Suspect shot in London (merged)

I can understand that the police are jumpy. I can understand that in a suicide bomber situation, you can't give the bomber an opportunity to trigger his bomb.

But you ought to make damned sure that the guy IS a bomber before you execute him.

Yahoo news is now saying that the man killed has no links to the blasts.

Honestly, to me, the situation is quite frightening. Police are now allowed to shoot you for suspicion of being a bomber? Who needs a judge and a jury?

I know, I know - don't second guess the police that were involved - the newspapers never get all the details. Still, the way that the articles are written, it sounds like this guy was pinned down, unable to move, and they shot him in the head and chest. Was he really that much of a threat? I'm sort of surprised there isn't an uproar similar to the one following the shooting of that guy in NY who drew his wallet and was shot numerous times.
 
OK, after all the peacock posturing, was this a murder by government agents or a negligent discharge five times in the head and torso? This is indefensible and abominable.
 
Last edited:
Here's something I posted on another forum:

Lets try this:
You're a policeman in London.
50 people are dead, hundreds injured, bombs are going off all over the place, and the country is under attack by crazed suicide bombers.

You're staked out on a known location of Islamic radicals, who possibly have explosives and weapons.
You see someone come out of the building.

It's in the 90's, and people are sweating, but this guy is wearing a heavy, thick, bulky looking winter coat, exactly the type of coat a bomber would hide the bomb under.

You think:
This guy's cold?
This guy is wearing a bomb?

He sees you and runs.
You yell at him to stop.....he doesn't.
He runs down into the subway......where most of the attacks have taken place.

You think:
He's decided to catch a train to his Mum's?
He's going to blow himself up and take as many people with him as he can?

You chase him, your partner tackles him, he's violently trying to get his arms lose, and they're struggling on the ground.

You think:
"Well now, it's all alright, my mate has him and we'll just take him in"?
"My God, he's trying to get to the detonator and trigger the bomb".

You're standing over the man with a loaded gun in your hand.

You think:
"Gee, if I shoot this poor man, people on some internet forum in the US will take me to task for stupidly shooting an innocent man"?

"Gee, if I don't shoot this fanatic Islamic suicide bomber, he'll blow me, my mate, and 50 to 100 innocent people to a bloody tatters, and people on an internet forum in the US will be saying what a limp dick I was because I had the maniac dead-to-rights and didn't pull the trigger and isn't that just like the anti-gun Brits"?

So, you're standing over a man wildly struggling, possibly trying to get to a detonator so he can rush to Allah with as many innocents as possible, OR an innocent man and it's all a big mistake.

Do you shoot, or do you not shoot?
Take you're time and think it over thoroughly...........
you have about 1 second.
 
Temps were in the 70s. The executed man was a Brazilian, Catholic and legally entitled to work and live in England. He worked as an electrician. I truly feel that there was a shoot to kill order of the day. Call it what you want, it was murder.
 
Sh!t happens.

A Las Vegas cop shot a guy 14 times, hitting him six times, for reaching into his waistband instead of raising his hands.

If you shoot a suicide bomber in the chest, he might still be able to move his thumb the 1/4" necessary to blow you and everyone around you to bloody gobbets, or you might set off the bomb yourself with your bullets.

They had reasonable, articulable suspicion in the wake of not one set, but TWO sets of successful and attempted suicide bombings of London subways, that a young foreign-looking male, wearing a jacket apparently inappropriate for the weather, who refused to stop when ordered, and who vaulted a turnstile and ran for a train, was an immediate deadly threat to themselves and everyone around them.

They guessed wrong this time, perhaps, but they have to make the guess and the decision based on the totality of circumstances at the time, otherwise what's the point of having police at all?

Will we ever find out why this guy ran?
 
Purhaps as important in the long run, what do you do next time under the same situation? Live or die. We are at war, get used to it I guess, its going to get alot worse before it gets better. My feeling is this is going to be an increasingly bloody century... :(
 
"Will we ever find out why this guy ran?"

Not from him! That's for Dmnn sure. This is going to be a LONG and nasty war. Things are going to be VERY different when its over and not I fear for the better.
 
Some clues were in the early reports. This man was physically knocked down by at least one of the plainclothed policemen and then shot at almost contact distance.

Now figure this. You "have reason to be believe someone is wired up with plastic"; and you are going to try and contact tackle them?

And then when he "doesn't respond to instructions" ... NOW you are going to say "I thought he was going to trigger a bomb on his person so I shot him dead"??

Right ;)

A Brazilian Catholic. An electrician.

Well done Scotland Yard.
 
What the hell's going on here!? If you’re going to act like that considering the circumstances, then you get what you deserve. That could have easily been a bomb. Then you all would be whining,” Why didn’t they shoot him!!?” Sounds like damn Liberals out here to me with the “no matter what happens, its wrong” attitude. Just because you don’t want to be in a war, and don’t like what happens in war, none the less, YOU ARE IN A WAR. Like it or not.
 
damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Based on what happened the day before and a fortnight before, tension higher than a kite, a COP commands you to stop and you take off on a run? Into the subway station???

That's basically a deathwish in my book.

Stupid is as stupid does. Sometimes it's terminal.

We can find fault all we want. WE, WERE NOT THERE! It did not happen in my home town, to my neighbors, on my beat.
Well done Scotland Yard.
Click to expand...
I truly mean that.
 
J West
What the hell's going on here!? If you’re going to act like that considering the circumstances, then you get what you deserve. That could have easily been a bomb. Then you all would be whining,” Why didn’t they shoot him!!?”
Click to expand...
No; if the police genuinely thought this guy was wired for action - why did they get close to him?

Only a fool would do such a thing. These guys actually tackled him, and then stood over him to shoot him dead after he "failed to obey instructions".

Now only a liberal mind would be deficient enough to think that someone who had their finger and thumb holding a springloaded trigger would somehow be overpowered by those he would obviously kill - if he had such intent - as soon as they got near him.

Only a liberal mind would believe that somehow shooting him dead from a foot or so away was necessary "for their safety".

Sounds like damn Liberals out here to me with the “no matter what happens, its wrong” attitude. Just because you don’t want to be in a war, and don’t like what happens in war, none the less, YOU ARE IN A WAR. Like it or not.
Click to expand...
And, for that matter, it takes a liberal mind to use the term "[state of] war" and "terrorism" in the same sentence. And it is beyond even liberal to believe that it can be "won" any time this century, or the next one.

Someone brought up a very good analogy in a related thread with that of prisons. People carry out "terroristic" acts in prisons daily.

Where is your "war" going to end? How will you know when it is "won"? You haven't heard Comrade Bush - or Blair - come up with the answer to those, and for good reason. There aren't any. Go figure.
 
LAK...

Why do you continue to post in this forum? With every post you make it abundantly clear that you posess a superior intellect, reasoning skill and world view than the rest of us mere mortals. Your condescension is geting a bit tiring.

BTW...I'd want the cops to do whatever they thought was necessary to keep a suspected perp from blowing up a subway car loaded with innocents...and I'm not a liberal nor diluded, just not fortunate enough (?) to see things from your lofty perch.
 
No; if the police genuinely thought this guy was wired for action - why did they get close to him
Click to expand...

Because LAK, it’s their job to. Some people actually think of other’s safety first. You obviously are not a police officer or have ever fought in any war to save lives for the greater good, for that matter.


And it is beyond even liberal to believe that it can be "won" any time this century, or the next one.
Click to expand...

First off, I didn’t call you “LAX” a liberal, but hey if you want to take it that way, go straight ahead. So apparently LAK believes we should sit back and not do a damn thing. That is a very defeatist mindset to take.
 
There are grave issues being raised. Why did the chase team not communicate better with roughly 20 other uniformed LMP officers? Why did the LMP and BTP not secure the tube station entrance? Why did the chase team not request aid and assistance early into the chase? The big issue is simple, if the suspected suicide bomber was an immediate danger; why was he not neutralized on surface streets? The incident was a combination of idiots, fear, racism, contempt and a irrational and deluded sense of esprit de corp. There was no possible reason to allow a suspected suicide bomber to continue on to enter a tube station. That is stupidity, plain and simple. If there was a imminent danger, I support the neutralization on surface streets. If there was a justifiable use of deadly force, it was present before the suspected suicide bomber entered into the tube station. The officers acted in fear. Understandable. There would have been many opportunities to act before that fear began formig into the suspected suicide bomber entering a target. (tube station) Racism is obvious. Profiling? Contempt is something that comes up on both sides possibly. The police cannot stand it when anyone fails to follow their direction/commands. Understandable. The suspected suicide bomber showed contempt by not complying with lawful orders at gunpoint. This is unfortunately explainable. If one is suddenly faced with multiple armed attackers, yelling, pointing, waving and openly playing with firearms, running seems like a option. A poor option. The esprit de corp comes into the absolutely stupid action of tackling the suspected suicide bomber. Bad action that should not be repeated. The worst part is the simple firing of five shots into the head and torso of a secured by at least three police officers suspected suicide bomber. I define that as murder and cowardice. The closing of ranks among the police and Sir Ians statements were smoke and mirrors. I can only hope that those three murderers are brought to justice. Bad show.
 
The Shooting Was Wrong

Sir William, I do not know who you are, where you are, or what you do for a living.

But you, Sir, are right, 100% about that shooting. They didn't have to shoot that poor fellow and they shouldn't have shot him. The shooting was NOT justified, despite its compliance with whatever was passing for "policy" at the time.

Events compel me to acknowledge, however, that if that poor guy HAD been wired with explosives and whatnot, the shooting would have seemed to be a stroke of genius. I say "seemed", because it would be far preferable to catch a !@#$#@!#$% like one of those bombers alive. The Bobbies were willing to risk their lives to end the threat that guy posed. Admirable. But not as effective as risking their lives to get what he knows. That information would be worth far more than the life of a scumbag terrorist.

The police were in a tough spot, that's true enough. Sometimes life doesn't present us with easy, or good, choices. Often you're judged, for better or worse, by your results and little or nothing more. So be it. Good intentions, good planning, bad planning, good luck, bad luck, whatever. Sometimes, in the end, all you can be judged by is what happened.

And what happened there shouldn't have.

For those who regard the victim as an idiot for not submitting, I must say I am ashamed of you. "...lawful order", etc. Really. NOT in my country.

The free man, has no duty to even to SPEAK to law enforcement, let alone allow himself to be taken into custody if he's done NOTHING WRONG.

If we allow THAT to be eroded in the name of "public safety", the IslamaFanatics WIN.

I've said my piece, and I have my asbestos underwear on. Two pair, in fact :)
 
gburner,

If you want to argue; try discussing some specifics. If you don't like it, use the right button and you won't have to see it.

J West,

As it happens, I do have professional training and experience in the subject matter.

It is not any police officer's job to challenge and then rush up to contact distance with a suspected suicide bomber wired to explode. It potentially achieves nothing except perhaps getting yourself and all those in proximity killed. You have that wrong for starters. Putting your own safety on the line for others to the greatest effect does not equate with stupidity and your own suicide and the likely death of everyone else around you.

In this instance, the first order would be to clear as many bystanders from the believed target or chosen engagement area as possible. There are many apparent gross errors and omissions in this one; such as the lack of an effective interdiction plan, communication, and coordination.

Lastly, liberals suffer from a mental affliction wherein emotion and other factors overcome the sound faculties of reason and logic.

If you know what the term "war" means, and you know what the word "terrorism" actually means, reason and logic will tell you that there is no such thing as a "war on terrorism". It is like saying we are going to have a "war on vandalism" or a "war on growing tulips".

In this case we have a government - or governments - that are not eaxctly being up front with either their explanations - or solutions. There is plenty that needs doing, and in the nearly four years since the WTC was demolished and the Pentagon attacked - our government hasn't addressed any of them.

In Britain now, we see a similar pattern. This from a government and agencies that have many decades of experience in these matters, and does know better.
 
I do not feel I have the experience, or knowledge of British law to weigh in on this one.

There is one twist though, under the British system, a suspect is guilty until proven innocent. Correct? It seems that this young man was proven innocent posthumously. Until that time, under the British system, he was a suspect, and thus guilty, No?

We cannot apply our laws to the UK.
 
It has emerged that the suspect had an expired student visa, which would explain why he was running from the police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top