Suspected suicide bomber shot in London

the question is not whether he is a terrorist or not. it doesn't need to be. he was incapacitated. he was face down on the floor with police on top of him. he was out of the game. it was over. grab his wrists, slap the cuffs on him, search him, take him in. game over. why pump 5 shots into him?

the rules of engagement in any situation for armed police is if there is an obvious danger to the lives of them or the public then they may shoot. being on top of a guy who may or not have a bomb is not grounds to shot someone.

tomorrow i may or not have a bomb at work. it may just not be worth the risk to have me walking around at work may or may not having a bomb. death cannot be handed out on suspicion.

everyone may or may not have a bomb on them at any given time. you can be suspected of anything at anytime. but something needs to be real before you blow a guys brains out on a train. an asian guy rnning away from police in london is not grounds to end his life.

and don't get me started on this peddled idea that al-qaeda wants britain to be muslim. it's a joke.

"you're taking the side of the people who don't know what it's about" what people are these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the question is not whether he is a terrorist or not. it doesn't need to be. he was incapacitated. he was face down on the floor with police on top of him. he was out of the game. it was over. grab his wrists, slap the cuffs on him, search him, take him in. game over. why pump 5 shots into him?

the rules of engagement in any situation for armed police is if there is an obvious danger to the lives of them or the public then they may shoot. being on top of a guy who may or not have a bomb is not grounds to shot someone.

tomorrow i may or not have a bomb at work. it may just not be worth the risk to have me walking around at work may or may not having a bomb. death cannot be handed out on suspicion.

everyone may or may not have a bomb on them at any given time. you can be suspected of anything at anytime. but something needs to be real before you blow a guys brains out on a train. an asian guy rnning away from police in london is not grounds to end his life.

and don't get me started on this peddled idea that al-qaeda wants britain to be muslim. it's a joke.

"you're taking the side of the people who don't know what it's about" what people are these?

---

Look. Imagine

Its a warm weather. The guy walks out in a baseball cap and a T-shirt from a building that was under attention of police. Suddenly he gets a winterjacked out of a bush and puts it on. He goes to the train staition. The police yell at him:"Freeze!". He runs. The police yell again. He run into a human dense area.

What do you do?

I see what your point is. They were on him and could have disarmed him. Right? Well, we do not have any video material of the scene, so there is a good chance that they were trying to do so, but then he did something that cause a major threat to everyone around him. For example pulled his hand towards his belt, which one of the witnesses reported to be full of cooper wires. If they hadn't shot, the whole train would be now on the next-to-coffin list.

Policemen are not emotionless freaks and act accordingly. The guy was followed by the men that shot him all the way from his house. Most probably they weren't rookies and knew what to do. As professionals they would have avoided bloodshed at all costs, for many reasons. Firstly, killing isn't fun, secondly, being refered to on Final Fantasy forums as a murderer, isn't fun either. They acted according to the situation, its they job and they did it. If we had more information, we could sure judge better, however we do not, so please don't call them murderers as long as you are not filled in with details.

the other obvious question is why 5 shots at point blank range? we are talking less than a few feet. a shot to the head will kill instantly. at that range you cannot miss. one or two shots is fine. a third to make sure i guess is okay. you normally shot in 3 rounds anyway. but 5 to me says it was rushed or done in anger. a single shot would have ended this.

the scary thing though is that you can now be chased and shot for suspicion. this never used to be the case. british police never used to shoot people based on a judgement call of possibilities. it was done as a last resort. but now it seems that tomorrow i could have 20 armed guys point their weapons at me, take me to the ground, unload a few shots into the back of my head, then say "oh it's alright we thought he had a bomb ho-hum, sorry about that" and people will eat it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the question is not whether he is a terrorist or not. it doesn't need to be. he was incapacitated. he was face down on the floor with police on top of him. he was out of the game. it was over. grab his wrists, slap the cuffs on him, search him, take him in. game over. why pump 5 shots into him?

---

Apparently, according to BBC anyways, that they can do if they feel they don't have enough time to deal with the suspect and if they feel the suspect is potentially really dangerous to the police and civilians all around.

Just because he was face down on the floor doesn't mean he couldn't have had explosives on him or something...does it? He was considered a potential, extremely dangerous threat. And that seems to have justified it.

Edit: Also, if you ask why 5 shots...well, he's pretty much dead anyways. The number of shots could have been to make really sure, but really, once you've been shot at a close range with some accuracy, you're too gone to care about 3 or 5.

Perhapt is wasn't a possibility. I think that he did something that clearly was very dangerous to everyone and thus shot.

Why 5? It doesn't really matter. He did a wrong move and he fired as many shots as he could to make sure that the suspect won't be albe to do anything. One shot might have missed. The second might not have killed him. After all, it was also the officers life and it means a little more to him than the cost of the bullets. 1 shot or 20, dead is still dead, why take any risks.

I strongly doubt that it was a suspicion firing.

of course there is the point that he may not have needed to be killed. i still don't thik disagreeing on suspicion is a great idea.

i feel that this incident will need a full, thorough and un-biased investigation into whether this was all necessary. andif not charges brought against the men responsible.

Trust me they will, considering the fact that its in the news now. The only problem is that we, will never ever find it out.

no i meant like an official inquiry. and public one. like hutton. but not a white wash.

I doubt it. They most probably say that he was a terrorist no matter what happens. It would be too much fuss and trouble to announce that he was an innocent.

Don't be too critical about those people, since it might well be that they saved the life of many, many people.

there lies the rub. he would be deemed a terrorist even if innocent. isn't that scary? the police shoot a guy then cover it up?

i would not like to live in a society where you could be shot and deemed a terrorist after the fact guilty or not merely to make the paper work lighter. it's not a regime that i would tolerate.

Well, we all do. Its just not very common to be shot by police for no reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoden

theres no room for chances if the guy was a bomber lots of people could have went the police took no chance and took him down regardless friend or foe that should send a message to them bloody terroists

---

Because suicide bombers really care about having their lives ended early, don't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i think this all may turn out that this guy was carrying nothing. and then what do we do? we just shot an innocent man out of paranoia. for running away from guys with guns.

---

And now British people know to not run when there are coppers with guns closing in on them fast. And Gibsie brings up a great point there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

there lies the rub. he would be deemed a terrorist even if innocent. isn't that scary? the police shoot a guy then cover it up?

i would not like to live in a society where you could be shot and deemed a terrorist after the fact guilty or not merely to make the paper work lighter. it's not a regime that i would tolerate.

---

What if, what if, what if. The fact of the matter is there's more evidence pointing in the direction that he was either a terrorist, or linked in some way, shape or form. The police didn't run in and shoot the most suspicious looking guy at the time.

I understand that it's a good thing to ask questions, but when it's done while ignoring the facts, it's rather annoying.

If the man wasn't a terrorist, no one's going to be happy. No one likes it when an innocent man is killed. Cover it up though? That's bull. There are a plethora of eye witness accounts, all of which tend to support the terrorist side of the story, but don't you think it'd be tough to cover something like that up? It's possible, I'll give you that, and if that is indeed the case I wouldn't be happy about it either, but as things stand now, based on the information we have, I believe that the best conclusion we can draw is that he is more than likely linked to or is a terrorist.

And getting all tied up in a knot about five shots, as opposed to three, seems like you're fishing for something to argue about.

he was under surveilance for a few days they chased him he refused to stop bang