Breaking news - it has been reported that police snipers have shot a suicide bomber at a London Undergorund station.
That means if a bomb had gone off, there would have been 3 attacks in 15 days....
Printable View
Breaking news - it has been reported that police snipers have shot a suicide bomber at a London Undergorund station.
That means if a bomb had gone off, there would have been 3 attacks in 15 days....
Plain clothes policemen apparently shot him 5 times, (not taking any chances) this is getting annoying now.
It's more than annoying.
If we treat these events with any kind of fear or change our lives to accomidate them, the bad guys win. I for one refuse to do that, i didn't do it for the IRA i won't do it for these nutters.
Of course but still, 3 incidents in 15 days.
is annoying.........
They could have EASILY captured this guy, going by the eyewitness acounts. But dead men don't talk- these cops should be fired, or arrested for something at least.
While it's one thing maintaining an open mind, it's another to flatly disregard the obvious. This may be injustice, illegal killing, but given the facts, I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsie
If this man was indeed a suicide bomber, strapped with explosives, the police NEEDED to completely incapacitate him. He was on a crowded train with what may have been explosives in a rucksack. If they failed to incapacitate him completely, his dying or injured body could just as well set off the trigger mechanism. He needed to be take down & hard. I believe the right thing was done & hold no blame to the officers who took him down.
finally the coppers are doing something
they arent succeeding the attacks arent affecting the public much.
all the police have to do is tighten up security and do this more often they need the right to kill a killer
This should at least reassure the public a bit. Before this shooting it seemed like any terrorist could stroll onto a train unopposed. Now that the police have shown some power to actually stop attackers I imagine people will feel slightly safer. Who knows, it may even deter some potential bombers.
Apparently he half-tripped and was half-pushed after climbing aboard an underground train, and then the officers shot him 5 times while he was on the ground. I suppose in America this happens a lot, but in Britain, police officers shooting suspects dead is extremely rare, especially in the middle of a crowded and confined area, and so it is quite shocking to hear.
By any means you are right. But, how many people were around when he was shot. Now imagine the arest failing... Welcome to the graveyard for another 30 people.
the problem is that there was little indication that he was a suicide bomber except the fact tha he ran when 20 guys with pistols and sub-machines ran after him. i think i would too. and if he is on the ground and the police are on him then shooting him is hardly necessary.
but now we have a new martyr. and what do martyrs equal? no not prizes. it means seeing this event more and more frequently. and the bomber will always get through.
This one obviously didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
You can't stop them all, everyone knows that, but when something like this happens, it's nice to see that steps are being taken to prevent them.
Though it may enrage other suicide bombers, I agree that it may deture other, potential bombings.
It's not a win win situation, but I'd like to think it's better than the alternative.
that is though if he was a suicide bomber.
and if he was why shoot him? if he was in control then arrest him. he would be more valuable alive. a far greater source of intelligence. 5 bullets to the skull gains nothing if he could have been arrested. and if he was on the ground then that would have been the best option.
i hope the police officer in charge is tried for this. it is excessive force at best.
these were heavily armed forces coppers meaning they werent ordinary policemen they were hi authoritied armed coppers with a higher public responsibility
look they had no choice if they didn't chase him he could of blown up IF he was a bomber it was either 1 dead or 20 odd people dead
They should have had a public execution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsie
But the thing is that would have wasted time which could of lead to the trigger
Don't get me wrong- I don't give a smurf about "illegal killing" or the rights of the dead guy... the simple fact is, if the police kill every person they encounter that they think could be a terrorist -after- they're already incapacitated, then we are NEVER going to get to the higher-ups, and it will never end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
Applaud the police all you like for their heroic actions, but how many more golden opportunities are we going to get to apprehend someone connected to Al-Qaeda? Should we kill every suspect we get before we get a chance to question them, in the name of safety?
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.
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
What that they'll kill some innocent man over suspicion dude the UK is no better than the USA.
no time for chances? what you gonna tell his family. "yeah sorry we shoot your son 5 times in the head but we thought he was terrorist." well maybe i think you're a terrorist. that gives me no right to push you to the ground and instead of arresting you blow your brains out on the floor. is that fair?
oh yeah it sends a message to terrorists alright. it's the message that this country kills muslims in cold blood with excessive force. when other means are possible. it send the message that these people should be angry. it sends the message that they can join the jihad to end this in-justice and bomb another bus.
maybe one day you will be suspected and find your brains are over a trains floor. or maybe you will be in one the buses bombed in vengence for this crime illegal homocide. holding an incapcitated man down and unloading 5 bullets into him is not in defence of anyone. it is murder.
this man is now a martyr guilty or not. just pray to god we will not be trapped in a stage of venegence bombings.
Anyone got a link to the article? I though he was actually a terrorist, but now I am confused. As far as I understand it, he was probably a criminal(if not a bomber). Why would you run from police if you weren't,
wrong again
it sends out that Britain knows how to fight back but the best thing is we arent theres no point those idiots wont turn us muslim
you're taking the side of the people who don't know what it's about
what if he was a bomber? better him dead than what 20-40 people?
it may not seem right but 2 attacks in 2 weeks isn't right the coppers are pissed off from it al qaeda want Britain to die or become muslim this is just hard.
if they used eye witness reports it could have wasted time and *may have ended up in BOOM* before they found who to chase
YOUR RIGHT! I HAVEN'T GOT A BLOODY CLUE WHAT'S GOING ON! So how about someone posts a link to a page of some known newspaper where there is an article about what has happened. You know how many cases happened during that time? Which one are we talking about.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk is being absolutely nuts and only writes about what the witnesses saw.
And yes, I would prefere offering one guy with a 5 kilo bomb in his pack, then 30 people which don't even know what's going on.
EDIT: Plus, I'm not British, but as we all know, english police doesn't carry weapons around with them. This is good and shows that the country doesn't have a need for an armed force patrolling the streets. Now policemen are also people and noone wants to take on a burden of killing someone. If they shot him, they had good reasons to do so. In a time like this, when even English constables are armed to teeth, its no good idea running away from squad of policemen.
You are all missing the point really. They had this man under surveillence from a house they had been staking, a house police believed to be connected to the bombings. They followed him & in the course of going from the house to the station he had changed clothes & appearence & acted suspiciously (dubious word I know).
They tried to stop him & ran into the train. You, as an officerr have to make a decision on the spot, as it happens, right then. Personally, I'd of shot aswell. It's easier to live with a mistake that cost one life than an indecision that cost 20+.
What would have happened if they had hesitated, not shot to kill & he then pressed a button? Every thought passes through the mind of an officer/soldier in a milisecond & the decision needs to be made right then.
Ok, I think I'll post a link myself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
Exactly my point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
EDIT: Interview with the witness http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
If it were up to me, all bags would have been checked before boarding the bus or subway. That's better because you'll be more likely to prevent attacks and more likely to catch those responsible (preferably with his skull still intact). But actually you can't do the racial profiling that all the Right-Wingers in the USa want, because they'll just slip an explosive in grandma's handbag whilst chatting her up about her grandkids.
But since none of that was happening, I suppose they might not have had much choice.
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. ImagineQuote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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.
Because suicide bombers really care about having their lives ended early, don't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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
For those that can't be bothered to click a link, the headline, which says it all really, is, "Shot man not connected to bombing".
I hate being right all the damn time :eep:
so you that winter jacket was a bomb? so they shot a man for no good reason? well that was damn clever. so we did shoot a man purely based on suspicion. there was no sign of a bomb (granted by the fact there wasn't one). but he was a muslim guy running away so we shoot him.
it's unlawful homicide. and we should try the man responsible.
How could someone not guilty of something be stupid enough to run around looking as though he's carrying explosives, run from a house under surveillence (If he knew it was) and to ignore the multiple orders from the police to stop? Now, if they'd tackled him in an otherwise empty field and shot him, I'd still say they were justified. He ran into the tube. What the hell does anyone expect here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I have little sympathy here. Don't act like a retard and then complain when people protect themselves.
but noone was protected. he had nothing. maybe he ran because he saw 20 barrels looking at him and he thought that that was kinda scary. maybe he was just some small time crook.
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?
and so we have made a martyr. and an innocent martyr. and martyrs = bombings. oh the fun.
Right now, if I had slightly darker coloured skin, and a bunch of white guys started chasing me, police or not, I'd damn well run as well.
That's bulls**t, no harm. Why didn't he stop? Why did he run? If a completely innocent man suddenly has police shouting at him to freeze while pointing 9mm's at him he freezes, through fear and confusion if not obligation, I've seen it here & the Police aren't exactly the Northern Irish Catholic's best friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsie
The full story isn't out yet so i'm reserving judgement while maintaining the police were right to do what they did, you can't take chances like that that could have potentially kill dozens. Overkill? Maybe, maybe not. I think the smug among you should reserve slapping your own backs until every detail is realised while remembering the position the Metropolitan Police and Anti-Terrorist Squad were/are in.
The latest news is this guy had close connections to people involved in the terrorist attacks. That would be enough for the authorities to lock this guy up in a maximum security prison with no explanation, for an indefinite amount of time. As has happened to dozens of other Asians already. That certainly doesn't make running the right thing to do, but it makes it a little understandable.
Well, I just saw on the news that the story is now that he actaully had no connection to either bombing. That should make things much more interesting - those scenarios of "well, what if he was innocent?" are now quite relevant, I'm afraid.
One Story
:mad:
I'm losing my patience withthe so-called " intelligence " authorities handling this.
Was he smurfing innocent or not ?
....
He was Brazilian, from the state of Minas Gerais, and he had no connection with the bombing incident. The minister of exterior relations of Brazil is traveling right now to London to get this story from the British government.
Dude this happens in my neiborhood like once a month. LAst time it was a college student a bunch of police suspected him as a killer he didnt do crap and he had a bottle of champaigne in his shirt they said dont take out the weapon he said its champ *gun shots*.He died and the police chief was really ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
The point is the guy would've gotten shot anyway.When the guns are out lol they will fire and if oyu have slightly darker skin in a anglo society such as the UK and USA then you will most likely been even more suspected of something.To say thats bullis just ignoring the society you live in.
You could be right and apologise for the obscenity. I guess over here we KNOW or knew what the RUC were like & capable of so we knew not to move a muscle innocent or not, they'd shot if you did anything else. I remember walking past a British Army checkpoint & I had a Cassette Tape, I was about 18, and a soldier asked who it was on the tape & I ignored them, didn't run or anything, just ignored him thinking WTF business is it of yours, so helped me change my decision with his SA-80 Butt.
I suppose I don't know what peoples reactions would be if they are strangers to this kind of scenario and it was unfair to judge people on what I know, which when I look at it, was an under-current front line for 30+ years. Freedom & Peace can bring naievity, complacency & misunderstandings once it is questioned in a country un-used to it being threatened.
People keep mentioning 'but London had IRA' yea right. London had 0.00001% of the troubles here & when the IRA planted bombs they gave warnings as people weren't the target, the economy was (with one exception, outside London, in Brighton when they tried to kill Maggie Thatcher for revenge of her letting the Hunger Strikers die). This is new to most Londoners, WWII survivors are getting scarce, and with this war, your enemies aren't in uniform, or aren't 'the bloody Irish' or fighting spears against gunpowder or have one language, or even one skin tone, or care about civilian lives....this enemy, as long as this extreme Religious Ideology doesn't die, will always be able to replace it's 'martyr' with another willing hopeful to paradise.
While i agree with keeping Britain safe if he is on the ground there is no need to shoot 5 times into him. This reminds me of how America works with their police system, shoot first ask later. While i understand the danger, we should avoid every death as much as possible. The main thing why police do this here in USA is that dead men do not speak and they can justify anything as police cover each other. I like to see someone put out legit statistics of how many people policemen shot.
And i still dont know if the guy actually had explosives..did he?
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.
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.
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 Gibsie
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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.
That sir is the Catch 22 the police found themselves in. Think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
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?
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 lionx
I'd probably throw my hands up and drop my wallet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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.
Yes, because that won't simply lead to other targets being chosen, instead of actually catching those responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
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?
There are studies that show that certain people will just run. No real reason why. They are innocent even if it is just a traffic violation and turn it into a chase downtown. It is just what some people do despite all logic.
Well .. I guess that does pan out(since so many people these days tend not to use thier minds).
Since I wans't there I can't comment if the officers actions were justified or not. If the guy appeared to be a threat... and appeared to prepare to detonate to go *boom*. Well then mr. officer was justified. We only have our perceptions to go off... if all of them say the guy is a terrorist and he is going to blow us all up if I don't shot him first.. then well it is regrettable but simply put
it was announced today that he was not shot 5 times in the head. he was shot once in the shoulder and 7 times in the head. a bit over the top? i think so.
and the great problem is. anyone can be suspected of this. it's not something that only he could have done. this could happen to any of us. and i would not like one day to be shot, cower on the ground and then have 7 further bullets emptied in my skull leaving me without a face to be in my coffin. 7 head shots is not making sure he is dead. it's done out of hatred and anger. especially to a man cowering on the ground crying for his life.
his family are rightly sueing. but i would also like to see a criminal prosecution brought forward.
Cloud, have you ever considered the point of view of the cops?
They had 10 seconds to decide between shoot/no shoot. If the guy had had a bomb, then we'd be talking about 50+ causualties and crying about how horrible it is that the cops can't protect the trains. The guy was acting suspiciously, doing thing like coming from the terrorist apartment complex (the cops were watching it after they found that this was where the terrorists came from), attempting to change his appearance, wearing a huge heavy winter coat in the middle of July, and lastly, when they warned him to stop, he ran toward the train, not away from it. Now with only seconds to decide the proper course, they chose to error on the side of protecting the train station from what they thought was a serious threat.
It turns out that they had the wrong guy, but they didn't know that at the time. Had they known that he was innocent, then they should have the book thrown at them. But as far as anyone can tell, they thought he had a bomb, and that he could detonate it unless he was dead.
That's all well and good Gnostic Yevon, but just suppose for one second that this guy had been a suicide bomber- he would have succeeded! How can anyone applaud the police knowing he got the the target successfully? They failed no matter how you look at it.
i agree with gnostic yevon. The police were doing their job, besides it wasnt their fault, they were told to kill him so they did. He was looking incredibly suspicous in the heavy clothing, he did run away when told to stop and they did bring him down without shooting him, they tackled him. They only shot him because they thought it was necesary as he was going to detonate a bomb. Besides if there had been a bomb i doubt too many people wud be complaining now. Face it, they did wht they had to do.
the problem is not in killing this man it is why this man was killed. what idiot decided he was a suicide bomber and needed his life ended? can we really trust a police service to stop this from happening.
not this is not the first time this has happened. the scottish guy that was shot outside a london pub carrying a table leg because the police were looking for an irish guy with a shotgun.
and it's the way in which he was killed. 7 bullets is like someone was taking some kind of gratification from pulling that trigger especilaly while this man cowered and cried.
It may sound brutal but numerous shots are necessary to ensure the target is killed. One bullet may miss; even a clear headshot mightn't be instantly fatal. When you're dealing with a man who's potentially going to blow himself up, along with all the innocents in the vicinity, then you can't afford to just pause and check after firing each round.
Gnostic Yevon got it right. The police need to be vigilant almost to the point of paranoia, if they're to have any hope of preventing a recurrence of past tragedies. Also, the public need to use some of their brain cells and decide what actions are and aren't appropriate when they're strolling through a station that was targetted by terrorists just one day earlier.
It is, of course, tragic that an innocent man died needlessly... but under the circumstances, the police really did not have many other options. They simply cannot afford to take a "wait-and-see" approach, to be timid and cautious. Suicide bombers are out to die anyway, so warnings and wounding usually will not stop them from carrying out their grim purpose.
It was a cowardly act, in my opinion. Do you know something about his life? He got a job in Brazil just to afford English classes, and went to London in search of a better life so he could help his family. And then, non-identified policemen give him eight shots just because he was late for work. Congratulations to the police.
the question needs to be why was he suspected? what idiot police guy decide he was a threat? if we had a good intelligence system this would have been prevented. but it seems they guessed. and were wrong. and that resulted in the death of an innocent man. and having a intelligence system that resulted in that and could do again and is not being investigated leads only to suspicion.
Hey Cloud this crap happens all the time in the states.Get use to it is all I can say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
cos it happens in the states i should get used to it? i think not. i do not want my country to become like that. when my country even gets close to being like that then i will leave.
on getting close to america. did we all notice what tony blair was stood in front of when he was giving a speech after the second attacks? the union jack. why is that wierd? cos it's almost never been done before and it a very american thing to do.
but my country i hope will not shrug of the death of a man as lightly as america does.
just so u know people die all the time in england by shot, knife or punch and it never makes the news. Everheard of a place called bransholme, arguably the most violent plac in the uk, have u eva been to the worst areas of manchester, bimingham or nottingham after closing time? Or even some areas of london. Gang warfare was invented in manchester and in bransholme, i live 20 miles away, the police are actually afraid to go in unless theyre in groups.
no it happens everywhere.Its called being at the wrong place at the wrong time.Heck I can goto jail if i was with some friends in a supermarket and my friend stole some crap without me ever knowing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I'n the states tehre are places called ghettos and projects in which they are the worse places to live in(grew up in the ghetto).
Anyway people will always die and people will always be the martyr.
BTW us americans don't just shrug the death of a man.WE say its wrong we complain and whine and we just learn to move on with life.
i spend a whole heap of my time in glasgow so yes i do know about violence thank you very much for being so patronising.
and the thing about gang crime is that it is not committed by the people meant to protect us. it's not committed by an official organisation who time after time cannot get intelligence right.
Have you not read what Gnostic Yevon and I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
He was moving in and through locations under surveillance in connection with terrorism.
It was just after the July 21st bombs failed to go off.
He was wearing a heavy winter coat, in the middle of July.
Upon being told to stop, he ran - towards the tube station.
So if you're a police officer charged with stopping a repeat of something which happened just two weeks earlier, and you take this into account, are you going to think "Hm, it's ok, he's probably just afraid of us." or are you going to think "He's probably a suicide bomber, we can't afford to take chances."?
Because I know which I would rather the police charged with my protection thought.
I don't want innocent people to die, of course not. And I would insist that the proper investigative procedures be gone through following any case like this. But I cannot fault the officers for their actions on the ground.
What I'm trying to tell you is.You need to just let this go because the guy who died was really at the wrong place at the wrong time.Happens all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
lordblazer you are shrugging it off again. it shouldn't happen.
this man was killed by paranoid police unlawfully. if the police are that paranoid and likely to judge then they are not trained enough. police officers cannot be jumpy. they must be level headed at all times. this time they shot at some guy who was innocent and has a family.
what are we gonna tell them ""You need to just let this go because the guy who died was really at the wrong place at the wrong time.Happens all the time."?
my thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
it shouldn't happen I understand that but it does happen.The police are always in a dammed if they do and dammed if they don't situation.The guy got into the wrong place at the wrong time...I mean what if the police told him to stay still and the guy did and theytook the risk to approach the guy then he blows up and that cop loses his life a long with many other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I agree with you on the fact that dead men never talk.But that was the situation and these things happen.You have to learn to move on and deal with it and pray for the soul of that innocent man.
if you move on too soon you don't deal with the problem. if these guiys were trained better to deal with this then they wouldn't have panicced. if the intelligence system was better then he wouldn't have been suspected. and most of all 3 shots to the head in enought to kill anyone. 7 is too far and is just taking some kind of perverse pleasure in killing him. probably some under trained officer who was "teaching them muslims a lesson"
also it turns out today that he wasn't wearing a big thick jacket. it was in fact a thin denim jacket. (they called it a jean jaclet on channel 4 news). rememeber when it first happened and everyone said he was asian?