Man killed in London subway not involved in attacks, police say

Nikel,

So you are saying that if they let him go into the subway, and he blew up 100 people, that would have been the right thing to do?

How in the world can you expect to judge these police officers. Do you honestly believe that they woke up that moring and figured...lets kill someone? The route of this entire incident is fear. That man was afraid sure. But what about the police? They were most definitely afraid too. How were they supposed to know?

Your decision here...what do you do:

You are placed in the middle of 100 people. A man stands directly in front of you. He gives you an indication...or someone does...anyone, that he has a bomb. You don't now for sure. But you are the only one who can stop it....the reasons for that dont matter. He starts to avoid capture.

The choice is yours. Chance your own life and the lives of 100 others by hoping the guy is not armed. Or take him out to at the very least give the people some warning to start running.

Your decision. You don't know. All you know is that youre not the only one in the immediate vecinity of this man who may or may not have a bomb.

Oh, maybe you should also try to put this in context with the methods being used all around the world these days by terrorists. There isn't negotiation. They just kill.

Save the sarcasm?

It does not matter what occured. It wasnt as if the police were quietly following him in the distance. He was running, and the police were in CLOSE pursuit. They were right on top of the guy for quite a distance. Whitnesses claimed that there were within 5 feet of the guy. Yet he does not stop, and tried to board a subway. . HE RAN ONTO A SUBWAY RIGHT AFTER A BOMBING.

I would imagine that they had said something, you know, the police in close pursuit. But I suppose that acording to nikel and the one who does not like my sarcasm that they said nothing. Were completely quiet. The guy was, just jogging to the subway.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Sight2reality]

I would like to ask you all where exactly do you live.

I live and work in Gloucester, UK at a military establishment. That kinda makes me an everyday target - but only if they're really stupid!

But all you guys screaming about civil liberties, and all the other crap - where do you live?

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

I don't like people telling me what to do. . . .especially cops.

Why should anyone listen to the corrupt fascist murderers?

Like it or not, there are rules to be followed in (wherever you're located). If you choose to live there - you're choosing (by default, if nothing else) to live by those rules. If you'd rather not...then the easiest option might be to go somewhere else, non?

Don't get me wrong, Roy - your underlying message certainly got through; the point in this case though seems to be that the police may have either been using rules with which the public were completely unfamiliar (plainclothes gun-carrying cops aren't the usual thing in England), or operating outside of the "usual" rules.

I'm just not seeing how anarchy would be the answer to anything in this situation.

And to use your own question - why should anyone listen to you, above anyone else? Same thing backwards.

Hello Tinkleflower, I just thought I would mention that I don't expect anyone to listen to what I am saying simply because I said it. . . . I expect ideas to be judged by their content not just by who the author of the idea is. . . .

A global police state doesn't allow much room for relocation, and I feel that by staying in my own country I am not necessarily choosing to live according to the rules in that country. Some laws I obey because they are sensible, some because I am wary of punishment, and some I don't obey at all. I am entitled to live in my country even if I don't believe in Democracy and don't support the government.

Apologies for drifting off the topic