist to prevent him from detonating his bombs.

You seem to have this remarkable selective reading ability. The whole point is, not many civilians run around shouting "Stop, Police", unless of course, they are identifying themselves as police officers, shock horror.

I'm not saying that all criminals should be shot, so stop trying to blatantly twist my words, as liberals like yourself spend their entire lives doing. I'm saying that someone who runs is suspicious. Why did he run? Because he was here illegally. He is therefore... a criminal. Running from police officers onto a crowded train days after people did exactly the same thing, then BLEW THEMSELVES UP, is not the move of a wise person.

Oh, and funnily enoguh, he wasn't shot at random. Dunno what it's like where you live, but here, armed police don't hide round corners dressed in hoodies and randomly kill people. He was warned, and officers fired to protect innocent lives. Stop trying to change that. They acted to protect, not to deliberately kill an innocent man. We leave that to coloured youths with a food throwing fascination.

You stated that all criminals are "worthless", which you seemed to suggest was why it was of little concern that this innocent of terrorism man was shot - so I haven't twisted your words at all.

As regards the civilians shouting Police, of course, again you are correct. And had the Police in this case identified themselves as Police perhaps this Brazilian man would be alive today and we would not be having this discussion. All the evidence, as we covered earlier in our debate, suggests that the Police made not such identification to this man. All the evidence suggests he was not warned, so you are going against all of the witness statements in saying that he was warned. Furthermore, he was shot whilst witnesses (some only 1,5 m and less away) stated that the man was on the ground and under the control of the police - and that the shoting was more of an execution than any attempt to stop this guy from escaping them. It is you that is trying to change the facts of this incident by saying that he was warned and was shot deliberatly evading the Police, we know that this was not the case. If he has been clearly warned I would almost certainly not believe that this shooting was a crime.

And again you employ racism after insisting that you are not racist, saying that it is coloured youths who are more likely to kill people than others (in this instance the Police).

Finally, I am not a liberal!

Yes, because suicide bombers can't afford tube tickets....

But why would a suicide bomber slow down to use a ticket when he is being chased by the police

You stated that all criminals are "worthless", which you seemed to suggest was why it was of little concern that this innocent of terrorism man was shot - so I haven't twisted your words at all.


It is of concern, but I am saying that under the cirmcumstances, I support the officers in their actions. I do not believe they should be prosecuted for having to make a difficult decision, under intense pressure, in a split second. You think they won't have the death of an innocent on their minds anyway?

Oh, and please, go over the CCTV footage of the tube station nearest the train my girlfriend was on before it blew up. You spot the suicide bomber. Go on. It'll be easy. Just look for that big neon sign.


As regards the civilians shouting Police, of course, again you are correct. And had the Police in this case identified themselves as Police perhaps this Brazilian man would be alive today and we would not be having this discussion. All the evidence, as we covered earlier in our debate, suggests that the Police made not such identification to this man. All the evidence suggests he was not warned, so you are going against all of the witness statements in saying that he was warned. Furthermore, he was shot whilst witnesses (some only 1,5 m and less away) stated that the man was on the ground and under the control of the police - and that the shoting was more of an execution than any attempt to stop this guy from escaping them. It is you that is trying to change the facts of this incident by saying that he was warned and was shot deliberatly evading the Police, we know that this was not the case. If he has been clearly warned I would almost certainly not believe that this shooting was a crime.


Follow the advice of JuNii before you comment any further on this "execution". Then tell me how many times your friend managed to click the penlight on before you stopped him.



And again you employ racism after insisting that you are not racist, saying that it is coloured youths who are more likely to kill people than others (in this instance the Police).


That's just harking back to my point about the racist nature of Britains media. READ, you moron.

all the reports i've read placed the witnesses in the train or the loading platform.
now, even if several armed men came at me with guns, I would still not run for all the witnesses there. now if they are cops, I can demand to see ID. if not cops, they would be stupid to draw weapons and cause a scene in broad daylight with all the witnesses... and two, was the guy running yelling for help? if not, could it be because he knew they were police?

As for Pinning the person down and shooting them multiple times in the head... grab 4 friends... have one hold a pen light, then you and your remaining friends chase him. tackle him and pin him down, and imbolize him before he clicks on his pen light. if you fail, BOOM.

now before you say "HE WAS NOT A BOMBER, THUS DID NOT HAVE A BOMB!" realize you know that now, but during the chase, the officers didn't. so how do you prevent a suicide bomber from detonating his bombs in a crowded train?

and so, when they are chasing the next suspect, pin him down and they don't shoot, and he does blow up killing 4-5 officers, plus several innocent passengers and injuring dozen more, I expect you see you praising and defending the officers for not shooting the terrorist to prevent him from detonating his bombs.

Firstly, to address your final line, you are just being silly to suggest that I would endorse terrorism - read my earlier posts, I have quite clearly condemned it. It is evil. I also have quite clearly stated that sinking to the level of the terrorist (by circumventing regular rule of law, equality, etc etc) is granting them a victory.

Are you suggesting that we therefore shoot everyone we don't like the look of on the train? Are you suggesting that if you thought you were being chased by armed criminals you turn around and stop and say "excuse me, could you show me some ID just in case you're the police" even if those individuals hadn't identified themselves as Police?

I think you are probably correct about the witnesses being located in the Underground station. However, the evidence points to the fact that the guy wasn't fully aware he was being followed by armed men until inside the station - e.g. his usage of a ticket at the ticket gates etc. He is likely not to have been running in fear of his life until after this. This fact raises another important issue; if the Police followed him all the way to the station why didn't they simply stop him and search him on his way out of his appartment - they had it under surveilance after all as they suspected terrorists (not related to him) lived in the building.

It is of concern, but I am saying that under the cirmcumstances, I support the officers in their actions. I do not believe they should be prosecuted for having to make a difficult decision, under intense pressure, in a split second. You think they won't have the death of an innocent on their minds anyway?

Oh, and please, go over the CCTV footage of the tube station nearest the train my girlfriend was on before it blew up. You spot the suicide bomber. Go on. It'll be easy. Just look for that big neon sign.



Follow the advice of JuNii before you comment any further on this "execution". Then tell me how many times your friend managed to click the penlight on before you stopped him.




That's just harking back to my point about the racist nature of Britains media. READ, you moron.

I have just dealt with your first issues in my last post.

It doesn't really surprise me that you now turn to personal insults such as 'moron'... I understand your reference to your media reference earlier. I just don't understand why you are endorsing the racist activity you highlighted by this newspaper by being racist yourself. As cheesy as the adage 'two wrongs don't make a right' is, there is a lot of truth in it.

I have just dealt with your first issues in my last post.

It doesn't really surprise me that you now turn to personal insults such as 'moron'... I understand your reference to your media reference earlier. I just don't understand why you are endorsing the racist activity you highlighted by this newspaper by being racist yourself. As cheesy as the adage 'two wrongs don't make a right' is, there is a lot of truth in it.

It was simply an ironic statement. Our entire country is led to believe that black people are the victims, constantly. I'm sick of it. You call me a racist, that's fine, I know you're wrong, and all the people who actually know me, and who I actually give a damn what they think, know otherwise.

And yes, i must be stupid to turn to insults. Must be a McDonalds cleaner or something. Or could it be that I believe you are moronic in thinking we should a) alert potential bombers by wearing hi-viz jackets, and shouting "I am a policeman, this is a gun. Guns can hurt you" constantly, b) attempt to peacefully persuade terrorists to 'please put your bomb down and come along quietly so I don't have to get angry and raise my voice, because god forbid I might actually hurt you by touching you', and c) alert terrorist cells by stopping people the second they leave a suspected safehouse.

I hadn't heard about this story in the news( I've been on vacation and this haven't really been keeping up with the news) I have one question: Why the hell didn't they use Tasers? It wouldn't have detonated any the guy might have had on his person, and the police could have nabbed him.

I hadn't heard about this story in the news( I've been on vacation and this haven't really been keeping up with the news) I have one question: Why the hell didn't they use Tasers? It wouldn't have detonated any the guy might have had on his person, and the police could have nabbed him.

Yep. Thirty thousand volts would have absolutely no risk of setting off an explosive ridden vest.

There is something a bunch of you arent realizing. Lets go through this in a timeline way.

-The cops identify themselves to whom they believe to be a suicide bomber. The bomber is not in a crowded area at this point, or so it seems to be(He bypassed the ticket area after this, I figure it wasnt too crowded around this area). The cops decide not to fire.

-The suspected bomber is running from the cops. If he is a terrorist bomber, it is likely he is running to a more crowded area. Yet instead of shooting him there, the cops dont, despite the fact that it could save many people before the bomber could reach a more populated area.

-Still running. The cops decide to try to tackle him. The suspect has now run into a heavily populated area(or as far as I can tell at least, hence why people are saying they couldnt incapacitate him, for fear of killing a number of people).

-The cops tackle him. The suspect has not blown himself up yet, but just to make sure he doesnt, they shoot him in the head. Seven times. And once in the shoulder.

Now, unless I missed anything big, there does seem to be a problem. This man was already surrounded by many people. If he was a suicide bomber, being chased by cops, and there were a sizeable number of people around him, wouldn't he set off his bomb? What about as they were tackling him? If his bomb had a trigger able to be set off, after being tackled, wouldnt he have set it off the moment they got their hands on him?

But no. Despite the fact that he was in a crowded area, supposedly with a bomb, he didn't set it off. He didnt set it off for the supposed minutes he was running. And yet, after he was tackled, with three people pinning him down, the cops felt it nessecary to shoot him seven times in the head.

I can understand their position. They were nervous. They had who they felt was a suicide bomber, running away from them after they called out for him to stop. He is wearing a large jacket, and runs into the tube. There had been bombings recently. I can understand that they werent sure, and in pursuit of the man, they may not have been thinking about whether or not he really was a bomber.

We do have hindsight. But as trained professionals, they should have looking at this from another perspective. He's running toward a crowd, you dont shoot him before he gets there? He doesnt blow up when he gets there, and you decide to kill him five times over, after tackling him?

Multiple people are at fault here. The man who ran is at fault, for running. But that doesnt warrant being shot. Certainly not seven times, in the head.

The cops are an obvious target here, but how much at fault are they at? If their intelligence had told them that this was a suicide bomber, and they had to stop him, their actions could be understandable. The intelligence in this case is faulty.

However, if they had only been told that he was a suspected suicide bomber, without concrete proof, then they should have been observant enough to realize there was doubt to his being a bomber.

So where do we lay blame? Its hard to say. Its an isolated incident. If the cops were told that this was a suicide bomber and must be stopped, the intelligence and higher-ups need to be condemned, and looked upon. If the cops were aware of the situation, however, then they need to have some sort of slight reprimand(not highly publicized), maybe a small fine, with the money going to the family.

We dont want it to look like the police can't do their job, without second guessing themselves. It seems most likely that the intelligence was faulty. However, we must show that this cant happen again, that we wont accept it, and if things like this keep happening, more harsh punishments will be done to those responsible.

alert terrorist cells by stopping people the second they leave a suspected safehouse.

But shooting one of their bombers to death wouldnt alert anyone? And they couldnt have got him on the bus, or as we was getting off, or right after he got off? They couldnt have blocked off the subway?

There is something a bunch of you arent realizing. Lets go through this in a timeline way.

-The cops identify themselves to whom they believe to be a suicide bomber. The bomber is not in a crowded area at this point, or so it seems to be(He bypassed the ticket area after this, I figure it wasnt too crowded around this area). The cops decide not to fire.

-The suspected bomber is running from the cops. If he is a terrorist bomber, it is likely he is running to a more crowded area. Yet instead of shooting him there, the cops dont, despite the fact that it could save many people before the bomber could reach a more populated area.

-Still running. The cops decide to try to tackle him. The suspect has now run into a heavily populated area(or as far as I can tell at least, hence why people are saying they couldnt incapacitate him, for fear of killing a number of people).

-The cops tackle him. The suspect has not blown himself up yet, but just to make sure he doesnt, they shoot him in the head. Seven times. And once in the shoulder.

Now, unless I missed anything big, there does seem to be a problem. This man was already surrounded by many people. If he was a suicide bomber, being chased by cops, and there were a sizeable number of people around him, wouldn't he set off his bomb? What about as they were tackling him? If his bomb had a trigger able to be set off, after being tackled, wouldnt he have set it off the moment they got their hands on him?

But no. Despite the fact that he was in a crowded area, supposedly with a bomb, he didn't set it off. He didnt set it off for the supposed minutes he was running. And yet, after he was tackled, with three people pinning him down, the cops felt it nessecary to shoot him seven times in the head.

I can understand their position. They were nervous. They had who they felt was a suicide bomber, running away from them after they called out for him to stop. He is wearing a large jacket, and runs into the tube. There had been bombings recently. I can understand that they werent sure, and in pursuit of the man, they may not have been thinking about whether or not he really was a bomber.

We do have hindsight. But as trained professionals, they should have looking at this from another perspective. He's running toward a crowd, you dont shoot him before he gets there? He doesnt blow up when he gets there, and you decide to kill him five times over, after tackling him?

Multiple people are at fault here. The man who ran is at fault, for running. But that doesnt warrant being shot. Certainly not seven times, in the head.

The cops are an obvious target here, but how much at fault are they at? If their intelligence had told them that this was a suicide bomber, and they had to stop him, their actions could be understandable. The intelligence in this case is faulty.

However, if they had only been told that he was a suspected suicide bomber, without concrete proof, then they should have been observant enough to realize there was doubt to his being a bomber.

So where do we lay blame? Its hard to say. Its an isolated incident. If the cops were told that this was a suicide bomber and must be stopped, the intelligence and higher-ups need to be condemned, and looked upon. If the cops were aware of the situation, however, then they need to have some sort of slight reprimand(not highly publicized), maybe a small fine, with the money going to the family.

We dont want it to look like the police can't do their job, without second guessing themselves. It seems most likely that the intelligence was faulty. However, we must show that this cant happen again, that we wont accept it, and if things like this keep happening, more harsh punishments will be done to those responsible.


That's a very rational response and comes a lot closer to the way I feel about this than anything else in this thread.

I think a small fine means nothing here though, and a heavy punishment for the police is not entirely appropriate. Honestly, I think that fact that they killed an innocent man bothers them more than it bothers any of us, and the extensive investigation will hammer this point home pretty well. Better training wouldn't hurt either. I know that's not satisfactory from the standpoint of the guy's family, but nobody is going to come out of this happy.

Also, hopefully this gets across the message that you don't run from the police in times like these.

That's a very rational response and comes a lot closer to the way I feel about this than anything else in this thread.

I think a small fine means nothing here though, and a heavy punishment for the police is not entirely appropriate. Honestly, I think that fact that they killed an innocent man bothers them more than it bothers any of us, and the extensive investigation will hammer this point home pretty well. Better training wouldn't hurt either. I know that's not satisfactory from the standpoint of the guy's family, but nobody is going to come out of this happy.

Also, hopefully this gets across the message that you don't run from the police in times like these.

Indeed.

I heard an interview with a person who saw the shooting happen. First of all - the guy was not running. He was walked in calmly and the officers followed him. He was pretty much motionless, they did not tell him to do anything, nor did they try to put handcuffs on him. He simply got 8 thats, thats right 8 rounds to the head execution style. Did you also know that they didn't even know who the guy was? It took them 3 days or something to identify him.
Also the next time you watch or read the news make sure to do it the next day and notice that all the stories from the major news networks get retracted.

Let's see...

8 shots fired + distance + man running + bomb = very good chance of detonating bomb

The police couldn't have been nervous if they can hit a running man from a distance with 7 direct headshots. That isn't easy; even if you are a good shot, the bullet doesn't go in a perfectly straight line and the man isn't staying still.

So if he did have a bomb, there is a good chance they could have set it off. You can argue against it; you'd just be showing off your foolishness to everyone.

They'd already wrestled him to the ground when they went ape-shit on his head. I'm not arguing, just correcting.

A lot of you guys are assuming that one shot to the head always kills even at point blank it dosent.

You also seem to be unaware that if he did have a bomb shoot first ask questions later is a better option.

It is unfortunate that they shot him but if he did indeed have a bomb and got on a train what would you say then?

It was justified because he could have been a suicide bomber. Wasn't supposed to say that but I did. It sucks that he's dead and innocent but it would suck more if he was dead along with a dozen others because he had blown himself up.

Age 14

It was justified because he could have been a suicide bomber. Wasn't supposed to say that but I did. It sucks that he's dead and innocent but it would suck more if he was dead along with a dozen others because he had blown himself up.

Age 14

I could be a suicide bomber. All it would take is for me to come from the wrong apartment building, be wearing a jacket in summer(I do sometimes wear my leather jacket, provided its not blazing hot, in the summer), and run from the police(if I had some weed on me, or something equally bad, i might just be scared enough to do it).

I heard an interview with a person who saw the shooting happen. First of all - the guy was not running. He was walked in calmly and the officers followed him. He was pretty much motionless, they did not tell him to do anything, nor did they try to put handcuffs on him. He simply got 8 thats, thats right 8 rounds to the head execution style. Did you also know that they didn't even know who the guy was? It took them 3 days or something to identify him.
Also the next time you watch or read the news make sure to do it the next day and notice that all the stories from the major news networks get retracted.

It was seven shots to the head, not eight. The eighth was to the shoulder. The eyewitness reports here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm seem to tell a different story to the one you heard.

On another point, I haven't heard from anyone outside the station about whether the Police identified themselves there. The people in the station recognised the Police as Police, so why would De Menezes?

I understand what they did, but I don't like it.

It was a cruel way to die, he was on the floor and they shot him 7 times in the head. That's a bit much. But had he been a terrorist, there is no way they could have prevented him from detonating a bomb.

So every suspect that must be apprehended violently, should have lethal force used against them?

Shoot first ask questions later?

The fact remains he WASNT a bomber.
The issue is that the police used unnescessary force to restrain him.

And this is why we have terrorism...

OK, a recent family debate, which very nearly ended in a fist fight [emphasis added. You guys have issues. -UJ] has prompted me to get a wider consensus on the opinions people have over the British Police shooting an innocent man at a tube station in the head SEVEN TIMES!

The number of times he was shot is immaterial. They were shooting to kill, he was probably dead after the first headshot. The gun was on auto. Why it matters how many bullets went into his skull I don't know, it's not like it would have made a difference if they'd realised he was innocent between shots 4 and 6 or anything.

Personally I think that the person who gave the order should be thrown away for murder.

In the eyes of the law it would be manslaughter at worst. It simply dosen't fit the parameters of a murder.

One point here, I DO NOT want people saying "but he could have been a suicide bomber" BECAUSE HE WASN'T so that is not a reasonable arguement.

That's pretty moronic. Of course it's a reasonable "arguement". A bomb had gone of elsewhere that day. Here we have a foreign guy coming out of one of the July 7 bomber's buildings, and after being told to stop by the polic ran into the Underground, leaped a turnstyle and dashed onto a train. That's exactly the type of behaviour you'd expect of a suspected train station suicide bomber who thought he'd been caught, surely?

Another thing to bear in mind is if 3 plain clothed people run at you with guns, would you stop?

If they were shouting "STOP! ARMED POLICE!" then hell yes. What I wouldn't do under any circumstances is force my way into the train stations that had been the targets of bombers and then onto a freaking a train, a couple of which had been blown up a short while ago. Especially not if I was wearing a big heavy coat on a hot day that people could reasonably assume concealed a bomb, and I looked somewhat like a Muslim. That would be just plain silly.

oh another quick note, in my family debate it was the older people (with the exception of my dad) who agreed with the shooting,

Well then I guess age does bring wisdom after all.

they also viewed foriegners as second class citizens

Irrelevant, only your word to go on, unlikely.

and confessed to being racist,

Irrelevant, only your word to go on, unlikely. I doubt very much they turned around and said "Hey, whatever, he was a second-class citizen foreign bastard. I say that, by the way, because I am racist. ...And that's my opinion!" :)

the young members of the family, who have had less time to build prejudice minds, disagreed with it as they can see it for what is was alot easier.

Arrogant, ageist, assuming you're in the right...

God, too many of my generation are sheep-like, Che Guevera t-shirt wearing cretins. How we're going to run the world I don't know.

As people on nation statestend to be younger but we do get older people on, please state your age

Sounds like you've got preconceived notions about what the opinions of older people are going to be, laddy-buck. Tsk tsk. Prejudiced. I'm 18.