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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:
xu

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
that could explain why he did run away when he was warned, possibly. however living in a country illegaly means you dont really mix-up with that countries social and cultural life. and I have heard of people living in a foreign country and dont know a single word of the language, they group up and form their own community where they speak their mother language and live in ignorance isolated from the country they live in.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
If he was under surveillance, then why wasn't he apprehended when he left the house?
If he was considered to be a suicide bomber, why was he allowed to board a bus?
Who authorised the shooting?
What was the exact warning given by police?

It is clear that the gross incompetence of the Metropolitan Police is directly responsible for the unnecessary and violent death of this innocent man.

A shoot to kill policy is being enforced on the streets of London and they have been told to shoot suspicious looking people in the head.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

People need to stop pretending that they don't know that 99.9% of this is being done by (radical) muslims.


Since the new terroists laws were introduced in england, the majority of people convicted under the law were either U.D.A. members or members of the REAL I.R.A. Only 3 people have been convicted under the terroism act connected to any islmaic movement so far, and it was for having islmaic litreature, or fund raising for islmaic movements nonce were for any act of terroism. If you look at the statistics on who is more capable of deploying the bombs on the 7/7, the irish are much more capable than a few radical islmaists.
So no profiling for terroism is wrong and injust.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by wang]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
The Neo Nazi nail bomber around london was arrested under the terrorism act

[edit on 25-7-2005 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
BBC24 have confirmed that he was in the country illegally


If that is true then his mother and family were lying when they stated he was in the country legaly. Very interesting development.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
BBC24 have confirmed that he was in the country illegally



If he was on an expired visa, that's certainly interesting...but it is even relevant to the topic?

Source

Does it make a difference?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by shots
BBC24 have confirmed that he was in the country illegally



If he was on an expired visa, that's certainly interesting...but it is even relevant to the topic?

Source

Does it make a difference?


Well...seeing as everyone here slating the Police has the befit of hindsight, I think i will use it as well:

If he had buggered off home when he was supposed to, then he wouldn't have been at Stockwell station on the 22nd July 2005 acting like a muppet and running away from armed Police. Therefore, with hindsight, he would be alive and living happily back in Brazil.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

If he had buggered off home when he was supposed to, then he wouldn't have been at Stockwell station on the 22nd July 2005 acting like a muppet and running away from armed Police. Therefore, with hindsight, he would be alive and living happily back in Brazil.


Oh come on, stu


An expired visa can be restamped very easily - an expired visa is usually considered more of an oversight than any major criminal act. What you're suggesting can be applied to any situation:

If my ex hadn't have been shopping in a certain Irish town whilst trying to avoid the CSA 15 years or so ago, he wouldn't have been killed during a shoot-out.

If (insert name) hadn't have been trying to see his mistress one morning instead of going to work, he wouldn't have been injured during the train explosion.

Retrospect is 20/20 vision; that's why it's much easier to comment on what could have or would have been - it's easier that way for many people, as we don't have to face the reality of what did happen.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   


Retrospect is 20/20 vision; that's why it's much easier to comment on what could have or would have been - it's easier that way for many people, as we don't have to face the reality of what did happen.


Exunctly!!!


I have been saying on this thread for a few days now, the Police acted in what they thought was a highly dangerous situation and had little time to mull over the possibilities, what-ifs and maybes..

The guy had pegged it from Police, wearing a padded jacket, into a crowded Underground station during a time of hightened security and tension, ignoring all pleas to halt and surrender.

I feel for the guys family, but do they seriously expect it NOT to have happened given the available information on what happened that day?





[edit on 25/7/05 by stumason]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
News just in from the police commision, the man was shot 8 times not 5



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Thats just the point Stu, in those situations hindsight is not available. Split second judgements have to be backed up with crystal clear training and plans.

Having plain clothed police with automatic weapons is not a clever idea. It should of been ruled counter productive when applied to stopping suspects for the reasons I mentioned.

The police are not above criticism and the criticism should be taken as its intended, to increase the protection the police force already gives us. Its to ensure the police can do an even better job of protecting us. Its not to be taken as "cop bashing" and Sir. Ian Blair has said exactly the same thing when talking about the police inquiry thats going to take place. Is that police inquiry also cop bashing?

We need to accept that what happend is not acceptable and if ANYTHING can be improved upon then we should find it. We wont find it by just glossing over the incident and laying 100% of the blame on the Brazilian guy.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by asala
News just in from the police commision, the man was shot 8 times not 5




source



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
We need to accept that what happend is not acceptable and if ANYTHING can be improved upon then we should find it. We wont find it by just glossing over the incident and laying 100% of the blame on the Brazilian guy.


Suz you are in the minority and most Brits disagree with you in fact over 72% were in favor of what the police did and say no review is needed.

Here are the poll results:
Shoot to kill: Should the policy be reviewed?
Expires:30 Jul 2005
Yes 27.81% (4,262 votes)

No 72.18% (11,060 votes)

Total: 15,322
Source was SkyNews www.sky.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Thats funny, I could of sworn I said I supported the shoot-to-kill policy



Originally posted by subz
I would of immediately called for uniformed police to approach and stop the man. If he then ran I'd of told them to shoot him as soon as they could.

Leaving it to plain clothed officers and until he actually got onto a train to kill him is just irresponsible and does not ensure the saftey of the public.

The fact that he was shot is not my beef, its the circumstances and not the decision.

I dont think im in the minority at all actually. I just think our police could do their job better if they reviewed their armed plain clothed officers. Just exactly why do we have uniformed officers? Is it because they look cool or that we are conditioned to do as they damn well say? People in plain clothes on the other hand...



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Thats funny, I could of sworn I said I supported the shoot-to-kill policy



Originally posted by subz
I would of immediately called for uniformed police to approach and stop the man. If he then ran I'd of told them to shoot him as soon as they could.

Leaving it to plain clothed officers and until he actually got onto a train to kill him is just irresponsible and does not ensure the saftey of the public.

The fact that he was shot is not my beef, its the circumstances and not the decision.

I dont think im in the minority at all actually. I just think our police could do their job better if they reviewed their armed plain clothed officers. Just exactly why do we have uniformed officers? Is it because they look cool or that we are conditioned to do as they damn well say? People in plain clothes on the other hand...


OK...

Even though I still think the buy was a moron for running....

I agree with subz on the point that at the point of challenge, the police should have been visibly police. that certainly would clear any further confusion and prevent further "mistakes"



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Hey, if you were a bunch of terrorists, and there were a bunch of uniformed police outside your doss, what would YOU do?

DE



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
OK...

Even though I still think the buy was a moron for running....

I agree with subz on the point that at the point of challenge, the police should have been visibly police. that certainly would clear any further confusion and prevent further "mistakes"

Exactly!

If we are to have such an extreme policy of shoot-to-kill incoporated into our metropolitan police forces we should go to extreme lengths to ensure no cock ups occur. Its just common sense that there is a certain chance that people will mistake armed police in civilian clothing for criminals. We are not conditioned to stop for armed civilian men if we think we can make a getaway.

Especially given the fact that the shoot-to-kill policy is for suspected suicide bombers. Not exactly the type of people you will get close enough to to show them your badge.

We hear about how its split second, life and death decisions that these police go through in situations like this, I accept and agree with that. But we also have to understand that this man made a split second, life and death decision when he was aproached with men with guns. Did he have 5 minutes to think "hmm yeah these are highly likely to be police. Given the fact that they are in plain clothes could well be that they are surveiling me because I..." give me a break. Who thinks like that?

All I know os that I'd of run under those circumstances and the fact that I could of been shot by police for such an easily avoidable scenario angers me some what. If you're going to have armed police make sure they are in uniform. Simple.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Hey, if you were a bunch of terrorists, and there were a bunch of uniformed police outside your doss, what would YOU do?

DE


I probably didn't make myself too clear.

Sorry, I have been down the pub.

Whilst the surveilance dudes should have been undercover, at the point of challange or arrest the police should have been visible to the challengee.

By all means, tail the suspect, but perhaps to avoid confusion, they should have been quite clearly police, just in case the person they challenge is a plonker.

my opinion still stands is that this dude deserved it, as he should have stopped, but in the future, perhaps they could be more visible.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Hey, if you were a bunch of terrorists, and there were a bunch of uniformed police outside your doss, what would YOU do?

Surveil them with plain clothed officers. They dont need to be carrying MP7's though do they? They could still even carry pistols for personal protection.

The point is, as Stu mentioned, that uniformed officers should of been the ones to stop the suspect. If he then fled from uniformed officers then blow him away for all I care.

Lets not forget though that they suspected him of being a suicide bomber YET he was allowed to board a BUS and then proceed to the Underground train station. If he was that much of a suspect why the hell did they allow him on a bus? Werent buses targeted by suicide bombers previously?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I agree with subz on the point that at the point of challenge, the police should have been visibly police. that certainly would clear any further confusion and prevent further "mistakes"


That is being unrealistic given the fast changing conditions. Police at times have to remain undercover so they can watch people unoticed especially when they are on a surveliance rather then normal duty assignment.

The way you and subz make it sound is as though there should be no undersover agaents; again unrealtisic to ask all police to let the public know they are police. That would screw up the whole purpose of undercover officers



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join