Major Incident In London

[greggyk]

Please tell me this is a comedy post.  I hope so because I haven't laughed as much in ages.

334500[/snapback]

whats your opinion on this topic then Ciren Rover?

[thenodrog]

What if the guy was just plain scared! They wernt dressed in police uniformed he may have just thought he'd been attacked.

Disgrace. Is every asian fella with a bag gunna be shot now.

And for you to say you agree with them....well... not got a fu(kin clue mate!

334449[/snapback]

No doubt very regrettable but I suspect that the men who shot the suspect were sh1t scared themselves that he was a bomber and was going to blow himself and them up too. Its dead easy with hindsight to say that they should have done this or done that but situations happen so fast that there is little time to 'ponder' things through.

[greggyk]

true. But as I said, if they believed this person was a threat, why not arrest him in his own home?

[Alex Rover]

true. But as I said, if they believed this person was a threat, why not arrest him in his own home?

334511[/snapback]

We didn't have enough evidence to arrest him at the time, simple as that.

[broadsword]

well excuses there's no justification really is there

334496[/snapback]

Justifications in their own warped minds, I certainly wouldn't say it was justified.

There was a result of a survey that I saw on teh front of teh Torygraph tonite. Apparently 33% of muslims believe the West is decadent and must be brought to an end ...

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

the police have only recently been instructed to aim for the head only.

334502[/snapback]

Quite excellent.

[eddiewac]

He must've been hiding something if he jumped over the ticket barriers and started running away from the police after being challenged by them

[greggyk]

The guy they shot was a 27 year old Brazilian. Which may give some reasons to why he did not stop. maybe could not understand what the police (dressed in plain clothes) were saying and was just thinking he was being attacked by some mad men with guns.

I would whoops I missed off the "g" run if people in plain clothes started following me and then drew their guns.

One mighty balls up from the police/sas, or whoever.

[cletus]

Isn`t hindsight such a brilliant thing?

Only the other day, most people i know said "about time too!" when they heard the police had shot a suspected suicide bomber.

Now, everyone is slating those same officers.

I believe it`s only a matter of time until the police catch the 4 men who tried to bomb London the other day....& when they do catch them, i hope they extract all the information they need with pliers.

[Rovermatt]

This was a tragic incident. God help him and his family.

[SouthAussieRover]

Almost like collateral damage?

Bloody scary that the cops (if they were cops) are so trigger happy.

[Eddie]

The guy they shot was a 27 year old Brazilian. Which may give some reasons to why he did not stop. maybe could not understand what the police (dressed in plain clothes) were saying and was just thinking he was being attacked by some mad men with guns.

I would whoops I missed off the "g" run if people in plain clothes started following me and then drew their guns.

One mighty balls up from the police/sas, or whoever.

334549[/snapback]

Over here in France there are a large number of plain clothed police, but the general rule is not to stop. There have been a number of instances where criminals have used this to their advantage, pretending to be police and then stopping cars or stopping people in the street. I'm pretty sure that if I had been shouted at by men with guns I would have either done a runner or probably dropped to the ground terrified.

[Flopsy]

He'd been here for 3 years and spoke quite good english.

Some points for those who havent used firearms - been involved in something like this.

1) Rules Of Engangement - The bit that says if you can or can not open fire - Usually (Well for Northern Ireland and for the police pre 7/7) can only open fire if clear warning is given and the person is posing a clear and present danger to you or others. A suspected suicide bomber running towards a train is posing a clear and present danger. So he was innocent - tough ###### - he ran - he ignored shouted instruction - he acted guilty - he died from lead poisoning toughsky

2) Shooting to disarm/disable - A bit of holywood im afraid - you are trained to go for centre of body mass (easiest target to hit) you cant try and go for disabling shots - you'll miss - Watch CopyCat with Holly Hunter and Sigorni (sp) Weaver a damn good example of why, if you use a fire arm you shoot to kill.

3) Shooting in the head - they might be wearing bodyarmour - they might only be injured - they might still have chance to pull a bomb trigger - therefore the best way to quickly disable and immobilise a suicide bomber is to SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD problem solved instantly no longer a problem. Also shooting someone in the body who's wearing an plastic explosive vest might get metaphysical very quickly.

So in conclusion, an innocent person died, but the police seem to be quite within their right to do so. And if this poor copper gets crucified for it, expect all armed officers to down weapons and refuse to take them out with them on patrol - then wait for the howls of horror form some of the ones currently having a good go at people who have to work understress that they will never ever ever have to deal with.

arseholes

[Drummer Boy]

He'd been here for 3 years and spoke quite good english.

Some points for those who havent used firearms - been involved in something like this.

1) Rules Of Engangement - The bit that says if you can or can not open fire - Usually (Well for Northern Ireland and for the police pre 7/7) can only open fire if clear warning is given and the person is posing a clear and present danger to you or others. A suspected suicide bomber running towards a train is posing a clear and present danger. So he was innocent - tough ###### - he ran - he ignored shouted instruction - he acted guilty - he died from lead poisoning toughsky

2) Shooting to disarm/disable - A bit of holywood im afraid - you are trained to go for centre of body mass (easiest target to hit) you cant try and go for disabling shots - you'll miss - Watch CopyCat with Holly Hunter and Sigorni (sp) Weaver a damn good example of why, if you use a fire arm you shoot to kill.

3) Shooting in the head - they might be wearing bodyarmour - they might only be injured - they might still have chance to pull a bomb trigger - therefore the best way to quickly disable and immobilise a suicide bomber is to SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD problem solved instantly no longer a problem. Also shooting someone in the body who's wearing an plastic explosive vest might get metaphysical very quickly.

So in conclusion, an innocent person died, but the police seem to be quite within their right to do so. And if this poor copper gets crucified for it, expect all armed officers to down weapons and refuse to take them out with them on patrol - then wait for the howls of horror form some of the ones currently having a good go at people who have to work understress that they will never ever ever have to deal with.

arseholes

334669[/snapback]

Hear, Hear - tragic error, but the circumstances in which we find ourselves means people are understandably nervous. When the police want you to stop in and around our major cities at the moment, the best advice is to do exactly what they say- especially if you for whatever reason have aroused their suspicions.

To me, the poor bloke is yet another victim of the recent attacks, albeit indirectly. Would he have been shot three weeks ago? No.

[den]

and unfortunately, incidents like this, further play into the terrorists hands.

[Eddie]

This is horrible to say, but at least he wasn't arab.

[blue phil]

ARMED POLICE STOP OR I SHOOT STOP OR I SHOOT

ARMED POLICE STOP OR I SHOOT STOP OR I SHOOT

ARMED POLICE STOP OR I SHOOT STOP OR I SHOOT

If no reaction after been shouted 3 times and the officer thinks there is an imediate risk to his or the publics safety he is quite in his right to shoot someone.

334457[/snapback]

You have a very naive attitude towards the police if you believe that was what happened . Basically , a trigger happy cop saw a bloke who wasn't quite white , who didn't understand what the hell was going on , chased him , and then shot him in the head five times . I call it murder .

The intelligence servives , politicians and the police have ballesed this up from day one . Don't let them con you that they know what they're doing . They don't ...

[LeChuck]

You have a very naive attitude towards the police if you believe that was what happened . Basically , a trigger happy cop saw a bloke who wasn't quite white , who didn't understand what the hell was going on , chased him , and then shot him in the head five times .  I call it murder .

334694[/snapback]

Confused? I'll give you that.

But why did he run? If you were in a foreign country would you leap barriers in train stations to run away if you hadn't done anything?

Stupid sod could have saved his own life.

Edited July 25, 2005 by LeChuck

[stuwilky]

You have a very naive attitude towards the police if you believe that was what happened . Basically , a trigger happy cop saw a bloke who wasn't quite white , who didn't understand what the hell was going on , chased him , and then shot him in the head five times .  I call it murder .

  The intelligence servives , politicians and the police have ballesed this up from day one . Don't let them con you that they know what they're doing . They don't ...

334694[/snapback]

You seem quite sure you know EXACTLY what happened Phil. Why dont you let the rest of us know howmany shouted warnings were given. Explain why the person ran (who spoke good english according to statements from his friends).

But obviously you know better than them (and everyone else) why dont you stand for public office?

[Flopsy]

You have a very naive attitude towards the police if you believe that was what happened . Basically , a trigger happy cop saw a bloke who wasn't quite white , who didn't understand what the hell was going on , chased him , and then shot him in the head five times .  I call it murder .

334694[/snapback]

Naiviety about the police - I doubt it, ive done some training with Armed units with my time as a part time squaddy and the last thing they want to do is shoot someone if they can avoid it.

And you Phil seem to be very keen to jump on peoples backs when you have no experience no reference to what the Police are going through at this present time.

You are one of these people who ###### and moan about everything, but the minute you need the police and they arent there instantaneously your on the blower to Talksport/Sun/Mirror moaning about their incompetence.

Before July the 7th if you ran, you wouldnt be shot - now with the threat of a C4 waistcoat (thats plastic explosive or things that go BOOM as you seem to be having difficulty grasping basics at present) - you are a definite risk to life and will be taken down.

If this bloke had been a bomber and had been allowed to run, and then detonated his device on a tube. YOU would be the first one here criticizing the police and security services.

By all acounts the bloke spoke english quite well and unfortunately died.

HE SHOULD NOT HAVE RUN

[Flopsy]

Oh and another thing (sorry but this has got my goat) but now its more likely that Police will waver about making a decision about shooting or not shooting - and if that allows a bomber to get away or detonate - you can not come on here and criticize the police - not after your previous statement.

And as for not trusting the security services or government - what do you suggest we do. Oh wait - deport anyone non white or non christian.

[Flopsy]

You seem quite sure you know EXACTLY what happened Phil.  Why dont you let the rest of us know howmany shouted warnings were given.  Explain why the person ran (who spoke good english according to statements from his friends).

But obviously you know better than them (and everyone else) why dont you stand for public office?

334722[/snapback]

Oh come on Stu - that would mean hed have a reasoned argument - instead he'll find something in one of our replies and use that to go off on a tangent trying to draw attention away from the fact that he hasnt answered any of our questions or justified his previous comments - its impressive to watch him try and wriggle out - he should run for office

[Shaddy]

Actually, blue phil is mostly right.

The *fact* of the matter is that the MET have apologised because as phil says, they ballesed it up:

Ian Blair

This is a tragedy. The Metropolitan Police accepts full responsibility. To the family I can only express my deep regrets

That means we can be certain that some part of the procedure failed, which also means Flopsy's assumption that they warned the victim adequately is *indeterminate*.

It seems obvious that the police officer involved was charged up. Five shots meant that there he or she had, according to the guidelines, had five opportunities to re-assess the situation after firing into the suspects head each time. In my opinion, the officer either failed to take those opportunities and/or has erred in judgement at least once during those re-assessments.

Having said all that, I empathise with the officers, because they face a huge dilemna. If the charge is to keep a cool head in all circumstances, then I speculate on whether it is a realistic expectation. I actually hope this goes unpunished, because the officer probably doesn't deserve it.

Edited July 25, 2005 by Shaddy

[stuwilky]

Actually, blue phil is mostly right.

334729[/snapback]

The fact that they got it wrong is what they have apologised for.

Phil clearly knows there was little or nothing in the way of a warning shout (or shouts).

Much as I am very liberal in the main the reality of this situation as far as I am concerned is thus

- Man followed from address under surveilance

- Man approaches tube station

- Police shout "POLICE - STOP"

- Man legs it into tube station towards train

- Man ignores further shouts

- Man gets shot

As an aside the way any police officer is treated following the discharge of a weapon is nothing short of disgraceful (whether or not the target is hit/shot/killed - or a guilty person). They are very much presumed guilty of all kinds of things.

[thenodrog]

The fact that they got it wrong is what they have apologised for.

Phil clearly knows there was little or nothing in the way of a warning shout (or shouts). 

Much as I am very liberal in the main the reality of this situation as far as I am concerned is thus

- Man followed from address under surveilance

- Man approaches tube station

- Police shout "POLICE - STOP"

- Man legs it into tube station towards train

- Man ignores further shouts

- Man gets shot

As an aside the way any police officer is treated following the discharge of a weapon is nothing short of disgraceful (whether or not the target is hit/shot/killed - or a guilty person).  They are very much presumed guilty of all kinds of things.

334733[/snapback]

With the last 4 things happening almost as fast as they can be read!

I suspect (but its only conjecture on my part) that the 'police' were in constant radio contact with their base through mikes and earpieces as they gave chase and that the orders to 1. arrest him, then when that failed 2. to stop him at all costs / shoot to kill came from somebody in a control room elsewhere who was reacting to him running hell for leather toward a crowded London underground station.

Unfortunate in the extreme but a 'consequence of the present circumstances.