NationStates Jolt Archive

So, did the police officer shoot him without warning?

Poll coming!


British police "shot without warning": victim (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-13T134236Z_01_L13358397_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BRITAIN-SHOOTING.xml&src=rss)

British police "shot without warning": victim
Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:41am ET17
By Peter Griffiths

LONDON (Reuters) - A British man shot by police seeking a possible chemical bomb in a London home, and later released without charge, said on Tuesday the officer gave no warning before pulling the trigger.

"We both had eye contact, he shot me straight away," Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, told a news conference. "I just saw an orange spark and a big bang. I flew into the wall, slipped down. There was blood coming down my chest. I knew I was shot."

cant they use stun guns or something like that? then they can shoot first than ask questions alter as much as they want.

I'll wait until the inquiry is finished.

cant they use stun guns or something like that? then they can shoot first than ask questions alter as much as they want.
Stun guns are one shot weapons, and are not terribly accurate, especially across a room.

Some people have been known to be able to resist them.

And if you're walking into a room where people are mixing explosives and building bomb circuits, it's a very STUPID idea to use a weapon that fires exposed wires filled with several hundred thousand volts of electricity.

Reminds me of the Boondocks, where Ed and Rummy rob the convenience store and say they are fighting Terrorism.... except, instead of criminals, it's the police.

And if you're walking into a room where people are mixing explosives and building bomb circuits, it's a very STUPID idea to use a weapon that fires exposed wires filled with several hundred thousand volts of electricity.Is it a better idea to use a weapon that could potentially set off the explosives?

Stun guns are one shot weapons, and are not terribly accurate, especially across a room.

Some people have been known to be able to resist them.

And if you're walking into a room where people are mixing explosives and building bomb circuits, it's a very STUPID idea to use a weapon that fires exposed wires filled with several hundred thousand volts of electricity.

But we do need to be working on more effective non lethal weapons. Probably save everyone alot of hell.

He doesn't say much about the circumstances of the shooting. One shot and no warning suggests that the officer might have been surprised, by him coming through a doorway or something, but he doesn't say whether that was the case or not.

Stun guns are one shot weapons, and are not terribly accurate, especially across a room.

Some people have been known to be able to resist them.

And if you're walking into a room where people are mixing explosives and building bomb circuits, it's a very STUPID idea to use a weapon that fires exposed wires filled with several hundred thousand volts of electricity.
then use darts

*shrug*
I'd suggest dealing with certain problems in the manner of Admiral St.Jervis.
Hang mutineers first.
Notify the Admirality later.

I saw the chap's mugshot.
I'd say that was more of an incentive to shoot first/ask later than his religion.

Is it a better idea to use a weapon that could potentially set off the explosives?
Oddly enough, firearms rarely set off explosives. It's not like the movies.

Very few explosives are sensitive to impact to the extent that a bullet strike would set it off.

The manufacturer of the Taser explicitly warns not to use the device in the presence of flammable or explosive materials.

Is it a better idea to use a weapon that could potentially set off the explosives?

Like a taser?

But we do need to be working on more effective non lethal weapons. Probably save everyone alot of hell.
I concur. It's not just situations like this. There are plenty of other examples for instance when they shot a loony with a samurai sword because rubber bullets didn't stop him, or the guy with the table leg. There's always going to be a balance between stopping power and inadvertant lethality, but I think research into in wouldn't be amiss.

Don't know about the UK police policy...

but here in the US, police who view a situation becoming an "immediate" threat to life are NOT required to call out a warning of any kind first.

They are trained to SHOOT to STOP.

Which is exactly what happened in the UK case. The guy who was hit by the pistol shot was NOT killed. Yes, it turned out that he wasn't doing anything bad, but there is no time in situations like those.

Here in the US, if a policeman tells you to put your hands in plain sight, he is giving you a warning then - that he considers you a potentially lethal threat.

If you hide your hands, or continue to move your hands out of sight, the next thing that comes is being shot.

Are you telling me that we can make nukes but not a rapid firing immediately effective gun that only disables? I believe we human race can manage to design a practical weapon that doesnt kill, moreover when used it can signal police and record fingerprints or dna so that civillians can carry them too for self defence instead of carrying fire arms but not use them to rape and steal from people etc.
Technology enables us to think with more options and more its advanced it will enable more options without unnecessary killing. It can be used to good ends and to improve security without endangering normal citizens rights.

I saw the press conference. I heard what he said. His point of view states that he woke up in the middle of the night to the sounds of his younger brother screaming. He then proceeded to cautiously go out onto the landing, in his boxers and t-shirt.

It was dark, but he could see movement on the stairs. No one identified themselves as police officers, so as far as he knew it could very easily have been a burglery. He went to the top of the stairs, and turned. It was still dark, when he saw an orange flash and 'flew against the wall'. He slid down and looked at his shoulder.

He saw he had been shot and was bleeding. Then he saw movement infront of him and something coming towards hs head. He lifted his one arm to protect his head as (what he later knew to be the butt of a gun) an object struck him on the head/arm.

Then he was told to "Lie down and shut the fuck up". He was already on the floor having been shot. He was pleading with the intruders not to kill him, or his brother as he could still hear him screaming.

This is what he said at the press conference.

Oddly enough, firearms rarely set off explosives. It's not like the movies.

Very few explosives are sensitive to impact to the extent that a bullet strike would set it off.How long does it take for the fire that's used to propel a bullet to burn out?

Don't know about the UK police policy...

but here in the US, police who view a situation becoming an "immediate" threat to life are NOT required to call out a warning of any kind first.

They are trained to SHOOT to STOP.

Which is exactly what happened in the UK case. The guy who was hit by the pistol shot was NOT killed. Yes, it turned out that he wasn't doing anything bad, but there is no time in situations like those.

Here in the US, if a policeman tells you to put your hands in plain sight, he is giving you a warning then - that he considers you a potentially lethal threat.

If you hide your hands, or continue to move your hands out of sight, the next thing that comes is being shot.
In the UK, there are far stricter restrictions.

It's extremely rare that police are actually armed, and they have to request an Firearms squad and give a decent reason for it.

This was pretty shocking, to be honest. A man that was completely innocent of everything was shot for no reason.

Whoever said it was the man who did wrong instead of the Police is a fool. He did nothing wrong at all.

*edits*

Kind of smacks of the Underground case with Charles de Menez or whatever he was called, doesn't it?

Don't know about the UK police policy...

but here in the US, police who view a situation becoming an "immediate" threat to life are NOT required to call out a warning of any kind first.

They are trained to SHOOT to STOP.

Which is exactly what happened in the UK case. The guy who was hit by the pistol shot was NOT killed. Yes, it turned out that he wasn't doing anything bad, but there is no time in situations like those.

Here in the US, if a policeman tells you to put your hands in plain sight, he is giving you a warning then - that he considers you a potentially lethal threat.

If you hide your hands, or continue to move your hands out of sight, the next thing that comes is being shot.
yes police have limited options because the person might trigger explosives or worse: chemicals or virus. But It kinda seems turned into a skin color hunt, in the strategic sense it increases vulnerability to terror by both not giving enough attention to other types of people and causing the used type to fear police and cause more wrong alerts.

Whoever said it was the man who did wrong instead of the Police is a fool. He did nothing wrong at all.

I'm not sure if anyone said that the man did wrong. From the report, we know he was released without charge. So I'm not sure if there is a debate if he committed a crime or not.

The real question is if he is lying about the warning shot or not. If he was guilty or innocent of a crime doesn't have any bearing on that one way or another. Its illogical to conclude that the police fired without warning from the fact that the man wasn't guilty of the crime that the raid was intended for. There is no middle that links the two.

So, is there something that leads you to believe that the police fired without warning?

I'm not sure if anyone said that the man did wrong. From the report, we know he was released without charge. So I'm not sure if there is a debate if he committed a crime or not.

The real question is if he is lying about the warning shot or not. If he was guilty or innocent of a crime doesn't have any bearing on that one way or another. Its illogical to conclude that the police fired without warning from the fact that the man wasn't guilty of the crime that the raid was intended for. There is no middle that links the two.

So, is there something that leads you to believe that the police fired without warning?
He said that they acted like armed robbers. Armed robbers don't fire a warning shot.

And in no reports I've heard has it been explicitly stated that the police fired a warning shot, leading me to believe that they fired without warning.

Frankly I don't care. Granted, the intelligence that led to the raid may well have been flawed, however the police protocol for dealing with terrorists was followed.

I'm not sure if anyone said that the man did wrong. From the report, we know he was released without charge. So I'm not sure if there is a debate if he committed a crime or not.

The real question is if he is lying about the warning shot or not. If he was guilty or innocent of a crime doesn't have any bearing on that one way or another. Its illogical to conclude that the police fired without warning from the fact that the man wasn't guilty of the crime that the raid was intended for. There is no middle that links the two.

So, is there something that leads you to believe that the police fired without warning?

Yup. Common sense.
When you fear a human detonator, so to speak, you've got an excellent reason to nullify that human detonator ASAP.

Frankly I don't care. Granted, the intelligence that led to the raid may well have been flawed, however the police protocol for dealing with terrorists was followed.
Shame he wasn't a terrorist then. The same goes for the electrician who was shot on the underground.

Shame he wasn't a terrorist then. The same goes for the electrician who was shot on the underground.

Indeed. Without sarcasm.
The police have a choice between killing one person too many by action.
Or possibly killing 1000 by inaction.

Add in the human rationality + human instinct to safeguard their own police-lives through action, and I fully expect the police to shoot first, and ask questions later.

Were the police telling me they acted otherwise, I'd suspect them of lying.

He said that they acted like armed robbers. Armed robbers don't fire a warning shot.

So just to get on your line of reasoning, why do you believe the man over the police?

And in no reports I've heard has it been explicitly stated that the police fired a warning shot, leading me to believe that they fired without warning.

The report I used in the OP explictly stated that the police fired a warning shot.

"There have been conflicting reports about how Kahar was shot. Some newspapers said there had been a struggle. Police have said a shot was fired and an investigation is under way."

Shame he wasn't a terrorist then. The same goes for the electrician who was shot on the underground.

Indeed. The reliability of police intelligence should be improved, not the protocol itself.

As for de Menezes, that was a tad embarressing given that he was Brazilian.

Yup. Common sense.
When you fear a human detonator, so to speak, you've got an excellent reason to nullify that human detonator ASAP.

If thats true then why didn't the officer follow protocol and shoot him in the head?

If thats true then why didn't the officer follow protocol and shoot him in the head?

There is more than one way to nullify a target.

If thats true then why didn't the officer follow protocol and shoot him in the head?

I think police and soldiers are generally instructed to shoot at the chest, because its a much larger target, has "stopping power", and its too easy to miss the head.

I think police and soldiers are generally instructed to shoot at the chest, because its a much larger target, has "stopping power", and its too easy to miss the head.

If he's a suicide bomber....

There is more than one way to nullify a target.

Not when dealing with a possible suicide bomber. A head shot is the only way to ensure the target is down.

So just to get on your line of reasoning, why do you believe the man over the police?
Because the British police have lied in the past about this kind of thing.
The report I used in the OP explictly stated that the police fired a warning shot.

"There have been conflicting reports about how Kahar was shot. Some newspapers said there had been a struggle. Police have said a shot was fired and an investigation is under way."
"Man thinks police are armed robbers are tries to tackle one of them shocker!"

Not when dealing with a possible suicide bomber. A head shot is the only way to ensure the target is down.

And I'm assuming you believe that 100% accuracy happens every time?

I think police and soldiers are generally instructed to shoot at the chest, because its a much larger target, has "stopping power", and its too easy to miss the head.

No they aren't. If you followed the mendez debacle then you'll be aware of a shoot to kill policy when dealing with terrorists in the UK.

And I'm assuming you believe that 100% accuracy happens every time?

7 times in the head for Menezies.

7 times in the head for Menezies.

Eye see.
Tell me - what would be the total amount of rounds fired during Iraqi Freedom, and what would be the total number of hits?

Eye see.
Tell me - what would be the total amount of rounds fired during Iraqi Freedom, and what would be the total number of hits?

What colour are my boxers today?

No they aren't. If you followed the mendez debacle then you'll be aware of a shoot to kill policy when dealing with terrorists in the UK.

The chest is actually considered a vital spot. Shooting toward the chest falls under the category of shooting to kill as well.

And I'm assuming you believe that 100% accuracy happens every time?

No, which is why you fire more than once. I refer again the mendeses, how many bullets were removed from his brain?

Its this that make me think this was a monumental fuckup by the police....again.

The chest is actually considered a vital spot. Shooting toward the chest falls under the category of shooting to kill as well.

I reiterate....

If he's a suicide bomber....

Think man, think.

What colour are my boxers today?

Sir, you are the one who is assuming 100% accuracy.

Either put up and prove it - or you may be off and go into the frontlines yourself.

Sir, you are the one who is assuming 100% accuracy.

Either put up and prove it - or you may be off and go into the frontlines yourself.

Frontlines? In East London?

My, the Iraq war spread.

Because the British police have lied in the past about this kind of thing.

There you go, being illogical again. Thats called poisoning the well.

The police lying in the past only has a logical bearing on them lying in the past. It can't be logically concluded from the fact that the British police have lied in the past that they are lying now.

Especially when you take into account that its probably not the same police officer that has lied in the past.

"Man thinks police are armed robbers are tries to tackle one of them shocker!"

You've yet to actually explain your reasoning behind why you think the man is telling the truth and the police are lying. At first you claimed no report says they fired a shot, when the one I posted did. And now respond with a red herring, hmm...

I guess I could ask again. Any logical reason you think that the man is telling the truth and the police are lying?

There you go, being illogical again. Thats called poisoning the well.

The police lying in the past only has a logical bearing on them lying in the past. It can't be logically concluded from the fact that the British police have lied in the past that they are lying now.

Especially when you take into account that its probably not the same police officer that has lied in the past.




One word:

Credibility.

I reiterate....

If he's a suicide bomber....

Think man, think.

Oh, are you referring to the bombs on the chest? I don't think the police thought he was strapped with explosives around his body, or that he was to be a suicide bomber. The original raid and investigation was because he was suppossedly involved in buying some chemicals to make weapons.

No, which is why you fire more than once. I refer again the mendeses, how many bullets were removed from his brain?

Its this that make me think this was a monumental fuckup by the police....again.

I would not call it a ( deleted for foul language ) - but an action following out of policy, informal or otherwise.
Also, I'm assuming ( for reasons explained earlier ) than a more 'passive' policy would be ignored.

The chest is actually considered a vital spot. Shooting toward the chest falls under the category of shooting to kill as well.

Not when there is the possiblilty that a chap might have a semtex bulletproof vest on my old son. And before I hear all about the risks of a round setting off plastic explosives being negligible, you have to remember there are other things you can hit, such as detonators and the circuitry of the bomb.

Shooting Terrorists in the chests in a built up area = very bad idea.

Oh, are you referring to the bombs on the chest? I don't think the police thought he was strapped with explosives around his body, or that he was to be a suicide bomber. The original raid and investigation was because he was suppossedly involved in buying some chemicals to make weapons.

You don't think, what the police thought....

Were you there?

Do you know what SOP is when dealing with suspected suicide bombers?

Not when there is the possiblilty that a chap might have a semtex bulletproof vest on my old son. And before I hear all about the risks of a round setting off plastic explosives being negligible, you have to remember there are other things you can hit, such as detonators and the circuitry of the bomb.

Shooting Terrorists in the chests in a built up area = very bad idea.

Ever take a gun safety course? Been in the military? Police force? They teach you to shoot for the chest, and its considered a vital spot. That much is a fact.

Frontlines? In East London?

My, the Iraq war spread.

I would say: to whichever location you'll have the best opportunities to earn a Victoria Medal.
Wherever the threat-level is highest.

You don't think, what the police thought....

Were you there?

Do you know what SOP is when dealing with suspected suicide bombers?

It doesn't say he was a suspected suicide bomber.

I don't know why people keep claiming this.

I reiterate....

If he's a suicide bomber....

Think man, think.
But I don't think that the police though that this guy was a suicide bomber in this case. They thought he had a chemical weapon, which isn't the sort of thing that is carried around in the same way a suicide bombers' vest is. Particularly when you catch someone unaware in their own home, they're unlikely to be carrying a bomb around. The tube shooting was different because they thought it was a suicide bomber and it was at point blank range when he was down.

Ever take a gun safety course? Been in the military? Police force? They teach you to shoot for the chest, and its considered a vital spot. That much is a fact.

Read my post before spouting drivel.

I would say: to whichever location you'll have the best opportunities to earn a Victoria Medal.
Wherever the threat-level is highest.

I'm not British. I couldn't give a shit about a Victoria medal.

You brought the Iraq war into the discussion about the Menezies and this shooting.

You lose.

I reiterate....

If he's a suicide bomber....

Think man, think.

A standard 9mm pistol holds 17 rounds.

Shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot. Threat sitll there? headshot.

But I don't think that the police though that this guy was a suicide bomber in this case. They thought he had a chemical weapon, which isn't the sort of thing that is carried around in the same way a suicide bombers' vest is. Particularly when you catch someone unaware in their own home, they're unlikely to be carrying a bomb around. The tube shooting was different because they thought it was a suicide bomber and it was at point blank range when he was down.

Actaully, 2 weekends ago they believed some material was missing and could eaisly be transported in a make shift dirty bomb... as... guess what?

A suicide belt!

Ta-da! Don't want to be shooting at that now do we children!

I'm not British. I couldn't give a shit about a Victoria medal.

You brought the Iraq war into the discussion about the Menezies and this shooting.

You lose.

The we can still press you as a foreign Johnny, wot?

A standard 9mm pistol holds 17 rounds.

Shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot. Threat sitll there? headshot.

LOL. Go back to sleep DM.

Actaully, 2 weekends ago they believed some material was missing and could eaisly be transported in a make shift dirty bomb... as... guess what?

A suicide belt!

Ta-da! Don't want to be shooting at that now do we children!
But it wasn't a dirty bomb in this case, they thought it was a chemical weapon. And as far as I know a chemical weapon tends to take the form of large amounts of liquid, which isn't the sort of thing that can be carried around easily.

But it wasn't a dirty bomb in this case, they thought it was a chemical weapon. And as far as I know a chemical weapon tends to take the form of large amounts of liquid, which in't the sort of thing that can be carried around easily.

Yeah, liquids can't be poured into a vessel/material of any shape at all..... :rolleyes:

Actaully, 2 weekends ago they believed some material was missing and could eaisly be transported in a make shift dirty bomb... as... guess what?

A suicide belt!

Ta-da! Don't want to be shooting at that now do we children!


are suicide belts generally worn around the chest? ... i always pictured them around the waist area...

Yeah, liquids can't be poured into a vessel/material of any shape at all..... :rolleyes:
I didn't say that, but I think for an attack of the level we're talking about, an extremely large amount of liquid would be required, probably more than a person could carry on them in a vest. And even so, if the police thought he was going to be a suicide bomber, they would probably have shot him in exactly the same way as on the tube.

Read my post before spouting drivel.

I read your post. You didn't respond to my questions, though. I wonder why.

As I stated, police and soldiers aren't trained to try and take headshots because its a small, moving target. They are trained to shoot for the chest. Bulletproof vests aren't taken into account because people who get shot wearing bp's still hit the ground, it only stops penetration, it doesn't stop the force of the bullet.

And the police weren't dealing with a suicide bomber, nor was the subject in this case being arrested because he was a suspected suicide bomber or suspected to be doing a suicide bombing. He was to be arrested for trying to buy chemicals that could be used to make a bomb.

I think someone else also pointed out that guns rarely discharge explosives. In places where suicide bombers are common threats, there is no training to "aim for the head" either. You still shoot and aim for the chest. It isn't the movies.

It doesn't say he was a suspected suicide bomber.

I don't know why people keep claiming this.

MIddle eastern male between the ages of 17-45

islamic

Fits the profile of a terrorist/ homicide bomber to a T. Now whether or not he is one is another matter.

are suicide belts generally worn around the chest? ... i always pictured them around the waist area...Really?
http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/suicide_bomb_2.jpg

i wonder what's happened to the 'credible human source' that provided the information. Either he was only partially wrong and the chemicals were stored elsewhere or some serious questions are going to be needed to be asked. Possibly in a sound-proofed cellar somewhere.

I didn't say that, but I think for 1. an attack of the level we're talking about, 2. an extremely large amount of liquid would be required, probably more than a person could carry on them in a vest. And even so, if the police thought he was going to be a suicide bomber, they would probably have shot him in exactly the same way as on the tube.

1. What level are "we" talking about?

2. Not necessarily.

1. What level are "we" talking about?

2. Not necessarily.
1. I'm not an expert on the matter, I'm only speculating myself.
2. Maybe, maybe not. We don't know exactly what happened there, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the police were sent in with these specific orders as a result of certain intelligence.

MIddle eastern male between the ages of 17-45

islamic

Fits the profile of a terrorist/ homicide bomber to a T. Now whether or not he is one is another matter.

Well, they obviously thought he was a terrorist. Being a suicide bomber is an entirelly different story. The vast majority of terror carried out on foreign soil isn't a result of traditional suicide bombing. Generally, bombs are planted or non-conventional suicide attakcks, like 9/11 with airplanes, occur. We see the majority of suicide bombings with internal conflicts, or semi-internal conflicts, such as in Sri Lanka or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So, I maintain that civilian police are not trained to shoot for the head for fear of a bomb around the chest. Even Israeli soldiers aren't, when there is legitimate fear of an explosive device on the person. There are many, many accounts of suicide bombers carrying explosives on them that are riddled with holes at Israeli checkpoints, and I havn't heard of one where a bullet set off an explosive device yet.

Are you telling me that we can make nukes but not a rapid firing immediately effective gun that only disables? I believe we human race can manage to design a practical weapon that doesnt kill, moreover when used it can signal police and record fingerprints or dna so that civillians can carry them too for self defence instead of carrying fire arms but not use them to rape and steal from people etc.
Technology enables us to think with more options and more its advanced it will enable more options without unnecessary killing. It can be used to good ends and to improve security without endangering normal citizens rights.

I wouldn't use it even if they made one, and even then SOME states would ban them, just because.

I read your post. You didn't respond to my questions, though. I wonder why.

I spent 2 years in the TA in the UK, specifically 209bty, 103reg RA. As far as I remember we we train to shoot for the chest with long arms at all ranges and for the chest with short arms at long ranges. Short arms at short ranges meant doule to the chest and one to the head. However I never had any specialist CT training due to the nature of my unit.

As I stated, police and soldiers aren't trained to try and take headshots because its a small, moving target. They are trained to shoot for the chest. Bulletproof vests aren't taken into account because people who get shot wearing bp's still hit the ground, it only stops penetration, it doesn't stop the force of the bullet.

I didn't say 'bulletproof jacket', I said 'semtex bulletproof jacket'.

And the police weren't dealing with a suicide bomber, nor was the subject in this case being arrested because he was a suspected suicide bomber or suspected to be doing a suicide bombing. He was to be arrested for trying to buy chemicals that could be used to make a bomb.

Potential terrorist in a built up area buying materials to make a bomb. Right, I'm sure no one ever entertained to notion he may have more wrapped around him than his belt. :rolleyes:

I think someone else also pointed out that guns rarely discharge explosives. In places where suicide bombers are common threats, there is no training to "aim for the head" either. You still shoot and aim for the chest. It isn't the movies.

And again I refer you back to my post. Seems you didn't read it after all.

Really?
http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/suicide_bomb_2.jpg

you see... that's a suicide vest. not a belt.

tbh it is a very bad thing if they did not give him warning.

but tbh it is just one incident and it was a potentially neighbourhood threatening situation.

now im all for the gun policies we have in the uk, and this is just one incident where the police did wrong

the fact that it was not a shot to kill and was well aimed in the shoulder shows that the bobby clearly thought before he shot so probably did give a warning

I spent 2 years in the TA in the UK, specifically 209bty, 103reg RA. As far as I remember we we train to shoot for the chest with long arms at all ranges and for the chest with short arms at long ranges. Short arms at short ranges meant doule to the chest and one to the head. However I never had any specialist CT training due to the nature of my unit.

You mean they didn't teach you to weigh the possibility that shooting for the chest first might set off a suicide bomber's explosives? :cool:

the fact that it was not a shot to kill and was well aimed in the shoulder shows that the bobby clearly thought before he shot so probably did give a warning

Thats an interesting point. Its probably the best argument I've heard for one side so far. I didn't know that he shot for the shoulder myself, this was the first I've heard of it.

Its certainly much more coherent than "they lied in the past, so they must be lying now."

you see... that's a suicide vest. not a belt.

Yeah... that the point alright.... :rolleyes:

"Oh my God, look its a vest, not a belt. I'm sure we're fine. Put the guns away fellas".

You mean they didn't teach you to weigh the possibility that shooting for the chest first might set off a suicide bomber's explosives? :cool:

No, as I said, I never undertook any CT training.

Come on, I read you debating in other threads and you're better than this. Pretending to misunderstand other people posts is jsut poor form.

Its interesting too that more people have voted for the second option, that the Muslim man was wrong, than the first.

I have to wonder if this happened in another country if the votes would be more in favor of the Muslim.

Its interesting too that more people have voted for the second option, that the Muslim man was wrong, than the first.

I have to wonder if this happened in another country if the votes would be more in favor of the Muslim.

Stop reffering to him as "the Muslim man".

He's British.

Maybe I should start referring to the policeman as "the Christian with a gun" instead.

Yeah... that the point alright.... :rolleyes:

"Oh my God, look its a vest, not a belt. I'm sure we're fine. Put the guns away fellas".
cackle, i'm just arguing semantics :P

either way, the cop was there, assessed the situation and took action. Whether it may have been the right action or not will be determined by the inquiry. For all we know, the cop could tell he wasn't wearing a suicide "vest/belt" but was only in a t-shirt, etc. We'll just see what they have to say.

Stop reffering to him as "the Muslim man".

He's British.

Maybe I should start referring to the policeman as "the Christian with a gun" instead.

rofl, yes. In fact they should retitle the article:

Mini Crusade in London

cackle, i'm just arguing semantics :P

either way, the cop was there, assessed the situation and took action. Whether it may have been the right action or not will be determined by the inquiry. For all we know, the cop could tell he wasn't wearing a suicide "vest/belt" but was only in a t-shirt, etc. We'll just see what they have to say.

That was my very first post in the thread. :D

Stop reffering to him as "the Muslim man".

He's British.
British my arse. He has a bit of paper saying that he can squat on British land, that's as British as he is.

British my arse. He has a bit of paper saying that he can squat on British land, that's as British as he is.
Show me evidence he is an asylum seeker or refugee please?

Show me evidence he is an asylum seeker or refugee please?
I didn't say he was. By piece of paper I mean passport. Just because someone holds a British passport doesn't mean that I'll instantly regard them as British.

I didn't say he was. By piece of paper I mean passport. Just because someone holds a British passport doesn't mean that I'll instantly regard them as British.

Oh so he's not white, or maybe he's not Christian...

That make him 'non British'.

Isn't being shot NOT supposed to throw you into a wall? :confused:

Isn't being shot NOT supposed to throw you into a wall? :confused:

I actually wondered about that too, because it reminded me of hollywood theatrics.

Isn't being shot NOT supposed to throw you into a wall? :confused:
well, the mythbusters did an episode where they stuck up a pig carcass and shot at it... and it barely moved. So yah, technically it's not supposed to. That's one on the reasons i think the guy is lying.

How long does it take for the fire that's used to propel a bullet to burn out?
Less than a thousandth of a second. Muzzle flash is not a very reliable igniter unless there is actual gas (methane, for instance) in the air at the right mix.

well, the mythbusters did an episode where they stuck up a pig carcass and shot at it... and it barely moved. So yah, technically it's not supposed to. That's one on the reasons i think the guy is lying.

Very good point. He said that he was shot and flew against the wall?

Must be a Hollywood stuntman...:mp5:

yes police have limited options because the person might trigger explosives or worse: chemicals or virus. But It kinda seems turned into a skin color hunt, in the strategic sense it increases vulnerability to terror by both not giving enough attention to other types of people and causing the used type to fear police and cause more wrong alerts.

Here in the US, you don't have to be a suicide bomber to get shot by the police.

I will reiterate.

Take a far more common situation. You're pulled over for a traffic stop at night (you ran a red light, say).

The police run your tags and car description. Let's say that tonight, you happen to be driving the same color and model of car recently reported in a nearby crime.

The police are going to tell you to turn off your car, and throw the keys out on the pavement. It doesn't matter if you are Grandma Moses, or Pat Robertson, you're going to do it. Then you'll open the car door by reaching outside, and step out with your hands on your head.

Then you'll get on your knees, and they'll push you face first onto the pavement.

Until they can confirm that you pose no lethal threat, they treat you as one. Black or white.

And if you're fucking stupid, and put a hand in a pocket, you'll be dead.

I saw the chap's mugshot.
I'd say that was more of an incentive to shoot first/ask later than his religion.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/06/13/kahar.jpg

Here in the US, you don't have to be a suicide bomber to get shot by the police.

I will reiterate.

Take a far more common situation. You're pulled over for a traffic stop at night (you ran a red light, say).

The police run your tags and car description. Let's say that tonight, you happen to be driving the same color and model of car recently reported in a nearby crime.

The police are going to tell you to turn off your car, and throw the keys out on the pavement. It doesn't matter if you are Grandma Moses, or Pat Robertson, you're going to do it. Then you'll open the car door by reaching outside, and step out with your hands on your head.

Then you'll get on your knees, and they'll push you face first onto the pavement.

Until they can confirm that you pose no lethal threat, they treat you as one. Black or white.

And if you're fucking stupid, and put a hand in a pocket, you'll be dead.

It's good to know that in the US, if you're a tad slow on the uptake you get shot, I'll send an email to all of this years Big Brother contestants to inform them not to go there.

It's good to know that in the US, if you're a tad slow on the uptake you get shot, I'll send an email to all of this years Big Brother contestants to inform them not to go there.

Slow is one thing.

Deliberately putting your hand into a place the officer can't see after he's told you to keep your hands in plain sight is a recipe for dying.