Suspected suicide bomber shot in London

I'm not commenting on the current sad circumstances... but in cases where a genuine suicide bomber is confronted by the authorities, fatal attacks - headshots - are the only safe course of action. You can't ask them to surrender then hope they do. They've nothing to lose, usually, and in a city like London there are always too many innocents in harm's way. Wounding attacks, like gunshots to the leg, still leave the target capable of activating a bomb. Body shots are out of the question, because shooting bombs is a dumb thing to do.

Like I said, though, this is not intended as a comment on recent events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibsie

No, no explosives, nothing to do with the bombings. Although some people are saying that since he was an electrician he probably helped make the detonators for the other bombs. Anything to satisfy that he deserved it.

---

And some people are saying that since he didn't have any bombs on him, and since he wasn't directly related to the attacks (Or so the police claim. The possibility of them lying to throw off other people they are investigating doesn't seem to be considered.), there is absolutely no possible justification for the police not taking chances - given the knowledge they had at the time and the attire and behaviour of the suspect - with dozens of lives, including their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and how can you look like you are carrying explosives? wear a jacket? have a back pack? then i risk being shot on the way to work?

---

Yes. If there is space for you to be carrying bombs, you could be carrying bombs. They didn't choose to shoot him based on that they, they chose to shot him based on that combined with the fact that he was wearing a winter coat (Which would allow him to conceal explosives) in summer, that he was already under surveillance, that he ran from the police, and that he ran into the tube station. I'm not quite sure how one comes to any conclusion other than "Don't take any chances" here, but apparently it's a common one.

Sir Ian Blair defends the act.

So I am compelled to ask, incidentally, what your reaction would be if the police had caught someone they believed to be carrying explosives, they turned out to actually have them, and this was discovered because the police didn't stop him from detonating, and a dozen people died.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/A...hub=topstories

According to this article he was shot by plainclothes police officers. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean they were wearing civilian clothes? If so, he probably ran because he panicked. If he didn't here what they said (entirely possible if he was in a crowded area when they initially yelled at him to stop), and all he saw were people in civilian clothes pointing handguns at him, could he really be blamed if he panicked and ran?

Frankly I can't agree with shooting someone who may or may not have a bomb. Human life isn't something that should be taken so quickly, and without any real evidence. Although a lot of you may not agree with me, I would rather be killed by a suicide bomber because police didn't fire having no proof that he had a bomb, than live in a country where they'll shoot you purely for looking like they may or may not have a bomb. As soon as you let the paranoia go that far, the terrorists have already won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Human life isn't something that should be taken so quickly, and without any real evidence.

---

That sir is the Catch 22 the police found themselves in. Think about it.

I think the main problem with this is that the terrorists have got what they want not only are the public in a state of fear but so are by their actions it seems to police, this is a bad situation to exist.

if you were in london and a couple of guys in plain clothes wiped out some pistols. would you not run for your life? it would be bloody scary.

i don;t think plain clothed officers should have guns. it only needs to trouble like this. if you see a police uniform then you will stop. if you just see any old guy pointing a .45 in your face then you will run.

and even if they were in uniform the chances are he still would have ran. the brazilian police have a very much shoot first, don't ask questions later policy. and it's closer to "stop and i'll shoot anyway"

in the paper today it said that he was cowering on the floor when they shot him. imagine that. on the way to work one day. chased by a group of guys with pistols and sub machine guns. pushed to the floor. cowering and pleading for your life. then shot 5 times. it's hardly the must just way to go is it?

Is the person shot also middle eastern looking? I also think that the police apologized or something to that effect. Of course you never see that here since you can sue the government but you cant sue the crown D: Anyway i am still pretty sick of the shoot first ask questions later thing. It could have been handled better.

If some guy takes a pistol out without any police identification ANYONE would run...you just gonna stand there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

If some guy takes a pistol out without any police identification ANYONE would run...you just gonna stand there?

---

Yes. The smart thing to do is, if unarmed, to raise your arms and give them whatever they want. I'd only act differently if I knew the other person to be hostile to me and likely to kill me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

if you were in london and a couple of guys in plain clothes wiped out some pistols. would you not run for your life? it would be bloody scary.

---

I'd probably throw my hands up and drop my wallet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i don;t think plain clothed officers should have guns. it only needs to trouble like this. if you see a police uniform then you will stop. if you just see any old guy pointing a .45 in your face then you will run.

---

What's the point of plain clothed officers not having guns? They're there to stop another bombing that much we know. How do you propose they do that without the use of firearms? Tackle the guy? I'm sure that would do wonders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and even if they were in uniform the chances are he still would have ran. the brazilian police have a very much shoot first, don't ask questions later policy. and it's closer to "stop and i'll shoot anyway"

---

I don't know much about the Brazilian police force, and to be honest, I don't know how much you know about it either. But the fact of the matter is he is in London, not Brazil. It is summer and he's wearing a winter coat. He entered a building under surveillance. He ran from officers, plain clothed, but officers. He ran into a shuttle. All of this a few days after an attempted bombing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

in the paper today it said that he was cowering on the floor when they shot him. imagine that. on the way to work one day. chased by a group of guys with pistols and sub machine guns. pushed to the floor. cowering and pleading for your life. then shot 5 times. it's hardly the must just way to go is it?

---

Imagine going to your job on the force one morning. You're told to observe a particular building because it's suspected of being connected to the recent bombings. So, you dress up in your civilian clothes, and go out to do your job. Time passes, nothing strange, but then you see a fellow leave the house. It's hot out, hell, it's the summer, but his guy's wearing a winter jacket. Pretty strange. Guess you should follow him, just to see what's up. You do so, and he leads you to the train station. Uh-oh, looks like it could get hairy. So, you run after the man, pull out your gun and presumably tell him to stop in the name of the law, or something of that sort. The man takes off, much like I'd imagine a person who has nothing to lose would do. You chase after him, only to see him "jump" (Stumble, be pushed) into the shuttle. You jump after him. What do you do next?

I can tell you, I would sure as hell pull the trigger.

Though I grieve that he was innocent, I still feel the officers did what they had to do.

i wouldn't have plain clothed officers at all in the london underground for situations like this. have uniformed police and people will also feel safer with a visible police force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i wouldn't have plain clothed officers at all in the london underground for situations like this. have uniformed police and people will also feel safer with a visible police force.

---

Yes, because that won't simply lead to other targets being chosen, instead of actually catching those responsible.

how are we going to catch them if they are gonna blow themselves up anyway. this guy didn't because he had nothing. but if a police guy tells you to stop and points a gun at you and you have a few kilos of explosives on you. you don't run. you just mash that trigger.

a society which kills "suspicious people" is on the brink of something very nasty.

It should be noticed, MILFman, that the police already observed this guy getting onto a bus. If they really had suspected he was a suicide bomber, thye would have apprehended him a long time before he got close to a bus, let alone a tube station. Or at least, they damn well should have, and that was their biggest mistake, for which they certainly do deserve condemnation, for that was every bit as stupid as the man's actions in running away.

To build upon the running comment. Sure I will run once I obtain the ability to run faster then a bullet... really running from a knife, club, etc is fine. but a gun you can't out run. And running into a crowd when some is after rings of a lack of caring for others lives. Unless you are a criminal running from a cop.. afterall a cop won't shot into the crowd when he may hit someone else(or so we can hope).

Second the best chance to avoid being shot is to do as has been said. I would also add if there is only one person you might be able to turn the tables.. whereas with running you are just injured or dead(or those around you are). How many shots can a hand gun unload these days in few seconds? However many it is I am sure you could be turned to swisscheese before you got out of it's range.(more then 80 yards these days if I recall.. and that is what was called effective range.. and I am sure they can still hit something out of it's effective range).


Also about you people who say kill shots aren't needed. Remember the stopping power of a gun(particually a hand gun) is almost nill unless you fatally wound the person. Shooting someone in the shoulder won't stop them from pulling a trigger... blowing their brain to smitherins just might.

blwoing their brains to smitherns 5 times will also kill you.

can we really fault a man who ran away when men in plain clothes pulled a gun on him? is this what he deserved to do for?