War against terror

[ozanzac 0]

From the early reports I've heard, the suspect shot by London police first tripped, then fell, and was shot whilst down.

Now, shooting the suspect may very well have been justified in the circumstances to disable the suspect, be it from running away, or detonating an explosive device, but five times, at what would presumably be, very close range......... seems overkill, to say the least.

To be honest, I picture the event more like a vengeful mob hit, rather than an attempt by police to apprehend a suspect.

Clever police work isn't shoot first, ask questions later.....After all, dead people can't talk.

I'll be very interested to see the outcome of the investigation into this incident.

[Pathy 0]

Ozanzac, when you are dealing with a suspected suicide bomber you do not piss around

Sky News now suggests they suspected this man of one of the failed tube attacks and were watching his house. Even more justification to neutralise him, IMO.

What everyone here who seems to be critising the action of the shooter seems to do is seperate themselves from the quickness of the events and the split second decision of the officers at the scene.

Fine, complain that its like a public murder, but at the end of the day, if they suspect a guy of being a bomber, hes wearing a thick big coat in 22 degree heat, and is running (who jogs in a big thick coat for fun?), thier duty is to protect everyone else.

On another note,

Quote[/b] ]Chris Wells, a 28-year-old company manager, said he was travelling on the Victoria Line towards Vauxhall when he left the train at Stockwell.

He saw about 20 police officers, some of them armed, rushing into the station before a man jumped over the barriers with police giving chase.

He said: "There were at least 20 officers and they were carrying big black guns.

Seems abit conflicting about whether they were plainclothes or normal police, there is a strong possiblity it was a mixed force, some plain clothes, the majority armed Police units assigned to the station.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Police warned the man

Is not the same as:

"Dude", he was told to "stop, police!", so before you tell me to pay close attention "dude", why not read the details.

Please show me the detail that I missed where the plain clothed police actually said "stop police" as you have claimed.

Or are you distorting the facts?  

[orson 0]

I didn't know the National Coal Board ever had any weapons,

You never "eaten" at one of the canteens then ?

sosy sar'ni .... killer .

[Bernadotte 0]

Again, ignoring the possiblity that deaf men dont run when shouted at, unless they are selectively deaf.

Show me where it says that he began running in response to being shouted at.

I guess I missed that detail too, huh?

[Acecombat 0]

But as Bush said the other day, it's better that the US fights the war against terror on foreign streets than on the streets of the US.  

But you cant blame him for that? Who would welcome this fight at their door step or street? I dont see americans even wanting to bring this fight home , do you?

Of course not.  Just imagine how much worse it could have been if 25,000 valuable American lives had been lost in the battle with Al Qaida instead of 25,000 innocent Iraqis.

 

Dont take me wrong i dont put prices over peoples head an american life is equal to that of an iraqi it couldnt have been any worse but this way atleast the fight is kept on those are making this trouble , in america it would be all defensive and it wouldnt have helped since the govts policy remains same only everyday folks die. But atleast this way chances of people from whose societys this whole new culture of bomb 'anyone who gets in our way' rising up and doing something to stop this madness themselves is good , i'd rather this thing be dealt at its source then anywhere else.

On a side note this seems to have been put up on BBC.

Police have issued CCTV images of four men they "urgently need to trace" in connection with Thursday's failed bomb attacks in London. This image was taken at Oval, one of the three Tube stations involved.

This man is wanted in connection with the incident at Warren Street station on the Victoria line.

This man is wanted in connection with the explosion on a bus in Hackney Road, Shoreditch. Scotland Yard urged anyone who knew where the suspects were to call 999, or if they could identify any of the men to call the anti-terrorist hotline on 0800 789 321.

This picture taken at Westbourne Park Tube shows another man the police wish to contact, this time in connection with the attack at Shepherds Bush.

Hmmm the 1-2 guys seem suspicious but the 3rd one looks just like some normal asian immigrant possible indian even , i doubt he'd have anything to do with this (unless he's hiding some bomb in his fat tummy ) , the 4th dude looks like a student.

[Pathy 0]

I think the several witnesses saying about police warning the man are sufficient, along with the police statements that they did. They dont shout warnings of "oi your fucker, get over here!".

If you choose to be picky and accept nothing than a quote echoing my words to the letter, then tough shit, it just shows how petty you are if your resorting to that as your final line of argument.

As it is, if the public witnesses state that they saw police, i expect it was pretty obvious they were police.

Sorry if that makes me a lier and distorter of the facts or whatever the fuck your rambling on about.

[Bernadotte 0]

Now, shooting the suspect may very well have been justified in the circumstances to disable the suspect, be it from running away, or detonating an explosive device, but five times, at what would presumably be, very close range......... seems overkill, to say the least.

Keep in mind that, following this, the chances of capturing a would be terrorist and preventing him from detonating in a public place have dropped considerably.

[Pathy 0]

As if a would be terrorist whos convinced hes going to meet allah and fuck 72 virgins for eternity, could well be drugged up, would surrender.......

I think in this case we could do with Avon dropping in to tell us abit more about suicide bomber mentality, i'm sure she'd agree with the action taken.

[Bernadotte 0]

If you choose to be picky and accept nothing than a quote echoing my words to the letter, then tough shit...

I didn't make up the quote, dude.  You did.

Welcome to my ignore list.  

[Pathy 0]

Ignore List

I'm crying here.

Who cares anyway, i dont particually want to argue with someone whos argument goes along the lines of:

B: What if he didnt know they were police chasing him...."you said the police told him to stop"....but i cant see that anywhere...

P:.....ok, here: "The police issued warnings"

B:....."but that doesnt say "they told him to stop"

P:....no, but police warnings tend to be something along the lines of "Stop, Police!", not "oi, twatface, get your arse over here!"

B:Ahh but you still dont have a quote saying "Stop, Police".

P:No.....thats because its obvious that if they warned him, he'd have known they were police....look, we even have witnesses saying they were police, unless the police have some sort of cloaking device that lets innocent civilians see them and Terrorists not.

B:  OMG you made that quote up! I'm ignoring j00!!!11!!!!11!!

For that twisted logic, welcome to MY ignore list

[denoir 0]

It doesnt matter if he was innocent or guilty, the police were justified to take him out in the circumstances, "dude".

I think it's sad how quickly people abandon their principles when scared. It makes you think about the stability of modern society. Scare the people a bit and they'll fully support Guantanamo bays and "shoot first, ask questions later" police work.

Looking at the British blogosphere it would most certainly seem that many agree with you Pathy. It's kind of funny as from what I've seen, it's mostly the "WE ARE NOT AFRAID!" crowd that seems to support the police's right to shoot anybody they please on sight. After all, they argue, they would only shoot terrorists!

I'm not quite sure where people get that misplaced loyalty to the police anyway. They've failed to capture the suspects so far, and they certainly failed to prevent a second attack. It was just dumb luck that no people were killed the second time.

Anyway, the sequence of events seems a bit clearer now:

1. Guy drops a bag inside a train and legges off in the opposite direction.

2. The plainclothes cops follow and yell at him to stop

3. He runs across the platform in the direction of another train, but trips.

4. Police officers catch up and push him on the ground. They gather around him.

5. One police officer shoots five shots into the suspect.

That he dropped off a bag should indicate that he most likely wasn't a suicide bomber. And second, there is no possible reason to empty five shots into a man lying on the ground. Had he been strapped with explosives, there would have been a great risk of them going off. The only chance you have of preventing a person from pressing a button is if you blow his brains out - one hollow point round to the head (preferably from a submachine gun or something that has a bit more punch)

We can be fairly sure that these five rounds fired weren't hollow points as the witnesses would have noticed the resulting mess. Had those been five HP head shots, the guy wouldn't have had a head left. Even one such round makes quite a mess and blows up a significant portion of the head.

So what possible motives could you have for shooting five full metal jacket shots into a guy lying on the ground?

Speculation? You bet, but that's because the police haven't actually explained why they did what they did. Until they do, you should not give them the benefit of the doubt (especially since that doubt is pretty far-fetched) - on the contrary, in times of crisis, you should be very suspicious...

..or you'll just end up like America after 9/11. It will take many years, if not decades to repair the damage that the US had inflicted on itself because of fear. I'd hate the UK go down that road.

[ozanzac 0]

Ozanzac, when you are dealing with a suspected suicide bomber you do not piss around  

I recognise the severity of the situation, but the suspect..... Any suspect, is far more useful alive than dead. They had the opportunity to capture him when he was down on the ground, and if they'd arrested him alive, then they'd be able to interrogate him for more information.

Heck, you can't be a suicide bomber if either you're not the one who pulls the trigger, or you don't have explosives.....

Now quite obviously, he never got the opportunity to pull any trigger.......but, was there even a trigger to pull? Did the officer who fired the shots have without a doubt, reason to shoot him fatally?

That's what I'm picking at. It's that this was probably an avoidable fatal shooting, and a possible intelligence goldmine.

For the sake of the officer who shot the suspect, I dearly hope there were explosives found on the suspect.....because in that case, the suspects death was not in vane, and the actions of the officer probably did save the lives of many people aboard that train. But if the suspect didn't have the explosive, and was merely gunned down on a suspicion......well.....you be the judge...... Is that okay to do?

Does not that contradict the basics of law, innocent until proven otherwise?

[Balschoiw 0]

Right now, we don´t know anything specific about the shooting incident but people from both sides of the pool are quick to draw conclusions. I wonder how that can be ?

Represants of the "shoot first, ask questions later" faction can be wrong aswell as the people who say "innocent until proven guilty".

Right now we have a guy who has been under police surveilance who got shot after running into a tube station. There most likely have been warnings issued at him and he finally got shot with 5 shots when he was already fixed to the ground.

As the police already confirmed he is not one of the 4 bombers.

He was a suspect. For sure there still is the chance that he had nothing to do with the bombings and was just an illegal immigrant trying to run from police. Who knows ?

Noone knows at this time.

So defending either this or that is illogical and only shows your personal favourite approach to people suspected of terrorist acts.

The strong outcry from the muslim community about the "shoot to kill" approach has to be taken seriously. If it turns out that the guy simply happened to live in the same house of a terrorist suspect and was therefore killed it will be another boost for fanatics as they will link the british police forces to religious motivated killing.

If he was carrying a bomb, which has indeed not be confirmed up to now (it would be about time to do that if he really was carrying one) the security of people at the station and in the train would have been the number 1 priority. 5 shots may sound overkill but put yourself into the situation of the policemen. Their task is/was to hinder terrorist efforts at all costs.

I´m a bit confused that there is no official statement if he was carrying a bomb or not. This is the initial point and if he had none, he was a regular suspect with guaranteed rights. The police did not act in self-defence. Those five shots then would be manslaughter.

I don´t envy any policemen in London right now as they have to decide and react pretty quickly to protect public. But if this guy was not armed and had not a bomb it will only fuel the fire.

Right now, we don´t know. Let´s wait and see and back off from namecalling or flaming. The "shoot first, ask questions later" faction is as wrong as the "innocent until proven guilty" faction. We simply don´t know enough.

So all statements and "views" are irrelevant, unless we know more details.

Then you can go on with your headbanging....

[Bernadotte 0]

The "shoot first, ask questions later" faction is as wrong as the "innocent until proven guilty" faction. We simply don´t know enough.

What's the difference between saying "innocent until proven guilty" and saying "we simply don't know enough"?

[Balschoiw 0]

The difference is easy. If the police had confirmed intel about the guy carrying or intending to set off a bomb at the station the kill would have been justified while just gunning down a suspect without further proof would be manslaughter.

If I say "we simply don't know enough" I´m referring to the information we have about the case. Police may know more. So unless they share their knowledge with public which they obviously have to do over the next days we are more or less fishing in the dark.

You understand ? Our knowledge is media knowledge while police-knowledge may be different as a matter of their job.

[Pathy 0]

@Bals all im saying is (in my opinion) the police were justified in the circumstances, sorry if that offends you, but in the circumstances youve outlined, i think they did the right thing.

I'm not saying it was a terrorist for sure, dont get me wrong, i dont know that.

As for my argument with Bern, he seemed to think that maybe the police wouldnt have issued a warning, but chose to split hairs when i presented him with evidence, as opposed to admitting that they issued a warning. The argument was nothing more.

All that i guess gets at me is that the shooter could get punished for doing his job, i dont think thats right. As you say, they have to make snap decisions. Even if the guy wasnt carrying a bomb.

Nothings changed, thats always been my view on suicide bombers.

@Denior, i have not abandoned my principles.

Nor do police "shoot whoever they please".

Nothings changed in my mind, i am not suddenly cowed into thinking the police should be allowed to run the country or whatever.

@Ozanzac. Seems my outspoken opinion says, yes, its OK, because the police warned him. Its like if a guy runs about in a street waving a replica gun. Doesnt matter if its real or not, if he looks like hes about to shoot someone with it, he will be taken out. They get told to drop the gun 1st of course, it doesnt just *happen*, but if he ignores warnings and just carries on looking threatening with it, he will eventually be shot.

On the same line of thought, if someone looks like they are about to commit a suicide bombing, it doesnt matter if they are or not, they are given due warning, and then, as with the nut waving his replica gun about, if they carry on acting threateningly, they are taken out.

Theres not alot of difference between those situations, yet situation 1 would be generally thought to be acceptable, right?

Edit: Keep in mind this is only my opinion when there is a great potential threat to innocents. I do not think it'd be ok if they stormed a flat occupied by one of these bombers and shot him in his living room.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]@Bals all im saying is the police were justified in the circumstances, sorry if that offends you, but in the circumstances youve outlined, i think they did the right thing.

I don´t take any side in this. Fact is that my post is totally neutral. Reread it, if you didn´t get the message.

You can think whatever you want but unless we have more details the thinking is limited to specualtion and therefore no rational thinking but emotions packed into words.

I tend to favour facts over speculations and that is how policework should look like.

To kill people is a serious thing. If it turns out that the guy was innocent there will be measures taken against the participating policemen and that is ok. Noone can run around and kill people because they don´t act by the scheme. If that was the case all drunk people caught by police could be shot as they don´t act according by the scheme.

There are laws. Laws need to be followed by all parties.

I´m just pointing you on the little info we have about the incident right now. It´s far too little info to draw any conclusions. So a rational thinking guy should just relax and wait for further details before drawing any conclusions.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The rules of engagement for police were obviously changed recently in order to deal with suicide bombings, those exact rules are and must remain secret otherwise it is like giving your enemy your plans.  

There is something about it at this link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4709889.stm

Nobody likes it, least of all the officers involved in SO9 who are all validated as not being psychos we have very few armed police in the UK perhaps 900 out of 30,000 plus.

Example of the procedure in use.

Quote[/b] ]Residents of flats between Carroun Road and Dorset Road said armed police had raided a flat at about 1630 BST and led away a man, woman and child, who were dressed in plastic boiler suits.

One neighbour, 42-year-old Adil Abdulla, said: "We heard some shouting and there were police with guns saying 'get inside', they were saying 'get down, get down'.

"The man said 'I'm doing it' and the police said to him 'if you don't do it, you are going to get shot'."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

From personal experience I know they shout "Armed Police" then an instruction to halt and any other instructions to lay down keep your arms where they can see them or whatever. (Walking home with a video tape in the top pocket of my overcoat, past an area where there had been a drug related shooting some hours before. In that case they did not draw their weapons, one officer stayed in the car)

As to the particular case at Stockwell Station

Quote[/b] ]The man was under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched following Thursday's attacks, a Scotland Yard spokesman said.

He was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, he added.

Police warned the man, who ran on to the station platform.

ibid

So that is a quite clear statment from a Scotland Yard spokesman that they warned him.

Here is the timeline

Quote[/b] ]1: Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase a man into Stockwell Tube station from the street

2: One person says the man vaulted the automatic ticket barriers as he made his way to the platforms

3: The most direct route is via this escalator or the staircase that sits alongside it

4: Police challenge the man but he apparently refuses to obey instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

(there is a map of the incedent on the above link)

In several reports by the media witnesses say the man was wearing a thick bulky jacket in the middle of summer. It is realy hot here in England at the moment in the 30s same as it has been for about a month or more.

one closer witness said:

Quote[/b] ]Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

ibid

All in all those statements from both the police and public witnesses paint a picture of a valid set of circumnstances for an officer to think it reasonable to make the snap decision of shooting the man in the head 3 to 5 times.

The incedent as with any other Police officer involved shooting will now be thoughroughly investigated.

Kind Regards walker

[Bernadotte 0]

The "shoot first, ask questions later" faction is as wrong as the "innocent until proven guilty" faction. We simply don´t know enough.

What's the difference between saying "innocent until proven guilty" and saying "we simply don't know enough"?

If the police had confirmed intel about the guy carrying or intending to set off a bomb at the station the kill would have been justified...

But nobody here is arguing that the guy should be "innocent even with considerable proof of guilt."

And what if the suspect tries to surrender?  Wouldn't it be better if a bomber at least thinks he has the opportunity to surrender?  Wouldn't that increase the opportunity to save innocent by-standers?

[Pathy 0]

I get you, and i agree more facts must come out, but they would not change my message unless it was something totally totally unexpected.

My message is not "he was guilty" or "he was innocent", it's more, if he was innocent or guilty, he did not give the police much choice.

Lets look at what can be taken for almost fact (but obviously not confirmed officially) as supported by a large number of witnessess:

Police of unknown description chased an Asian looking man into the tube station. Confirmed by several witnesses.

Asian man was wearing a big coat, one man even claimed he saw wires sticking out, but lets discount that for now as its only one witness who's said that. So lets go with the big coat, thats unlikely to be innaccurate given the number of witnesses to confirm that.

Weather was reported as 22 degrees in London. Thats a fact.

Police shouting warnings. Can't find anyone actually saying they heard warnings, but alot of them say "they heard alot of shouting  coming from the platform, then this guy jumped on", while the police commisioner stated that as far as he understood warnings had been issued to the bomber. I'm going to treat this as likely, given our police do NOT shoot anyone they like as some people would have it.

Witnesses report armed police following the man into the carriage, shouting to get out, bundling onto the man and shooting him between 4 and 6 times (differing number of shots according to various witnesses - lowest ive found is 4, and highest 6)

So we have a suspicious asian male wearing a big coat in the middle of summer, running from police, ignoring warnings, and jumping onto a tube train only to be overpowered and shot.

I suppose you are right though, we ought to wait for a full report on the sequence of events.

Just funny how that if he did have a bomb, the shooter is the hero. If he didnt, hes a villian and should go to prison for manslaughter. Doesnt seem to matter to you if he knew he had a bomb or not before he took the shot, your apparently judging things on the result alone.

[ozanzac 0]

@Ozanzac. Seems my outspoken opinion says, yes, its OK, because the police warned him. Its like if a guy runs about in a street waving a replica gun. Doesnt matter if its real or not, if he looks like hes about to shoot someone with it, he will be taken out. They get told to drop the gun 1st of course, it doesnt just *happen*, but if he ignores warnings and just carries on looking threatening with it, he will eventually be shot.

On the same line of thought, if someone looks like they are about to commit a suicide bombing, it doesnt matter if they are or not, they are given due warning, and then, as with the nut waving his replica gun about, if they carry on acting threateningly, they are taken out.

Theres not alot of difference between those situations, yet situation 1 would be generally thought to be acceptable, right?

Edit: Keep in mind this is only my opinion when there is a great potential threat to innocents. I do not think it'd be ok if they stormed a flat occupied by one of these bombers and shot him in his living room.

Agreed, but would lethal force be required to take him down?

Would it be absolutely necessary to kill the nut waving the gun?

Was it absolutly neccessary to kill the suspected bomber, because he was wearing a big jacket, and failed to respond to the call to stop?

I mean, the guy tripped up! He wasn't really going anywhere at the time he was shot!........but was shot fatally anyway!?!

[Acecombat 0]

I agree with ozanzac and all who say the guy was more valuable alive then dead. I dont understand why the police shot him while he was pinned on the ground with 3-4 officers around him , if he had a bomb he would have had surely blown himself before (how much time does it take to push the detonators button , assuming thats the set-up suicide bombers have) he wasnt one to blow himself up judging by this (pure speculation though). They could have shot his arm/leg to keep him from doing something and if he was gonna blow himself they wouldnt have had a chance to stop him from a bullet anyway.

[Pathy 0]

Nope it wouldnt always be necessary, not if he heeded warnings to put the gun down, they would then be able to approach him and arrest him.

I know what your saying and its a solid point, but i cant help thinking in the mad rush of adrenaline and panic it can only have been a snap decision, and was made in an instant, taking an assumption based on all the circumstances that we ourselves know so far, that he was a suicide bomber. Its a shame if he was innocent, because you cannot take chances with suicide bombers.

Good point from Walker, it is not like it will be brushed under the carpet, like all incidents it will be investigated. They do not shoot people for the hell of it, and all shooting incidents are taken very seriously....Denior.  

Quote[/b] ]And what if the suspect tries to surrender?  Wouldn't it be better if a bomber at least thinks he has the opportunity to surrender?  Wouldn't that increase the opportunity to save innocent by-standers?

If he surrendered when the police issued him warnings he wouldnt be dead, would he?

Same with any attempts at suicide bombings that may happen in future i should think, some people seem to be operating under the assumption that the police spotted a guy in a thick coat, started chasing him and bundled him to the ground and shot him, without warning him to stop and giving him a chance to give himself up, and will in future shoot suspected suicide bombers on sight without attempting to confront them.

As walker pointed out, they usually shout "ARMED POLICE!".

If someone stops and puts thier hands on thier head or whatever when they hear that, they will not be shot, whatever you may think.

If he had say, surrendered, though, THEN it would not be justified.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]If he didnt, hes a villian and should go to prison for manslaughter. Doesnt seem to matter to you if he knew he had a bomb or not before he took the shot or not, your apparently judging things on the result alone.

Read then talk:

Quote[/b] ]If he was carrying a bomb, which has indeed not be confirmed up to now (it would be about time to do that if he really was carrying one) the security of people at the station and in the train would have been the number 1 priority. 5 shots may sound overkill but put yourself into the situation of the policemen. Their task is/was to hinder terrorist efforts at all costs.

Quote[/b] ] If the police had confirmed intel about the guy carrying or intending to set off a bomb at the station the kill would have been justified while just gunning down a suspect without further proof would be manslaughter.

Don´t try to put something on me that is not true.

Maybe it confuses you that some people can have alternatives on situations on their mind that do collide with each other. As a matter of fact, we have to take both situations in consideration.

Or at least we should try to. If that bursts your limit of reality understanding you need learn that.

Quote[/b] ]And what if the suspect tries to surrender?

I guess he had plenty of time to do so. As we don´t know the nature of his attempt to flee the policemen it´s hard for us to say what made hime flee. Either he was intending to avoid capturing for reasons we don´t know, he was afraid being chased by armed men or he was really trying to blow up a bomb.

We simply don´t know. From what we "know" now he didn´t try to surrender at any time. And when jumping on the train he trippled.

The situation is complex. Either he wanted to run from police for reasons we don´t know or he was trying to blow up something.

Wearing a coat, being of asian origin and being afraid of armed men in civil cloathes doesn´t automatically make you a terrorist.

I have had visitors from asia last summer and it was really hot here but they ran around with thick coats also as they were freezing as they were not used to the european climate.

As I said, relax, sit back and wait for substantial info to come.

Drawing conlusions at this moment is not rational.