Just heard breaking news on radio, not much news on internet sites yet.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/home

just coming through

bloody hell .. is this ever going to end?

Let’s just hope it wasn't some poor sod wearing a rucksack that looked at a twitchy police officer!

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

on BBC now

Hear (from an eye-witness) that they guy ran onto the train which was in the station, plain clothed police pushed him to the ground, held him down and shot him 5 times at close range.

Well let's hope they got the right person :suspect:

Sky News Report (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189920,00.html)

News just breaking that there has been a shooting by police at Stockwell underground. An eye witness has just reported being on a tubetrain at the station when an asian guy boarded and tripped, he was surrounded by plain clothes police officers and shot 5 times whilst still on the train.

5 posts too late...
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50588

Originally posted by Hels
Hear (from an eye-witness) that they guy ran onto the train which was in the station, plain clothed police pushed him to the ground, held him down and shot him 5 times at close range.

Well let's hope they got the right person :suspect:

Well, yes. Let's hope he wasn't carrying a table leg,

OK

No-one has confirmed that it is a suicide bomber.

No-one has confirmed it is connected to either set of explosions in London.

Yet.

edit ---
Reuters - Armed Police have surrounded a mosque in East London.

police surround mosgue in east london

The BBC site says

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

Why would they do that? Thats terrible if its true.

According to BBC, they got the man on the floor and shot him five times.
if he was on they floor and they caught/ hold him, why shoot him?

Originally posted by Hels
Hear (from an eye-witness) that they guy ran onto the train which was in the station, plain clothed police pushed him to the ground, held him down and shot him 5 times at close range.

Well let's hope they got the right person :suspect:

Let’s not focus on how this attack was prevented, just that numerous innocent lives have no doubt been saved here!

Well done that police man!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Well, yes. Let's hope he wasn't carrying a table leg,

OK

No-one has confirmed that it is a suicide bomber.

No-one has confirmed it is connected to either set of explosions in London.

Yet.

edit ---
Reuters - Armed Police have surrounded a mosque in East London.

Yes, this is true, I meant to type 'suspected suicide bomber' as this is what the breaking news said. However I typed it all far to quickly to get the info on here!

Hallam FM have reported that it is believed the man is dead.

We don't know how reliable the witness is, it implies the police shot him unnecessarily by piling on top and shooting him, however I assume he must have been a threat for the police to do that. They shouldn't shot people dead unless they realyy have to because they won't be able to question him now (if he is dead - unconfirmed).

Originally posted by serapis
Let’s not focus on how this attack was prevented, just that numerous innocent lives have no doubt been saved here!

Well done that police man!

Was he carrying a bomb? What do you know?

Originally posted by serapis
Let’s not focus on how this attack was prevented, just that numerous innocent lives have no doubt been saved here!

Well done that police man!

Why well done for shooting someone at point blank range 5 times? :confused:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Was he carrying a bomb? What do you know?
Exactly, if he was about to detonate something then perhaps shooting was the only option.

I just think that the witness report sounds dodgy currently. It implies the police are in the wrong.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Exactly, if he was about to detonate something then perhaps shooting was the only option.

I just think that the witness report sounds dodgy currently. It implies the police are in the wrong.

Maybe so, but FIVE TIMES at point blank range, when the person has already been grounded? Doesnt make sense to me. And whatever happened to rubber bullets?

I think the Police need Boing™ instead.

certainly sounds a bit odd, the police aren't in the habit of execution style killings on apprehended suspects.

Police have been instructed to shoot to kill if they believe target is about to detonate a bomb.

I presume that is what happened here. If that is the case then good on them.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Maybe so, but FIVE TIMES at point blank range, when the person has already been grounded? Doesnt make sense to me. And whatever happened to rubber bullets?

The guy could have had a hidden trigger and the only way for the police officer to protect the people around him was to kill him.

5 shots could just be speculation and probably came from someone who heard it and maybe the echo's, again I’m only speculating. Plus if the officer had an automatic, 5 shots could have just been by accident. I doubt he was worried about how many shots he fired.

Originally posted by Saifa
Police have been instructed to shoot to kill if they believe target is about to detonate a bomb.

I presume that is what happened here. If that is the case then good on them.

Yeah but NOT when they have caught the suspect. Maybe from long range when there is no other option yeah.

I dont believe police should ever shoot to kill. Just imagine if it was you in the tube station just reaching into your pocked for something, and get shot as police suspected you were about to detonate a bomb. It can happen.

Have just heard it was an automatic pistol, so 5 shots would be typical.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Maybe so, but FIVE TIMES at point blank range, when the person has already been grounded? Doesnt make sense to me. And whatever happened to rubber bullets?

What use is a rubber bullet? They are designed for crowd control, not stopping power.

It's a bit dicey shooting someone with a bomb, especially a suspected suicide bomber. I gather middle eastern suicide bombers frequently emply a dead man's switch, in case they are shot.

Mark Whitby an eyewitness reported a lot of noise, and then a man jumping onto the train with 3 officers in pursuit. The man tripped, the pursuers pushed him to the floor & one plain clothes policeman then shot him 5 times with a handgun, whilst he was on the floor.

The man was wearing an unfeasibly large jacket...

Originally posted by bookie
According to BBC, they got the man on the floor and shot him five times.
if he was on they floor and they caught/ hold him, why shoot him?

so he couldnt detonate the bomb presumably.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Yeah but NOT when they have caught the suspect. Maybe from long range when there is no other option yeah.

I dont believe police should ever shoot to kill. Just imagine if it was you in the tube station just reaching into your pocked for something, and get shot as police suspected you were about to detonate a bomb. It can happen.

Has that ever happened? No. Give the police more credit than that. The police have to asses the situation and can only shoot to kill if there is a credible threat. If they shot someone for no reason they are open to being prosecuted.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
What use is a rubber bullet? They are designed for crowd control, not stopping power.

It's a bit dicey shooting someone with a bomb, especially a suspected suicide bomber. I gather middle eastern suicide bombers frequently emply a dead man's switch, in case they are shot.

Mark Whitby an eyewitness reported a lot of noise, and then a man jumping onto the train with 3 officers in pursuit. The man tripped, the pursuers pushed him to the floor & one plain clothes policeman then shot him 5 times with a handgun, whilst he was on the floor.

The man was wearing an unfeasibly large jacket...

Fair enough then.

Its becoming more clear now the facts are coming out

I suppose no matter what happened, none of us were there so we dont know the exact details and can only presume

Originally posted by spyro2000
Yeah but NOT when they have caught the suspect. Maybe from long range when there is no other option yeah.

I dont believe police should ever shoot to kill. Just imagine if it was you in the tube station just reaching into your pocked for something, and get shot as police suspected you were about to detonate a bomb. It can happen.

They didn't catch him though, it seems he ran and jumped over a barrier heading for the tracks. They had to assume he was going to detonate something if there was suspicion that he had a bomb. As tragic as it would be if they were wrong they couldn't take that risk.

Originally posted by Sleepflower
They didn't catch him though, it seems he ran and jumped over a barrier heading for the tracks. They had to assume he was going to detonate something if there was suspicion that he had a bomb. As tragic as it would be if they were wrong they couldn't take that risk.


But the website says they did catch him and ground him. Where are all these different stories coming from?


its all getting a little confusing now :confused:

Originally posted by serapis
Has that ever happened? No. Give the police more credit than that. The police have to asses the situation and can only shoot to kill if there is a credible threat. If they shot someone for no reason they are open to being prosecuted.

Er - Stephen Warldorf?
Harry Stanley.
James Ashley?

Of course the police shoot the wrong people. If you shoot people, you will end up shooting the wrong people - fact.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Yeah but NOT when they have caught the suspect. Maybe from long range when there is no other option yeah.

I dont believe police should ever shoot to kill. Just imagine if it was you in the tube station just reaching into your pocked for something, and get shot as police suspected you were about to detonate a bomb. It can happen.

that isnt what happened though. He was running away from armed police. He then leaped over the ticket barrier and ran onto a tube.

Originally posted by nightrider
that isnt what happened though. He was running away from armed police. He then leaped over the ticket barrier and ran onto a tube.

Yeah but doesnt mean hes got a bomb.

Originally posted by serapis
Have just heard it was an automatic pistol, so 5 shots would be typical. typical? modern automatics hold 14 rounds,training would have been to fire two rounds ,then two more if the man was still able to move, maybe and i dont know,the man was wearing a flack jacket and the first two rounds didnt drop him,who knows?

Originally posted by spyro2000
Yeah but NOT when they have caught the suspect. Maybe from long range when there is no other option yeah.

I dont believe police should ever shoot to kill. Just imagine if it was you in the tube station just reaching into your pocked for something, and get shot as police suspected you were about to detonate a bomb. It can happen.

the police are always taught to shoot to kill.
Shooting in any other way (if you're in a situation where you have to shoot someone) is just asking to be shot yourself.

The police don't use weapons on automatic, they only use semi-automatic (and by automatic pistol it almost certainly means a semi-auto). Firing on automatic is asking to start killing bystanders.

So running onto a train wearing a large jacket is enough to get you shot whilst being held down...

"Reports are also coming in that a mosque in the east of the capital has been surrounded by armed officers and residents told to stay indoors."

and according to eye-witness he tripped, fell to the floor with a push from his pursuers and was shot on the floor.

Eye witnesses are not necessarily 100% reliable of course...

Originally posted by Cyclone
the police are always taught to shoot to kill.
Shooting in any other way (if you're in a situation where you have to shoot someone) is just asking to be shot yourself.

The police don't use weapons on automatic, they only use semi-automatic (and by automatic pistol it almost certainly means a semi-auto). Firing on automatic is asking to start killing bystanders.

So running onto a train wearing a large jacket is enough to get you shot whilst being held down...

Cheers, Ill remember that next time its a cold day and I feel like wearing a large jacket.

Originally posted by Meaks
"Reports are also coming in that a mosque in the east of the capital has been surrounded by armed officers and residents told to stay indoors."

That cordon has been lifted.

Originally posted by depoix
typical? modern automatics hold 14 rounds,training would have been to fire two rounds ,then two more if the man was still able to move, maybe and i dont know,the man was wearing a flack jacket and the first two rounds didnt drop him,who knows?

They are saying it was between 4 and 6 shots now.

Originally posted by Cyclone
So running onto a train wearing a large jacket is enough to get you shot whilst being held down...
Drawing wild and inflammatory conclusions from very sketchy eye-witness reports should certainly be enough to have some sort of punishment... ;)

Originally posted by spyro2000
Yeah but doesnt mean hes got a bomb.

No it doesn't but running from the police would indicate something's up and given the situation anyway the police don't want to wait to be proven right.

Incident at Islington Station.
arrest at kenington station.- evacuated.
hoax call to mosque.

L B C

Originally posted by spyro2000
Yeah but doesnt mean hes got a bomb.

it does mean they arent going to shoot you for taking something out of your rucksack though. Which is what you claim is going to happen.

In these situations the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The police have to make split second decsions in these cases. They don't always get it right, but I don't think we ought to be condemnatory, even if they occasionally get it wrong. If the guy was a suicide bomber, I have no qualms at all about him getting shot five times (so he can have his date with the 72 houris) rather than spending his days in days in relative comfort in a maximum security prison) . My only criticism is that he was shot in the head, causing instantaneous death, rather than in places likely to cause him excruciating and interminable pain. If we made life very painful for these contemptible wretches, I think there would be fewer of them

Originally posted by Sleepflower
No it doesn't but running from the police would indicate something's up and given the situation anyway the police don't want to wait to be proven right.

Nope, Ive had to run from the police before when Ive been innocent, scared of a beating as its happened before.

I think youve got a rose tinted view of the police in this country.

Originally posted by Cyclone
The police don't use weapons on automatic, they only use semi-automatic (and by automatic pistol it almost certainly means a semi-auto). Firing on automatic is asking to start killing bystanders.

A semi-automatic would, to a savilian sound like an automatic, so thats where that came from.

I didn't say they ran in there with uzi's balzing!

Originally posted by spyro2000
Nope, Ive had to run from the police before when Ive been innocent, scared of a beating as its happened before.

I think youve got a rose tinted view of the police in this country.

Hmm well I meant running away giving the current tensions and suspicions. The guy was apparently under suspicion or acting suspiciously I'm not sure and he was running to the tube train with a rucksack. Maybe they were a little hasty/eager to kill but if the guy had a bomb and detonated it people would ask why he wasn't shot...
Indeed innocent people might run too, but in this situation the risk was not one the police could've taken.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
In these situations the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The police have to make split second decsions in these cases. They don't always get it right, but I don't think we ought to be condemnatory, even if they occasionally get it wrong. If the guy was a suicide bomber, I have no qualms at all about him getting shot five times (so he can have his date with the 72 houris) rather than spending his days in days in relative comfort in a maximum security prison) . My only criticism is that he was shot in the head, causing instantaneous death, rather than in places likely to cause him excruciating and interminable pain. If we made life very painful for these contemptible wretches, I think there would be fewer of them

if the bombs are placed around his body, like most suicide bombers or in a rucksack, shooting him somewhere else could detonate his payload, so shooting in the head is the safest way to permanently stop the perpetrator.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Nope, Ive had to run from the police before when Ive been innocent, scared of a beating as its happened before.

I think youve got a rose tinted view of the police in this country.

Well, perhaps. But my view of them is influenced by extensive travelling (and working) in various parts of the world. As police forces go, I rate the British police highly. Of course, they are human and no force is perfect, but overall I think they do a pretty good job.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Nope, Ive had to run from the police before when Ive been innocent, scared of a beating as its happened before.

I think youve got a rose tinted view of the police in this country.

No I think YOU have the wrong idea of the police!

Running insinuates guilt, even if there is none!

Originally posted by Sleepflower
Hmm well I meant running away giving the current tensions and suspicions. The guy was apparently under suspicion or acting suspiciously I'm not sure and he was running to the tube train with a rucksack. Maybe they were a little hasty/eager to kill but if the guy had a bomb and detonated it people would ask why he wasn't shot...
Indeed innocent people might run too, but in this situation the risk was not one the police could've taken.

exactly. I am not advocating police should shoot suspects because they run away in general. But if they are a suspected suicide bomber and proceed to run onto a tube train in this climate the police cant take the chance and should shoot to kill. I dont see what else they can do except stand back and let them detonate the bombs in such a situation.

Its a tough time for the police at the moment. They are damned if the do (shoot someone) and damned if they don't (prevent the next 7/7). I know they are not perfect but if that man had blown up a load of people, the papers would be screaming 'why didn't someone do something' or 'why did they let this happen'.

reports that are saying the man was bieng chased by the police,that he ran into the carriage,was shot by the police, whats the odds of the police bieng on that particular carriage? very good inteligence,knowing the man was in the area and that he had to head that way,or, the police have armed officers on every carriage.

i,ll go for the later,and of course they may not have been police officers,they could have been members of the military who specialise in anti terrorism such as, the 14 intel, fru,sas,and others

and what if they killed 5 people and only 4 were suicide bombers. Surely the 1 life is worth trading for the potentialy 50 or more deaths if they did nothing? Its a real moral dilemma!

Originally posted by spyro2000
Nope, Ive had to run from the police before when Ive been innocent, scared of a beating as its happened before.

I think youve got a rose tinted view of the police in this country.

I'm by no means a fan of the police, but perhaps it would be sensible to wait until the full story appears before condeming their actions. The news is incredibly flakey at the moment with nothing much more than speculation and eye witness reports from shocked and confused tube passengers.

I back the police 100% in their decision. Latest report stated you couldn't miss the police and the weapons they were carrying. If i ran, i'd expect to be shot.

If they hadn't shot and this guy then detonated a bomb then we would be very critical of them.

Surely Spyro, you should have some sort of lawsuit against SY Police with what's happened to you???

Originally posted by nightrider
and what if they killed 5 people and only 4 were suicide bombers. Surely the 1 life is worth trading for the potentialy 50 or more deaths if they did nothing? Its a real moral dilemma!

Possibly, although I doubt the family of the 1 person would see it that way, but maybe.

Originally posted by fyybj
I'm by no means a fan of the police, but perhaps it would be sensible to wait until the full story appears before condeming their actions. The news is incredibly flakey at the moment with nothing much more than speculation and eye witness reports from shocked and confused tube passengers.

Yeah dont get me wrong, I agree. Im just saying that the police are not perfect, Im sure everyone know this. But yes you are right, this thread has got to 4 pages and we dont even know the full story yet.

Originally posted by youwhatref


Surely Spyro, you should have some sort of lawsuit against SY Police with what's happened to you???

Lets keep this on topic ay :rolleyes:

Originally posted by depoix
reports that are saying the man was bieng chased by the police,that he ran into the carriage,was shot by the police, whats the odds of the police bieng on that particular carriage? very good inteligence,knowing the man was in the area and that he had to head that way,or, the police have armed officers on every carriage.

i,ll go for the later,and of course they may not have been police officers,they could have been members of the military who specialise in anti terrorism such as, the 14 intel, fru,sas,and others

This is unconfirmed and speculative but there are eye witness reports that the man was seen leaving a bag on the platform before exiting the station, he was chased back in by police after being identified.

Again, this is more speculation and should be treated as such.

Does anyone know if there was actually a bomb yet?

Also a report that a train travelling between Brixton and Vauxhall was filled with "smoke" after leaving Stockwell.....

it could be someone jumping the barrier to avoid paying and then running because someones chasing him.
Have we dispensed with trial by jury and running is an admission of guilt with summary execution the penalty?

It will be interesting to see the full story, but I find it hard to imagine justification for shooting someone who is already being restrained.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Lets keep this on topic ay :rolleyes:

Spyro, as you are a Brummie, by 'ay' do you mean 'am not' or 'no'?

Originally posted by Cyclone
it could be someone jumping the barrier to avoid paying and then running because someones chasing him.
Have we dispensed with trial by jury and running is an admission of guilt with summary execution the penalty?

It will be interesting to see the full story, but I find it hard to imagine justification for shooting someone who is already being restrained.

Even when he may be laden with nail bombs?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Spyro, as you are a Brummie, by 'ay' do you mean 'am not' or 'no'?

lol, I meant neither of the above. I meant it in a Yorkshire way.

Im inclined to agre with Cyclone on this one. I can understand why the police would shoot someone, but I just dont see why they would do so if the person is restrained. Surely if a person is fully restrained then there is no way that they can detonate a bomb. Sounds very much like an execution style killing to me. But once again, this is without knowing the full facts so im probably 100% wrong, but we shall see.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Even when he may be laden with nail bombs?

he may be many things. I suppose the police have to make a judgement at the time, but I expect there'll be a problem if the guy didn't have a bomb.
Look at the problems that arose from shooting someone with a table leg, and in that case they can reasonably claim that they thought it was shotgun. Which is a much stronger defence than may have had a bomb.

Apparently the Kennington station incident was a suspect with a holdall, and everyone was told to get off the train.
and the station evacuated.

This is going to raise the stakes for everyone now. If you think you look suspect then do something about it before stepping outside. This could happen to anyone and mistakes are going to be made.

Doubt there would be much of a problem, the police have been given a shoot to kill license if they suspect someone is going to detonate a bomb.

They clearly suspected this man.

I think the media should leave the Police to do their job and butt out!
I've just watched the bbc news coverage regarding this incident and all it's going to achieve is mass panic of the general public.
It's going to create more race hate crime than ever whenever someone sees an asian person in a thick coat running.
It's just not on that the media are in there, telling us lot every little detail. It'll be all over the newspapers all week too I suppose. Mass panic equals more newspaper sales.
it's just wrong on so many levels.
I'm sure the police had their reasons for shooting that man. It's not something they do lightly. How could you?
Yes I'm concerned for the security of our country, and yes I really feel for the people who have lost loved ones in the recent events, but it's not our job to speculate and gossip.
The newsrooms are making the news happen. Not just reporting it like they used to.
I think in this day and age we get to know more than is naturally healthy for us. Idiots will always abuse this knowledge which leads to race hate crime.
Lets leave the security services to their jobs, help where we can, but not get involved in speculative gossip like the bloody media.
x peace x

Originally posted by Hadron
This is going to raise the stakes for everyone now. If you think you look suspect then do something about it before stepping outside. This could happen to anyone and mistakes are going to be made.

True. I know what you mean, BUT you cant do anything about colour. I have seen people in other threads making stupid comments about asians and "what they are all like" etc.

But in general I agree. I would never in this day and age go onto the underground with a large bag like a rucksack or similar.

"Unconfirmed reports suggest the man was involved in Thursday's assault on the capital."

From Sky news so should be taken with a pinch of salt.

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

Originally posted by Cyclone
he may be many things. I suppose the police have to make a judgement at the time, but I expect there'll be a problem if the guy didn't have a bomb.
Look at the problems that arose from shooting someone with a table leg, and in that case they can reasonably claim that they thought it was shotgun. Which is a much stronger defence than may have had a bomb.

I don't think it is, a bomb would cause much more devastation and loss of life. But it is a tough thing to have do and I don't envy the police making that decision.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Possibly, although I doubt the family of the 1 person would see it that way, but maybe.





Obviously they wouldnt be happy. I wouldnt if it was someone I know either. But I think we need the police to be unemotional and objectiveand weigh up the odds and do what is neccessary.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it could be someone jumping the barrier to avoid paying and then running because someones chasing him.
Have we dispensed with trial by jury and running is an admission of guilt with summary execution the penalty?



From what I read it sounded like they were chasing him already i.e. he was already under suspicion and he did a runner into the underground from overground. Of course the news is very new and we may have been given wrong facts in such a fast moving situation. Certainly if they just saw a random person jump the barrier it makes the situation different - especially since it would seem obvious a would-be bomber would want to avoid suspicion and would buy a ticket.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Why well done for shooting someone at point blank range 5 times? :confused:

If there was any suspicion that this guy was carrying a bomb then I think the police were justified.

No point in doing the 'stop, armed police' bit if the guy is determined to die by blowing himself up anyway.

If you could be 100% sure that you could restrain someone and stop them detonating a bomb, great. But if you can't, and there is reasonable suspicion, I think it's justifiable for the police to use whatever means they see fit to stop someone.

I would have assumed that he was given the opportunity to surrender first, like the chap yesterday at Downing Street. If he takes off in the current cimate then he is a grade one idiot if nothing else!

Joe

Originally posted by hotdogbird
I think the media should leave the Police to do their job and butt out!
I've just watched the bbc news coverage regarding this incident and all it's going to achieve is mass panic of the general public.
It's going to create more race hate crime than ever whenever someone sees an asian person in a thick coat running.
It's just not on that the media are in there, telling us lot every little detail. It'll be all over the newspapers all week too I suppose. Mass panic equals more newspaper sales.
it's just wrong on so many levels.
I'm sure the police had their reasons for shooting that man. It's not something they do lightly. How could you?
Yes I'm concerned for the security of our country, and yes I really feel for the people who have lost loved ones in the recent events, but it's not our job to speculate and gossip.
The newsrooms are making the news happen. Not just reporting it like they used to.
I think in this day and age we get to know more than is naturally healthy for us. Idiots will always abuse this knowledge which leads to race hate crime.
Lets leave the security services to their jobs, help where we can, but not get involved in speculative gossip like the bloody media.
x peace x

I know what you mean but saying we should in general be denied information is absurd, maybe it should be presented differently by some media outlets but I wouldn't count the BBC as one of the worst among them.

Originally posted by JoeP
If there was any suspicion that this guy was carrying a bomb then I think the police were justified.

No point in doing the 'stop, armed police' bit if the guy is determined to die by blowing himself up anyway.

If you could be 100% sure that you could restrain someone and stop them detonating a bomb, great. But if you can't, and there is reasonable suspicion, I think it's justifiable for the police to use whatever means they see fit to stop someone.

I would have assumed that he was given the opportunity to surrender first, like the chap yesterday at Downing Street. If he takes off in the current cimate then he is a grade one idiot if nothing else!

Joe

I hear what you are saying Joe, but the reports on that BBC website say that the man was already grounded and restrained from what I can remember. So in other words the police already had the situation under control, before shooting him

Could'nt they just slap his legs really hard, and make him stand in a corner.

Originally posted by spyro2000
I hear what you are saying Joe, but the reports on that BBC website say that the man was already grounded and restrained from what I can remember. So in other words the police already had the situation under control, before shooting him

Even if grounded, there's still a chance he could detonate a bomb especially if there is a dead man's switch. Police marksmen are under order to shoot to kill if there is suspicion of someone being a suicide bomber. Like Joe said, given the current climate and the situation faced by the police involved, I can't see any other outcome.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Even when he may be laden with nail bombs?

So it was Bin Laden? They got him at last!

On a more serious note, has nobody ever watched an action movie? Wasn't Dennis Hopper cornered in Speed yet still detonated the bomb?

Eyewitnesses say he wore a big coat? It's not a crime. Just go into Woodhouse on a hot summer's day and you'll see most old folk in their overcoats.

i want to know if this guy had a bomb or not.
like somebody else say , sometimes you ust run away becoz u r scraed of a beating or whatever. just hope thisman was not an innocent becoz the FIVE shots may then becoime a bit of an issue.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Look at the problems that arose from shooting someone with a table leg, and in that case they can reasonably claim that they thought it was shotgun. Which is a much stronger defence than may have had a bomb.

The Stanley shooting incident was sickening but I don't think it can be compared to what's happened today, they're 2 different situations.

Originally posted by spyro2000
The BBC site says

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

Why would they do that? Thats terrible if its true.

Why do you think they'd do that? They wouldn't do that for fun - the man will have been intent on killing and maiming as many innocent people as possible. It's reassuring, not terrible.

bbc news saying shot man seen with smoke coming out of haversack,challenged by police,ran away and into tube station

Originally posted by fyybj
Even if grounded, there's still a chance he could detonate a bomb especially if there is a dead man's switch. Police marksmen are under order to shoot to kill if there is suspicion of someone being a suicide bomber. Like Joe said, given the current climate and the situation faced by the police involved, I can't see any other outcome.

Exactly, so if they shot and kill him then surely the 'dead man's switch' would detonate the bomb. So there is still no need to kill someone who has been restrained.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Exactly, so if they shot and kill him then surely the 'dead man's switch' would detonate the bomb. So there is still no need to kill someone who has been restrained.

well he couldnt have had one. Else we would be reading about a bomb that went off.

Originally posted by fyybj
Even if grounded, there's still a chance he could detonate a bomb especially if there is a dead man's switch. Police marksmen are under order to shoot to kill if there is suspicion of someone being a suicide bomber. Like Joe said, given the current climate and the situation faced by the police involved, I can't see any other outcome.

if it's a dead mans switch then shooting him and killing him specifically sets it off. Hence the name.

and a policeman with a pistol is not a marksman.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Exactly, if he was about to detonate something then perhaps shooting was the only option.

I just think that the witness report sounds dodgy currently. It implies the police are in the wrong.

The Police did right!!! they are not mind readers and the man shot was a fugitive and was trying to run away, which implies he is guilty. the police could not take the risk of him blowing himself and them up, in circumstances such as this, the only thing to do is shoot first and think afterwards, don't forger the brave police are protecting US!!!

Originally posted by spyro2000
Exactly, so if they shot and kill him then surely the 'dead man's switch' would detonate the bomb. So there is still no need to kill someone who has been restrained.

We still don't know the full story so we are still speculating, but how do you suggest we deal with suspected suicide bombers in busy, populated areas where the risk to civilian life is great?

It could be that the person had just become nervous at the sight of armed police, and fled. Givent he circumstances the Police cannot be blamed for the outcome.

Although if there was a possibility of just detaining him to extract information - leading to other arrests, then this avenue should have been persued. Saying that one death is 'better' than many other deaths

Originally posted by halevan
the man shot was a fugitive and was trying to run away, which implies he is guilty.

1. We don't know whether the man was a "fugitive".
2. Running away from police does not imply guilt, the police will not have shot this man dead simply because he ran away from them.

Remember, we don't know the full details.

Originally posted by fyybj
We still don't know the full story so we are still speculating, but how do you suggest we deal with suspected suicide bombers in busy, populated areas where the risk to civilian life is great?

Well im saying it was wrong to shoot him going by what the website said. I feel it was wrong becase the story said that they had him restrained, now if the story said that they shot him while still running then that would be something different.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Well im saying it was wrong to shoot him going by what the website said. I feel it was wrong becase the story said that they had him restrained, now if the story said that they shot him while still running then that would be something different.

Even if he had a bomb on him and was about to detonate it? It's difficult to restrain someone if they have a bomb on them. You'd have to be 100% restrained to be unable to trigger the detonator and the police, quite rightly, wouldn't want to take any chances. Besides, think of the prison costs that will be saved? Of course at this stage, it's all speculation anyway.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Well im saying it was wrong to shoot him going by what the website said. I feel it was wrong becase the story said that they had him restrained, now if the story said that they shot him while still running then that would be something different.

If the man was restrained and there was no risk of a bomb being detonated then I agree, obviously the police on the scene and involved directly thought differently. If this guy turns out to be an innocent victim then it is a tragedy indeed.

Originally posted by halevan
The Police did right!!! they are not mind readers and the man shot was a fugitive and was trying to run away, which implies he is guilty. the police could not take the risk of him blowing himself and them up, in circumstances such as this, the only thing to do is shoot first and think afterwards, don't forger the brave police are protecting US!!!

From your response quoting me, I think we are coming from the same angle here Halevan. My post was made very early after the incident and I was trying to be devils advocate by saying we don't know the whole story, i.e we don't know the reasons why he was shot, we don't know if they were stopping him detonating something etc.

Equally, a lot of people on here jumped at having a go at the police and I agreed that the current (at the time of my post) info available was from a witness who implied that the police were in the wrong.

I'm sure all will be revealed, there will be a full inquest into the incident as you would expect when the police have killed a man, and if the police acted incorrectly this will come out.

I wouldn't, at this stage like to say either way, who was right or wrong, because I don't know what happened!

There will be, as always, an independent enquiry into the shooting of anyone by policemen.

Armed Policemen do not have to shout a warning before opening fire.

I'm just glad we have policemen who will chase a suspected suicide bomber and run them down, rather than doing the obvious thing which is running in the opposite direction. That takes cojones.

Given the current policing climate, my thoughts are with the police who have to make split second decisions upon which the lives of many people hang, and live with those decisions for the rest of their lives. And to live with the knowledge you mistakenly and lawfully killed an innocent in the line of duty is punishment enough IMO.

The man shot dead by police at a South London Tube station this morning is believed to be one of the bombers who escaped after yesterday's failed quadruple attack across London, police sources have told The Times.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1704399,00.html

think about it - if they had arrested him, chances are he would have been out in a few years which means another chance at blowing himself up.

By shooting him they have prevented that individual from taking part in future atrocities.

WELL DONE I SAY :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by coopster1974
think about it - if they had arrested him, chances are he would have been out in a few years which means another chance at blowing himself up.

By shooting him they have prevented that individual from taking part in future atrocities.

WELL DONE I SAY :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

thats IF he is indeed guilty

who cares?

He shouldnt have run off if he wasnt!

Originally posted by coopster1974
who cares?

He shouldnt have run off if he wasnt!

Id run if I thought someone was gonna shoot me.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Id run if I thought someone was gonna shoot me.

Dont talk daft just for the sake of arguing.
You really trying to tell me that if a copper screams

"police - stop or we'll shoot" that you'd carry on running? dont think so.

And if you dare to say that you would then your on a level with my 15 year old who would say black is white just to carry an arguement on.

Originally posted by coopster1974
Dont talk daft just for the sake of arguing.
You really trying to tell me that if a copper screams

"police - stop or we'll shoot" that you'd carry on running? dont think so.

And if you dare to say that you would then your on a level with my 15 year old who would say black is white just to carry an arguement on.

but black is white....

lol , no I see where u are coming from, but the fact is that we still dont know all the facts. Its all 'buts' and 'what ifs' at this moment in time. This thread should be a lot more interesting once the facts come out instead of speculation.

Well if he is 1 of the Bombers good riddance I say,he would have been out in a couple of years to kill again,If the police marksmen say stop you stop or risk being shot,if the guy had no reason to run then he should have stopped when asked too.I am just glad the bombers failed yesterday,but is this going to happen every 2 weeks,something needs to be done now,get rid of the Clerics who live in the UK who serve up hatred of our society.

Originally posted by tosh13
Well if he is 1 of the Bombers good riddance

Well.

The police are still looking for the four suspects from yesterday, so logic dictates, the killed person was not one of them:confused:.



Originally posted by tosh13
If the police marksmen say stop you stop or risk being shot

The police were not uniformed.

I think (under the current circumstances) if I were of any ethnic background I'd probably run....



Originally posted by tosh13
get rid of the Clerics who live in the UK who serve up hatred of our society.

Agreed:thumbsup:.

I would have prefered him to be taken alive as he might have had valuable information that could lead to other arrests.

Still, if he was a threat the police had little choice but to shoot him before he did real damage.

Originally posted by coopster1974
You really trying to tell me that if a copper screams

How would you know they were genuine police when they are not in uniform??



Originally posted by coopster1974
You really trying to tell me that if a copper screams

"police - stop or we'll shoot" that you'd carry on running?

How do you stop when you are laying on the floor? The guy who got killed, was already stationary (pushed\fell on the floor) when they (the Police - who were not identifiable by uniforms) shot him:confused:.

Originally posted by sccsux
How would you know they were genuine police when they are not in uniform??





How do you stop when you are laying on the floor? The guy who got killed, was already stationary (pushed\fell on the floor) when they (the Police - who were not identifiable by uniforms) shot him:confused:.

well I imagine they said this *before* he did a runner, not when ie was on the floor!

I understood he had been under sevailance by the police. It seems like he spotted them tailing him and ran for it (possibly with a bomb under his clothes). hardly an inocent man.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I understood he had been under sevailance by the police. It seems like he spotted them tailing him and ran for it (possibly with a bomb under his clothes). hardly an inocent man.

Yes but we dont know this.
He probably wasnt innocent, but we still dont know this

Originally posted by sccsux
How would you know they were genuine police when they are not in uniform??

How do you stop when you are laying on the floor? The guy who got killed, was already stationary (pushed\fell on the floor) when they (the Police - who were not identifiable by uniforms) shot him:confused:.

like i say - who cares? Its obviously one down, many more to go.

My outlook on the police has now changed somewhat - go boys go - kill em all.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I understood he had been under sevailance by the police. It seems like he spotted them tailing him and ran for it (possibly with a bomb under his clothes). hardly an inocent man.


Sky report no explosives were found on him though

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189947,00.html


The guy left his house and ran when somebody shouted at him to stop.

The only thing this guy appears to be guilty of is wearing a large coat??

Originally posted by sccsux
Sky report no explosives were found on him though

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189947,00.html


The guy left his house and ran when somebody shouted at him to stop.

The only thing this guy appears to be guilty of is wearing a large coat??

Whats your real name? Mohammed Saeed? - Get real, he was sooooooooooooooooooooo obviously guilty, why cant you see it?

Makes you think though - if he had a bomb in his coat - where did the 5 shots go? . . . wouldn't one of them have blown the bomb up. ( discounting the head shot ) :confused:

Apparently he was being followed and was shot for not obeying police intructions. He was considered an immediate risk to the public. I doubt the police would shoot someone 5 times for no reason in front of all those witnesses!

Originally posted by coopster1974
Whats your real name? Mohammed Saeed?

Who?



Originally posted by coopster1974
Get real, he was sooooooooooooooooooooo obviously guilty


Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Mod:

coopster1974, please moderate your language and choice of words.

Originally posted by coopster1974
Whats your real name? Mohammed Saeed?

t*sser.

Originally posted by sccsux
Sky report no explosives were found on him though

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189947,00.html


The guy left his house and ran when somebody shouted at him to stop.

The only thing this guy appears to be guilty of is wearing a large coat??

well maybe. But the guy should have enough sense to know that running from armed police onto a tube train can only have one outcome given the last 2 weeks. The police had to assume he was armed and ready to blow given he was already a suspect AND ran onto a tube train with a suspicously large coat in hot weather.

Originally posted by Tony
Mod:

coopster1974, please moderate your language and choice of words.

Please enlighten me?

Dont tell me Tony, your frightened that I might upset a suicide bomber who might be watching? ;)

Originally posted by Lestat
t*sser.

now now lestat you shouldnt be personally abusing fellow forumers its not nice

Originally posted by coopster1974
Whats your real name? Mohammed Saeed? - Get real, he was sooooooooooooooooooooo obviously guilty, why cant you see it?

Come on, get with it. So after this thread was stared its been found that he didnt even have a bomb, now you are still saying he is guilty. He may be guilty, but we dont know that. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty are we not.

As for the police, If they were following him, why did they not arrest him BEFORE he even got to a place like a train station, seems that, thats what made the situation worse.

Originally posted by Lestat
t*sser. Lestat, it is not worth your time and energy to argue with a wind-up artist, you will wear down your fingers typing for no good reason.:)

Mod:

Originally posted by Tony
[b]Mod:

coopster1974, please moderate your language and choice of words.

That goes for you too Lestat! :nono:

Originally posted by coopster1974
Please enlighten me?

Dont tell me Tony, your frightened that I might upset a suicide bomber who might be watching? ;)
No. You're being offensive and as such you are breaking the rules of the site. Like I say, moderate your posts or suffer a ban.

Originally posted by Lestat
t*sser.

Mod. Note

Lestat, as was said to coopster, the same applies to you!

Joe

Originally posted by spyro2000
Come on, get with it. So after this thread was stared its been found that he didnt even have a bomb, now you are still saying he is guilty. He may be guilty, but we dont know that. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty are we not.

As for the police, If they were following him, why did they not arrest him BEFORE he even got to a place like a train station, seems that, thats what made the situation worse. Yeah, you're right. I didn't think about that! Better to arrest someone before they become a risk to the public:confused:

Well as far as I understand the police had good reason to put him on survelliance correct? The decision to use weapons aint a light one especially in public so there's obviously something gone off that hasnt made the public forum yet.

They may have used those wee spy cameras in his house to gain info, followed him to see if he was meeting "Mr Big" cos these suicide bombers are the chicken ****e grunts who dont mean a thing in the wide picture. He's then spotted them, panicked and run to the station where the police were obviously afraid he had a bomb.

Case closed m'lud

Originally posted by nightrider
But the guy should have enough sense to know that running from armed police onto a tube train can only have one outcome given the last 2 weeks.


But my point is, how was he to know they were police (in plain clothes) and not some idiots from one of the far right fringe groups, intent on exacting misplaced revenge?



Originally posted by nightrider
The police had to assume he was armed and ready to blow given he was already a suspect AND ran onto a tube train with a suspicously large coat in hot weather.

I agree, the police must assume he was armed. However, immediate witness reports seem to indicate the guy was on the floor, surrounded by police who then shot him 5 times.

Originally posted by tulip
Lestat, it is not worth your time and energy to argue with a wind-up artist, you will wear down your fingers typing for no good reason.:)

Your right of course Tulip. Some people try to make things even worse than they are by stirring up. I've been watching the news all day and seeing how events have unfolded, I imagined that all the muslims and christians would be against each other now and fighting and backstabbing etc . . . .

I walked up to the shop about half an hour ago to find both muslims and christians stood chatting about it all, both absolutely disgusted with what has happened and wanting the same thing - that the criminals be caught and bought to justice.

It actually made me feel better somehow to think something like this is actually bringing certain communities closer.

Originally posted by coopster1974
Well as far as I understand the police had good reason to put him on survelliance correct? The decision to use weapons aint a light one especially in public so there's obviously something gone off that hasnt made the public forum yet.

They may have used those wee spy cameras in his house to gain info, followed him to see if he was meeting "Mr Big" cos these suicide bombers are the chicken ****e grunts who dont mean a thing in the wide picture. He's then spotted them, panicked and run to the station where the police were obviously afraid he had a bomb.

Case closed m'lud

from the website earlier

"Brunt said officers had followed the man from his home and that the initial plan was to arrest him."

Case reopened. They wanted to arrest him, so why didnt they.

They may have wanted to see if he was meeting anyone...


... like a failed suicide bomber.

Originally posted by sccsux
But my point is, how was he to know they were police (in plain clothes) and not some idiots from one of the far right fringe groups, intent on exacting misplaced revenge?





I agree, the police must assume he was armed. However, immediate witness reports seem to indicate the guy was on the floor, surrounded by police who then shot him 5 times.

because he could have been armed with a bomb which presumably can be detonated even if he is seemingly restrained. Hence the only way to be sure was to kill him.

and as for the police in plain clothes I have never seen in the news once people going round in plain clothes saying they are police to trick people into getting beating up. So why would he assume that? Makes no sense. Why would anyone do that - if they want to beat him up saying they are police doesnt make it easier.

Originally posted by Tony
They may have wanted to see if he was meeting anyone...


... like a failed suicide bomber.

more IFS and BUTS, the truth still is that we dont know the whole story. Theres plenty of questions that need to be answered before we can all come to some sort of reasonible discussion on this thread.

Originally posted by spyro2000
from the website earlier

"Brunt said officers had followed the man from his home and that the initial plan was to arrest him."

Case reopened. They wanted to arrest him, so why didnt they.

because he legged it and they didnt catch him until they got to the tube?

Originally posted by nightrider
because he legged it and they didnt catch him until they got to the tube?

How many police involved ???

Originally posted by nightrider
because he legged it and they didnt catch him until they got to the tube?

So are you saying that the police involved in such a massive operation like this were so incompetent as to let a suspect spot them? Is that the type of police that were chosen for this operation?

Originally posted by Lestat
Your right of course Tulip. Some people try to make things even worse than they are by stirring up. I've been watching the news all day and seeing how events have unfolded, I imagined that all the muslims and christians would be against each other now and fighting and backstabbing etc . . . .

I walked up to the shop about half an hour ago to find both muslims and christians stood chatting about it all, both absolutely disgusted with what has happened and wanting the same thing - that the criminals be caught and bought to justice.

It actually made me feel better somehow to think something like this is actually bringing certain communities closer. You have made my day. I'm so glad to hear that there are civilized people that have an ounce of sense and are not blaming each other for a bunch of terrorist criminals. I'm sure the sensible people are in the majority but it only takes a few to start a riot and that really scares me!

Originally posted by spyro2000
So are you saying that the police involved in such a massive operation like this were so incompetent as to let a suspect spot them? Is that the type of police that were chosen for this operation?

no. All I am saying is they didnt let him run onto the tube like you suggest. And even they were incompetent and he got away that doesnt mean they should give him a free pass to do whatever he pleases! He was a suspect acting in away suggesting he may well set a bomb off. So they did what they had to do. He could have chosen not to run. It was his choice to do this.

Originally posted by tulip
You have made my day. I'm so glad to hear that there are civilized people that have an ounce of sense and are not blaming each other for a bunch of terrorist criminals. I'm sure the sensible people are in the majority but it only takes a few to start a riot and that really scares me!

Thats it! I was quite relieved in a way too because most of them were chatting away like old friends.

After watching it and reading about it all day I was half expecting a scene from 'sin city' outside. But there are many, many more civilised people out there then those 4 scumbags that try to create hate. It just doesn't work - people are stronger and more intelligent.

I think the police got it spot on!
If it even LOOKED like a suspect was running for a train and detontate something then who cares how many times they shot him, as long as they STOPPED him is all that counts!
If he was innocent, he wouldn't have run.

Originally posted by OCCP
I think the police got it spot on!
If it even LOOKED like a suspect was running for a train and detontate something then who cares how many times they shot him, as long as they STOPPED him is all that counts!
If he was innocent, he wouldn't have run.

thats not the case.
Because someone runs from the police doesnt mean they are guilty of bombings. He could just as easily be wanted for other things (GBH, ABH, Robbery etc), and ran because of that. I know its not very likely, im just reiteraing the point that just because he ran doesnt mean he deserved to be shot.

Originally posted by spyro2000
thats not the case.
Because someone runs from the police doesnt mean they are guilty of bombings. He could just as easily be wanted for other things (GBH, ABH, Robbery etc), and ran because of that. I know its not very likely, im just reiteraing the point that just because he ran doesnt mean he deserved to be shot.

of course if he wasnt a terrorist he didnt deserve to be shot. But that doesnt change the fact the police should have shot him given the circumstances.

bbc news now says the men who shot him must of been special forces from the army because no police are trained to do what they did.

Update:

The Met have confirmed that the man was wanted for involvement in yesterdays failed bombings, though he isn't one of the 4 bombers - all of whom are still at large.

I agree nightrider, special forces are trained to keep shooting till a threat drops (thats not shoot to kill by the way), where as police are trained to shoot to stop a threat.

But it seems no matter what happens there is always blame. Had they shot him once in the leg and he had then detonted a bomb, the services would have been "incompitant". Yet because they shot him enough to make sure he couldn't do anything, they are heavyhanded.

Its a no win situation for british security services unfortunately!
What if they had shot him once, but in the head? Is that then too much? Where do you draw the line in situations such as this?

According to eye witnesses the man was wearing a large heavy coat which was unseasonal in the hot weather.

The police recognised as one of yesterday's bombers and gave chase

It appears he jumped over the turnstyle and ran towards the tube train.

I would think in these circumstances it is understandable that the plain clothes policeman shot him dead.

He could have been wearing a body belt of explosives and even if he had been wounded he could have blown the passengers and policemen up.

In the case of terrorists the police cannot afford to faulter, if they did, the general public would be at great risk.

and just think of the blame they would carry if they didn't take split second decisions in these cases.

Some people seem to want to talk about the freedoms and rights of these terrorists but what about ours?

I personally think the heroic deed of this officer should be rewarded with a medal as big as a dustbin lid.

The guy was "known" and had been under surveillance, and starts going for the tube wearing a large heavy coat, then bolts at the sight of police. I wouldnt have given him the benefit of the doubt myself. Would have been productive to have arrested him at his house though.

:clap: Yes!

Don walks off into the sunset,
swingin his butt like Balloo singin...

bubidum dum dum... another one bites the dust! :D

Originally posted by Lestat
Makes you think though - if he had a bomb in his coat - where did the 5 shots go? . . . wouldn't one of them have blown the bomb up. ( discounting the head shot ) :confused:

you can shoot high explosive (rdx) full of bullets and throw it in the fire and it still won't explode.

same cannot be said for Acetone Peroxide, necessarily.

Originally posted by Foxxx
From your response quoting me, I think we are coming from the same angle here Halevan. My post was made very early after the incident and I was trying to be devils advocate by saying we don't know the whole story, i.e we don't know the reasons why he was shot, we don't know if they were stopping him detonating something etc.

Equally, a lot of people on here jumped at having a go at the police and I agreed that the current (at the time of my post) info available was from a witness who implied that the police were in the wrong.

I'm sure all will be revealed, there will be a full inquest into the incident as you would expect when the police have killed a man, and if the police acted incorrectly this will come out.

I wouldn't, at this stage like to say either way, who was right or wrong, because I don't know what happened!

You were right Foxy and I agree with you, your post is very sensible.

from BBC news online

"Commuter Anthony Larkin, who was also on the train at Stockwell station, told 5 Live he saw police chasing a man.

"I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out "

still innocent?

Originally posted by coopster1974
from BBC news online

"Commuter Anthony Larkin, who was also on the train at Stockwell station, told 5 Live he saw police chasing a man.

"I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out "

still innocent?


Never said anyone was innocent of anyhthing. Neither did I proclaim anyone was guilty of anything. Merely pointing out possibilities @ the time.


Also, AP are reporting the incident a little differently:

LONDON - Plainclothes police chased a man in a thick coat through a subway station, wrestled him to the floor of a train car and shot him to death in front of stunned commuters Friday, witnesses said.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/london_bombings

If the person who was shot was seriously suspected of carrying a bomb, then yes, it is perfectly understandable (and appropriate) that he was shot.

Just because the police suspected him does not mean he was guilty though - the bio-chemist arrested in Egypt has since been absolved of any connection - It would have been too late for him if he'd been shot though.

That said, I am 100% behind the police, they cannot take chances when many innocent lives are at risk and I presume they would have had only seconds in which to make the judgement call. I expect that armed police and special forces are fully trained and confident enough to make these life and death decisions, I would not want to be in their position - and I don't suppose many of us on the forum would either. They would have to take all things into consideration, whilst chasing this person, they would need to be certain that he could understand what they were shouting when he was told to stop.

I don't think the British police are trigger happy, but neither do I think they can always be 100% perfect. If it turns out the person shot was innocent, it will be indeed a tragedy, but better one person be shot than lots of people killed. Maybe now the police have shown they are not messing around, these potential suicide bombers will think twice ...

Hubby has to go to London again next week. He normally goes to the station on his motorbike and has a large back-pack he can strap-on which contains his lap-top and change of clothes etc. Next week I will drop him off at the station and he will take his wheeled suitcase - just to errr on the side of caution...

Originally posted by spyro2000
thats not the case.
Because someone runs from the police doesnt mean they are guilty of bombings. He could just as easily be wanted for other things (GBH, ABH, Robbery etc), and ran because of that. I know its not very likely, im just reiteraing the point that just because he ran doesnt mean he deserved to be shot.


Mind you someone would be quite stupid to run from police in a tube station, that were identifying themselves as armed, if they had only committed a minor offence.


:loopy:

Originally posted by justine125
Mind you someone would be quite stupid to run from police in a tube station, that were identifying themselves as armed, if they had only committed a minor offence.


:loopy:

True, but some people are stupid, stupid doesnt mean guilty :P

A Scenario, pieced together from various eyewitness and police statements, mainly from BBC 24Hr News.

The suspect was being followed by plain clothes police (Special Branch?). By his dress, he would be suspected of concealing something under the large heavy coat (Bomb).
If a suicide bomber, it would be necessary to find a safe-ish place to stop him. Somewhere not crowded (Difficult in London).
On approaching the station, the operation stepped up a gear.
It was obviously more congested with passengers etc.
Challenged - - he ran, pursued by the officers (3 I believe).
Although using low velocity bullets, to minimise collateral damage (Exited shots - Richochets etc.) they would obviously not fire while running.
He was chased onto the train, and either was tripped or stumbled - - but ended up face down on the carriage floor.
Restrainment? - NO - - prevent him from using his arms to detonate the possible bomb - YES.
Still struggling to reach his body? It was ended by five shots to the back of the head. (Low Velocity bullets) to make sure he is immobilised.
A dead man's trigger? Well, that would normally consist of a switch or lever that had to be activated, then kept depressed. The explosion taking place when the pressure on the switch or lever is removed.
Not a nice job, but a necessary one, and one carried out with skill and with the safety of the Public in the area in mind.

I heard the am BBC news and their "expert" gave the distinct impression that this was a military operation rather than police.

Still, sheffco, 5 bullets to the head was a bit extreme wasn't it?

When the eyewitness Mark Whitby was phoning in the incident to the BBC I got the impression he was shot in the body. Certainly he never mentioned shots to the head. I immediately thought: well if he was carrying explosives under his coat then this would be a bit stupid.

And then reports circulated that he was shot in the head ...

All that interrogation they'll miss out on.

And I agree with matsellah (the expert he/she quoted) that these were more professional hitmen than armed coppers.

Yet no explosives were found on him.

Wonder if it was all some ruse to detract from the serious questioning of the 4 'bombers' on the 7th?

And now straight onto Egypt ...



1)Some bits on London bombings (Scroll down to 2nd blue box):

http://www.rense.com/



2) 'What is it that the invisible government wants Bush and Blair to do? Scott Ritter announced last January that Bush had issued an order to prepare an attack on Iran for the month of June. According to a well-informed retired CIA analyst I spoke with on July 3, this order actually told US commanders to be ready to attack Iran by the end of June.

This project of war with Iran is coherent with most of what we know about the intentions of the US-UK rogue faction, and thus provides the immediate background for the London explosions. The Bush administration and the Blair cabinet have failed to deliver decisive military action, and the invisible government is exceedingly impatient. '

The US-UK can attack Iran from Iraq in the west, from Afghanistan in the east, and from Qatar in the south, but without the Uzbek and Kyrgyz bases, the Anglo-American ability to attack from the north as well will be severely limited.

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/Tarpley/THE%20LONDON%20EXPLOSIONS.htm

"And I agree with matsellah (the expert he/she quoted) that these were more professional hitmen than armed coppers." He didnt say that.

EDIT Everyone has got to check out that site carolek has mentioned, its hilarious! Why do conspiracy theories and UFOs always go hand in hand!? :D :D :D

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

A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.

The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

what a dumbass, probably should have stopped running when the coppers shouted at him...another feeb out of the genepool anyway

Looks like the bombers have partially succeeded in their aim anyway....when we got police jumping on innocent members of the public and shooting them repeatedly in the head....still, there will be more mistakes like this in the future

The fact that the wrong guy has been clinically executed in this way by police should make every other human being in UK shocked.
And of course we should all examine our own actions when we are in dangerous situations like never before. Maybe the guy was a petty criminal or pusher and that's why he ran?

If so should make petty criminals and pushers think about a new occupation.

Had he been a bomber and the police had allowed him to detonate and people had been killed then you'd have all be shouting about the lack of police action - can't win. Shoot first in my book every time !

Originally posted by skny
what a dumbass, probably should have stopped running when the coppers shouted at him...another feeb out of the genepool anyway If you shot everyone in the world for being stupid the population would be very small! How many people can honestly say they have never done anything stupid? Even if you were stupid every day of your life it doesn't mean you should be killed.

Having said that, it is a very dodgey situation. If given the choice of shooting someone because they might blow up a tube train full of people or letting them go just in case they weren't carrying bomb is a very bad place to be in. I'm glad that I don't have to make those kind of decisions!

This is not good at all..means next time the police could hesitate and boom...

Obviously a catastophic intelligence failure here, and awful PR, not to mention an apparently innocent dead body.

Originally posted by coopster1974
Get real, he was sooooooooooooooooooooo obviously guilty, why cant you see it?

You ready to retract these comments?

In light of the recent revelation that the guy was not one of the terrorists.


As an aside, I really hope you never get selected for jury service:loopy:.

Originally posted by skny
This is not good at all.

Completely agree.



Originally posted by skny
means next time the police could hesitate and boom...

Or they could look at where their "intelligence" comes from.

Originally posted by sccsux
As an aside, I really hope you never get selected for jury service:loopy:.
Juries are really really really scary.
They're full of people who judge people based on their own prejudices. It's about time we had professional juries instead of people with 'he must be guilty' attitudes :shakes:

Originally posted by sccsux
Or they could look at where their "intelligence" comes from.
Which will conclusively prove what exactly? :loopy:

Originally posted by Strix
Which will conclusively prove what exactly? :loopy:

To find how such an event could have happened, reliability of informers etc.

I should imagine it would be quite easy (especially with the current climate) to feed the authorities "mis-leading" information which must (obviously) be acted upon.

And in your perfect world, how would you tell which was the genuine info and which was dud - given the fact that there are hundreds of lives at stake if one individual slips through your net?

Originally posted by Strix
Juries are really really really scary.
They're full of people who judge people based on their own prejudices. It's about time we had professional juries instead of people with 'he must be guilty' attitudes :shakes:

I would have to disagree. Judgement by your peers is a cornerstone of modern justice in the UK.

Professional Juries? There is a case, in complex financial cases, where it can be hard to keep jurors awake, to be made for expert juries, possibly.

Although I would say that the process of trial does need to be intelligible to the layman, otherwise what is justice but the rule of a law you cannot understand.

Re: The shooting -

Wait for the inquiry. Then we can judge. Until then we know nothing apart from the wildly divergent eyewitness reports.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Until then we know nothing apart from the wildly divergent eyewitness reports.


The police are saying he was nothing to do with the bombing:(.

A link was posted a couple of pages back to the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

Originally posted by Strix
Juries are really really really scary.
They're full of people who judge people based on their own prejudices. It's about time we had professional juries instead of people with 'he must be guilty' attitudes :shakes: You are so right! I got called for Jury service and hated it but most of the people were just itching to get on a 'juicy' trial and saying 'I hope it's something serious'! I NEVER want to get selected again. So having to decide whether or not to shoot someone stone dead would be impossible for me to even contemplate.

They said on the news the man who was shot was not one of the four suspects but I haven't heard them say that he wasn't a terrorist full stop? Idaho is sadly lacking in information and I'm relying on internet news though. People on here will know a lot more than I do.

Originally posted by tulip
They said on the news the man who was shot was not one of the four suspects but I haven't heard them say that he wasn't a terrorist full stop?

The Beebs website is saying it though (links posted twice on here). Details:


BBC WebSite (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm)
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

Originally posted by tulip
If you shot everyone in the world for being stupid the population would be very small! How many people can honestly say they have never done anything stupid? Even if you were stupid every day of your life it doesn't mean you should be killed.

Having said that, it is a very dodgey situation. If given the choice of shooting someone because they might blow up a tube train full of people or letting them go just in case they weren't carrying bomb is a very bad place to be in. I'm glad that I don't have to make those kind of decisions!

But in this case it wasn't a question of "letting them go". According to an eye witness three police offices had this guy on the ground, arguably 'under restraint', and one of these officers then put five bullets in him.

Yesterday the police were adamant the man was connected with the recent failed bombing attempts, now they have decided he was not. So not only was the decision to kill him wrong, but the information they were acting on was wrong.

It doesn't take much imagination to appreciate what he reaction of the Asian community will be to this incident.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I would have to disagree. Judgement by your peers is a cornerstone of modern justice in the UK.
Have you experienced this first hand?

A jury room gets as many stupid comments and blinkered opinions as any thread on this forum, as a jury is made up of exactly the same cross section of people.

Do you fancy trial by SheffieldForum, coz that's effectively what we have now

Originally posted by Greybeard
But in this case it wasn't a question of "letting them go". According to an eye witness three police offices had this guy on the ground, arguably 'under restraint', and one of these officers then put five bullets in him.
How cooly could you make a decision when you have a walking bomb less than an inch from you? If you honestly believed you were in a kill or be killed (along with many others round you), what would you really do?

I genuinely feel for this guy's family though. It is so tragic.

Originally posted by Greybeard
But in this case it wasn't a question of "letting them go". According to an eye witness three police offices had this guy on the ground, arguably 'under restraint', and one of these officers then put five bullets in him.

Yesterday the police were adamant the man was connected with the recent failed bombing attempts, now they have decided he was not. So not only was the decision to kill him wrong, but the information they were acting on was wrong.

It doesn't take much imagination to appreciate what he reaction of the Asian community will be to this incident. I agree it is terrible, I wasn't disputing that at all. I'm just glad I wasn't in the position of having to decide whether to shoot to save lives or let him go because he might be innocent. I thought I made that clear in my post. I'm not of the mind shoot first ask questions later, quite the opposit!

Originally posted by sccsux
You ready to retract these comments?

In light of the recent revelation that the guy was not one of the terrorists.


As an aside, I really hope you never get selected for jury service:loopy:.

Based on the evidence that the police had at the time, and the behaviour of the guy, I till feel they made the right call.

You have a fellow who apparently has been on a terrorist watch list, leaving a place that's been under surveillance, who is wearing clothing which is unseasonable for the weather and that could contain weapons or explosives, who runs, refuses to stop when told to.

I just hope to God that none of us have to make that call - it's probably much easier being a Saturday Evening Quarterback than deciding whether or not to shoot someone who may be a suicide bomber; whatever you decide someone will get killed.

Joe

PS - Oh, and whilst you may disagree with coopster's message, calling him loopy is not teh way to progress debate.

The news that the guy had nothing to do with the bombing attempts is mind blowing. I'm totally disgusted. Tho not in the least surprised.

I'm sure this latest incident was to take our minds off the previous 7/7 'bombers'. I've yet to see CCTV footage that shows each of them at their respective stations, before they supposedly blew themselves up. With all those cameras there MUST be something of them. IF they were the culprits.


'EDIT Everyone has got to check out that site carolek has mentioned, its hilarious! Why do conspiracy theories and UFOs always go hand in hand!? ' - skny

That's because the media aren't giving any decent appraisal of these events. Its only sites like these who have the balls to seek the truth, and ask the hard questions. They're fast overtaking news programmes and newspapers for the public. Who these days are regularly turning to these sites and similar blogspots for whats REALLY going on out here.

People can judge for themselves.

And UFO's did and do exist. They're usually secret testing operations of new aircraft by western governments.

Nothing hilarious about it at all.

But hey, good try skny.

Now start opening your eyes.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I would have to disagree. Judgement by your peers is a cornerstone of modern justice in the UK.
I would happily be tried by your peers, Phan. Unfortunately the reality is that we would be tried by Jade Goody's peers :help:

Mr Strix

The officer who shot that guy must be feeling a bit :|

Originally posted by kathythebean
The officer who shot that guy must be feeling a bit :| I've just read that officers will be facing criminal charges.

Originally posted by sccsux
You ready to retract these comments?

In light of the recent revelation that the guy was not one of the terrorists.


As an aside, I really hope you never get selected for jury service:loopy:. Coopster isn't loopy, It's the things he says that are:)

Originally posted by OCCP
I think the police got it spot on!
If it even LOOKED like a suspect was running for a train and detontate something then who cares how many times they shot him, as long as they STOPPED him is all that counts!


If he was innocent, he wouldn't have run.

Easy to say that with hindsight, isn't it?

I've never been in trouble with Police, but if several officers were chasing me with weapons drawn... given the current situation where anyone Asian-looking is a potential suspect, I'd be in two minds whether to stand still and potentially get shot or whether to run away and potentially get shot.

Some choice.

Weren't they also plain clothes officers - I think if a batch of men in street clothes whipped out gun I would probably run too!

Originally posted by Abdul
Easy to say that with hindsight, isn't it?

I've never been in trouble with Police, but if several officers were chasing me with weapons drawn... given the current situation where anyone Asian-looking is a potential suspect, I'd be in two minds whether to stand still and potentially get shot or whether to run away and potentially get shot.

Some choice.

I completely agree! If I had a a bit of weed in my pocket or if I hadn't paid my TV lisence or I'd just committed credit card fraud and the police chased me with guns I'd run so fast!

Doesn't mean I'm about to blow someone up though!

Originally posted by Abdul
Easy to say that with hindsight, isn't it?

I've never been in trouble with Police, but if several officers were chasing me with weapons drawn... given the current situation where anyone Asian-looking is a potential suspect, I'd be in two minds whether to stand still and potentially get shot or whether to run away and potentially get shot.

Some choice.

I would have thought the safest move would have been to stand still and put your hands in the air and not move.

It's a hell of a choice from either side of the trigger.

Joe

Originally posted by Abdul
Easy to say that with hindsight, isn't it?

I've never been in trouble with Police, but if several officers were chasing me with weapons drawn... given the current situation where anyone Asian-looking is a potential suspect, I'd be in two minds whether to stand still and potentially get shot or whether to run away and potentially get shot.

Some choice.

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear!

Anyone who runs away from armed police is just asking to be capped in the current circumstances. Its just a pity that a certain faction of our general society have forced this situation on the police by 'their' actions..

The Police need our support and these 'terrorists' need outing by their peers - but thats not going to happen is it?

Originally posted by JoeP
I would have thought the safest move would have been to stand still and put your hands in the air and not move.

With respect, you are unlikely to be mistaken for an Asian terror suspect.

Had the Police been chasing me before July 7th I would have stood still. But now, I am unsure what I'd do. The first thing I would do is panic. And then run. And then I'd think... Oh dear, they now think I'm a terror suspect. If they catch me, I'm dead! And I'd probably keep running...

I used to carry a backpack on the bus to work with my packed lunch in.

Never again!

Originally posted by Internetowl
The Police need our support and these 'terrorists' need outing by their peers - but thats not going to happen is it?

I can't blame the Police officers who pulled the trigger. I will blame the 'intelligence' that lead to the death of this young man.

one point which was made yesterday briefly then lost in the mire of reporting - it suggested that police had followed him from his home? - if thats the case why not arrest him there and not run the risk of him getting into the general populous or risk losing him in the crowds of London? That would have seemed a lower risk strategy and would have probably saved his life in hindsight...

Originally posted by Abdul
With respect, you are unlikely to be mistaken for an Asian terror suspect.

Had the Police been chasing me before July 7th I would have stood still. But now, I am unsure what I'd do. The first thing I would do is panic. And then run. And then I'd think... Oh dear, they now think I'm a terror suspect. If they catch me, I'm dead! And I'd probably keep running...



I can't blame the Police officers who pulled the trigger. I will blame the 'intelligence' that lead to the death of this young man.

100% in agreement Abdul. People say that the police had to make a split second decision, so did the person that they killed. He made a split second decision to run from men in plain clothes holding guns at him. I feel for him. In the split second he had to decide wether these people are going to try to shoot him, wether he has a chance of not getting shot if he runs, and wether they are even police anyway. He was not to know.

Originally posted by CaroleK
The news that the guy had nothing to do with the bombing attempts is mind blowing. I'm totally disgusted. Tho not in the least surprised.

I'm sure this latest incident was to take our minds off the previous 7/7 'bombers'. I've yet to see CCTV footage that shows each of them at their respective stations, before they supposedly blew themselves up. With all those cameras there MUST be something of them. IF they were the culprits.



Ummmmm......

CaroleK, they found bomb making equipment in vehicles and properties associated with these guys.

Evidence of their identity was scattered all over the sites of the bombings.

There is phone evidence linking them to other terrorists.

I think it's safe to say that the 7/7 bombers are who we think they are. Whilst an enquiring mind is a valuable commodity, viewing everything as a conspiracy is a little OTT.

What I'm concerned about is that the 21/7 fellows seem to have dropped of the face of the Earth.

Joe

Turns out the guy who was shot was Brazilian.....

Originally posted by JoeP
What I'm concerned about is that the 21/7 fellows seem to have dropped of the face of the Earth.


I heard that thanks to the 'Big Brother' mentality of New Labour, you were likely to be recorded on a security camera about 200 times a day.

err... :suspect:

Originally posted by Abdul
I heard that thanks to the 'Big Brother' mentality of New Labour, you were likely to be recorded on a security camera about 200 times a day.

err... :suspect:

But I suppose if you get out to a housing estate, or areas of houses that are 'multiple occupation', then you would probably avoid showing up.

If CCTV coverage is so good, then they're either :

a. Dead
b. Gone to ground - in which case someone must be aware of them.
c. Left London.

Joe

Originally posted by sccsux
The police are saying he was nothing to do with the bombing:(.

A link was posted a couple of pages back to the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

quite. the rest is hearsay (shots to the head, wires poking out of jacket etc.)

Are plain clothes policemen in the UK not required to identify themselves (Show a badge? Yell Stop! Police!) before drawing their weapons? Just curious. I mean, obviously, if they were not in uniform, how was the man who was shot supposed to know if they were really the police without them identifying themselves?

Or have I been watching too many cop shows?

:) Sierra

To anyone who says how was he to know they were police it's reported that they challenged the suspect verbally and were also wearing flak jackets

Originally posted by Sierra
Are plain clothes policemen in the UK not required to identify themselves (Show a badge? Yell Stop! Police!) before drawing their weapons? Just curious. I mean, obviously, if they were not in uniform, how was the man who was shot supposed to know if they were really the police without them identifying themselves?

Or have I been watching too many cop shows?

:) Sierra

Typically a policeman who is armed is supposed to shout something along the lines of 'Armed Police. Stop' before they fire their weapon.

With regard to them not being in uniform, the guy ran in to the underground station; if he was concerned about being chased were there no uniformed police, underground staff, etc. present that he could have run up to?

This is going to be so easy to blame on the cops; it's a screw up but realistically these mistakes are going to happen.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
if he was concerned about being chased were there no uniformed police, underground staff, etc. present that he could have run up to?

And what would the ticket staff have done when they saw he was being chased by several armed men?

Probably run off in the other direction!

Originally posted by fnkysknky
To anyone who says how was he to know they were police it's reported that they challenged the suspect verbally and were also wearing flak jackets

Ok. Thanks. So no confusion there. I wasn't sure exactly what had happened.

Originally posted by JoeP
Typically a policeman who is armed is supposed to shout something along the lines of 'Armed Police. Stop' before they fire their weapon.

With regard to them not being in uniform, the guy ran in to the underground station; if he was concerned about being chased were there no uniformed police, underground staff, etc. present that he could have run up to?

This is going to be so easy to blame on the cops; it's a screw up but realistically these mistakes are going to happen.

Joe

Thanks to you too, Joe. This seems to be such a sad situation. I can honestly say that I could never be a police officer. This awful story happened a few days ago in Los Angeles.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/12/national/main708355.shtml

A 17 month old baby girl was shot and killed by police because her father was using her as a shield during a standoff. He was killed as well. Sweet Jesus.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra
Ok. Thanks. So no confusion there. I wasn't sure exactly what had happened.



Thanks to you too, Joe. This seems to be such a sad situation. I can honestly say that I could never be a police officer. This awful story happened a few days ago in Los Angeles.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/12/national/main708355.shtml

A 17 month old baby girl was shot and killed by police because her father was using her as a shield during a standoff. He was killed as well. Sweet Jesus.

:) Sierra

Sierra,

The actually warning for a standard armed response office is 'Armed Police! Stop or I will fire'.

Traditionally UK police are trained to shoot at the chest of the target in order to ensure the target goes down with minimum possibility of shooting back or escaping.

Some years ago, when suicide bombing became a posisbility in the UK, the police were given instructions to shoot to kill and go for 'head shots' where possible to avoid the risk of detonating explosives.

That business in LA sounds terrible - like you I could never be an armed policeman because of the risk of an accidental killing. People who do take on that job need to have the backing of their seniors, and of society as a whole.

Joe

Armed police do not have to issue a warning when it's a suspected suicide bomber - I'm not sure if this is the case in other situations.

Originally posted by Sierra
Are plain clothes policemen in the UK not required to identify themselves (Show a badge? Yell Stop! Police!) before drawing their weapons?

No. they are not required to do so, necessarily. Certainly not before drawing their weapons.

They may shoot anyone, providing they believe there is an iminent danger to themselves or the public. So, facing the situation of an identified suicide bomber, they would be able to legitimately elect to shoot without any warning whatsoever, in case the bomber detonated their device upon realising they had been compromised.

A police officer, in possession of the wrong information, may shoot a person dead, believing them to be a serious and immediate danger. There is always an independent (non-police) enquiry when police discharge their weapons and someone is injured or killed.

When an innocent is killed, the focus is on finding out whether the police officer was acting correctly, given the information available to them - and if that information was incorrect, then the source of the error is investigated. This error may be due to any number of factors, not excluding incompetence or total blind chance.

I believe that shooting the torso is encouraged because it is the largest target.

Shooting people in the head, especially if they are moving, is very difficult. At range, with a pistol it is extremely difficult. Of course, if they are pinned to the ground, and completely immobile, then multiple head or a body shots amounts to the same thing - an execution.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Armed police do not have to issue a warning when it's a suspected suicide bomber - I'm not sure if this is the case in other situations.

In other situations, I believe they have to warn the other person, but I believe they can do it in extremis - when another life is threatened.

I would have thought that with this business it would have been possible to shout a warning in the street while the guy was running because he's less likely to be in a position to detonate the bomb, and the bomb wouldn't go off in an enclosed space like the tunnels of the underground.

Joe

It is awful, and I feel very sorry for the man involved, but mistakes happen. There will rightfully be hell to pay for those involved, but a shifty looking bloke running from armed police and heading straight for the tube? Who wouldnt have pulled the trigger? If only he had stood still and put his arms in the air...anyway, RIP. He's a victim of the terrorists as much as anyone kiled on 7/7.

On another, potentially inflammatory note, i'm glad he WASNT an innocent muslim going about his day-to-day business, because he would have become a symbol for rabble-rousing clerics all over the place.

CaroleK..if you want to keep harping on about "The New World Order","invisible governments" and all that related x-files guff, i suggest you find more credible sources than some wacko mulleted dj from the american midwest. I know its in some way comforting to you to find a common simple-minded thread to all the evils in the world relating to one malevolent source, but its not logical, and none of your arguments make any sense whatsoever.

Ive considered all the evidence, heard all the witness reports, and I have come to the conclusion that this was a MAJOR cock up.

So it turns out that the geeza tripped and was on the floor when the po po opened fire on him. There was no need.

People are asking why he was wearing such a thick coat. Well he was a Brazlian so Im sure that hes used to much hotter climates, so theres nothing wrong with wearing a big coat. I do it to alot of the time.

Nobody is safe anymore, we arent safe from terrorists and we arent safe frmo the police, looks like a lose lose situation all round. No winners. What a sad world we now find ourself living in. :(

"We are living in unique times of unique evil...and I have no doubt that now, more than ever, the principle is right despite the chance, tragically, of error"

Lord Stevens, former Met Commissioner



The police have a secret set of rules according to BBC News, code-named "Kratos"

"In the past two years, firearms and surveillance units of the police have been retrained in new procedures under the Kratos rubric, and these include changes to the rules of engagement.

There are also changes to the way you might put someone under surveillance.

We can speculate about the kind of effect that giving someone a warning might have, if you suspect they might be a suicide bomber.

We can speculate about whether the police aim differently but we don't know, because those rules of engagement are secret."


The above quote is the BBC's way of suggesting (but not confirming) what we all suspect now; that there is a Shoot to Kill policy in operation in this country.

Do you agree with this policy?

Totally disagree.

IMO, if there is never a need to shoot to kill, there is always a way that they can shoot and avoid death but still ground the suspect in such a way that they can not do any damage to anyone else by detonting a bomb or whatever.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Totally disagree.

IMO, if there is never a need to shoot to kill, there is always a way that they can shoot and avoid death but still ground the suspect in such a way that they can not do any damage to anyone else by detonting a bomb or whatever.
I would love to see how your going to do that when someone has a body belt full of explosives.

I agree with the shoot to kill policy 100%
No armed police officer is going to confront you without a good reason. Then they are going to offer you a way out, either by surrendering or telling you stop.
If you do not have anything to hide you will stop. If you have something to hide you will die.
It is security doing it's job IMO.

Originally posted by vidster
I would love to see how your going to do that when someone has a body belt full of explosives.

I agree with the shoot to kill policy 100%
No armed police officer is going to confront you without a good reason. Then they are going to offer you a way out, either by surrendering or telling you stop.
If you do not have anything to hide you will stop. If you have something to hide you will die.
It is security doing it's job IMO.

Yeah I hear you. but I still feel there is a way to stop any situation without the need for death. eg, A trained marksman could shoot someones hand so they can not press anything, shoot their feet so they can not run.

Originally posted by vidster
I agree with the shoot to kill policy 100%
No armed police officer is going to confront you without a good reason.

You reckon?

Taken from BBC NewsA man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was a Brazilian electrician unconnected to the incidents.

Full news story here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

I won't be carrying any chair legs around with me for a while.

How many **** ups have they made in the past.

Despite what I said before, and despite how awful it is that an innocent person was killed, I do support a shoot to kill policy. The security forces have a duty to keep us safe from terrorists, and slackening off now could be the worse thing for us as a group.

This man was shot 5 times and killed on suspision. Now it turns out all he did wrong was run away from a group of people who burst out of nowhere and started shouting and chasing him.
It's a joke and they will get away with it like they did so many times before in northern Ireland.
Shoot to kill is wrong. This is not a judge dread comic strip.

Originally posted by carcrash
This man was shot 5 times and killed on suspision. Now it turns out all he did wrong was run away from a group of people who burst out of nowhere and started shouting and chasing him.
It's a joke and they will get away with it like they did so many times before in northern Ireland.
Shoot to kill is wrong. This is not a judge dread comic strip.

couldnt have said it better myself.

You cant just go around shooting to kill just because you 'suspect' someone. I would have run if i was him. When a bunch of people (in normal clothes) are running at you with guns, you dont hang around do you.

My first reaction to the killing was elation that the murdering b........d had got his just deserts. Then I thought as more info came out 'what if this guy was innocent?' which turned out to be a fact. This makes it an enormous tragedy, and cannot under any circumstance be repeated.

Also, there is a chance that he didn't speak English and wouldn't have known what they were on about or who they were. He could have just thought they were gunmen after him for no reason or carrying dope/other drugs and was affraid of the consequences. If he was completely innocent then it's going to be a long time before all the facts are released, maybe we will never know the full story.

I know the inquiry is independent but so are a lot of inquiries into police behaviour, it doesn't mean it will be fair.

Like most of you I feel very saddened by this. The terrorists are managing to upset peoples life in many ways. I have friends in Kent, who after the 7th july bombing said 'we will carry on our lives as we always did and not be bullied by terrorist threats' they are now saying 'we will be staying as far away from London as possible':(

Originally posted by carcrash
This man was shot 5 times and killed on suspision. Now it turns out all he did wrong was run away from a group of people who burst out of nowhere and started shouting and chasing him.
It's a joke and they will get away with it like they did so many times before in northern Ireland.
Shoot to kill is wrong. This is not a judge dread comic strip.
And what would you be saying if he had run on to the tube and blown 50 people up?
couldnt have said it better myself.

You cant just go around shooting to kill just because you 'suspect' someone. I would have run if i was him. When a bunch of people (in normal clothes) are running at you with guns, you dont hang around do you.
Were they running through the streets with guns ablaze then :loopy:
If a group of blokes walked up to me in the street with guns, while there are 100's of members of the public around, the last thing i would do is run in to the tube station!

Grow up people! These guys have a job to do and all the do-gooders are just making a hard job even harder!

Just my opinion of course.

Originally posted by vidster
And what would you be saying if he had run on to the tube and blown 50 people up?



So are you saying that anyone that runs into a tube station because they panicked should be shot dead? I think not. he made a panicked decision, and paid for it with his life.

Assuming you think or you're convinced that someone is about to blow him[her] self up with a bomb strapped round their waist ------and going to take a few dozen innocent passers-by with them -----you'd have to be almost superhuman to merely , "half-kill" them , before they pulled the tag , or whatever , which detonates their bomb. They only need a split second , presumably , and one free hand to do it. That's why , I guess , the policy of shooting has become more deadly and ruthless.
However , that ought then to make the police only take action when they're as sure as humanly possible that the suspect is a bomber. You can't have a , "shoot to kill" policy and a bit of a slapdash approach , together ! Well , you can , but you know what I mean.
In the Brazilian case , I can't imagine the police wasting their time following someone , unless they felt sure they'd got someone connected with the bombings. Maybe they'd been watching a house , multi-occupied , and the Brazilian was virtually someone 's double. I hope we shall soon find out . Once they started to follow him and then challenged him , I expect that in the climate that existed that day , everyone's emotions were running high. Everyone would be tensed up to the limit. The Brazilian runs towards a crowded tube train {!] , the police , in those split -seconds , think , " tube-disaster " and the dreadful mistake is made.
The poor Brazilian is dead and let's hope that from now on the police try to make absolutely sure what they're doing , now that the , "game " is that much more deadly.

Originally posted by spyro2000
So are you saying that anyone that runs into a tube station because they panicked should be shot dead? I think not. he made a panicked decision, and paid for it with his life.

I don't think anyone is condoning what happened; I recognise it's regrettable, but we weren't there. We didn't have our fingers on the trigger, we didn't have the welfare of hundreds of civillians to consider.

At worst, someone made a mistake. A mistake they will live with for the rest of their life.

In my last job I managed teams of people who, if they made a mistake, could have deadly repercussions. Hindsight is a very valuable thing, and I bet the officer that shot this man would love to be able to live that day again knowing what he or she does now.

I know this because I've seen it happen. :|

The cousin of the Brazillian explaining why he may have run

"Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police."

He said: "The murder rates in some of these slums are worse than in a lot of war zones and that could explain why, when plain clothes officers pulled a gun on him, he may have run away."

We have to remember that the police were in plain clothes. They were no highly visible uniformed officers.

Now don't misunderstand me I totally respect the police for the near impossible job that they do, but this doesn't mean that they should be above critisism.

As for the people who say that they acted correctly. All i can say is that if the police are too nervous to attempt to arrest anyone who they consider may be a suicide bomber, and end up shooting them instead will be exactly the situation the terrorists wanted to engineer.

A very tragic incident but come on what were the police supposed to do?

We are on high alert. Terrorists have successfully detonated 4 bombs, killing innocent people and unsuccessfully tried another 4.

Man carrying rucksack, refusing to stop, running away into the underground system , possibly to blow up another station and you think that the police shouldn't have shot?????

Police are in a no win situation here.

Sorry folks but you better get used to armed officers on the streets and what you would regard as infringements to your personal liberty because they are here to stay. For me it is a small price.

Originally posted by JFKvsNixon

As for the people who say that they acted correctly. All i can say is that if the police are too nervous to attempt to arrest anyone who they consider may be a suicide bomber, and end up shooting them instead will be exactly the situation the terrorists wanted to engineer.

Attempt to arrest! You are joking here surely?

Don't you think that the suicide bomber just might press the detonator. There is no room here for pussing footing.

1: Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase a man into Stockwell Tube station from the street
2: One person says the man vaulted the automatic ticket barriers as he made his way to the platforms
3: The most direct route is via this escalator or the staircase that sits alongside it
4: Police challenge the man but he apparently refuses to obey instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead
[/B]

What you have to ask yourself is....... why was he running? its not like the polie would just start chasing him and not advise as to who they was.

Why did he refuse to obey instructions given by the police?

i think the police had no other choice but to shoot on instinct in this instance. as for shooting to kill...... if killing one person saves, say 50 lives then im all for it.

Sadly the only victors on this occasion are the terrorists, as they have another victim to the total

Sadly, what happened was totally inevitable in the circumstances of the moment and of the day.

Plain clothes doesn't mean that you can't identify them, just that they aren't in beat uniform. The officers concerned were probably wearing protective vests with POLICE on the front / back, POLICE baseball cap, and POLICE badge ID, and also shouted warnings. Supposition I know, but it's usual procedure to stop 'have a go hero's' from trying to bring them down, never mind identifying themselves to criminals. We will find out in time though.



However, the particular officer concerned had no option really did he?

When you are following what you believe to be a suicide bomber through the streets of London I can't see what real options you have once they start running.

Up to that point you would be gathering evidence and seeing where they lead you - as per normal observations.

they only turn into an immediate threat once they are challenged and then leg it. Then they become an immediate threat to you and others. At that point, they become a dead person unless they follow Police instructions.

Sorry to be so matter of fact, but on this occasion it was inevitable in the given circumstances.

Like they say, 'stuff' happens.

It is as I suspected, sadly, due to the lack of information following the shooting.

If the police had been sure then the media coverage of their findings at the scene would have been shoouted about rather than skirted around.

I feel for this mans family. I also feel for the officer. I wonder what information he had from his sources above as it was innacurate it seems.

The report on the day was that they saw a posting on a website which suggested the guilty parties yet they admitted they were unconfirmed.

Apparently the victim was here legally and had no reason to run. I had an argument with my husband following this incident as I tried to explain to him that who knows what you would do in a state of panic being confronted with armed police (how were they dressed? uniformed or plain clothes?). The flight or fight instinct would kick in.

whatever happened to the shoot to maim policy? Police officers with gun privileges used to get trained to do just that. Incapacitate. They appear to be very bad aims now or its completely changed.

I think that the most shocking part of this unfortunate incident is that the chap who was shot had absolutley no links with terrorism. This is not opinion, this is fact. His only crime was to leave a house/block of flats where suspected terrorist lived, and then to panic.

If this chap was identified as a suspected terrorist by supporting intelligtence i would have backed the polices actions 100% as i did straight after the event.

Originally posted by Robbie_Lovin
What you have to ask yourself is....... why was he running? its not like the polie would just start chasing him and not advise as to who they was.

Why did he refuse to obey instructions given by the police?

i think the police had no other choice but to shoot on instinct in this instance. as for shooting to kill...... if killing one person saves, say 50 lives then im all for it.

Sadly the only victors on this occasion are the terrorists, as they have another victim to the total

well said robbie...

My thoughts are with this guys family as it is an awful thing to happen.. i think they said he was brazilian which could be a reason he did not respond if he did not understand english.

i think in some cases the police get very trigger happy but with recent events its a very close call. The officers who shot him will have to live with it for the rest of thier lives.

Originally posted by Deavon
"We are living in unique times of unique evil...and I have no doubt that now, more than ever, the principle is right despite the chance, tragically, of error"

Lord Stevens, former Met Commissioner




Do you agree with this policy?
I agree 100% with any policy that protects the people.

We have no choice but to act this way as a suspected suicide Bomber can detonate without any warning.
Suspects are given the one chance to obey a command, if they make a movement or refuse to comply, there is no other choice but to shoot to kill.

The chance of error is the suspects reponsibility.

If they are innocent, there is no reason why they should not obey a direct order to stop and remain still by the authorities.

If, the suspect is a bomber, it only takes a second to detonate which would cause loss of life to unknown numbers of innocent people.

Originally posted by Delboy3
I agree 100% with any policy that protects the people.

The people who might get bombed, or the ones who might get shot?

It does sound as though the bloke in London was acting with cause for concern. Although in a city like London, with so many foreign people, maybe there is good grounds for misunderstandings... If you were in a foreign country and a group of men in plain clothes pulled guns out at you and started shouting at you, what would you do?

Originally posted by savbaby
My thoughts are with this guys family as it is an awful thing to happen.. i think they said he was brazilian which could be a reason he did not respond if he did not understand english.


he has been living in the country 3 years...... he works as an electrician..... he must know at least some english

and if 20 people with guns was pointing them at me....... i know what id do, and it would not be running

Originally posted by Snook
The people who might get bombed, or the ones who might get shot?

It does sound as though the bloke in London was acting with cause for concern. Although in a city like London, with so many foreign people, maybe there is good grounds for misunderstandings... If you were in a foreign country and a group of men in plain clothes pulled guns out at you and started shouting at you, what would you do?
If they stated that they were the police, I would do as they say.

WE had the same problems when I was on active service in Africa.

If a person was told to stop and be still but carried on, we had no choice but to shoot to kill.
In those days, they carried hand grenades used for booby traps (no timer) and limpet mines that blew as soon as the strip was removed.

For anyone to think that the police here acted without thinking must be very nieve.
Would it have been a different thread here if the police allowed this person to detonate (if he were a bomber) Killing themselves in the process?

We are in a state of emergency, We have had 2 terrorist attacks in 2 weeks all aimed at closing down the London transport system and creating a loss of finance and life.

For the suspect to run to the Tube, compounded the situation and could have been seen as an attempt to blow up the train.

The question that should be asked here is. What would you do if you were in the same situation where a suspect refuses to co operate then runs to a train?

Originally posted by spyro2000
Ive considered all the evidence, heard all the witness reports,
evidence?

eyewitness
"I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun.

"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him,"


and

another eyewitness
"I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out and people were panicking and I heard two shots being fired."

I feel sad that an innocent man has been shot dead by the police,I guess it just shows anybody can make mistakes in these highly stressed troubled situations.

We can analyse all the individual moves of this man and his pusuers but when you read the whole scenario anyone trained in anti terrorism would make the same decision as the police officer concerned.

Whle ever these people are at war with the general public be them muslims, jews or christians we will all be at risk from the terrorists or occasionally with the good guys.

I'm afraid we will see further mistakes being made but let's not forget that the Al Quaeda are killing innocent peple everytime they attack.

I do not read many comments or analysts discussing their actions on these pages only the criticism of the good guys.

Come on Forumers lets get real and draw attention to the real evil we are confronted with and anyone who supports them.

Unhappy Days

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
evidence?



and

the "evidence" was inevident from the start.

my last post looks like I am in disagreement with Phan. I'm not just to set the record straight.

Do you remember at the beginning how all the media portrayed the man as Asian / Pakistani - just because he had brown skin.

This is the kind of media bulls**t that causes so much tension and aggro between people.

Like the police, they should have got their facts right first.

Originally posted by robbie
whatever happened to the shoot to maim policy?
You been watching the news recently?

WE NOW HAVE ACTIVE SUICIDE BOMBERS IN THE UK.

... that's what happened to the shoot to maim policy... especially when a person has just walked out of a house that was being watched (due to evidence found in the recovered rucksacks from the attacks last week), and then refuses to stop after being challenged by multiple armed men, and then runs for a tube train.
Originally posted by Snook
If you were in a foreign country and a group of men in plain clothes pulled guns out at you and started shouting at you, what would you do?
I'd like to think I wouldn't run. They've all got at least 6 bullets that can all run faster.
Originally posted by robbie
Police officers with gun privileges used to get trained to do just that. Incapacitate. They appear to be very bad aims now or its completely changed.
Israeli security advisors have been over since 7/7 to offer advice for dealing with/confronting suicide bombers. You don't shoot to maim these people. Head shots only I'm afraid.

IMO the only criticism that might be leveled at the police is that maybe they should have advertised the fact that they are now operating a shoot to kill policy (Operation Kratos or whatever).

But can you imagine what the bleeding heart liberals would have made of that?

I can't believe people are criticising/second guessing the police over this. Act and they get criticised. Don't act and they get criticised.

Originally posted by Delboy3
I agree 100% with any policy that protects the people.

We have no choice but to act this way as a suspected suicide Bomber can detonate without any warning.
Suspects are given the one chance to obey a command, if they make a movement or refuse to comply, there is no other choice but to shoot to kill.

The chance of error is the suspects reponsibility.

If they are innocent, there is no reason why they should not obey a direct order to stop and remain still by the authorities.

If, the suspect is a bomber, it only takes a second to detonate which would cause loss of life to unknown numbers of innocent people.
Well said. Sums it up nicely for me.

No, for once, let's be fair to the Media. It was the EYE WITNESSES who said that he was asian at the time of the event.

Until the POLICE gave the full facts, nobody knew any different.

true but they are not allowed to shoot until they know that there is a risk. Hense the chairleg debacle (and again surely there shouldn't have been a shoot to kill policy on that?)

ok shoot and stop someone running. If you see that they have a bomb strapped to them then kill them. Otherwise you should assume not and stop them.

there has never been a 'shoot to maim' policy. Police officers are taught to aim for the torso, it's the biggest target and the one you're least likely to miss and least likely to overpenetrate and hit someone else behind.
I'm pretty sure they don't teach them to pin suspects down and execute them though.

Interestingly enough, I was training with a firearms officer yesterday (he teaches the unarmed side of stuff as well and does the same martial art as me). He showed us a technique that if used outside is almost guaranteed to kill, and said that part of the purpose of the techique is to take down the assailant quickly and allow you to disengage, just in case they blow up I suppose. It really is brutal though, I can still feel it now, and obviously he was trying not to kill me, I knew what was coming and we had mats to land on rather than concrete.

I said that I wasn't comfortable with what happened in this instance straight away and the fact that an innocent man was executed kind of vindicates that uneasy feeling i think.
You can play what if's all you like, but the fact is no one was going to be blown up and this man wasn't just shot and killed, he was shot 5 times whilst being restrained.

As to recent incidents in Britain, I'm inclined to the views expressed in some suspicious-minded bloggers', smell of conspiracy.. I hope police is not involved.