Suspected Suicide Bomber Shot Dead, Mistake

85 comments
Story Text:

This just coming in " Police have shot a suspected suicide bomber at a tube station in south London. Marksmen opened fire near Stockwell Tube station as passengers were evacuated. It is thought the man was killed"

Comments

****

I live less than 5 minutes from there. Was sitting at home watching the cricket and a news flash came on.

"He had a baseball cap on

Quote:
"He had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket.

"He might have had something concealed under there, I don't know. But it looked sort of out of place with the sort of weather we've been having, the sort of hot humid weather..."

I for one am proud of our police force here. That is, if he really was a suicide bomber instead of an Asian guy with a body temperature problem...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
Witness descriptions are interesting. Sounds like the police were prepared and ready in case. Hard not to be impressed if they got the right person.

Geez, couldn't the cops have

Geez, couldn't the cops have waited until they put him in a cage and blare Christina Aguilera at him... that'll learn him not to play with bombs...

Possible bomb belt

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man had been wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

"I've seen these police officers shouting, 'Get down, get down!', and I've seen this guy who appears to have a bomb belt and wires coming out.

Cops

>> That is, if he really was a suicide bomber instead of an Asian guy with a body temperature problem...

Cops have been known to storm gardens at night and shoot at compost bins (on the guidance of their heat seeking helicopters). They've also shot and killed a guy carrying a table leg as they mistook it -probably - for a scud missile.

>> they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him

At point blank range why does it take five bullets?

At point blank range why

At point blank range why does it take five bullets?

To ensure he's too dead to trigger the explosives he's carrying and blow up half a train, the civilians on it, and the police apprehending him.

At point blank range why

Quote:
At point blank range why does it take five bullets?

Maybe they should deduct the other 4 from his pay for wasting tax payers money ;)
If i thought someone as carrying a bomb i wouldn’t wait to see if the first bullet had done its job or not. 1 or 100, if you're shooting to kill the more the merrier.

At point blank range why does it take five bullets?

You're not from the South (US), I see. Here, the question would be "Only five?"

You're not from the South

You're not from the South (US), I see. Here, the question would be "Only five?"

I seem to recall that after the SAS were called to end the Iranian Embassy siege in London in the 1980's, a dead terrorist carried around 70 bullet wounds from point blank range. Not from handguns, though.

Armed police are trained

not to fire at all unless it is necessary, and then, if it becomes necessary to make sure they kill their target. No armed force anywhere trains to "shoot to wound"; it too hard, and ineffective. In the case of a suspected suicide bomber, once they think he is about to blow his payload, the only reasonable response would be to kill him, and use as many bullets as were necessary to ensure that he didn't trigger his device.

Also, it is a common misapprehension that one bullet from a handgun is enough to kill. Only in Hollywood do people go down hard with just 1 in them, even a heart or head shot is survivable. There are several documented cases of people surviving multiple handgun wounds, even in critical locations.

A shot that nicks a major vein or artery, or that destroys a major organ will kill within a few minutes, but the human body is actually very resilient

>>No armed force anywhere

>>No armed force anywhere trains to "shoot to wound"

Not sure on that, i'd heard on the news today that the regular armed british police were trained to shoot at the body, with the aim (but not the goal) being to disable rather than kill if necessary.

And that this group of officers were a special task force recruited from the armed police for just this type of activity and, they had been trained and instructed to take head shots.

No idea if it's true or not, but that's what i heard...

For those with short memories..

..the Gibraltar shootings by the SAS of 3 IRA members in 1988 are a good example of how difficult it is to rely on events or even government announcements on the day of the events. In the case of the guy shot today, I doubt if we will ever know what happened and why. I am not sure that even even have any "right" to know

This BBC report puts the Gibraltar events into context of stories change in the light of "fuller" facts.

Quote:
An inquest in September concluded the three had been lawfully killed. However, the result was overturned at Strasbourg in 1995 when Britain was found to have used excessive force and breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the difficulties of making split second decisions, the result is invariably to make the world on balance a more dangerous place. Undoubtedly more recruits to the "cause" are enlisted than have been killed by security forces.

Thats right Nick

I read that in certain parts of Asia, police have been trained for head shots only. You dont want to shoot at a primed bomb belt around the guys waist, unless you are looking for fireworks that is!

Shoot to wound on a suicide bomber means that he gets to still trigger what ever it is that he is carrying!

*Added*

If a guy runs from the police after they have shouted, chased and warned the guy... he then jumps the ticket machine and runs down a few flight of stairs and trys to board the train, its got to make the police wonder what this guy is running from and why he doesnt want to stop!

>> shoot at the body

And what is the target point in the body? The heart. Dead centre of the torso. The torso also contains most of the organs vital to supporting life, plus most of the main blood vessels, nerve ganglia etc. If that counts as "shoot to wound"....

If you are using normal rounds, you should never kid yourself that you can shoot to wound. Only specially designed rounds, rubber batons, ulra low velocity rounds, tasers etc can do that. Handguns don't, the target just gets lucky sometimes.

>> trained and instructed to take head shots.

Quite possibly. Most armed personnel find their marksmanship goes to hell under combat conditions, which is why the torso is the target they are trained to go for, its bigger, and full of vital points.

The head is much smaller, and if your target is any distance away (ie not point blank), and/or moving, it's quite hard to put a shot into it. With extensive training it becomes possible. I note that most reports say they chose to immobilise the suspect, then shoot him. As nasty as it might be, it's tactically very sound, particularly with civilians backstopping their shots

Shoot to kill...

On BBC News 24 it said that normally Police are instructed to shoot only as a last resort. Due to different legislation specifically for "Suicide Bombers", the police are being told to "Shoot to kill". This involves aiming for headshots, both to insure that the bomber is killed before they can use their payload but also because a body shot may set off any bomb they may be carrying.

spot on Cornwall

>>Whatever the rights and wrongs, the difficulties of making split second decisions, the result is invariably to make the world on balance a more dangerous place. Undoubtedly more recruits to the "cause" are enlisted than have been killed by security forces.

exactly. I'm sure they did what they felt best, and perhaps it was best, but it wasn't a good thing to happen.

Crazy sh*theads

Don`t know when this menace is going to stop. It seems like they are perpared to make London an unsafe place.

Crazy people, if you literally asked them, what do they actually want, they won`t be even sure of what they are fighting for in their so called jehad.

These so called religious leaders have actually brainwashed the young generations, and forced them towards a terrible future. I just hope these people get to senses, and spare innocent lives, but I fear its too late now.

Excellent shooting!

Now, they need to hang his head from a pike and place it at the entrance to the tube station.

I've no sympathies with

I've no sympathies with proven terrorists/terrorist trainers and they can round them all up and torture them before shooting them for all I care.

But the cops are getting too damned trigger happy. They may have had good reason in this case - apparently he was already suspect and they were following him - but we must bear in mind that cops make errors and kill innocent people. A guy could be running for all kinds of reasons. He could be trying to escape from muggers, he could be running to catch the train.

As an Asian guy myself I'm damned if I'm ever going to jog/run for a bus/ or do any running in public again. If someone shouts stop and I take more than a fraction of a second to come to a complete halt I may find 5 bullets in my head. That's gotta hurt.

too damned trigger

too damned trigger happy?
The Softly softly scenario.

Enquiry launched after incompetent police failed to stop a suicide bomber from boarding a train. Even with the heightened security after yesterdays events the Asian male wearing a thick padded coat in 70 degree heat, jumped a turnstile at the tube station, failed to stop when armed police called him, and ran on to the train. Police spokesmen said “we thought he was late for his train, we can’t go around shooting anyone.”

Or ...

Police today defended the point blank of a dealer at Stockwell tube station. "We called to him to stop, but he ran off and jumped on a train. He was wearing a hoodie and we thought he must be a er, so we shot him. Although it turns out he wasnt' a er, he was in fact engaged in illegal activity. If he had stopped when called he would be alive today."
The point being that most people don't expect to be shot if they run away from the police. Desperate times ...

70 degree heat?

"Even with the heightened security after yesterdays events the Asian male wearing a thick padded coat in 70 degree heat..."

Where I live (Vegas), that's kind of cold. When they say "heat" here, they'll say someone was wearing a thick padded coat in 117 degree heat. Now that, that would be unusual.

I think you'll also find

I think you'll also find they were already tailing him. He's a suspect in yesterdays attempted bombings.

I think they were pretty sure on this one.

Don't be silly

That is hardly the case, he was asked to stop and then ran, jumped over the ticket barrier, down the stairs and then tried to get on the train. All this with armed police chasing him. Fair enough, people say maybe he couldn't speak english,...then why the f**k would you run away like a madman? If this guy had nothing to do with any of the bombs then i'm sorry but he's got no-one else to blame but himself, the police can only react to situations as they see them.

As an Asian guy myself I'm damned if I'm ever going to jog/run for a bus/ or do any running in public again. If someone shouts stop and I take more than a fraction of a second to come to a complete halt I may find 5 bullets in my head. That's gotta hurt.

What a silly and unhelpful comment. Implying that the police are out to get asian people is not very mature is it. It just so happens that all of the 7/7 bombers were of asian origin and the pictures just released by the police of yesterday's "bombers" also show asian/black people. Don't turn it into something it's not.

Police issue bomb suspect images

Police issue bomb suspect images

Police appealed for information based on the CCTV images

Police have issued CCTV images of four men they believe tried to detonate bombs on three London Tube trains and a bus on Thursday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706421.stm

Bottom right looks like Nick....

I recognise him from the cap

then why the f**k would you run away like a madman?

Alarmed onlookers said they saw up to 10 plain-clothed officers chasing an Asian-looking man before opening fire.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189920,00.html (updated 16:18)

Being chased by ten people in plain clothes waving handguns around and certainly shouting -- perhaps in an unknown language -- wouldn't you run like a madman?

I'm not saying it's the wrong guy they were after, but if it was his behaviour would seem totally natural to me. Of course, it would also seem natural if it was the right guy.

>>Don't turn it into

>>Don't turn it into something it's not.
Which seems to be exactly what you're doing. My point was that the police make mistakes.

>> I think you'll also find they were already tailing him
I know, that's why I mentioned it in my post ;) but they could have been instructed to tail him purely because he looked suspicious/was in yesterday's CCTV, it's no evidence of his intentions.

>> The Softly softly scenario.
Which I'd completely agree with if they shot him from 20 yards. As reports go there were several cops already on top of the guy and they had him pretty immobile. If that's the case I maintain the shooting was gratuitous; further, someone who could be grilled to provide intelligence was unnecessarily lost.

and of course

if you're being chased through a busy station by armed police and you have an easy trigger for a body-bomb you could pull it at any point.

We can't say if the shooting was necessary or not. At this point we just have to accept that the police thought it was. I'm pleased they managed to stop anything worse happening. I'm concerned that there was a shooting. I'm disgusted by anyone saying "HE DESERVED IT" when we certainly don't know the truth of the situation yet.

happens every day at Stockwell

Quote:
he was asked to stop and then ran, jumped over the ticket barrier, down the stairs and then tried to get on the train

trust me, this happens every day at Stockwell tube.

However, you'd have to be a total knobhead (or a guilty as hell terrorist) to not stop when the cops (with guns) tell you to today.

Claus, they don't just start

Claus, they don't just start chasing him and then tell him to stop. They would have asked him to stop first and also issued a warning before opening fire.

Can you imagine being one of those cops who, having chased the guy onto the train then find themselves on top of him. He's squirming, you can't tell what he's trying to do, is he trying to detonate himself? I can completely see why they shot him when they got in the train.

Did you see the guy outside Whitehall the other day? That's the way to respond to the armed police. Stood still and did everything they asked. It's everyone's responsibility to comply with the instructions from authority at a time like this. I'm not saying he "deserved it", just that if he wasn't involved in anything "bomb" related then the police aren't to blame.

>>Don't turn it into something it's not.
Which seems to be exactly what you're doing. My point was that the police make mistakes.

What are you talking about?! You're point was that the police would be shooting asian people jogging/running! Thats not very sensible is it?

As an Asian guy myself I'm damned if I'm ever going to jog/run for a bus/ or do any running in public again. If someone shouts stop and I take more than a fraction of a second to come to a complete halt I may find 5 bullets in my head.

A bit more..

The fatal police shooting of a man at Stockwell Tube station on Friday was linked to anti-terrorist operations, Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair said.

Though it would deeply upset

Though it would deeply upset me, if this turned out to be a mistake, (and i highly doubt it) I'd still support those officers decision.

Casualties and mistakes are horrid, but unaviodable. And the safty of innocent people is at risk here.

On a slightly lighter note...

A guy at Copenhagen airport sparked a bomb scare after joking that he had a bomb in his hand luggage. A small area of the airport was evacuated. The foolish traveller faces prosecution and a possible 2 year jail sentence.

Serves him right.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4708405.stm ]More from the BBC...[/url]

they pushed him to the

Quote:
they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him

Why bundle on top of him if there's any chance he's going to blow himself up? You shoot him before he gets into the carriage and puts innocent people at risk! If you have intelligence that he's not going to blow himself up you secure him and let a court judge his guilt. Catching somebody, overwhelming him, then pumping lead into him sounds more mafia than Scotland Yard.

Quote:
They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him

What would they have done if he did come around? Shoot him again?

Why bundle on top of him if

Why bundle on top of him if there's any chance he's going to blow himself up?

You'd be amazed at how much people risk their lives helping others, ie, civilians.

You shoot him before he gets into the carriage and puts innocent people at risk!

I figure trying to avoid shooting civilians by accident might be a priority.

If you have intelligence that he's not going to blow himself up you secure him and let a court judge his guilt.

Seems to be a peice of intelligence the police weren't privvy to. You shoot someone to neutralize danger.

Interesting....

...story about who actually shot the Stockwell station guy.

"These guys may have been some sort of plain clothes special forces," he said.

"To have bullets pumped into him like this suggests quite a lot about him and what the authorities, whoever they are, assumed about him.

"The fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him."

He added: "You don't shoot somebody five times if you think you might have made a mistake and may be able to arrest him."

Prof Clarke said police officers were not trained to carry out operations in this way.

"Even Special Branch and SO19 (Scotland Yard's armed unit) are not trained to do this sort of thing.

"It's plausible that they were special forces or elements of special forces."

Mr Ramm said the danger of shooting a suspected suicide bomber in the body was that it could detonate a bomb they were carrying on them.

"The fact is that when you're dealing with suicide bombers they only way you can stop them effectively - and protect yourself - is to try for a head-shot," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm

Bundled...

Why bundle on top of him if there's any chance he's going to blow himself up?

I think they do that so that they can get his hands away from any device. Shooting him may have caused him to fall to the floor but his hands may still have been free to detonate something.

I think they would have "made safe" any device before he'd have come round.

Well, we just don't know

- that's about the only thing we know for sure. All we have is reports from shocked people.

>> You shoot him before he

>> You shoot him before he gets into the carriage and puts innocent people at risk!

No, you don't. Any officer who behaved that way would certainly be removed from armed duty for showing shockingly poor judgement, and would be lucky to keep his job at all.

Consider the sight picture facing an armed officer : a Tube carriage full of civilians, with a running, doging suspect in front of it. At the 20 yards range you previously suggested, with a handgun, you would be lucky to put 1 in 3 shots into him. Where are the rest going to go?

The overriding concern of the police is to preserve public safety, both from their own actions (by NOT blazing away like John Wayne), and from the actions of the suspect, by doing their best to render him incapable of triggering any bomb he may have been carrying.

>> If you have intelligence that he's not going to blow himself up

... you ignore it. What "intelligence" can give you insight into the thought processes of a potential bomber who has been caught out? He was challenged, and chose to run to a train full of civilians. The police would have a hard time selling the "intelligence failure" excuse if he HAD blown up the carriage, causing many more deaths, especially if it emerged that no less than 10 armed officers watched him do it.

>> I'm disgusted by anyone saying "HE DESERVED IT"

Did he "deserve it" for being Asian? No way. In case anyone has forgotten, we only just finished shooting at Caucasian Catholics on a fairly regular basis, and I'm not totally convinced we're finished with that. If it turns out that he was innocent, and the officers shot him with no good reason, never mind their jobs, they'll be lucky to escape jail.

Did he deserve it for running away from lots of guys with guns? Yup. Stupidity is the one universal crime. There is no appeal, and usually only one sentence possible

I say good move. You can't

I say good move. You can't profile the radicals. There are just to many crazy african, arabic, oriental and white extrimists out there. If you only focus on middle east looking profiles they'll just slip a white boy through to drop a bomb or blow himself up.

If he had a cowboy hat and boots on and jumped the ticket barrier with a trench coat, they should have filled his ass with lead as well.

As far as shoot to kill, I know in the States thats what they are trained to do. Otherwise the penal system has to pay for therapy and meds for inmates with blown of or useless limbs. Guess thats why you don't see many wheelchair bound inmates.

The Met

Or whatever branch it is would not slam all those bullets into a person without very good reason.

Really?

> The point being that most people don't expect to be shot if they run away from the police.

Really?

Hence the command, "stop or

Hence the command, "stop or I'll shoot". When I lived in the city in a sub-floor apartment, I woke up to the sound of people running outside my window. Then very clearly, I heard, "Stop, or I will shoot you". The sound of running feet stopped, to be replaced by the sounds of a quick struggle while the suspect was handcuffed.

The suspect had fired 15 rounds into someone's door. He presented a clear and present danger, even while running away. He was still only a suspect, but the command was pretty clear. Pretty ominous at 4 a.m. too.

"Correct situational response" is what the cops are trained to use. I doubt I would have heard "stop or I'll shoot you" if the suspect was a kid spray painting the side of a building. With the current situation, wouldn't neutralizing the suspect be the correct situational response? Given the current situation isn't running from the police the most ridiculous response to officers yelling "stop".

> The point being that most

> The point being that most people don't expect to be shot if they run away from the police.

You're not from the South (US), I see. Here in the States I've always heard that the UK police aren't likely to use guns. Frankly, I was surprised at this response today.

I really am not fond of the

I really am not fond of the police shooting someone on the 'suspicion' of being a bomber, but until a better method is in place to stop these guys cold without a chance to detonate - what choice did they have? The guy-just-wouldn't-stop.

Imagine the pain if the guy did detonate and blow everyone up - and it was learned that the police eyeballed him on his way to the train and tried to soft talk him down instead of taking him out?

Still I'm not happy about it. Thank God they're making that split second choice - and not me.

I commented earlier at

I commented earlier at Cre8asite that with 5 years of personal experience of incidents at Underground Stations, I have never, ever, even once found a witness statement that matched up with either the trained personnel's acounts, or the more importan all-pervasive CCTV coverage.

The fact is that people pretty much close off and go into themselves when on the tube. You don't go around making eye-contact, and preferably you try to pretend noone else even exists. By the time something breaks into such awareness, it is usually almost over, and the 'witness' tends to think that whatever massive clues they missed on the lead-up couldn't have happened or how would they miss them?

Several reports state that around 20 armed officers entered the station in pursuit of this man, who'd been followed after emerging from a premises that was under surveilance. Many witnesses said the police wore plain clothes, but at least two who I found rational seeming said they were wearing flack jackets.

Almost all accounts report clearly that there were many shouts of "get out" and "get down" from the armed officers before the man even boarded the train. Certainly several of the witnesses agree that they were being evacuated from the train before the fatal shots were fired. Tally that against the statements that 20ish officers entered to pursue the man, but that all but a small handful (3 or 4) were doing something else by the time the suspect was actually on the train.

The witness Mark Witby really worries me.

He confesses he was reading his paper, miles away, and managed to miss just about everything until the man stumbled into his carriage. This though other witnesses were already reporting being on their way out of the station by then. Doesn't seem particularly aware and perceptive really. He does report that he clearly heard shouts of "get out" and "get down", but doesn't say he ever thought to actually obey these commands (still trying to get the awareness back to work out what was happening no doubt). He states (as a few did) that the man stumbled or was pushed as he boarded the train.

I personally suspect that a first round of shots had hit the man at this stage, which is classically seen (and even felt in many first-hand shooting reports) as feeling like a big punch or violent shove, making the target stumble and fall. However, that is speculation, supported only by the several witnesses who reported hearing two sets of shots. (The aware witnesses that is, the ones already exiting the train and platform by this stage, unlike Mr. Witby, who is unable to even describe the man he saw 'stumble').

For certain, the police would have wanted to capture this suspect alive. Urgently. They did not have to fear the man escaping once he boarded the train. The train was already being held (standard procedure on the Tube in any such cases I assure you). They did have to fear for the safety of the people still aboard the train, and it was in that light that the shooting must be seen.

A further observation here is that it is rather unlikely that this man was one of the failed suicide bombers of the day before. Those men are supposed to be dead, and *anyone* who is familiar at all with london transport knows for sure that they were caught on video. The terrorists do not want these people walking around alive to lead police and security services to the rest of the terrorist cells/ring. If any of those failed suicide bombers (men valuable on Thursday only as cannon fodder, and having outlived even that purpose on the same day) have the stupidity to attempt to contact their masters, they'll most likely be killed and disposed of instantly. Those failed bombers are nothing but living evidence to the terrorists.

The terrorists do not want

The terrorists do not want these people walking around alive to lead police and security services to the rest of the terrorist cells/ring. If any of those failed suicide bombers (men valuable on Thursday only as cannon fodder, and having outlived even that purpose on the same day) have the stupidity to attempt to contact their masters, they'll most likely be killed and disposed of instantly. Those failed bombers are nothing but living evidence to the terrorists.

Excellent point - I never thought about that. This is all so grim.

For certain, the police would have wanted to capture this suspect alive. Urgently. They did not have to fear the man escaping once he boarded the train. The train was already being held (standard procedure on the Tube in any such cases I assure you). They did have to fear for the safety of the people still aboard the train, and it was in that light that the shooting must be seen.

I agree with this too - the police would have preferred to keep the man alive, for more reasons than one.

Grim

Incredibly grim.

Right now, the police and security services are probably the only people in the world that want those failed bombers alive.

heat

>70 degree heat...

Over here thats warm, flip flops and speedo's weather.

Bear in mind that ...

Over here, in L.A., 70 degrees Fahrenheit is decent weather -- not too warm, not too cold. In San Francisco, 70 degrees is ... amazing, and time to hit the rooftops to get a tan.

From what I've heard, though, London is not usually anything we in a good portion of the U.S. would call warm -- so much so that many people don't have air conditioners installed. Which means that they're probably not too used to warm.

>>many people don't have air

>>many people don't have air conditioners installed.

Nobody has air-con in their private houses.

But in the summertime, it's "clement" to "scorching" and when the sun shines it's beautiful :)

Metropolitan Police

Quote:
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the shooting was "directly linked" to the ongoing London bombs enquiry.
Quote:
It is understood the man, who was under surveillance by police, emerged from a nearby building. But when he was challenged by plain clothes officers he ran off towards Stockwell Tube station in south London.

It was there that many passengers watched as the Asian male - who repeatedly failed to respond to police commands - was shot dead.

In the street, undercover police had been following a man from the direction of Brixton mosque. He started to run towards the station. The police gave chase.

About 20 police, some of them armed, rushed into the station.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1670842005

Cops don't have a lot of options

If you're concerned about someone stealing some merchandise, or smuggling some drugs, you have a lot of options (including letting the person get away) if stopping them is going to endanger lives.

If you're concerned that someone may be about to trigger a body belt in a crowded train, you try to get them to stop, and if they don't you pretty well have to kill them once they've reached the possible target.

I would be very surprised if the guy turned out to have explosives on him, even if he was a suspect under surveillance. But what police force is going to take the chance that he doesn't have a bomb, under those circumstances?

The effectiveness of suicide bombing is that it can be hidden so well, until it's too late. If you think the London cops were in a tough situation, imagine having to decide whether to shoot down a commercial flight that was off course, had no communications, and appeared to be heading toward a possible target. These are not good times, and not every decision is an easy one.

Not Connected

CNN is reporting that the man that was shot and killed the other day by the London police was NOT involved in the Bombings.

Yeah, so is MSNBC. BBC

Yeah, so is MSNBC. BBC appears to be on the back end of this, should rethink its "updated every minute of every day" slogan.

Well, BBC actually came up with the first report on the statement:

A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police

For those of you that belive in shoot to kill

The BBC is carrying this report now

Quote:
A man shot dead by police as part of the inquiry into Thursday's attempted bomb attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.

The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.

Unfortunately I have seen it all before in Belfast. In the majority of cases it turns out to be a "tragedy" which is later regretted.

Damn Shame

>>>Unfortunately I have seen it all before in Belfast.

Ya, this kind of thing goes on all the time in the US.

Not too long ago, we had one 17 year boy old handcuffed in the back seat of a police car that was shot over 60 times by the police (Yes, while he was handcuffed in the back seat of the police car). At least two of the officers had to reload their guns.

I think

in this instance I understand why the police did what they did.

But in general I would hate to see armed police on our streets. I have an (ex) brother in law in the police and believe me there are some police you don't want to give that power to.

Reuters have the full update

Reuters have the full update

Quote:
"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets," the police said.
Quote:
Former Scotland Yard (London police) commander John O'Connor told the BBC: "It is a shocking incident, and I think the consequences may be graver if he turns out to be a young Muslim."

And there is the rub, it will recruit more terrorists. This sort of incident always has acted to recruit terrorists.

Gun law in the US is

Gun law in the US is disgusting.

I don't want to see guns in the hands of our regular police either. I've met a few bad'uns in my untamed days..

It's tragic about this guy, in fact, its really dreadfully upsetting.

At the end of the day though, like gurtie, and I support the decision, it was a good call, with a dreadfull outcome :(

not sure I'd call it a good call

but certainly it was a case of a rock and a hard place....

in the absense of anything else I have to assume they had good reason though. And applaud the fact they've been honest about this - after all a cover up would have been relatively easy.

Tragic. I guess he just

Tragic. I guess he just panicked, maybe if had ran anywhere else but on to a crowded train things would of ended differently. From what we’re told so far i still think the police made the right call.

I have to agree with Gurtie,

I have to agree with Gurtie, at least the London police came right out with the story of what happened and apologized for killing someone, that almost NEVER happens in the US.

Nick, I don't think it is the gun law in the US, I believe it is the fact that the US police have been at "War" with the US citizens for over twenty years... "War on Crime"... "War on Drugs".

What would you do if..

..you were an arab, had been followed by 5 guys in plain clothes , and started running at you when you went into the tube.

Don't think I would stop to find out in an era when people of arabic origin have been beaten up by gangs of yobs.

If you look at the history of police shootings in the UK, the majority have been "tragedies"

Biggest "tragedy" was "bloody sunday" ( BBC report for those that don't know)when 14 people were shot by the army in Derry in a "civil rights march" in 1972 which ended with the IRA getting more recruits.

A civilised society (or indeed any society for that matter) cannot defeat terrorism by these methods - you have to find out why people are prepared to be suicide bombers, and stop the flow of recruits.

Wow Nick, what does a

Wow Nick, what does a shooting in London have to do with U.S. gun laws? ;) Not to mention that where the gun laws are the strictest, (in the States), gun crime rates are highest. Seems that where CCW laws are in effect, ALL crime rates drop dramatically.

I have 14 firearms in my office alone, no desire to run out and break the law with any of them. I don't go outside without a .410 derringer, makes an excellent snake-charmer. Rattlesnakes are really bad this year.

And where I live, every farmer has the ingredients (or access to the ingredients) to make a bomb just like the one that was used in Oklahoma City, yet, there doesn't seem to be a rash of explosions with fertilizer as an ingredient. Must have something to do with the mindset of individuals huh? Rather than just access to weapons and ingredients to build bombs.

It's not the rural community

It's not the rural community im worried about. From an english perspective, the fact than almost any US citezen can buy a gun is terrifying.

I understand. Cultural

I understand. Cultural diffferences. I grew up with firearms in the house, learned gun safety at an early age, and what terrifies me is that some activists are trying to take my guns from me. :) Background checks are nothing more than an appeasement to the anti-gun crowd. Criminals don't have to buy their guns in a shop.

The thought of living in a society where only criminals, police officers and the military have guns is a much worse thought to me than the fact that all my neighbors own high-powered rifles.

And, the rural areas are changing. Meth abuse is seeing to that. Seems like the best place for cookshops is out in the country.

Depends on the country...the

Depends on the country...the US goverment has much more power and weaponry in its arsenal than any other country in the world....lets face it 14 guns wouldn't stop them getting you...

Democracy takes a battering when accountabilty is thown on the bonfire...

I think the last two conflicts involving the US army shows the number of weapons does not help in an open battle. Too much money lost and tied up in the military machine...how much do you new fighters cost?

>>only criminals, police offers and the military

that's the point though, our military don't roam the streets with guns, our police are only armed in special circumstances and our criminals generally don't have them. Knives?, yes increasingly so, lumps of something to smack someone over the head with? frequently, guns? only 5* bank robbers and wannabie yardies.

Of course some people have guns but letting everyone own them won't help. There are vigilantes sending death threats to some people in the UK right now - if they had guns they'd probably be shooting people.

Can you imagine being one

Quote:
Can you imagine being one of those cops who, having chased the guy onto the train then find themselves on top of him. He's squirming, you can't tell what he's trying to do, is he trying to detonate himself? I can completely see why they shot him when they got in the train.

As I said before, the shooting was gratuitous if they had him already "contained". If three police officers holding someone down can't prevent him from using his hands to trigger a presumed detonator they need some retraining.

Quote:
What are you talking about?! You're point was that the police would be shooting asian people jogging/running! Thats not very sensible is it?

A famous journalist said in a reputed broadsheet today: "I say a young bearded man of Arab appearance sitting in the corner seat so I jumped off the train. He wasn't carrying a rucksack... just a holdall.... I had no reason for assuming he might be set on killing me or other passengers. He may not have even been Muslim.... but I stepped back on the platform and waited for the next train". Many of my friends - white, black and Asian - would all do the same thing. In my many years of living in Britain I've not encountered a single episode of racism - British society is very tolerant - but, let's face it: In the current climate if you happened to be running in a station with a holdall on your back you'd prefer to be of Anglo Saxon appearance. And, conversely, if you were Asian and happened to be carrying luggage you'd be pretty stupid to run for a train. It's not worth the chance.

Quote:
Thats not very sensible is it?

On the contrary, it is eminently so. There's been one example of someone the police were "convinced" was connected to the bombings and on that faulty intelligence he lost his life. If it turns out the officers had "contained" the man but still decided to pump five bullets into him I have every hope the office concerned goes to jail for a long time.

Surely the officers are not

Surely the officers are not at fault if they followed proceudure based on faulty intelligence? Though that is yet undetermined...

on that faulty intelligence

Quote:
on that faulty intelligence he lost his life

Nothing to do with him running away from armed police then?

Please - change thread title

Nick, as it's obviously the case that he wasn't a suicide bomber, please do change the title. That's the least we can do in the face of the terrible error that has happened.

How about "Man" in stead of "suicide bomber"?

"Nothing to do with him running away from armed police then?"

As far as the shot man was concerned he was being chased by a gang in civilian clothes - they could have been anybody

Quote:
LONDON (Reuters) - Police admitted on Saturday they had shot dead the wrong man in a tragic error as they combed London for four men after attempted bomb attacks on the capital's transport system.

Plainclothes police chased the man onto an underground train on Friday after he ignored warnings to stop, shooting him five times in the head because they feared he was carrying a bomb and was going to detonate it.

Surely the officers are not

Quote:
Surely the officers are not at fault if they followed proceudure

I agree. Not to prejudge the inevitable enquiry that will follow but, on the face of what we know so far, I believe it's highly unlikely they'll pass muster on the "procedure" score.

Quote:
othing to do with him running away from armed police then?

That was a stupid thing to do and it cost him his life. If he had done that one month ago it wouldn't have. Procedure hasn't changed in the last month. Running from the cops is not evidence of intent to detonate a bomb. Given the situation most people would have shot rather than take the chance, I appreciate that and have no problem with it but not if he was already caught and immobilised by trained police officers. That's mafia, snakehead, drug underworld behaviour. That's thuggery, that's not what I expect of a police officer whose salary I pay and if - I repeat if - the man was shot after he was immobilised I hope the officer gets what the victim never did: A fair trial.

lets just stop, shall we?

I don't think we can discuss this online - its the standard religion and politics thing - we're never going to agree but if we were in a pub it would be a good argument. Here though it just makes us all wound up for no reason.

Ultimately there's going to be an enquiry, the police will be reprimanded but told that under the circumstances they were right, procedures will be reviewed, some of us will still worry about arming the police and none of it will stop the terrorists.

New York safer than ever?

I was in New York City a few weeks back when there was an incident in a subway. Unmarked officers came out of EVERYWHERE, and it was quite scary to me as a civilian walking down the street. A street vendor (chubby, white apron, huffing and puffing as he ran) pulled out a large handgun and took a guard position at the entrance. Several yellow cabs screemed to stops as the drivers jumped out with handguns and ran down the stairs. It was alot like back in the seventies when Manhattan had a very high night-time crime rate, and you would suddenly encounter hoods running through the dark and into/out of alley ways -- only this time they were apparently undercover police.

I can't say if it was an undercover operation or an impropmptu response to some threat, but I came away with the impression that NYC is a VERY unsafe place for criminals and terrorists (perceived or otherwise) these days.

As far as the shot man was

As far as the shot man was concerned he was being chased by a gang in civilian clothes - they could have been anybody

I imagine the second they turned from walking behind him to running after him they would have issued a very loud warning, most likley "Stop, Armed Police!".

I'm not going to comment in this thread anymore. I've said my piece and I seem to be in agreement with most of the people on the news who've commented on police actions yesterday. It's as simple as this, he was seen leaving a house under surveillance, he then legged it, he then wouldn't stop. The police had good reason to be scared for their own lives and the lives of the train passengers. It's unfortunate but seems to have been the only sensible outcome.

absolutely spot on Gurtie

you absolutely right Gurtie I don't think you can discuss this online

We're discussing a news

We're discussing a news article. It's not a religious discussion, it's not a political discussion.

Quote:
"Stop, Armed Police!".

Assuming A) Everybody understands English (and whatever local accent it's spoken in - from Scot to Welsh) B) Plainsclothes cops look distinctly different to muggers and C) Criminals never pose as police .... shouting that warning really does help.

Quote:
I seem to be in agreement with most of the people on the news

No, you don't. You automatically believed that the guy was as guilty as hell and was plotting an explosion. But, as you aren't going to comment it wouldn't be fair to rip the rest of what you said apart.

Quote:
only sensible outcome

Police brutality is never sensible. They should work within their procedures. Should they need more powers parliament should be the place where it's sanctioned. There may be the odd political decision I don't like but that's how decisions are taken in a democracy and if it's good enough for me it's good enough for the police I pay for.

I notice the thunder of silence on the issue of whether it's OK to shoot a man (five times) if he's reasonably enough secured to not pose a threat.

Quote:
.... none of it will stop the terrorists.

I hope you're wrong. It takes great political will to make the changes necessary to convert Britain into a less hospitable place for the preaching of hate, the indoctrination of radical religious beliefs, and the justifying of killing in the name of God. And may the gods of all faiths give the authorities the courage to make those changes.

(There you go - I've now brought religion and politics into it :-))

lets just stop, shall we? I

Quote:
lets just stop, shall we?

I don't think we can discuss this online - its the standard religion and politics thing - we're never going to agree but if we were in a pub it would be a good argument. Here though it just makes us all wound up for no reason.

Yes. I agree with Yes that we are discussing a news article, not religion or politics, to a degree. But I think we're done with this one.

It's a horrid tradegy, and there are a million angles to look at and talk about, but now the initial news is over it's not particularly helpful to continue the discussion.

Thanks very much for keeping it cool everyone, it's tough to talk about these things online when we all have different backgrounds and perspectives, and i really appreciate the fact that almost no admin was required on such a hot topic.

Stay safe.

Nick

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.