It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Scotland Yard Issues Statment Apologizing For Shooting

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
An innocent man gets shot five times at point blank range in the back of the head by a plain clothed policeman with an automatic pistol, whilst he is being restrained on the floor by two other plain clothed police officers.

When did the police become judge, jury and executioner?




posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Guns were not pulled out until officers were on the train. The police would of shown ID because its a requirement as a member of ATS pointed out yesterday. So he knew they were police, so why run?

And especially on to a train cause police were probably thinking he was going to blow it up.

As an old saying goes, if you run from the police, your seen as guilty.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
NO BOMB LINKS TO SHOOTING

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

Sky News



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

An innocent man gets shot five times at point blank range in the back of the head

Not necessarily innocent. He was under surveillance for some reason.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   


When did the police become judge, jury and executioner?

Could this be the future?


'I am the law!'
Lets hope not.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I would have to agree with infinite
Why run, especially in a crowded
public area? That of all places is the best place to stop and ask the cops (even in plain clothes) who they are and what they want.....running just makes you look guilty, especially in todays London.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
So much for Blair's statement: "This shooting is directly linked to the on-going and expanding terrorist operation."

This is a direct result of the powers that be in Britain demanding speedy investigation results, and what it shows is just how much the terrorists' attacks are effective, for the police themselves are now too nervous and too fidgety under the pressure.

[edit on 7/23/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
If this is put down to, too much pressure on the police, Blair may introduce the army on the streets just like what happened in N.Ireland.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Well, being armed plain clothes police/agents, i just can't see them flashing their warrant card for all to see...that would compromise their cover.

I do agree that this is turning out to be a tragic 'stuff up'.

Sanc'.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not necessarily innocent. He was under surveillance for some reason.


The man wasn't under surveillance, the block of flats he lived in was under surveillance; he must have looked suspicious to the police due to his winter coat and quite possibly his ethnicity.

Running from the police shouldn't be a crime punishable by death.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by shanti23]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Well it has hit the fan now. Talk about damned if you do damned if you don't. That was not a descision I would care to make. The question that must be asked is "Do you try to apprehend a bomber as a you would a criminal?". If so then it is a police issue. "Do you remove the threat as you would with an enemy soldier as you would in combat?". In which the military needs to be handling it. I don't know the specifics about what happened, what type warnings were given, how the person acted and other varibles that would affect a shoot, no shoot situation. One thing must be considered is the fact that the people on both sides are human with the consideration of fear, excitement and other emotions influencing their actions. If it turns out that the shooting was unwarented then sanctions must be taken, but if not then the issue must be dropped. If you consider that the same scenario might happen again with a real bomber this time you do not want the shooter second guessing what happened here.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
If I was told to stop by these fine police officers, I would!:





But if I was told to stop by a man dressed like this, with an automatic weapon regardless of whether he said he was a police officer I would run like hell!:



Just how exactly could they conceal a weapon of that size and ask him to stop before producing their SA80?

I would love to see an armed policeman conceal this:


and remove it from under his jacket or from the small of his back


[edit on 23/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Dear Madam,

We Appologize for the Killing of Your Son,

But We Thought he was a Terrorist,

Since he Looked Asian - Pakistani by Birth,

And we Shot him Five Times, when he was on the Ground.

We Were Wrong.

Sincerely,

Scotland Yard.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   


Police are describing him as an “intimate accomplice of the cell”. His name and address were thought to have been found among the possessions left by the would-be bombers on Thursday.


www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanti23
An innocent man gets shot five times at point blank range in the back of the head by a plain clothed policeman with an automatic pistol, whilst he is being restrained on the floor by two other plain clothed police officers.

When did the police become judge, jury and executioner?


One shot in the head would look like an execution, this was way overboard.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Ah but the rules of engagement only allow for 'shoot to kill' if he is an imminent danger to the public. If he was a terrorist suspect that was not about to commit an imminent attack on the public then the police are not allowed to shoot him.

That link doesnt change the legality or the facts surrounding this case.

[edit on 23/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
subz, i may be wrong, but from what i've read or seen on TV, the police were carrying pistols.

Sanc'.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The footage that ive been watching all day on the BBC 24 news channel show atleast 3 armed plain-clothed officers with fully automatic weapons out front of the Stockwell police station yesterday.

I tried to get a digital copy of the images but I could only find the one above.

The only distinguishing piece of clothing the plain-clothed police were wearing were blue caps with police checker pattern on them. Presumably to identify them as police to other armed officers who might too mistak them as being a criminal or a threat.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   


subz, i may be wrong, but from what i've read or seen on TV, the police were carrying pistols.

Sanc'.


the back up squad was carrying SA80s,

the officers who did the case had pistols, eyewitness saw pistols not machine guns.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
To be honest, guy pulled a gun on me and he wasn't a uniformed Police Officer. I doubt I would stop. :|

Edit:

The Police use the MP7 if they are plain clothes so they can easily hide it.

It's the MoD weapon and slowly being put through all of the Police Force due to the size of it.

[edit on 23/7/2005 by Odium]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join