News1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Murder is a big word
There's no way this was murder.
It may have been manslaughter - was there incompetence?
There was certainly a botched attempt at a cover up - Stories about padded jackets and jumping the barrier.
Somebody still needs to take accountability for that.
We can't have a Police force that thinks it's in the Public Interest to lie to the Public
There's no way this was murder.
It may have been manslaughter - was there incompetence?
There was certainly a botched attempt at a cover up - Stories about padded jackets and jumping the barrier.
Somebody still needs to take accountability for that.
We can't have a Police force that thinks it's in the Public Interest to lie to the Public
admarlow
Not quite.
He lived in the same block of flats as the suspect. Not with him. Where on earth did you get that one from???
He absolutely wasn't wearing a big padded jacket of any kind. Didn't you see the pictures of the body? It was a light denim jacket.
Really, it doesn't help to repeat these lies.
What we need to know from this inquest is not so much where the blame lies, but how it can be prevented from happening again. What improvements are needed in ground communication, and do we need to see a change in the way that shoot to kill operations are managed.
I don't see how the officers on the ground can be held accountable for failures further up the chain of command.
But to say, "Ah it's just an accident, never mind eh" is a bit short-sighted.
Not quite.
He lived in the same block of flats as the suspect. Not with him. Where on earth did you get that one from???
He absolutely wasn't wearing a big padded jacket of any kind. Didn't you see the pictures of the body? It was a light denim jacket.
Really, it doesn't help to repeat these lies.
What we need to know from this inquest is not so much where the blame lies, but how it can be prevented from happening again. What improvements are needed in ground communication, and do we need to see a change in the way that shoot to kill operations are managed.
I don't see how the officers on the ground can be held accountable for failures further up the chain of command.
But to say, "Ah it's just an accident, never mind eh" is a bit short-sighted.
Ad,
If I was an oficer and I believed he was going to detonate a bomb - I'd shoot.
But I'd then wonder what what led me to believe he was going to blow up the train. What went wrong? What almighty f*ck-up - on my part or someone else's - had convinced me to pull the trigger?
Rather than shunning any questions, shrugging and putting it down to a simple accident. "Hey ho."
If I was an oficer and I believed he was going to detonate a bomb - I'd shoot.
But I'd then wonder what what led me to believe he was going to blow up the train. What went wrong? What almighty f*ck-up - on my part or someone else's - had convinced me to pull the trigger?
Rather than shunning any questions, shrugging and putting it down to a simple accident. "Hey ho."
If I was one of those officers under a directive from my boss, then I would probably do the same. The fact still remains that I would have done wrong and expect an enquiry and that it wouldn't have been an 'accident'. They had followed the wrong man from his home and had a plan which went completely wrong. They thought this man 'might' be going to blow up a train and when he ran from them 'in fright' they shot him dead - 7 times in the head at point blank range!! Someone has to carry the can for all this - the person in charge of the operation.
I doubt think that many of us are in doubt 'why' JCdM was shot. However, the ****-up in the information trail must be laid at someones door.
The armed police who shot JCdM ought to have been able to use their own eyes and make a rational decision as to whether he had a bomb about his person...................especially given the nature of the bombs which had been favoured, i.e rucksacks and not belt/jacket bombs. JCdM could have been isolated and placed in a position where he would have been unable to detonate any device...............unfortunately he was shot first and then the questions were asked..........
The armed police who shot JCdM ought to have been able to use their own eyes and make a rational decision as to whether he had a bomb about his person...................especially given the nature of the bombs which had been favoured, i.e rucksacks and not belt/jacket bombs. JCdM could have been isolated and placed in a position where he would have been unable to detonate any device...............unfortunately he was shot first and then the questions were asked..........
Well I for one am pleased that we have people on the ground who are ready to take this course of action if needs be.
Can you imagine the furore if they had followed this guy and had not done anything about him and he had blown apart the tube train?
The very same people on this thread who are calling for heads to roll because he was shot, would be calling for heads to roll because he was not shot.
Can you imagine the furore if they had followed this guy and had not done anything about him and he had blown apart the tube train?
The very same people on this thread who are calling for heads to roll because he was shot, would be calling for heads to roll because he was not shot.
I don't believe it is quite that simple flip-flop.
Of course, the security forces have to act on our behalf........it's just that some of us hold them to be more accountable.
The observers failed to confirm that he actually had a bomb of any description..........
The armed officers saw nothing on his person that could have been any sort of device..........but the very fact that he had entered a train-carriage (which they had allowed) meant that there appeared to be more pressure upon them to act. They made a bad decision.......
Of course, the security forces have to act on our behalf........it's just that some of us hold them to be more accountable.
The observers failed to confirm that he actually had a bomb of any description..........
The armed officers saw nothing on his person that could have been any sort of device..........but the very fact that he had entered a train-carriage (which they had allowed) meant that there appeared to be more pressure upon them to act. They made a bad decision.......
No-one's contesting the fact that they were in a difficult position and that they were acting for our benefit. But they f*cked up. And if we didn't hold them accountable, we'd create a scenario whereby armed police officers could shoot to kill anyone at any time - safe in the knowledge they won't be challenged about it. That's not healthy is it?
Would you rather we didn't hold inquiries into the police or the armed forces? I'm sure our boys were well-intentioned at Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday and the Peterloo Massacre. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be accountable for their actions though, surely.
Would you rather we didn't hold inquiries into the police or the armed forces? I'm sure our boys were well-intentioned at Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday and the Peterloo Massacre. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be accountable for their actions though, surely.
its been a while since i read up in detail on this affair...
he was in this country illegally wasnt he?
he did run away and vault an entry barrier didnt he?
i guess if he was on the level like the rest of us he wouldnt have got shot,
the lefties on here will say that i am a terrible person for suggesting it is ok for illegals to be shot,
lets answer now then in advance,
it would save a lot of bother thats for sure....
he was in this country illegally wasnt he?
he did run away and vault an entry barrier didnt he?
i guess if he was on the level like the rest of us he wouldnt have got shot,
the lefties on here will say that i am a terrible person for suggesting it is ok for illegals to be shot,
lets answer now then in advance,
it would save a lot of bother thats for sure....
he was in this country illegally wasnt he?
Yes
he did run away and vault an entry barrier didnt he?
No and no..........
i guess if he was on the level like the rest of us he wouldnt have got shot,
It could have been almost any of us.......having been sufficiently mis-identified
the lefties on here will say that i am a terrible person for suggesting it is ok for illegals to be shot,
Not just the lefties will think that........
Yes
he did run away and vault an entry barrier didnt he?
No and no..........
i guess if he was on the level like the rest of us he wouldnt have got shot,
It could have been almost any of us.......having been sufficiently mis-identified
the lefties on here will say that i am a terrible person for suggesting it is ok for illegals to be shot,
Not just the lefties will think that........
You are right Kilkenny - it was almost inevitable. And I understand how on edge City dwellers were at that time. However, it still doesn't make it OK does it? It is only right that there should be a detailed hearing, even if the only outcome is that there are more precautions taken in future to reduce the chances of things like this happening again.
I'm not far from London and I was't tense at all. I travelled by train and bus, even after 21/7, without the slightest hesitation. I did not live in terror that any Brazilian I saw in a light jacket was trying to kill me, and did not wish armed police to burst into carriages shooting anyone they didn't like the look of. (That would have alarmed me if I'd seen it.) Most Londoners do not spend their lives cowering in fear.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
