shooting to kill

[justineo]

The police have now admitted that the man shot dead yesterday was not involved with the attempted bombings but he didn't stop when ordered to and ran off carrying a bag, which potentially could have been a bomb. What can the police/special forces do in such a situation?  Was it the man's fault for not stopping?  What do you think?

[netibiza]

Of course, on the other hand, had he been an armed terrorist and the Police hadn't shot "just in case he was innocent" there would have been uproar.

[jake-the-peg]

That the guy ran doesn't matter - The fact remains that they pushed him to the ground and deliberately shot him five times in the head at point blank range. Even if he had been a bomber I can't believe MI5 would have been too happy at being denied the chance to "have a chat". At times like these catching one of these guys alive could mean the preventing another bombing.

Does anybody know if the SUN has said anything about their headline the following day - If you missed it it was " 1 down 3 to go?" - nice

[luckyboy]

Did the sun print that?..well it would not surprise me with that rags history of scraping the gutter, but even so can this rag get any lower?..

[butter1]

Last week everyone was saying "well done" to the Police..now some of you are saying they are wrong.  I feel sorry for the victim and his family but I agree that the Police were acting right.  What happens if he was a terrorist and did manage to blow up the tube...what would people be saying then?  Why didn't the Police act on this sooner?  I agree with the Police 100%.

[Grunty]

Most of us never have to make such a momentous decision in such a short time.  There were reasons for suspicion and if these reasons were correct, we would criticise the police for not firing.

The case of Harry Stanley was touched on above.  He was carrying a package which a member of the public had said was a sawn-off shotgun.  The only independent witness said he raised it in a threatening manner.  One of the shots hit his finger, damaging the fingers on each side.  The autopsy said he was facing slightly away when he was hit.  This is not the same as being shot in the back.  I have seen someone carrying something he pretended was a gun.  He was waving it from side to side, pretending to spray the bullets or shot.  It is therefore possible for him to have been facing slightly away when he was hit.

This site shows the level of consideration that was given to the decision not to prosecute.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/archive/141_01.html  

[jimmer]

hi

there needs to be a full inquiry on the actions of the police officers involved. While it must be very difficult being an anti-terrorist police officer in london at the moment they must act in accordance with the law

I agree totally with oneeyedvik. That the guy had on a big jacket and didn't stop when chased is a red herring. there are umpteen reasons why an innocent person might wear a big jacket and run when chased by big blokes with guns. You need look no further than the fact that an innocent guy was shot while wearing a big jacket and running from big blokes with guns.

I've often been known to waer a big jacket in july and while this may be a crime against fashion i don't think they should shoot me.

 

jim

[MargeB]

Jake, if anyone is wrong here, it is probably those that issued guidelines to the police. You simply cannot make the fairly fine judgement calls in this type of situation. To my mind it may have been a "mental equation that ran like":

1) Man coming from 'connected' house (in itself low probability of direct involvement in terrorism)

PLUS

2) Man refuses to stop when asked to do so by plain clothes officers (in itself low probability of direct involvement in terrorism)

PLUS

3) Man runs off into tube train (in itself low probability of direct involvement in terrorism)

PLUS

4) Man is wearing heavy overcoat on warm day (in itself low probability of direct involvement in terrorism)

EQUALS

Actually: still just "low probability of direct involvement in terrorism".You can see the Psychology at work here...mutually promoting 'hunches' quickly build up into a strong belief, despite actual low statistical probability). To the mind of the officers at the scene, when they are on the train with him, this man is a 'suicide bomber', and thus is shot. Whereas in fact, the evidence just fails to properly support this.

Under normal circumstances this situation would not have arisen. I think the police 'carte blanche' for shoot-to-kill at suicide bombers has made some of them think 'it lowers the threshold for threat appraisals'.

The changes to prevent this have to be made above the level of officers on the street.

[luckyboy]

he was brazilian london in july would seem cold to a south american anyway..so hence the coat...

[Chillum]

If the undercover guys out there today are given the same instructions about someone else, and the same things happen, today, tomorrow or next week. I want the suspect shot and killed outright.

[jake-the-peg]

I think we need to know exactly what rules of engagement the police were operating under.

Yes they do a difficult job in difficult times but we have the right to expect the highest standards.

Had the Police shot him as he ran down the station I would have totally supported them.

But I find it hard to believe that as he was tackled to the floor it was necessary or desirable to shoot him.

Like I said if he had been one of the bombers he'd have been of little intelligence use dead.

I'm sure the investigation will be sensitive to the circumstances but it needs to concentrate on what rules of engagement were/are in effect and the decision to shoot.

Most worryingly there seem to be senior police coming out of the woodwork saying that more incidents like this may happen. That is perilously close to saying that they may have to kill a number of innocent people to get the bombers and that is just not an acceptable position for the police this country.

[Jooleebobs]

I would like to know why the police had not apprehended this guy earlier. They had been following him since he left the house they were watching and also allowed him to take a bus ride, it was only when he entered the tube station that they decided to challenge him. If the policy is shoot to kill to protect why did they wait? What if he had been planning to detonate his bomb on the bus as opposed to the tube.

That said, I am glad I am not in the position of these firearms officers who have to make life or death decisions in the blink of an eye. 

[MargeB]

Maybe they had no good intelligence or legal reason to stop him...he was only seen coming out of the house. You tail him to find out who he is in contact with.

Turns out that his student visa expired, may explain why he bolted...

[butter1]

turns out that the man's visa had run out and that's why he didn't stop and ran.

[netibiza]

At the end of the day, you have to realise that the Police are, after all, protecting the public - what more can you ask? It's not a perfect world.

[Bob Carter]

A most interesting thread. I feel we've been here before. Go to Google and put in 'Blair Peach' or 'Death on the Rock'.

This guy was shot eight, count 'em, eight times. That's not a shoot to kill policy, that's just trigger happy. Everybody involved in this bungled operation should be brought to book and made responsible. I'm saddened by the posts which say the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. This incident doesn't bear the hallmarks of an intelligence-led operation ... it looks much more like police officers taking revenge. And if investigations show that these men do not have the character to put personal feelings aside when carrying firearms then they should not be allowed on the streets with a truncheon, let alone an automatic weapon.

We do not have the death penalty in this country and hopefully it will never return. But to allow police officers to act as judge, jury and executioner on the streets is wrong, wrong, wrong. The terrorists who have masterminded the outrages in London must be delighted. They want to see the rule of law broken down and who better, from their point of view, to do it than the police.

Finally one question. If they were so convinced this man was carrying a bomb then why let him in a tube station in the first place?

[birdy72]

My initial response to this shooting on Friday was that the person may have been involved in the wole shebang, and if he wasn't, why on earth did he run? I know the police are trying to protect the public and acted on the spur of the moment, but do they have the correct investigative training/information? How many other residents (unconnected to the bombings) lived in the same block that was under surveillance??

The saddest thing is that once he was identified yesterday I realised I knew him, having worked with him several times over the past few weeks... We all don't know what really happened because there are conflicting eyewitness reports, but yes he spoke very good English and he was a very friendly and approachable person - maybe he freaked out and panicked, and if so, in the current climate, the police had to act somehow if there were suspicions (although I'm sure if you pin someone down first you can do something far more consturctive than take their life away). I

I am trying not to form any particular opinions until we know all the facts and have seen the CCTV reports - if he ran after being challenged and warned from the police then he took a huge risk with his life - I really don't think that anyone would keep running from ARMED police if they were worried because they were on an illegal visa (if that is the case), or because they are used to 'gunland' Brazil - he had lived here long enough to know London is different. Unfortunately we will never get his side of the story. A huge loss and I feel so much sorrow for his family and friends.  xxx

[gemmabe]

Yes 8 times he was shot. I don't think trigger happy is the right description. The police who shot him were so sure he was a scumbag terrorist - if I had the chance to shoot dead a terrorist you'd have to drag me off.

I've today thought of times when someone approaches you, like a police officer, and you immediately assume it's because of whatever trivial (in comparison) thing you did wrong - unpaid parking ticket, underage sex - your stomach goes over and you panic that they are now coming to discipline you for.

It looks as if the guy ran because his visa had expired. I don't think he considered the fact that he was being wrongly pursued, mistaken for a terrorist, even when he ran into the underground (otherwise, surely, he wouldn't have ran in there!). If he had have thought, through the panic, that he "may" have looked suspicious...

The poor, poor man thought he was going to have the book thrown at him for his expired visa. Tragedy is not strong enough a word.

However, I do believe the police acted the best they could have under the circumstances - they truly thought this man was about to murder dozens or more - he had to be stopped.

The only people we can blame are the real terrorists.

[MargeB]

Birdy72, I'm sorry to hear of your loss. I know people go on about how this seems something of an own goal for the police, but ultimately and most importantly, an innocent man has lost his life.

Bob Carter, have to say I disagree with most of what you say. Hindsight is a great thing. It's just a fact of reality that we have to work with the limited information we have at the time, and no decision is perfectly informed. This doesn't mean the decision is wrong. In an ideal world, yes, a judge would make the decision about whether or not to even stop the man. So how should we bring this ideal to bear? Try and coax a man like this back out of the tube while we ring up some judge to come down and question him?

Eight bullets does not mean trigger happy. It shows the reason why they shot...to kill him. Eight, one, five, whatever, it was a shot to the head to kill. On the basis that he was acting to their eyes, just like a suicide bomber.

We have to work with what we've got.

[Peterhouse]

I don't understand the problem people have with the fact that the policeman unloaded eight bullets into his head. The effect would have been no different if only one bullet was fired. The policeman was shooting to kill, the amount of lead he used appears to me to be of little consequence.

Whether or not the killing was justified is a difficult questions, as of course we now know that the man was not a bomber. I believe that the police had little option given the circumstances. The man had a suspicious appearance with the overcoat, and decided to run away. However, as the police were in plain clothes I think it is likely that the man was confused. As he was foreign the man may not have understood the shouts of the police.

I think that this is just an unfortunate incident caused by confusion, and that there is no guilty party. However, I do think that armed police should be uniformed to avoid further confusion, but this is impractical whilst trailing.

A real toughie this.

[MargeB]

I agree, police should be uniformed, except the undercover ones. Good point pete.