Major Incident In London

[den]

I don't know the details of this, but were the police in uniform? If they weren't, could it be that the Brazilian lad was frightened by the fact that someone unknown, had pulled a gun on him?

[dave birch]

Everyone seems to forget that he vaulted the ticket barrier as well.

My sympathy goes to the coppers that chased him and shot him. Has the day gone that someone wanted by the coppers puts their hands up and accepts the inevitable.

What's the betting that his visa had just run out!

The ex copper I heard on radio out here was, in these situations you shoot first. How could you live with yourself had he been a terrorist and knocked off 50 or 60 others.

Had he stopped, put his hands up he'd be still with us.

[stuwilky]

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.

334737[/snapback]

I was under the impression that the first attempt was outside the tube station - so may be incorrect.

Not been to Stockwell tube for many years, but I seem to recall it is fairly deep down, would have been a while before he could have reached the question.

But yes, in very quick time.

[den]

OK, just listening to ITV news, the police who confronted him were in casual, plain clothes. The Brazilian lad had been attacked a week before, at virtually the same place by a group of casually dressed white lads.

That may answer a few questions about why he didn't stop, when ordered to.

[Scotty]

You do wonder though why, if they suspected he had a bomb strapped to his chest, didn't they apprehend him long before he got anywhere near as public a place as a tube station.

And I'd suggest that simply running away from a policeman isn't really a good enough reason to shoot someone 5 times in the head - especially if said policemen are in plain clothes.

The whole thing sounds like it was a botch job.

Edited July 25, 2005 by Scotty

[Alan75]

.

What's the betting that his visa had just run out!

334739[/snapback]

His visa had expired

[Flopsy]

Scotty they couldnt open fire at a running target because of the danger of missing, or hitting but the bullet passing through the target and hitting an innocent bysatnder.

Having a solid backstop is whats neccessary.

Please dont get me wrong, it is a tradgedy and im very sorry for the guys family and him, but the facts appear to be that he didnt stopped when told. In this present climate unfortunately that means he was treated as a danger to innocent lives and treated accordingly.

[den]

Fair enough Flopsy, but if he didn't recognise them as policemen, how can anyone say he should have stopped?

and no, I'm not blaming the police. Until all the evidence is put in front of an enquiry, then how can anyone apportion blame?

[Roaming Rover]

The problem for the police is that they shoot the bloke and he's innocent they get heavily criticised.

They don't shot the bloke and he blows half of London up and kills hundreds of people the police get heavily criticised.

They can't really win, especially when it's easy to judge from your armchair.

Although I know which option I would have taken if I'd been a police officer in pusuit.

[Scotty]

Scotty they couldnt open fire at a running target because of the danger of missing, or hitting but the bullet passing through the target and hitting an innocent bysatnder.

Having a solid backstop is whats neccessary.

334777[/snapback]

But if they'd stopped him when he left his home he wouldn't have been a running target. And if he'd detonated a bomb there I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't have caused as much harm as it would have done at a tube station.

My point is that surely someone the police suspect is carrying a bomb shouldn't have been allowed to get to the tube station in the first place. Surely they'd want to apprehend him as quickly as possible. Remember that the police followed him from a house all the way to the tube station.

The pieces just don't seem to fit together and, imo from what I've read and heard so far, it sounds like the police messed up big time.

[Flopsy]

maybe they tried to stop him out side the hosue and he ran, or they were following him, saw he was heading for the tube and tried to stop him, and then he ran.

I dont think the police messed up I think the the brazilian did. And as for the police making them selves known - if they're doing stakeout it might be a bit obvious with blokes walking around with Police Helmets.

Do agree that they should have been wearing the armed squad's baseball caps when chasing.

Its a shame but you'll find me not sympathetic

[den]

Sounds like you've got a closed mind on this one Flops.

[philipl]

The whole thing is a tragic mess and my condolences got to the bereaved family. Ken Livingstone got it absolutely right when he saild that the Brasilian is another victim of the bombers.

We live quite close to Stockwell tube station and an acquaintance has said he was in his car when there was a Keystone Cops-style chase between the traffic into Stockwell Tube Station involving at least one uniformed officer who seemed outnumbered by the guys he was chasing. He realised the others excepting the victim were the armed under-cover officers.

He did not see any arms but there was a lot of shouting and it all was over very quickly with uniformed officers immediately stopping anyone going into the station when the others had run in.

He wondered why he immediately guessed some of the guys running were plain clothes officers and realised that the way the public was getting out of the way with nobody having a go (unlike the rugby tackle attempts on the fleeing would-be bombers last Thursday), made it seem to him that the message had got over to the by-standers that they were police officers.

He just wanted to get through and past the incident as he expected (rightly) that the whole area would be closed and sealed off.

[Scotty]

maybe they tried to stop him out side the hosue and he ran, or they were following him, saw he was heading for the tube and tried to stop him, and then he ran.

I dont think the police messed up I think the the brazilian did. And as for the police making them selves known - if they're doing stakeout it might be a bit obvious with blokes walking around with Police Helmets.

334795[/snapback]

You seem to be saying that the police were justified in their actions simply because the Brazilian fella ran away from them. Does that mean that it's ok to shoot in the head every potential criminal who runs away from the police?

I understand that circumstances in London are different to normal at the moment and that tensions are very high. And I can understand that the only real way of stopping someone carrying a bomb before they detonate it is to shoot them in the head.

What I can't understand is why they let the man get anywhere near the tube station in the first place, nor why they even gave him the opportunity to run away.

Surely you have to be fairly certain that they are carrying a bomb, or at least involved in terrorist activities, before you can open fire. I've seen or read nothing to suggest that the police were even remotely certain.

[stuwilky]

Much as I believe that the police did the right thing in the circumstances (which is a little strange given my normal persuasions) Scotty has a point. Why did they let him get that close if they thought he had a bomb?

[Flopsy]

You seem to be saying that the police were justified in their actions simply because the Brazilian fella ran away from them.  Does that mean that it's ok to shoot in the head every potential criminal who runs away from the police?

I understand that circumstances in London are different to normal at the moment and that tensions are very high.  And I can understand that the only real way of stopping someone carrying a bomb before they detonate it is to shoot them in the head. 

What I can't understand is why they let the man get anywhere near the tube station in the first place, nor why they even gave him the opportunity to run away.

Surely you have to be fairly certain that they are carrying a bomb, or at least involved in terrorist activities, before you can open fire.  I've seen or read nothing to suggest that the police were even remotely certain.

334805[/snapback]

It is not okay to shoot anyone because they run away, however, (and Den is right my mind is closed on this, as is everyone elses - ive given my reasons why) if tehy suspect he was a suicide bomber then they are quite in their right to shoot him. Also the reason they probably didnt shoot him in the street, is because

a) They would probably missed - has anyone here fired a 9mm pistol ? Training helps but by design its fairly inaccurate over 25 yards especially if the target is running. Much better to use the MP5 Carbine, however harder to stick in a holster in your belt - therefore they have to open fire with out causing danger to the public.

(This is a guess as all speculation - including the stuff int he papers) That they were chasing him to arrest him, but then he jumped the barrier into the tube and then it was an all new ball game.

I agree 5 rounds in the head is slightly OTT (well a lot actually) but if he was a bomber you have to make sure they are dead and that means till movement stops because until then they can set of teh triger.

I hope that explains my position and probably the thinking process for the police.

Then again your probably right. But if i hear "continuing their shoot to kill policy" on the radio anymore i'll hit someone - The polcie have always had a shoot to kill policy - you shoot someone in the chest or head - because that puts them down quickly

[broadsword]

Pro: He was wearing a quilted jacket (in this weather?!) This is immediately suspicious.

He leapt over the ticket barriers, even more suspicious. If there's 6 geezers with guns chasing you (how often does that happen that 6 criminals with guns are after you in broad daylight if you're an electrician?) you must stop. It would've been obvious to me they were coppers. Or would 6 blokes with guns be after me to mug me.

He could speak English, so if he was wanred, he must've known to get down.

Eye-witnesses said the coppers were putting hats on as they chased him into the station.

It's a situation of heightened tension, it's a weighed risk. If he *had*'ve been a suicide bomber (and the police might not have been able to ascertain this before he got to the tube station) then he wouldn't have killed and many more would've been if the police hadn't acted. But he wasn't, and an innocent man is now dead.

Cons:

- Could they have stopped him before the tube station? Was it incompetence or was there an operational reason for watching him without stopping him?

- Some witnesses have said that no warnings were shouted.

My own opinion was that it was a terrible tragedy. But I don't think it was down to someone wanting to play soldiers, it was a cock-up, but whether it was preventable or not I don't know.

[broadsword]

What teh hell wanred is I don't know. God knows what I was thinking.

[Flopsy]

least im not the only one having problems with keyboards at the moment

[blue phil]

I agree 5 rounds in the head is slightly OTT (well a lot actually)

334812[/snapback]

Well at least we agree on that , Flops . But actually it's been revealed that he was shot seven times - six of which were to the head !! Everything I've heard and read on this subject confirms me in my belief that the cops and the intelligence people are bungling amateurs . Particularly the cop who thought that one or two bullets in the brain might not be enough .......

The meaning of living in a free society is the fact that all people - in or out of a uniform - are equal under the law . How the hell has it got to the stage when someone can be shot 7 times by plainclothes coppers and people have little or no sympathy for the victim ?

[Manchester Blue]

I don't think it's a case of people not having sympathy for the victim, certainly not on my part. It's a sad indictment of the times we live in at present. In a 'free society' we should be able to travel to work without fear of being blown up but sadly we don't at the moment.

I'm not sure why it matters that he was shot 7 times as opposed to being shot 2 or 3. Either way he would have been killed and sadly that is the point of a shoot to kill policy strangely enough. I'm certain that the police that did this will be devastated and rightly so. Lessons will hopefully be learnt but in the current climate I don't for one minute think that it will stop the police from having this policy.

[Modi]

  The meaning of living in a free society is the fact that all people - in or out of a uniform - are equal under the law .

334856[/snapback]

Didn't you have an argument with Eddie a few pages back saying that there were no arrests when Muslims were "celebrating" after 9/11 and when Eddie pointed out that there was no law actually broken, you seemed to suggest that this didn't matter.

Just curious, how does that sentiment balance with your latest view of a free society?

[Drummer Boy]

In the current environment in London, if anyone is seen as remotely suspicious, is challenged to stop and responds to this by running away, he is literally taking a chance with his own life. If the guy concerned was subsequently found to have blown himself up along with 75 others on Oxford Street, what would the country have said about the forces then?

It is a sad fact of life in times like these that some basic rights and liberties that we should all be able to take for granted are temporarily suspended. At the moment, this extends to decent law-abiding members of the Muslim community as well as everybody else. There is only one law for every citizen in this country - perhaps if we had not systematically tried to appease our liberal consciences by attempting otherwise, we would not have the tension that currently exists? 

An innocent person died, but the police were quite within their remit in what they did - if those involved are made scapegoats at the altar of a liberal, politically-motivated inquiry, can we expect armed officers to continue to operate in the protection of the citizens of this country?

Imagine the storm of protest and ridicule if this proves to be the case, especially from some who are currently complaining with no real appreciation of the stress of the situation when you face what you have reason to believe is somebody about to murder your fellow countrymen - what decision process do you go through?

"Hmmm, all his behaviour suggests he has something to hide, he has run away despite being called to stop, he seems to be inappropriately dressed for the time of year as though he is hiding something underneath his jacket - do you know what, I'm going to take a chance now he has run into the tube and hope nothing happens" I thnk not and am glad not, actually.

It was a 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. 

I don't understand the protests about this tragic event, any more than I understand calls for an inquiry - what would we learn? That somebody made a mistake!! Don't we all know this?

[Rovermatt]

Did anyone watch Peter Taylor's documentary on Al Q'aida on BBC2 just now? It was a terrifying insight into the type of internet terrorism that these @#/?s are making their stock in trade.

The extent of the proliferation of images, rhetoric and even training videos is just one worrying aspect of this new type of international terrorism.

[philipl]

I don't want to belittle the danger posed but I am in two minds about this documentary from what I have been able to see on line.

1 a) Consider the sexual images now freely available on the web. Unthinkable that this sort of thing would be accessible outside of criminal rings thirty years ago but "free" at any number of web-site locations today. Has society collapsed in a moral swamp as forecast by Lord Longman and Mary Whitehouse?

and

1 If internet accessibility (by its very nature all but uncontrollable) is the core of what we have to be worried about, I'm uncomfortable but not worried. After all, how many men are copying the do it yourself cannibal who cooked his best friend, are shagging sheep (outside Bumley) or tying their wives up and suspending them using block and tackle?

or

2) This stuff is seriously sick and seriously sick people must look at it and perhaps be influenced towards emulating it and on very rare occasions actually drag themselves away from their screen perversion to acting out their fantasies. On that basis it is scary but I can think of many more much scarier angles driving Islamic "fundamentalism" (why don't we call it its proper name- "sexual repressive psychotic Islamic perversion"?) which really would keep me awake at night. After all, on the odd occasion I see a hell and brimstone American preacher, I am usually in hysterics rather than nauseated. No doubt 99% of all Muslims react the same way to the semi-illiterate immans straight off the north-west frontier, imman hook and all their merry bands.

Edited July 25, 2005 by philipl