NEWS: Scotland Yard Issues Statment Apologizing For Shooting

Originally posted by subz
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]

I think you've just answered your own question there! ....you can't conceal a weapon like that - he was being followed on foot, therefore his followers would be around the general public......with that kind of survelliance the targets first point of contact would be a handgun.....the people with the guns like the photos show only made themselves known after the ---- hit the fan.

As for the lad that was shot - i feel just as sorry for the shooter!....a split second decision on the best way to deal with a potentaial suicide bomber whilst on a packed tube train!!!!......what a nightmare decision to have to make!

(edit =please dont try to beat censors,use another word)

[edit on 23-7-2005 by asala]

Obviously if they were in plain clothes and on the scene they were the surveilance team.

You would think, those being the closest to the suspect, would be the ones that first demanded he stopped. You would also think that it would be these men the individual would start running from.

Im not saying that this guy that ran was running for those reasons. Im saying that if I was confronted with men with machineguns and no uniform, I too would run from them. Irrespective of whether they said they were police, whats to stop armed criminals from impersonating plain-clothed police officers? Nothing.

Im harping on about it because its unnecessary to have plain-clothed with automatic weapons PURELY because of how it could cause panic or be misconstrued as a threatening situation (criminal) and cause some one to flee.

Point taken, subz...but one would assume that all police at the scene were aware of the 'sit' rep'.

In this case, maybe not.

Sanc'.

It's too bad the police killed innocent person...
It's still not clear if the policemen ordered him to stop and showed him the IDs(because they where in plain clothes,not uniformes)...If they followed the procedures,they have done the right thing,given the situation...
For all my opponents yesterday,who still don't get it,that what Israel is doing is exactly what GB do...just one thing:

"When You Touch -----,don't be so surprised you smell like one!"

(edit- please do not try and beat the censors-use another word)

[edit on 23-7-2005 by asala]

If he was under surveilence then it's not likely they would have had dozens of armed cops in their bright shiny uniforms miiling around in front of the address. We may find that we adopt the tactic of having armed plain clothed police on our transport systems and other public places much as they do in Israil, again blame the idiots for creating this situation in the first place.

A situation developed, they made a judgement call and it may have been the wrong one, but quite frankly if he is in any way connected to any terrorist organisation then I have zero sympathy, this is something our police force have had very little in the way of experience dealing with (the IRA were a completely different ballgame) and I'm staggered by the rush to judgement.

Well apparently the officers in question could face criminal charges. According to BBC news any way.

Also:

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

Shot man not connected to bombings

Now you would assume that uniformed officers were not present before this occurance. It raises serious questions.

#1 Why was he allowed to get near the Underground before they exercised their 'shoot to kill' policy?

#2 It shows that he started running from plain-clothed police officers. Which is the whole point I was making earlier. It is forgiveable and not as though this man irresponsibly ran from police, he ran from men with guns

[edit on 23/7/05 by subz]

I'll take the legal point of view:

If they pulled their guns and didn't pull the badges, they didn't have the right to shoot him. If they pinned him down and didn't display the badge and he was struggling, they didn't have the right to shoot him.

They legally had to pull the badge before telling him to stop. You have to know they are a Police Officer for them to be able to "Stop and Search" you or "arrest" you. Even under the Terrorism Act.

Originally posted by Odium
I'll take the legal point of view:

If they pulled their guns and didn't pull the badges, they didn't have the right to shoot him. If they pinned him down and didn't display the badge and he was struggling, they didn't have the right to shoot him.

They legally had to pull the badge before telling him to stop. You have to know they are a Police Officer for them to be able to "Stop and Search" you or "arrest" you. Even under the Terrorism Act.

Ah but how close would they get to a suspected suicide bomber to show their badge? If you saw the footage of how they treat the guy outfront of Downing Street on Thursday, you'd see they didnt get within 20 feet of him before confronting him.

I'd still run, its a precarious issue. One that should be responded to by an immediate end to automatic-weapon-armed under cover police officers. Purely for the panic and undue risk of suspects fleeing for fear of their own saftey. The police have a right to defend themselves but they should only have pistols, after all our "normal" police do not even carry those.

[edit on 23/7/05 by subz]

One in front, two behind.

Guy in front pulls badge, other two grab the guys arms and restrain him.

Should have been how it was done from my understanding of PACE.

Unconfirmed reports are that this man may be South American believed to be possible from Brazil...

This is unconfirmed but news stations are started to report this,


Source: Skynews tv.

Originally posted by asala
Unconfirmed reports are that this man may be South American believed to be possible from Brazil...

I've read reports that the police in Brazil are very trigger happy. So, this might account for the guy running away even if he did think they were police.

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?

Do you have anything to back this statement up or is it just conjecture?

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by asala
Unconfirmed reports are that this man may be South American believed to be possible from Brazil...

I've read reports that the police in Brazil are very trigger happy. So, this might account for the guy running away even if he did think they were police.

en.wikipedia.org...

In Brazil, death squads are known to have killed poor people, such as homeless children, in Brazilian cities, simply to get rid of these 'undesirables', or as a form of extrajudicial policing (police are known to have been involved in death squads).

well Stockwell, Tulse Hill parts if not all of these areas are pretty rough. Drug dealers are around, and maybe thats why he was being monitored.
If thats true, being a drug dealer, he probably wouldnt stop in front guys with guns, even if they claimed to be 'cops.'
That i think is one possiblity.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by AdamJ]

Originally posted by JIMC5499

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?

Do you have anything to back this statement up or is it just conjecture?

"I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers. One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him, and unloaded five shots into him.”

Eyewitness Mark Whitby speaking to BBC news.

You can stream his statement to the BBC news from their website; however, there is no direct link.
It is under Video and Audio under the heading: Latest Reports, on the right-hand side menu.
news.bbc.co.uk...

A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Innocent until proven guilty; here we have a case of guilty before proven innocent.

If he was considered such a threat, then why wasn't he apprehended by uniformed officers before he approached the tube station, especially considering the fact that he was under observation prior to arriving.

This is starting to look like a gung ho approach to an otherwise extremely sensitive and potentially dangerous situation, the first rule should always be to call for support and not attempt to tackle the situation on your own.

But then is that what they have been told?

"If you see someone suspicious, shoot them in the head!"

[edit on 23-7-2005 by shanti23]

The Brits need to think this over. Is this a police or military matter? I'd really hate to tackle a guy with a Semtex T-shirt. Anybody see the movie Airport or Speed? The bomber in Airport had a piece of plastic between the jaws of a spring clothespin with a couple thumbtacks for a detonator. A yank on the string and Kaboom. Speed had Dennis Hopper with a grip detonator just let go and kaboom. If these guys go to a grip detonator then shooting them won't work. This a Catch 22 damned if you do and damned if you don't and the media waiting to second guess you. No matter what you do you are wrong.

All this talk about how bad it made things. Maybe in a way these shootings put some fear into those amateur bombers, like 'we mean business'. Sure the suicide bombers don’t care (as they are gonna die anyway), but as for those amatures, that must have installed some fear in them.

I don’t know about you, but I believe maybe 25% of what I read. And if it’s from some “authoritative source”, then I believe even less.

At any rate, if what I understand is correct, that is, if the police had this guy on the ground and had his hands restrained, then I don’t understand the point of pumping 5 rounds into the guy’s head and body. Is that in itself supposed to stop the bomb from detonating? How lame can you get?

It seems to me that this is not the manner in which a professionally trained team should have handled this. These “professionals” are the ones who are supposed to keep their heads when the citizenry is unable to keep theirs. If the guy was restrained, then I see no reason for administering “hot justice” in the way it appears they did. It protected the life of no one, and was a matter of cops playing the role of judge, jury and executioner. This is NOT civilized behavior. IMHO, this is no better behavior than that of those you label as “animals”, “uncivilized” and “murderous”.

But then, I think there’s a fine line between those who consider themselves “civilized” and those who they consider are not. Let’s face it, we’re all a bunch of crazed animals when it gets down to it. What is right and wrong just depends on the side you take.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of terrorism or violence. I just think there’s a right way of dealing with these things and a wrong way. Giving police complete authority to shoot and kill at their own discretion is not, IMHO, the right way. I feel for the dead man and his family and friends.



[edit on 7/23/2005 by netbound]

Originally posted by Bacterial
All this talk about how bad it made things. Maybe in a way these shootings put some fear into those amateur bombers, like 'we mean business'. Sure the suicide bombers don’t care (as they are gonna die anyway), but as for those amatures, that must have installed some fear in them.

I personally think this sends out the exact opposite message, as in halfway house terrorists, people undecided as to whether to carry out an attack are more likely to be pursuaded its the right thing to do against 'criminals/infidels'. With this incident, in their minds, it's just another example prooving their beliefs.

Like you said suicide bombers are dying for the cause anyway, and 'amateur bombers' are pretty much giving up their life, bound to be caught soon after they carry out an attack(spending the rest of their lives in prison), so unless they fancy that option they may as well do a suicide bomb themselves.

Thus I would expect more attacks by the 4 'amateur bombers' from thursday real soon, suicide or not.

yesterday it was a conspiracy theory to believe this guy was innocent, or the police used unneccessary lethal force, and common view about this incident on the forum was, shooting him to death was the most right thing to do. now it is a reality. Im sure you you followed this thread about it.

it must be a really horrible way to die. without knowing what is going on while even the other people are running away from you for no apparent reason

this is why some rules are put to use. if cops would go 5 headshots to every suspect, without wearing a uniform and apparently stating they are actually cops and being sure the suspect gets the message, then we wouldnt need any birth contol method ever.

however because of the fear factor that is induced to biritish public and security forces by the recent events, it is easier for the cops to lose control. it is once again proven that fear leads to dark side.