Suspect shot in London (merged)

Appears they weren't must making it up as they went along...

From The Times of London

July 25, 2005

Shoot-to-kill policy is based on Israeli model
By Dominic Kennedy and Stewart Tendler

MORE innocent people could be shot dead by police while the four suspected suicide bombers remain on the run, Scotland Yard’s chief admitted yesterday.

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, said that his officers had to make terrifying, quick, life-threatening decisions.

Israel’s methods for tackling Arab suicide bombers have emerged as the model for Britain’s technique of shooting suspects through the head. Lord Stevens, who was Sir Ian’s predecessor, disclosed Israel’s role, writing yesterday in the News of the World.

Sir Ian expressed regrets to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes and said that his force accepted full responsibility for the tragedy of the innocent Brazilian’s killing.

But he told Sunday with Adam Boulton on Sky News: “It’s still happening out there. There are still officers having to make these calls. Somebody else could be shot.

“Everything is done to make it right, but this is a terrifying set of circumstances. People should be grateful that they don’t have to take those decisions. There’s nothing gratuitous in what’s going on. There is no conspiracy to shoot people. I am very aware that minority communities are talking about a shoot-to-kill policy.”

Sir Ian also appealed for Muslim communities to help the police “find methods of identifying people drifting into extremism”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707481,00.html
 
London Shooting of Terrorist Suspect

It is about time that everyone understands there is a difference between police apprehension procedures and the procedures that must be used against a possible suicide bomber. Nobody shoots a fleeing suspect in a car theft or a bank robbery or even a homicide these days. It is against policy and basically is counter productive what with all the time lost to subsequent legal wrangling. Bottom line is that "the paperwork" makes it not worth doing. No cop gets a commendation for shooting a suspect, he just gets months of hassle. Result; lots of suspects are deliberately allowed to escape, then picked up later, at the convenience of the police. A guy who may be wearing a bomb vest is a whole different deal. Policy there is, and must remain, "shoot to protect" meaning take him out before he can detonate a device. This means go for a shot to shut down the central nervous system RIGHT NOW, before he can move his thumb 1/4 inch and blow everyone all to hell. We can expect more of this in future. There is already policy in most departments that requires officers, when faced with an armed suspect who looks to be about to fire at them, to fire first for their own protection, and once the first round is fired to CONTINUE FIRING until the suspect is 100% out of action. There used to be only a "double tap" requirement in these circumstances, but experience with the 9mm autos most officers carry now has been that two rounds of 9mm may not stop a motivated opponent, hence the change to "fire until the threat is neutralized" policy. A further complication now is that if one of these people is wearing an explosive vest that is made up of either SemTex or even old dynamite sticks, or an IED that is using wired blasting caps as the detonation device, the old standard shot to center mass might hit a cap, and that would be as they say, an unfortunate result. Soooo, if you are the apprehending officer, all you are left with is the head shot to stop one of these guys. This is a position nobody ever wants to be placed in, but it is the reality now.
Given that it has been proven time and again that there are crazy clerics in Mosques all over the DC metro area who have been teaching the same lessons of hatred and anti American Jihadist attitudes for a number of years, the mystery to me is not what caused all the furor in London, but why we have so far not had our guys having to shoot a few of these folks in the DC subways up until today.
Oh by the way, this is not Dubyah's fault. We had at least one Muslim cultural center shut down and the clerics deported from this area during Clinton's first term. (All done very quietly and politely so no one would upset the ACLU... They got caught advocating Clinton's assassinaton on a daily basis, so the Secret Service dealt with them. No noise, no police, nobody in that group is here anymore.) This was close to 15 YEARS AGO now, so this worldwide Islamic nuttiness has been festering away for at least that much time, long before Dubyah kicked in the bees nest in Iraq.
 
If these were uniformed officers, then I would be inclined to say that it was his mistake for behaving in a manner that made him look like he was about to blow something up.

BUT! These were undercover plain clothes officers. If a group of guys were following me around the city and then started obviously chasing me when I tried to lose them I'm pretty sure that I would start running too.

Not sure if we'll hear more details regarding the officers actions, but I wonder if they showed any Identification (badges or whatever they use in UK) or not, and what all led up to the man fleeing.
 
London Terrorist Shooting

" If these were uniformed officers, then I would be inclined to say that it was his mistake for behaving in a manner that made him look like he was about to blow something up.

BUT! These were undercover plain clothes officers. If a group of guys were following me around the city and then started obviously chasing me when I tried to lose them I'm pretty sure that I would start running too.

Not sure if we'll hear more details regarding the officers actions, but I wonder if they showed any Identification (badges or whatever they use in UK) or not, and what all led up to the man fleeing. "

Lest we risk becoming apologists for the victim and put more people at risk by changing the rules of engagement, British news reports, prior to USA news agency filtering, paint a picture of a guy being followed from a suspected group of flats occupied by people under intense scrutiny as possible terror suspects. He was ordered to halt initially by uniformed police, ran from them and when he bolted to the subway was still in a foot chase with BOTH uniformed and undercover police. The undercover police, once the chase began had put on soft caps with POLICE on them to identify themselves to civilians and other police, which is all according to policy. The fellow who died understood English, and apparently ran because he was in the country illegally on an expired student visa. Seems clear that it was his own behaviour that got him killed. Too bad for him and the police, but given what appears to have been the real situation the result was only what would be expected there, or here or anywhere that police are on high alert.
 
It is about time that everyone understands there is a difference between police apprehension procedures and the procedures that must be used against a possible suicide bomber
Click to expand...
This might sound good to some people, but it is based on what seems to be some popular assumptions.

Firstly, not all apparent suicide bombers are actually suicide bombers; this is already pretty clear in the case of the earlier London bombings. There is plenty of evidence to show that they had no intention of dying.

Many of these so-called suicide bombers are quite likely mules with the devices detonated remotely.

A detonation switch for a "suicide" bomb is not necessarily going to be some push-button box as depicted by Hollywood. It might be a springloaded trigger - something like carrying a handgrenade with the pin already pulled. Or photocell - tripping when exposed to light for example.

So this idea that going around trying to shoot any "suspected suicide bomber" dead is folly - unless the subject is in an area where there are no bystanders, and the shooters are sufficiently distant as to not get killed themselves. The British government, as well as our own know this too. So go figure.

And perhaps figure out why our governments are trying to ease this "justifiable" assassination idea into public acceptance. I'd sure like to know.
 
Israeli method? Balderdash! The IDF prefer to not even be close to suicide bombers. That is what snipers are for. Idenify, scan, call a sniper, TWEP and go back to searching the horizon. If you can tackle a suicide bomber, intel has failed. This is one issue that has been raised. Why was there no excited chatter or a drop in the number of messages on monitored communication channels? There was no discerned threat prior to the bombings. There is a possible explanation. The terrorists are beginning uncoordinated cellular attacks. That would be a fearful prospect. Such tactics worked well for the Sons of Liberty in Boston and New York. This is a effort to stir unrest, cause fear and incite racist attacks. So far it is 100% successful. The murder of a dark-skinned man that turned out to be an innocent victim of hysteria is a mission goal accomplished.
 
The murder of a dark-skinned man that turned out to be an innocent victim of hysteria is a mission goal accomplished.

I havn't seen any evidence that he was an innocent bystander, and in fact, there is alot of information he wasn't legal.

Warranting his death? Probably not. But don't try to paint him as an innocent person.
 
The murder of a dark-skinned man that turned out to be an innocent victim of hysteria is a mission goal accomplished.

I havn't seen any evidence that he was an innocent bystander, and in fact, there is alot of information he wasn't legal.

Warranting his death? Probably not. But don't try to paint him as an innocent person.
Click to expand...

This post, and a lot of the ones like it on here, make me angry and sad.

Since when did Firing Liners support a police state? When did it become OK to decapitate civillians by fire on suspicion of being a darkie?

I'll post some links first.

That's eight shots to the mouth and head, not five.

It's also worth noting that he was perfectly legal in living and working in the Uck

And to top it off, we're told it's going to happen again, and yes more

Now let's consider the situation further. The Uck has a bad record for racist violence - perhaps not as spectacular and organised as the KKK, but a definate undercurrent of unpleasant tension.

Now, shortly after the tube bombings, a member of our dusky brethren looks out of his window before going out, and see's that it's 100% overcast as it was that day. Hell, I've gone out in a too-heavy coat myself, having forgotten that "overcast" can mean "Floridian huminidity and temperatures that melt bronze". So he's out in his puffa jacket, didn't have time to head home and change without being late for work... and is shouted at by three white people in normal clothes, waving guns.

Holy Blap! GUNS! In the UK! And he's coloured!

What are you likely to see? The guns? Or the credit card sized pieces of plastic with a low-res digicam mugshot bubblejetted onto a 1" x 3/4" peice of them? Be honest, take your time answering. Say about 1/10th of a second should be enough.

I'll let you in on a secret. Even SO19, the police firearms unit (ahaha) isn't very well trained. Let's face it, this is Britain. Where are you going to find a pistol range?

To be honest, instead of "Halt! Armed police!" they probably shouted "Oi! Stop!"

My sewer-level opinion of british policemen with guns is, by the way, based on massively-negative personal experience.

So this poor bastich probably broke into a run because civvy-looking people were shouting at him and waving guns. Simple as that. In a climate of racial tension, would you do the same?

Probably not after this, no. But I can see exactly where he's coming from. And why SO19 didn't take him down in the completely empty (barring the driver) bus he was in is also a good question. The tinfoil-beanie brigade are rubbing their hands in glee over that one, which never helps keep the investigation clear and sensible, but what can one expect?

There is no way - none - that this is a good shoot. It's about as bad as a shoot can get. It's a complete bunk-hump, pooch-screw of a legalised murder. And the only person it helps are the brain-fried religious nutjobs who blew up my second hometown in the first smegging place. Apologies for the angry words.

To reiterate, I'm gutted that Firing Line Folk, who I've considered for years to be prime examples of why people should have guns, are espousing this trigger-happy attitude on behalf of the half-trained muggles that call themselves "Armed Police" over here.
 
Further to my last post. Eight rounds, polnt blank range, and this wannabe Charles Bronson still manages to put a round into the poor sod's shoulder?

Gh0d almighty, which one of you lot would miss the X ring at four inches range?
 
To reiterate, I'm gutted that Firing Line Folk, who I've considered for years to be prime examples of why people should have guns, are espousing this trigger-happy attitude on behalf of the half-trained muggles that call themselves "Armed Police" over here.
Click to expand...

There are some, even on TFL, who are just as good as the Liberals they loathe when it comes to selective support of the Bill of Rights. And just like theose selfsame Liberals, these people think that civil rights ought to be suspended or negated when something really scary happens.

Then you'll hear stuff like "We're in a war!", and "The Constitution is no suicide pact!"

Bad news...Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Our civil rights are being fed piecemeal into the wood chipper because both Conservatives and Liberals are dismantling different parts of the Bill of Rights, namely the ones they don't like. Since both sides dislike different parts of the document, there'll be nothing left when they're through with their turns.

Like one of our members' signature lines says..."I'm pro-rights...on gun issues."

<sigh>


Terrorism has been around since time immemorial...the "War on Terror" is just another excuse to ratchet up government control, and most Conservative cheerleaders (those who deem themselves immeasurably smarter than the Liberals) don't realize that they are cheerfully building their own penitentiaries, brick by brick.
 
"What we've got here, is a failure to communicate."

Cool Hand Luke

Wrong guy got shot. Bad ol' deal, whatever the circumstances. I wasn't there of course, but it sounds like it turned into a melee. "Let's chase down the suspected bomber, tackle him, and then shoot him in the head a whole bunch of times. BTW, it's you guys turn to hold this one. My ears are still ringing from the last one."

I sorta doubt that they planned it like this. What happened in the subway sounded more like a rugby game with guns, than anything else.

I don't have a problem with "unplugging" a potential bomber by "clipping his wires" so to speak. He might blow up anyhow, but a "suicide" bomber is going to die AND blow up anyhow- and he knows it. Picking the moment for him just might save a few lives; you get to pick "where" and "when". You essentially have nothing to lose. This is only advantageous if it comes as a surprise to him, an he has no time to do anything but drop limp to the ground.

The Brits, Germans, Italians et al can solve their own problems, free of interference from me. I can always stay out of their bailwick if I don't care for their methods, and I sure as hell don't need them telling me how to solve this type of problem here.
 
London Shooting

Speaking from the point of view of one who initially supported the police actions here, I'm afraid I've got to switch sides now that the rest of the story is coming out. Still think that in the case of an actual suicide bomber, the only option is to cut the guy's wires before the detonation, but it would be nice to have at least a reasonable degree of certainty that you're not blowing up somebody just because of them making poor fashion choices on a hot day.

I don't really know how the police anywhere are supposed to do a fast-response stop without running the risk of another terrible mistake. As with everything else about the "war on terror" there seem to be way too many opportunities to get it wrong more often than not.

Got to be especially difficult in the UK, since there is a high degree of probability that the next sleeper cell that wakes up will be all home-grown, UK citizens with no past criminal record.

Saw Tony Blair on C-Span last night pushing for a new extradition law to allow them to ship out even their own UK citizens if they are shown to be Islamic radicals. Interesting approach, makes you wonder about what luck a black civil rights activist would have there these days?
 
Interesting manipulation of news taken out of context. All normal policies of warnings and identification are still in effect, but IF there is no other possible solution, police will fire to stop the threat. My understanding (which may be wrong) is that police in general aim for the torso because to the target area. I'm sure more aim for the head if they felt they could take the shot.
Regarding this latest shooting, right here in Austin there was a fatal shooting by police of an unarmed man just a few weeks ago. Did it make national news? No, because its not big enough news here. Since the British officer was under a little more pressure at the time, I think it would be nice to give the guy a break.
 
London Shooting

Seems like Sir Ian is being a bit cranky about having London BLOWN UP. The statement he made was that the policy is to exercise all due diligence but to make eliminating the threat the top priority. What is lacking there now is enough police with enough firearms training to do a proper job under stress.

They do not have very many SWAT type teams outside the military, and are loathe to deploy troops on the streets of London as they have done in Ireland without a moment's hesitation.

Tony Blair in yesterday's news conference said there was not a grand shift of policy, but simply a "common sense" procedural change to bring the police response in to line with the new threat level from the terrorists. He also said that this is a war situation, where you have the equivalent of spy cells confirmed to be in operation within the UK, and the wartime response to spys, or sappers, was, is, and will be a shoot to kill, shoot to protect ourselves policy.

Sounds like the English are trying to send a message to the Islamic Radicals that they are not playing anymore, and the Radicals can expect no quarter given from now on. Big, chilling part of the rhetoric that caught my attention was the repeated reference to "British subjects" instead of citizens, reminding everyone that England is NOT a democracy, and at the bottom line the government can at its discretion investigate, detain, imprison, deport, exile, or kill anybody they damned well please. If I was AlKaida living in London, I'd be moving to France and planning to start bombing wineries.
 
Whilst I agree with everything else, the mention of "subjects" implies only that we are subjects of the Queen, just like HM government, HM prisons etc. Its just a name, and the Royal Family are little more than ambassadors and an attraction for american tourists.
 
Since the British officer was under a little more pressure at the time, I think it would be nice to give the guy a break.
Click to expand...
First off, it wasn't one British officer, it was a squad. Secondly, I think most of us can understand how a tragedy like this can happen and are hardly damning the officers.

What I take exception to is a government official stating that it'll probably happen again, rather than stating that they will redouble efforts to make certain it NEVER happens again.
Rich
 
I was referring to the one officer who I believe fired the shots. Also, you'll find plenty of examples of people knocking the poor guy.
I think it is quite refreshing to hear that someone in authority is prepared to tell the truth. They intend to stop terrorists at all costs. I'd like to think he was suggesting that terrorists would be shot on the streets, not innocents. People are going to read what they want to into whatever news and statements are released. :rolleyes:
 
Chorlton-
Not to harp on it, but in absence of knowing what was in Sir Ian's mind, we can only go by his words. His words are that this could happen again and that "suspected" terrorists will be head shot.

Not exactly the best use of his air time when he could have used it to demonstrate the efforts they will take to avoid future tragedies.

The cops' reaction is forgivable. His is not.
Rich
 
I see some polarization going on with the members here. More and more, this forum seems to be made up of two distinct groups, rah-rahs and scolds.

The rah-rahs applaud almost any action that seems to take the offensive to the terrorists. They seem to take the realistic position that some suspension of liberties occurs during times like the present and are willing to accept that as a necessary but temporary reality. They are generally supportive of the government's efforts and understand that some flexibility is called for during emergency situations. They also understand that tragedies such as this shooting are anomolies, not the staus quo. They appear naive and gullible to the scolds.

The scolds finger point and tut tut about how rights are sacrosanct; how everything is a screwed up .gov power grab. They are suspicious of any and all efforts to prosecute this war and scream loud and long about both real and imagined 'violations' of law and rights. In this particular case, they seem to want to apply our Bill of Rights to a situation involving British cops and citizens. Like the ACLU, they seem to have no suggestions based in reality on how to prosecute this war 'correctly', just handwringing and yelling when things go 'wrong'. They rigidly demand perfection in an imperfect world. They appear paranoid and obstrutionist to the rah-rahs.

Neither side seems to have much respect for the other.

Situations like this, as tragic as they are, will happen during wartime. I find it analogous to a 'friendly fire' incident. It's not right, but it is reality. Some of the scolds are in denial that we are at war at all, which hightens their outrage that this type of thing happens at all. Some see the war as a diversion, something to keep us all occupied while secret power brokers 'globalize' us under a 'new world order'. We have many rah-rahs that accept everyting the government says and support it to a fault. We have many scolds who sit aloft and pontificate about events, dissecting them to their minute parts and finding fault with each tiny detail, not just in this one incident but threads about LEO shoots, arrests, court cases, etc.. Not one of them is a first person witness to the events that they so closely scrutinize and judge, yet they speak with great authority. Never do they put their superb mental abilities to the test and present coherent, reality based strategies, tactics and solutions for dealing with the issues that they're so quick to thoroughly judge.

It's easy to complain, especially from the luxury of a distant keyboard in a safe environment. What we need are well considered solutions, not mindless compliance or knee jerk complaints, not fascile bumper sticker slogans or commercial sound bites. It's not enough to complain that the government, the military, the courts, the police, et al are effing up, too brutal, violating our rights, etc. What would you do differently?

Flame away, but this thread has not been our shining moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top