POLICE ADMIT MAN KILLED ON UNDERGROUND NOT CONNECTED TO BOMBINGS.

I have one more thing to say. It is easy to criticize someone for their actions, mostly if that person commits a mistake. Always try to put yourself in their shoes at the particular moment the so-called mistake was made and see if you would have come to the same actions. Like I said above, considering the circumstances, I believe I would have done exactly what these officers have done. Remember as well, that if this man would have been a suicide bomber and he had succeeded in detonating his explosives, many of you might have called the police officers responding incapable of filling out their functions!

Well put, it was a decision that had to be made in seconds and under great stress.

As much as this is a regretable accident, this man gave the intervening police officers reason to believe he had something to hide. The simple fact that they had to chase him down into the subway system was reason enough for them to suspect he might be a terrorist. Considering the recent events in England, one can’t be too cautious! I doubt very much anyone in Great Britain would want a repeat of July seventh/05. I strongly believe the officers responded properly but that is simply my opinion. None of us could ever know what these men felt at that precise moment they were struggling with this man. Fear was definitely present at this particular moment and it might well have been the fear that someone might have wired explosives on his person.
I spoke to a friend of mine who is a police officer and although he did say he wasn’t sure this man should have died, he did say he might have reacted in the same manner as these brave men did.
I have one more thing to say. It is easy to criticize someone for their actions, mostly if that person commits a mistake. Always try to put yourself in their shoes at the particular moment the so-called mistake was made and see if you would have come to the same actions. Like I said above, considering the circumstances, I believe I would have done exactly what these officers have done. Remember as well, that if this man would have been a suicide bomber and he had succeeded in detonating his explosives, many of you might have called the police officers responding incapable of filling out their functions!

While i sadly think that accidents like this are bound to happen, some of the comments in this thread are very worrisome if you ask me: If in doubt, shoot first, as questions later.

This incident will definately be something for Scotland Yard to check thoroughly. A few more events like this and the original terrorists have achieved the social mayhem they long for.

I would say the terrorists have won a victory when people start suggesting that the Police are a threat to public safety and civil/human rights.

Nermal I hear you and in the main I sympathise but I’d like to make a few points. First, the shooting happened because you can still detonate a bomb whilst being restrained. Second, and I am only guessing here, I am no expert, but I’d say he was pinned and covered by the officers to minimise the effect of the detonation if it had happened.

So restrain him then shoot, or get him to stop and then shoot: he could still detonate a bomb when standing still with his hands in the air, if he had one on him. Thats something to think about if you hear the words ‘STOP, POLICE!’ shouted out behind you. The (innocent) man on the front of several papers the other day must be thanking his lucky stars that they didn’t take the same precaution…

I’d imagine that he was jumped on by some of the police in an effort to prevent him from from exploding his ‘bomb’, but another turned up and emptied eight bullets into his head for exactly the same reason.
Did someone panic? That is what I hear being whispered, but since all tube stations have CCTV I don’t doubt the truth – or a form of it – will come out in the end. – Nermal

While i sadly think that accidents like this are bound to happen, some of the comments in this thread are very worrisome if you ask me: If in doubt, shoot first, as questions later.

This incident will definately be something for Scotland Yard to check thoroughly. A few more events like this and the original terrorists have achieved the social mayhem they long for.

The policy and the deployment of armed units is essential, but the botching of surveillance in this way (if indeed it is as it appeared, ie following the wrong guy, letting him board a bus etc etc)) is to be condemned.

Your assuming the Police had the people in place to stop him boarding the bus. There is not enough Police to provide armed response units everywhere and they can’t appear instantly on scene when called for.

The Police are only human, they can’t read minds and they don’t have X-Ray vision, they can only react to other peoples actions.

Perhaps he wouldn’t have RUN AWAY if he was here LEGALY and NOT let his visa expire??

The decision to use ”Shoot to kill to protect” rules of engagement must have been Tony Blair’s. Let’s hope he takes responsibility for his decision.

I don’t agree. As I said it was a failure of intelligence, specifically the way in which the surveillance of the chap’s residence was handled. I don’t personally see how anyone can rationally argue against the ‘shoot to kill’ policy in the current climate *provided* intelligence is adequate and adequately communicated. Many people don’t seem to understand that the only change in policy here is the target – centre of mass versus head, the reasoning being that shots to the head are less likely to result in the triggering of a device.
That armed police, where present, should withhold fire where an identified, assessed suspect is believed to be armed and threatening the life of a member of the public, is the worst kind of laissez-faire imaginable. Some people, especially journalists, seem to think that prior to aiming for the head, shooting someone in the chest until they stop moving is not ‘shoot to kill’. In case you were wondering, the latter was the previous and is still the default policy where suicide bombing and/or body armour is not suspected.

There are only two policies as far as the public are concerned (assuming you believe any type of armed policement is a necessary evil), and those are; the current policy of shoot to kill, or simply not to open fire unless first fired upon. One should only ever fire a weapon to kill, anything else risks the lives of the firer and the public. Better not to have any armed police than to have some wildy ineffective ‘shoot the shoulder or legs’ policy. This isn’t “Speed” and armed police aren’t Keanu Reeves…

Some are equating this policy with that of the security forces in NI, who allegedly had a ‘shoot to kill’ policy whereby known PIRA ‘players’ would be killed primarily because they were *known* to be so, not because of a direct threat to a member of the public.

The policy and the deployment of armed units is essential, but the botching of surveillance in this way (if indeed it is as it appeared, ie following the wrong guy, letting him board a bus etc etc)) is to be condemned.

Not wanting to sound too cliche, but this whole incident is the fault of
the terrorists.

they have put the civilized world into such a mindset.

The police have this guy under survelience. He is wearing a bulky coat
in the summer, looks darker skinned, and is near mass transit facilities.
Currently, the terrorists are dark-skinned, using explosives hidden in
clothes/backpacks ( a bulky jacket woudl work), and blowing up in
public transportation. The police stop him. They question him, it’s
clear he’s not laden with explosives. Fine.

But no… he runs. If you’re looking at a guy for fear of terror ties, and
he’s dressed the part, and RUNS from anti-terror police, well then, it
seems clear that he’d have a REASON to run. the way things have
been going, there’s a good chance he’s filled with explosives, and redy
to detonate. He doesn’t stop.

He’s then flat on the ground. What do you do? Well, if you think he’s
got a bomb under his coat (and he didn’t do anything to suggest he
didn’t), then there’s only one thing you CAN do – shoot him in the
head. The officer had NO other option, for the lives of others, and his
own, were at risk.

Now, just because the cop didn’t have a choice doesn’t mean the
victim was totally at fault. My guess is that he thought the cops were
terrorists. Plain clothed men chasing him with guns?!? Right after the
terror attacks.

Terrible situation, no good guy or bad guy – except the terrorists.
Blame them.

It’s a tragic mistake, and I think his family should be compensated, in
the way an accidental death would be. But not as if they did anything
criminal.

Now, if the officer didn’t identify himself as a cop……that would be
bad.

Whenever an innocent person dies (and an expired visa plus panic is reason enough to run whatever the ‘hawks’ say), someone must be held accountable, but I don’t believe in this case that it’s the firearms officers.

The decision to use ”Shoot to kill to protect” rules of engagement must have been Tony Blair’s. Let’s hope he takes responsibility for his decision.

It seems clear to me that the failure is that of the police, but not the officer(s) that took the man down. Given the parameters they were operating within, they were left with no choice but to open fire, and therefore, to make sure the threat was eliminated ie kill the man. It’s the intelligence from the surveillance and elsewhere that’s clearly, unequivocally suspect here, and its there that the blame needs to be sought.

By effectively reinforcing the public perception that the killing was inevitable (which it was at the time of the killing) the government does not have to face the other more damaging outcry vis a vis the flawed intelligence and botched running of the operation. The policemen in the firing line effectively get the blame, but without loss of their job, livelihood or reputations, and those elsewhere in the police force, intelligence community and government, get to deflect public and media attention long enough to survive the inevitable enquiry. The outcome of which will be very interesting but won’t make a blip on the media radar by the time it comes out.

Whenever an innocent person dies (and an expired visa plus panic is reason enough to run whatever the ‘hawks’ say), someone must be held accountable, but I don’t believe in this case that it’s the firearms officers.

The fact that they had him safely pinned to the ground before shooting him dead points to the idea that he could have been shot with his hands in the air had he obeyed these shouted commands. But lets think about the men shouting at you to stop, not in uniform but in casual gear, whilst waving guns around. Would you stop and ask them what they were doing? Do you stop when driving when you hear emergency sirens and ask them where they are going?

Nermal I hear you and in the main I sympathise but I’d like to make a few points. First, the shooting happened because you can still detonate a bomb whilst being restrained. Second, and I am only guessing here, I am no expert, but I’d say he was pinned and covered by the officers to minimise the effect of the detonation if it had happened.

I feel awful about what happened to this poor bloke and if the decision was yours then perhaps you could judge it. Seeing as it wasn’t give the poor buggers a break, I don’t know what you do for a living but I’ll bet it ain’t half as difficult as their job as of 07/07/05.

Phil 🙂

Expired student Visa – This is not a justification for pumping bullets in the head. In that case, there are millions of illegal immigrants on both side of the atlantic. Atleast this guy has some of official record to keep track.. what will happen if somebody come as illegal… think about it.

IMHO, this guy was at the wrong place at the wrong time.. If we follow ‘shoot to kill’ policy then what is the difference between the so-called civilised society and the terroritst… 😮

any one who as used a weapon knows how easy a discharge can be ,especially a cocked semi auto ,off safety.

Shot in the head, five times? Even more reason for the retaining of the current gun control measures, except I think you are way off the mark with this demonstration of your knowledge…

I for one, am 100% behind the shoot to kill policy, it’s high time that people learnt that we are no longer going to be a soft touch and an easy target.

As the Brazillians now certainly know.

Now what we need to do in addition to this is start rounding up and deporting the known trouble makers

Why not include anyone with a strange name, who wears funny clothes, who looks different. Hell, why not just deport all foreigners?

He was under surveillance, the Police might not have had people in position to stop him getting on the bus.

The fact that the penalty for jumping the gates and getting on the tube was five bullets could demonstrate that they didn’t exactly have the man-power to prevent him getting on the train either. The police could have watched the bus blow up, what would they have learned from that?

Imagine what you’d be saying if police in New York or Washington, D.C. had shot the poor guy!
No doubt the term “cowboy” would have been thrown about quite liberally.

Ah, he comes the sobbing American contingent, moaning that its not about them! Notice you didn’t mention Los Angeles…;)
Wasn’t there a man gunned down by the police in New York and they worked overtime to try and prove he was guilty of something? Think the police threatened to go on strike when the investigation didn’t go their way. This guy wasn’t black, of course, but now the news that he was here on a student visa (expired) would appear, to some of you, to make his tragic death justifiable.

The basic lesson here is: When told to stop by armed police DO NOT under any circumstances break into a run

The fact that they had him safely pinned to the ground before shooting him dead points to the idea that he could have been shot with his hands in the air had he obeyed these shouted commands. But lets think about the men shouting at you to stop, not in uniform but in casual gear, whilst waving guns around. Would you stop and ask them what they were doing? Do you stop when driving when you hear emergency sirens and ask them where they are going?

His family are talking of suing the Met, maybe if they get a fine then we should have a whip round for them, that way it shows support for the police!

If it was you who ended up on the slab instead, would your family be benevolent enough to say that the situation was acceptable?

Was there a better option? Search me. – Nermal

Police can’t shoot to kill.

I’m an indian citizen living in India, with critical business interests in UK, my employees travel there regularly. An economic setback in UK would have catastrophic effects on my business, at the same time, one of the dark foreigners getting shot could be one of my boys. India has probably as much or more experience in fighting terrorism as israel. Given this background, here’s my opinion.

Police cannot shoot to kill without being absolutely certain. If that means a terrorist has time to blow up and kill many people, that is the price the police and society has to pay. Unlike the military where the enemy is on the other side of a clearly drawn line, police has to keep order within a civil society. If a situation has deteriorated to such an extend that the enemy has penetrated deep within, the question to ask is how did that happen and how this situation can be addressed. A cancer cannot be cured by cutting of all organs affected. There would be nothing left. The risk of a potential suicide bomber blowing up is a hard but necessary price to avoid tearing apart the country from within. Its terrible that short-sighted govt policies in UK has allowed this situation to happen, but it did not happen in a day and will not be solved in a day. From what I’m told, UK govt has been ‘liberal’ in the sense of keeping out of ‘their internal affairs’, where the ‘they’ are pretty much any group that has migrated to UK and does not harm UK itself. You cannot allow a large number of outsiders to come into UK, give them citizenship and then pretend what they do in UK and elsewhere is none of your business. By giving them citizenship, they have now become you. So your (not their) madrassas have preached hatred for many years, your (not their) people have taken part in terrorism elsewhere, your (not their) young men have become sidelined from mainstream society. You will never solve this problem by indiscriminately shooting any dark foreigner ‘just in case’!

If the white people in UK want nothing to do with others, believe me, I understand it. I’m (at the risk of being extremely un-PC) a big supporter of the freedom of any particular group of people to create an exclusivist zone and to enforce their way of life within that area, as long as they do not threaten the right of others to live their lives equally freely elsewhere. BUT, you have to advertise your intention to do so very clearly.

What you cannot do is to pretend to yourself and the rest of the world that you are an inclusivist society, but at the same time not want to get involved with others. I believe the british had rather good intentions in making UK so multicultural, but then you have to go and do it all the way through, OR you have to take a clear rigid anti-immigration stance. Either way just let the world know who you are and then be really that. What you cannot do is to close your eyes and pretend all is well and when reality comes knocking, then start shooting, still with your eyes closed.

Finally, I hope and pray that you will find the right path, whatever it is, to solving the madness that has erupted in your midst.

regards,
Dovin

From what I’ve seen here, the man was actually subdued and THEN shoot.

I don’t know how Scotland Yard does things, but here when a suspect is subdued, kicking or hitting him is a major no no, let alone pumping 5 bullets into him.

…….because, unfortunately, you can still detonate a bomb if you are subdued, the flick of a finger or wrist, the nod of a head, how do you know how the bombs are triggered, I’ll bet the police know and you don’t.

Phil

The basic lesson here is: When told to stop by armed police DO NOT under any circumstances break into a run

Based on reports, the police were undercover. So that explains why this guy ran.

Its now being reported he was on an expired student VISA and hence was running away through fear of Deportation.

And it has now immerged that he was here illegally, as his student visa ran out two years ago.

His family are talking of suing the Met, maybe if they get a fine then we should have a whip round for them, that way it shows support for the police!

I find the “police at fault” comments presented in this post rather tame.
Imagine what you’d be saying if police in New York or Washington, D.C. had shot the poor guy!
No doubt the term “cowboy” would have been thrown about quite liberally.

So accidental shootings don’t happen in the states,in the aftermath of 9/11. I wonder how many so called terrorist suspects were shot,but because the u.s police are armed and shootings happen regularly, it wasn’t reported as a terror suspect.While here in the UK, armed police on our streets are not a common sight and on a personnel note, should never be so. Accidental killings are not a regular occurrence, so calling the only people who have the BALLS to put their lives on the line to protect us and our liberty, cowboys, could be seen as derogatory.As for the posts on this thread being tame you must consider we are still reeling from an attack not from foreign nationals like the newyork attacks, but from our own lads who were not only born here, but were part of our communities.So bridges have to be built,and understandings have to be met.