Police say shoot to kill needs no warning

[The Fish 10849]

surely seeing someone shot dead for failing to stop would encourage other people to actually listen to the police as the alternatives could be fatal.

[Guest alex]

surely seeing someone shot dead for failing to stop would encourage other people to actually listen to the police as the alternatives could be fatal.

3989[/snapback]

Fuck me gently, his death wasn't in vain.

[The Fish 10849]

don't be a dick alex, its a tragedy that a man died because of the situation, but I hardly apportion blame to the Police. Blame the government if you want, or the Americans, but the police are doing an increasingly risky job with little or no chance of success until the larger issues have been resolved.

 

Yes his death was pointless but you have to hope that it'll prevent other people making terrible mistakes, if not then I truly have no hope for the regular joe on the street. If they're too stupid to stop when told despite seeing what is the probable outcome then they're making a very dangerous bed to lie in.

[Shearergol 0]

I must have missed it, but has anyone said why exactly the Police were watching his house in connection with the bombings? Was that a mistake too?

[Guest alex]

don't be a dick alex, its a tragedy that a man died because of the situation, but I hardly apportion blame to the Police. Blame the government if you want, or the Americans, but the police are doing an increasingly risky job with little or no chance of success until the larger issues have been resolved.

 

Yes his death was pointless but you have to hope that it'll prevent other people making terrible mistakes, if not then I truly have no hope for the regular joe on the street. If they're too stupid to stop when told despite seeing what is the probable outcome then they're making a very dangerous bed to lie in.

3996[/snapback]

Fine, but you're original point is the stupidest thing I've heard said about the whole sorry episode so far. I would have thought the authorities and in particular the police have a lot more to learn from what happened than the 'average joe'. I appreciate what you are saying and I know they are doing a very difficult job, but thew police are to blame in my view, they killed an innocent man so why shouldn't I blame them?

[LeazesMag 0]

A police source has told the Guardian that there is no need for officers to verbally warn a suspect before opening fire.

 

The source said: "If the firearms team are reasonably certain the person is a suicide bomber then there is no need to issue any warning.

 

"Experience from other parts of the world shows that if a suicide bomber knows they are being followed by police, they will detonate."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,...1536751,00.html

2544[/snapback]

 

In the time it takes you to say "hold" [rest of sentence = "your hands up"], you will be dead.

 

So it's quite right.

 

Anyway, it's the Guardian FFS !

Edited July 29, 2005 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

I've ALWAYS been worried more about the police than the terrorists

 

there's only 5-12 terrorists in the whole country but 150,000 coppers

 

And terrorists don't shoot you for carrying a chair leg from the pub, fit you up for 14 years++ inside, or drive over you at 125 mph as you try and cross the road...............................

2685[/snapback]

I read somewhere that 91% of muslims have actually condemned the bombings. Which means of course 9% in some way support them, or whatever.

 

That's a canny lot of people who agree that it's alright to bomb innocent civilians or maybe agree with the idea that although we have given them a nice country to live in, they hate us in return.

[Guest alex]

I read somewhere that 91% of muslims have actually condemned the bombings.

Source?

Which means of course 9% in some way support them, or whatever.

That's your take on it, of course it totally depends on how the questions were worded etc.

That's a canny lot of people who agree that it's alright to bomb innocent civilians or maybe agree with the idea that although we have given them a nice country to live in, they hate us in return.

4021[/snapback]

See above.

[LeazesMag 0]

I read somewhere that 91% of muslims have actually condemned the bombings.

Source?

Which means of course 9% in some way support them, or whatever.

That's your take on it, of course it totally depends on how the questions were worded etc.

That's a canny lot of people who agree that it's alright to bomb innocent civilians or maybe agree with the idea that although we have given them a nice country to live in, they hate us in return.

4021[/snapback]

See above.

4031[/snapback]

 

 

http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php?p=423

 

wouldn't normally bother, but it was quick enough to find this.

 

No use you defending them alex, unless drastic measures are taken [which might unfortunately involve a mistake or two] it will happen again. And again. And again.

Do you want one or two mistakes, or x amount more bombs.

[Guest alex]

http://www.communicateresearch.com/poll.php?id=61

2% actually supported it, which is indeed worrying. They did only asked 462 of the 1.6million (IIRC) Muslims in the UK though so it's not the most representative poll. I'm not defending terrorists and those who support their actions though.

[luckyluke 2]

According to Leazes' link 1% strongly supported the bombings...I heard there was something like a million muslims in this country...so thats 10,000 people who thought they were a good idea.

 

(can we have that smiley added please?)

[The Fish 10849]

it's simple really alex.

 

if the police didnt' shoot the man who left the house that was under observation, who then acted suspiciously, who then ran from both plain clothed and uniformed officers when they told him to stop, who then tried to board a tube... if they didn't shoot him as he was a terrorist hundreds of innocent people would have died.

 

if they'd make a mistake and shoot 1 Brazilian man dies.

If they make a mistake and don't shoot a terrorist hundreds of people die.

 

It's all to easy in hindsight to say they shouldn't have shot, but put yourself in their position, they are shouting after a man who is under suspicion and he runs for a train... howay man you cannot possibly expect anyone to believe that you would somehow have accrued enough information in the time it took to get from the house to the train, categorically stating this mans innocence.

 

You're being far too harsh on the police, they had to shoot and they had to shoot to kill, it is simply not worth the risk to try and take the man alive. split second decision meant a man died, but his decision to run put his life in other peoples hands... along side the guns they were carrying.

 

he ran because he's guilty of a crime and you can sort of understand his desire to evade capture. He obviously did not take into account the current climate in london and the risks he was taking in running away from the Police who demanding his surrender.

 

They can't shoot to wound, they can't use Tazers and they can't simply physically restrain the terrorist because the triggers can be in the hand already.

 

He didn't surrender and with every step he took towards that train, he removed more and more doubt from the pursuing officers mind.

 

if you want to blame people, how about blaming the sick deluded young men who have perpetrated acts of such horror that it is difficult to imagine that they are not mentally ill

[Renton 21568]

According to Leazes' link 1% strongly supported the bombings...I heard there was something like a million muslims in this country...so thats 10,000 people who thought they were a good idea.

 

(can we have that smiley added please?)

4050[/snapback]

 

9 individuals agrees with it, 5 of these strongly. This poll is no where near well enough powered to draw sweeping extrapolations like that, there is a real chance the survey is unrepresentative. It wouldn't surprise me if 9 people in it couldn't even read or write to be honest. Repeat it with 10.000 people and you might get your answer.

 

Incidentally, if they surveyed the white population about shooting all muslims or something, what do you think the positive response rate would be? Judging from internet forums, pretty high I would imagine.

[Guest alex]

GF, I blame the police due to their duff intelligence or, if you like, the authorities in a more general sense rather than specifically blaming the police who shot the bloke. They may have been to blame too, for example why let him travel as far as he did before approaching him etc? Hopefully the inquiry will clear that up. Top marks for the most patronising post on the new board though.

[Rob W 0]

GF, I blame the police due to their duff intelligence or, if you like, the authorities in a more general sense rather than specifically blaming the police who shot the bloke. They may have been to blame too, for example why let him travel as far as he did before approaching him etc? Hopefully the inquiry will clear that up. Top marks for the most patronising post on the new board though.

4067[/snapback]

 

 

it is NOT up to the police to decide what they can and can't do - it is up to the LAW - anything else is a genuine "police state"

 

They deliberatly killed someone - that is a murder charge

 

They can get off if they can show they were justified - but that is the point THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT in front of a judge and jury - not just issue a statement

[adios 717]

No use you defending them alex, unless drastic measures are taken [which might unfortunately involve a mistake or two] it will happen again. And again. And again.

Do you want one or two mistakes, or x amount more bombs.

4040[/snapback]

 

Or we could try and take out the problem at source? These guys felt justified in what they did, if you take away their justification the lunatics can't recruit.

 

Why don't you play that little scenario of yours above forward, where does it end up? We can't police a the underground effectively, let alone a country - even an island. Keep raising the stakes and where do you end up?

 

So we need to find a way to stop the recruitment. It isn't us vs them, I feel a lot more affinity with Joe soap on another continent than a politician in any country.

[adios 717]

surely seeing someone shot dead for failing to stop would encourage other people to actually listen to the police as the alternatives could be fatal.

3989[/snapback]

 

Problem is GF, it't that kind of Maths that can justify those bombings - collateral damage - kill a few for the greater good. Not something I can agree with!

[LeazesMag 0]

According to Leazes' link 1% strongly supported the bombings...I heard there was something like a million muslims in this country...so thats 10,000 people who thought they were a good idea.

 

(can we have that smiley added please?)

4050[/snapback]

 

it was the first link i found, and wasn't the one i saw a week ago , however I'm only making the point that there a lot more than a dozen or even a few dozen.

 

And - you say "strongly supportive". What about "reasonably supportive" or "mildly supportive"?? The figures are only there to represent a possibility of support on this issue aren't they ? They could be wildly out either side. But ignore it or go soft on them at our peril. Mistakes happen, unfortunate but they do and will again. Allowing someone to set a bomb off is a hugely bigger mistake totally.

[The Fish 10849]

Fuck me gently, his death wasn't in vain.

3992[/snapback]

 

didn't mean to patronise alex, I was responding in kind to comment above, which quoted my post, inferring that my view is laughable.

 

also this post is pretty patronising too mate.

 

 

Fine, but you're original point is the stupidest thing I've heard said about the whole sorry episode so far. I would have thought the authorities and in particular the police have a lot more to learn from what happened than the 'average joe'. I appreciate what you are saying and I know they are doing a very difficult job, but thew police are to blame in my view, they killed an innocent man so why shouldn't I blame them?

4017[/snapback]

 

 

but back to the issue, I think it's a misunderstanding, when I'm saying don't blame the police I mean the man on the street, not the intangible office he represents.

 

And even then I would not say that this arm of the government gets to decide policy, they're simply there to do th "dirty work" of politicians and policy makers. I agree that it's an absolute travesty that a man has died unnecesarily, but I cannot and will not lay blame at the feetr of the men and women who have to do a thankless job. The petty and jealous attitude that some people ( don't take that the wrong way I don't mean anyone on this board) have for the police is, in my eyes, offensive. I couldn't do their job and am frankly confused by the "damn the man" approach that people take up with the copper.

 

There are some who are bad at their job, who are pedantic or power happy as is the same in every profession. But as with every profession, if you get along with them, they get along with you.

 

I know I'm off on a tangent, but I feel it's relevant, I think that the police get a lot of bad press in this country when they are far far better than their global counterparts, we've all heard horror stories about the way European police deal with Brits on tour, and the American police are the same.

 

Our police have a responsibilty and duty to protect us. They saw the very possible risk of fatal danger to members of the public and so took the only course of action that were sure would prevent further loss of innocent life. This time they got it wrong and a man, who's crime was relatively immaterial, died. This is a terrible thing, but to then imprison good men who were doing their job to the best of their ability with as much information as they possibly could, to do this would be a sad day.

[LeazesMag 0]

GF, I blame the police due to their duff intelligence or, if you like, the authorities in a more general sense rather than specifically blaming the police who shot the bloke. They may have been to blame too, for example why let him travel as far as he did before approaching him etc? Hopefully the inquiry will clear that up. Top marks for the most patronising post on the new board though.

4067[/snapback]

 

 

it is NOT up to the police to decide what they can and can't do - it is up to the LAW - anything else is a genuine "police state"

 

They deliberatly killed someone - that is a murder charge

 

They can get off if they can show they were justified - but that is the point THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT in front of a judge and jury - not just issue a statement

4081[/snapback]

 

Remember the Gib killings Rob ?? That WAS justified, and they still ended up in court.....

 

Those lads should not have been allowed anywhere near court, they had no case to answer and the CPP should themselves have hung their heads in shame. [While their families screamed for their "rights" knowing damn well they intended to blow up innocent civilians watching a public event in the town square] Dear me. It's a shame we couldn't bang them all up as well for wasting police time. Or something.

Anything in fact.

 

It tells you a lot about the ludicrous nature of some of our laws.

[peasepud 59]

It was part of the law though, following 9/11 it was decided that the police needed a shoot to kill policy for suspected suicide bombers. Thats when Operation Kratos was put in place, officers were trained by the SAS.

 

In all of these threads nobody has come along and said when it would be acceptable to carry out this action.. Is it after the suspect has shown hes armed? is it following reputable information?

 

For me, with the facts that have been made available I believe that the officers were justified in what they did. They (the three officers) had been told he was suspected bomber, they followed and decided to challenge, he refused to stop and legged it into a tube station. Even in there, they were shouting at him to stop and he didnt. To me the decision had to be made, they were in contact with the control room who gave the order, at that point their training kicked in and they did what they had to do.

 

I know that the answer back will be "but he didnt understand english" at that time the officers didnt know that, all they knew was Suspected terrorist, big coat, running from police, onto a train.

 

My thoughts go out to the family of the dead man, the officers concerned but more importantly to the victims of the next tube bombing who see a man run towards them being chased by police then watch helpless as he detonates because the police were too scared of the repercussions.

 

We're all experts when it comes to having hindsight and knowing the facts.

[Jimbo 175]

It was part of the law though, following 9/11 it was decided that the police needed a shoot to kill policy for suspected suicide bombers. Thats when Operation Kratos was put in place, officers were trained by the SAS.

 

In all of these threads nobody has come along and said when it would be acceptable to carry out this action.. Is it after the suspect has shown hes armed? is it following reputable information?

 

For me, with the facts that have been made available I believe that the officers were justified in what they did. They (the three officers) had been told he was suspected bomber, they followed and decided to challenge, he refused to stop and legged it into a tube station. Even in there, they were shouting at him to stop and he didnt. To me the decision had to be made, they were in contact with the control room who gave the order, at that point their training kicked in and they did what they had to do.

 

I know that the answer back will be "but he didnt understand english" at that time the officers didnt know that, all they knew was Suspected terrorist, big coat, running from police, onto a train.

 

My thoughts go out to the family of the dead man, the officers concerned but more importantly to the victims of the next tube bombing who see a man run towards them being chased by police then watch helpless as he detonates because the police were too scared of the repercussions.

 

We're all experts when it comes to having hindsight and knowing the facts.

4371[/snapback]

 

 

Well said that man.

[The Fish 10849]

It was part of the law though, following 9/11 it was decided that the police needed a shoot to kill policy for suspected suicide bombers. Thats when Operation Kratos was put in place, officers were trained by the SAS.

 

In all of these threads nobody has come along and said when it would be acceptable to carry out this action.. Is it after the suspect has shown hes armed? is it following reputable information?

 

For me, with the facts that have been made available I believe that the officers were justified in what they did. They (the three officers) had been told he was suspected bomber, they followed and decided to challenge, he refused to stop and legged it into a tube station. Even in there, they were shouting at him to stop and he didnt. To me the decision had to be made, they were in contact with the control room who gave the order, at that point their training kicked in and they did what they had to do.

 

I know that the answer back will be "but he didnt understand english" at that time the officers didnt know that, all they knew was Suspected terrorist, big coat, running from police, onto a train.

 

My thoughts go out to the family of the dead man, the officers concerned but more importantly to the victims of the next tube bombing who see a man run towards them being chased by police then watch helpless as he detonates because the police were too scared of the repercussions.

 

We're all experts when it comes to having hindsight and knowing the facts.

4371[/snapback]

 

 

I wish I could have said what pud said... I'm a little too brash when it comes to this stuff...

 

sorry

[luckyluke 2]

Nail on head, pud.

[Renton 21568]

It was part of the law though, following 9/11 it was decided that the police needed a shoot to kill policy for suspected suicide bombers. Thats when Operation Kratos was put in place, officers were trained by the SAS.

 

In all of these threads nobody has come along and said when it would be acceptable to carry out this action.. Is it after the suspect has shown hes armed? is it following reputable information?

 

For me, with the facts that have been made available I believe that the officers were justified in what they did. They (the three officers) had been told he was suspected bomber, they followed and decided to challenge, he refused to stop and legged it into a tube station. Even in there, they were shouting at him to stop and he didnt. To me the decision had to be made, they were in contact with the control room who gave the order, at that point their training kicked in and they did what they had to do.

 

I know that the answer back will be "but he didnt understand english" at that time the officers didnt know that, all they knew was Suspected terrorist, big coat, running from police, onto a train.

 

My thoughts go out to the family of the dead man, the officers concerned but more importantly to the victims of the next tube bombing who see a man run towards them being chased by police then watch helpless as he detonates because the police were too scared of the repercussions.

 

We're all experts when it comes to having hindsight and knowing the facts.

4371[/snapback]

 

Regarding that last sentence, we won't know all the facts until there has been a proper independent investigation, you are selectively citing one version of events, one that makes the police's actions look reasonable. There are various other contradictory "facts" at the minute, such as people saying he was wearing a denim jacket (not padded), that he didn't jump over any barriers, and that the police never identified themselves. It's perfectly possible the police were trigger happy in this incident, we'll have to wait and see which could take months or even years.