Police say shoot to kill needs no warning

[peasepud 59]

Regarding that last sentence, we won't know all the facts until there has been a proper independent investigation, you are selectively citing one version of events, one that makes the police's actions look reasonable. There are various other contradictory "facts" at the minute, such as people saying he was wearing a denim jacket (not padded), that he didn't jump over any barriers, and that the police never identified themselves. It's perfectly possible the police were trigger happy in this incident, we'll have to wait and see which could take months or even years.

4644[/snapback]

 

I think thats the point though, I can post something that makes sense but based on the version of events I choose to believe. There are only a handful of people that know the full truth and they are all police. However, Im more willing to believe the official version for a number of reasons.

 

1. Numerous witnesses at the time said he was wearing a big heavy coat, I remember hearing an interview with a bloke who was on the train which was made literally minutes after the event, no time for him to be briefed or 'got at' just the words of a very shaken man.

2. I've been in too many tube stations to know that you cant get in without either a ticket or jumping the barrier. Are you saying that he went and bought a ticket while being chased?

3. Again, witnesses say they heard the police shouting, as said before, three men running with guns and not identifying themselves as police would be seen, there'd be panic and people would have been shouting this out afterwards to whoever would listen.

4. And the most important point...why? what reason would the police have to be trigger happy? they know what happens whenever they shoot someone, theres always an inquiry, always the truth comes out.

 

At some stage the truth will come out, unfortunately even when it does and all the facts show they did everything right then people will just make out that they've fiddled it, glossed over the facts and are spinning the truth. Officialdom never wins in these cases, people will always choose to believe that the world is big brother and police are there to harass us and do their own thing.

 

Thats not aimed at you personally Renton just a generalisation of certain elements of this country.

[luckyluke 1]

People want to believe the worst. The number of times he was shot goes up by the day - I heard five at first, but my mum said it was 12 the other day.

 

(much to my annoyance, she's being taken in by the 'Police are trigger happy murderers' mob as well)

[Meenzer 14082]

Surely he could have swiped his Oyster Card™?

[Renton 17841]

Regarding that last sentence, we won't know all the facts until there has been a proper independent investigation, you are selectively citing one version of events, one that makes the police's actions look reasonable. There are various other contradictory "facts" at the minute, such as people saying he was wearing a denim jacket (not padded), that he didn't jump over any barriers, and that the police never identified themselves. It's perfectly possible the police were trigger happy in this incident, we'll have to wait and see which could take months or even years.

4644[/snapback]

 

I think thats the point though, I can post something that makes sense but based on the version of events I choose to believe. There are only a handful of people that know the full truth and they are all police. However, Im more willing to believe the official version for a number of reasons.

 

1. Numerous witnesses at the time said he was wearing a big heavy coat, I remember hearing an interview with a bloke who was on the train which was made literally minutes after the event, no time for him to be briefed or 'got at' just the words of a very shaken man.

2. I've been in too many tube stations to know that you cant get in without either a ticket or jumping the barrier. Are you saying that he went and bought a ticket while being chased?

3. Again, witnesses say they heard the police shouting, as said before, three men running with guns and not identifying themselves as police would be seen, there'd be panic and people would have been shouting this out afterwards to whoever would listen.

4. And the most important point...why? what reason would the police have to be trigger happy? they know what happens whenever they shoot someone, theres always an inquiry, always the truth comes out.

 

At some stage the truth will come out, unfortunately even when it does and all the facts show they did everything right then people will just make out that they've fiddled it, glossed over the facts and are spinning the truth. Officialdom never wins in these cases, people will always choose to believe that the world is big brother and police are there to harass us and do their own thing.

 

Thats not aimed at you personally Renton just a generalisation of certain elements of this country.

4647[/snapback]

 

But what you've given there is just more speculation, there will be an independent investigation which will find the truth hopefully. Eye witness accounts are notoriously innacurate. I lost a wing mirror to a twat hit and run driver on Sunday driving back from the lake district, and although my wife was with me and we obviously both saw it, we couldn't agree on the make or even colour of the offending car!

 

Some say the victim had a heavy coat on, others say it was denim jacket, others say he had wires coming out his pockets. They can't all be right, but I do ask myself why would he be wearing a heavy coat in London in summer? Even being from Sau Paolo, he'd have been uncomfortably hot.

 

It has also been reported he had a travel pass, which he used to get through barriers legitimately. The police were plain clothed, and many witnesses say they did not announce they were police. Who's to see how anyone would react if a bunch of men with guns started running after them? Panic does strange things.

 

As for your last point, all I'm saying is that it may have been an avoidable mistake, this is what the enquiry will find. Mistakes happen, as exemplified by the chair leg incident Rob W keeps reminding us off. I'm certainly not suggesting it was a deliberate murder, but on the other hand justice to the deceased must be done, and must be seen to be done, otherwise the terrorists have won; they have changed us into a police state where the police can shoot anyone of us without fear of consequence.

 

On a broader note this is what scares me most, we can't let a few nutters change our values or the way we live, but that is what's happening already. We need a measured response to this problem, and it is vital we don't let the terrorists take from us what is most important, our freedom. OK, that was a bit Braveheart!

[Rob W 0]

You are right about eye witnesses....... I saw an accident happen right in front of me in Gosforth a while back and got one of the details wrong - and I'd have gone into court and sworn blind that I'd got it right as well

 

On the other hand there are stories that the CCTV at Stockwell "wasn't working" - which sounds a bit fishy..........................

[Isegrim 8876]

You are right about eye witnesses.......  I saw an accident happen right in front of me in Gosforth a while back and got one of the details wrong - and I'd have gone into court and sworn blind that I'd got it right as well

4709[/snapback]

 

There are loads of surveys about the problems of eyewitnesses. Here in Germany a certain kind is called "bang witnesses". This comes from car accidents (but also applies to similar incidents) when people only see the effects but will give you detailed information about what happened. They really believe that they are right.

 

There have been tests when witnesses got all kind of information wrong. Sex, hair colour, skin colour etc.

[peasepud 59]

You are right about eye witnesses.......  I saw an accident happen right in front of me in Gosforth a while back and got one of the details wrong - and I'd have gone into court and sworn blind that I'd got it right as well

 

On the other hand there are stories that the CCTV at Stockwell "wasn't working" - which sounds a bit fishy..........................

4709[/snapback]

 

Agreed it sounds fishy but at the same time how many CCTV systems do you see that actually arent working. Theres loads of them out there, set up years ago and over time nothings happened until they stop bothering to change the tapes so often, dont rush when it stops etc.

 

I want to make it clear here that my view isnt that the police will always be right on this, mistakes have been made somewhere down the line on this one. Its just I choose to believe that those policing our streets are there for our good, do a thankless job and get nowt but shite when something like this happens. I will until somebody proves me wrong believe the official line, believe that those involved were doing what they thought was best for the public and most importantly believe that the next time a bomber decides to wander down my way that somebody will be there and if required will pump as many bullets into him as needed before he can take away the lives of those I care about.

[Phil K 0]

It was part of the law though, following 9/11 it was decided that the police needed a shoot to kill policy for suspected suicide bombers. Thats when Operation Kratos was put in place, officers were trained by the SAS.

 

In all of these threads nobody has come along and said when it would be acceptable to carry out this action.. Is it after the suspect has shown hes armed? is it following reputable information?

 

For me, with the facts that have been made available I believe that the officers were justified in what they did. They (the three officers) had been told he was suspected bomber, they followed and decided to challenge, he refused to stop and legged it into a tube station. Even in there, they were shouting at him to stop and he didnt. To me the decision had to be made, they were in contact with the control room who gave the order, at that point their training kicked in and they did what they had to do.

 

I know that the answer back will be "but he didnt understand english" at that time the officers didnt know that, all they knew was Suspected terrorist, big coat, running from police, onto a train.

 

My thoughts go out to the family of the dead man, the officers concerned but more importantly to the victims of the next tube bombing who see a man run towards them being chased by police then watch helpless as he detonates because the police were too scared of the repercussions.

 

We're all experts when it comes to having hindsight and knowing the facts.

4371[/snapback]

 

Absolutely on the nose Pud. I have had snarling arguments with many of the anti-police anti-west pc brigade on political forums about this, and when I ask what the alternative is to stop a suicide bomber, there is, rather than the alternative I ask for, a stream of the usual dogma (utter pompous self-righteous arrogant shite in other words) and NO alternative.

But isnt it sick that an innocent man gets 8 bullets pumped into him while these evil, psychopathically bigotted asylum seekers are still walking around healthy and about to get the politically correct filth defending their every action ?

[Phil K 0]

Or we could try and take out the problem at source?  These guys felt justified in what they did, if you take away their justification the lunatics can't recruit.

4198[/snapback]

Lovely - so where does it end ? Where do you draw the line ? If you allow (as you seem to be suggesting) that monumentally fanatical islamic bigots to dictate this countries foreign policy - most of whom arent even sodding british remember - where do you go from there ? Can't do that the young muslims might get upset. Cant rescue those kidnapped britons. Young muslims might get upset. Young muslims are demanding we bomb Isarel - have to do as they say. Why the **** should minorities dictate to the rest

of us ? Its bad enough already with the pc mob doing just that already, dishing out jobs and grants to each other depending on if they have an "alternative sexuality", never mind kow-towing to religous bigots too.

[LeazesMag 0]

No use you defending them alex, unless drastic measures are taken [which might unfortunately involve a mistake or two] it will happen again. And again. And again.

Do you want one or two mistakes, or x amount more bombs.

4040[/snapback]

 

Or we could try and take out the problem at source? These guys felt justified in what they did, if you take away their justification the lunatics can't recruit.

 

Why don't you play that little scenario of yours above forward, where does it end up? We can't police a the underground effectively, let alone a country - even an island. Keep raising the stakes and where do you end up?

 

So we need to find a way to stop the recruitment. It isn't us vs them, I feel a lot more affinity with Joe soap on another continent than a politician in any country.

4198[/snapback]

 

What exactly are you suggesting ? Stop them getting into the country, or give in to them ?

 

You miss the point. THEY think it is us v them, not the other way round.

 

Where does it end ? Good question, where do you think it will end if we just give in to them, allow them to dictate our policy - in their favour - and so "take away their justification". Play the scenario forward indeed, and I know what I see in this country in the future if this happens, and it isn't pretty.

[adios 717]

What exactly are you suggesting ? Stop them getting into the country, or give in to them ?

 

You miss the point. THEY think it is us v them, not the other way round.

 

Where does it end ? Good question, where do you think it will end if we just give in to them, allow them to dictate our policy - in their favour - and so "take away their justification". Play the scenario forward indeed, and I know what I see in this country in the future if this happens, and it isn't pretty.

4777[/snapback]

But if we're using the terms us/them we're drawing a line somewhere.

 

Who exactly is us, who is them?

[Meenzer 14082]

Why the **** should minorities dictate to the rest

of us ? Its bad enough already with the pc mob doing just that already, dishing out jobs and grants to each other depending on if they have an "alternative sexuality", never mind kow-towing to religous bigots too.

4722[/snapback]

 

Aye, I hear you. Cancer sufferers are one minority I really can't stand. Getting all those grants for support groups from our hard-earned taxes and harping on about awareness when the vast majority of the British population are normal people without cancer. I'm sick of this PC bollocks, why should the rest of us have to suffer?

[luckyluke 1]

I'm sick of "political correctness" being seen as this manevolent evil force that is responsible for all the worlds ills.

 

I read a story in the metro that a man wasn't allowed to sweep sand from his back yard onto a beach, as authorities were worried the beach would lose its blue flag status. He said "this stinks of political correctness".

 

What the hell has political correctness got to do with sand on a beach?!

[Meenzer 14082]

Sand. Deserts. Arabs. Muslims. Minorities. Political correctness!

 

That one was easy man.

[LeazesMag 0]

What exactly are you suggesting ? Stop them getting into the country, or give in to them ?

 

You miss the point. THEY think it is us v them, not the other way round.

 

Where does it end ? Good question, where do you think it will end if we just give in to them, allow them to dictate our policy - in their favour - and so "take away their justification". Play the scenario forward indeed, and I know what I see in this country in the future if this happens, and it isn't pretty.

4777[/snapback]

But if we're using the terms us/them we're drawing a line somewhere.

 

Who exactly is us, who is them?

4834[/snapback]

 

It wasn't me who suggested "us and them" in the first instance. As it happens I think that as this is England/Britain, "they" should adapt or not bother coming, as "they" are the ones who then adopt an "us and them" attitude by the very nature of not being prepared to adapt.

 

[big political correctness debate about to start again.......]

 

I would prefer you to answer the questions though, not the sentence that wasn't one !

[adios 717]

I thought you might pick me up on that!

 

The reason I started with the us/them thing as opposed to answering your questions was to try and stick to one thread of debate as opposed to us firing 4/5 questions back and forth and just gettting in a muddle of an argument.

 

To be honest I'm not sure if an argument like this can be in anyway successful in a forum, it's nigh on impossible face to face!

 

I'll have a go at answering your questions without my usual meandering waffle:

 

Closed borders - no. Pushing cultures further apart in the long run will lead to big nasty war like scenarios - and we really can't afford world wars at this technological point.

 

Give in? Don't know how. Have they actually made any requests? If you believe this is a holy war then bowing down to Allah and rejecting our western ways would be the only way, I for one like my XBox.

 

I was deeply trying to avoid the political correct thing - it's just common sense by another name when used right (don't scream racial abuse at passers-by or laugh at people in wheel-chairs. unless they're stand up comedians), but a damaging tool when in the hands of complete tools. I recently tried to ask HTT about his strange world views on black people, politically correct to a tee - equally unthoughtout, he completely ignored my comments of course. For me that kind of thinking does as much damage as extremist ideologies going forward.

 

See what happens when I try to answer multiple questions!

 

Oh and when I said carry this scenario forward: We continue to wage what they consider an unjust war on them. Recruitment increases. They do actually become the highly organised and populated threat we would be led to believe they currently are and the west starts to look a lot like Israel with regards to police state and suicide bombers.

 

I use us to mean the West and them to mean currently the muslim population. And just for the record if we switched places they would do to us what we do to them and vice versa.

Edited July 30, 2005 by DotBum