The British government has admitted that the man they shot in the train station was innocent.  Unlike
the method used in the US, they didn't stall for weeks, months, or years, trying to come up with
reasons, or falsehoods to justify the mistake.  It is a lesson our government should learn.

I'm waiting for the full story on this.

Why did he run when asked to stop? Was he carrying a backpack? Did the police honestly think he was terrorist and could possibly set off another explosion and would killing him prevent that ?

Do you mean "government" or "police"? Do you see them both as one and the same?

I'm waiting for the full story on this.

Why did he run when asked to stop? Was he carrying a backpack? Did the police honestly think he was terrorist and could possibly set off another explosion and would killing him prevent that ?

Do you mean "government" or "police"? Do you see them both as one and the same?




I don't know the whole story, but the English police do, and they are the ones who said they made
a mistake and have apologized to the family.  The police are a governmental entity.

I thought that learned from the U.S.-shoot first, ask questions later.




Cat

IMO, he shouldn't have run.  He obviously had something to hide if he ran from the police.
It has been announced that his Student Visa had expired and that is the assumed reason he ran from the police.

IMO, he shouldn't have run.  He obviously had something to hide if he ran from the police.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

No, but if the police say "Stop" and you run, IMO, they have the right to do whatever they need to to stop you.  Now, 5 bullets in the head is a bit excessive.  Let's say that this guy WAS a terrorist and got away, you'd have people saying "they should've shot him".  It's a lose-lose situation.


But they already had him on the ground, subdued, unable to move when they shot him.  That is my
understanding of it.  One of the eyewitnesses on the news said they were shocked because five
police had him restrained on the ground when one of the cops fired five bullets in his head point
blank.

But they already had him on the ground, subdued, unable to move when they shot him.  That is my
understanding of it.  One of the eyewitnesses on the news said they were shocked because five
police had him restrained on the ground when one of the cops fired five bullets in his head point
blank.


The cops were all plain cloths.  Its not clear that they announced themselves as cops, and even if they did, I'm not sure I would stop.  There have been several instances here, in lil' ol' Vermont of people pretending to be cops for nefarios (I love that word) purposes.

Several of the onlookers have said to the press/BBC that they knew the armed men were police, presumably from warnings shouted as they were plain-clothes.

As has been pointed out in another forum I frequent, if the guy hadn't decided to run into the Underground (which has been bombed twice as we're all aware, as well as being dressed in an unseasonably padded coat, having come out of a house the police had under surveillance), he'd probably still be alive.  As it is, I can see why the police decided they had to shoot to kill.  I may not like it, but I can see why.

On the news tonight, they said he'd been hit with eight bullets: one in the shoulder and seven in the head.  ISTM that they really *were* worried that the guy might have explosives packed around him.

No, but if the police say "Stop" and you run, IMO, they have the right to do whatever they need to to stop you. Now, 5 bullets in the head is a bit excessive. Let's say that this guy WAS a terrorist and got away, you'd have people saying "they should've shot him". It's a lose-lose situation.


This is exactly what my friends and I decided last night.  This guy had been under surveillance in his flat apparently.  The police then followed him as far as the underground station and challenged him just inside the entrance.  He then ran away, vaulting the ticket barrier, and jumped onto a train.  The advice from other police used to dealing with suicide bombers and other terrorists is that you then have to stop them.  Not just disable them with an arm or leg shot but stop them completely.  Now, ideally, the police should have prevented the situation escalating as far as it did IMHO but since it went that far (i.e. potential bomber on a crowded train) then it had to be stopped quickly.

You are right it is a lose lose situation.Personally I agree with those of the press who cannot understand why the police let him get on a bus if they were so worried about him, there have been two bus bombers so surely they should have stopped him then before he even got to the tube station.Also I do think 7 bullets to the head is way too much, but then I guess in the heat of the moment with adrenaline pumping it must be easy to just empty a barrel into somebody without even realising you've done it.

Personally I agree with those of the press who cannot understand why the police let him get on a bus if they were so worried about him, there have been two bus bombers so surely they should have stopped him then before he even got to the tube station.


This is the thing that troubles me about the whole affair...

Personally I agree with those of the press who cannot understand why the police let him get on a bus if they were so worried about him, there have been two bus bombers so surely they should have stopped him then before he even got to the tube station.

Pure speculation here, of course, but I wouldn't mind betting that he changed from being "vaguely suspicious" to "probable terrorist" only at the point where he vaulted the ticket barrier and headed onto a train: when he looked like he was headed onto the underground, the suspicion level increased so they challenged him ... then he bolted, and the rest is history.

Did he jump the barrier before they started to chase him or after?

But they already had him on the ground, subdued, unable to move when they shot him.  That is my understanding of it.  One of the eyewitnesses on the news said they were shocked because five police had him restrained on the ground when one of the cops fired five bullets in his head point blank.


Well, you might need to understand some of the other facts that caused this in the first place.

The man lived in the same building as a suspected terrorist suspect.  He was spotted leaving, and because of the poor quality of the photograph, the detectives thought it was him.  They are the same height, same hair color, same general body build.

In addition, in the middle of July, he left wearing a heavy coat.  That alone is suspicious.

When he was ordered to stop, he instead ran away.  He not only ran away, he ran straight for a subway car!  After the 2 strings of bombings, it is no wonder that they wanted to stop him in any way before he had a chance to "detonate".

Now why shoot him multiple times in the head?  Because some of the evidence pointed to the fact that some of the plotters were working on making "suicide coats".  Those are a form of weapon that have been used in Israel for years.  Basically you line a coat with explosives, making it harder to detect and remove then if the person simply had a backpack full of explosives.  They often have "deadman switches", and other triggers to detonate if they are removed.

Now if you suspect somebody is wearing a "suicide jacket" under a heavy jacket, the last thing you want to do is shoot him in the torso!  And you shoot for the head, because it is the most sure way to kill him before he can detonate.

If this gentleman had simply stopped when asked, not run towards the subway car, or not worn his heavy jacket, this likely would not have happened.  But he made so many stupid mistakes (in a time of heightened tension and stress) that law enforcement was left no other choice.

And let's flip this a second.  What if he was a terrorist with an explosives jacket?  What if they did not try to stop him, and he detonated in the train?  What if they shot him in the torso, igniting the explosives?  Then people would be screaming that they let a terrorist kill people, and did nothing to stop it.  This is a Catch-22 situation if I ever saw one.

No, but if the police say "Stop" and you run, IMO, they have the right to do whatever they need to to stop you.  Now, 5 bullets in the head is a bit excessive.  Let's say that this guy WAS a terrorist and got away, you'd have people saying "they should've shot him".  It's a lose-lose situation.

excessive but good marksmanship

excessive but good marksmanship
There's nothing good about it when a man is laying pinned down at your feet ! Even the greenest rookie could have shot him in the head from that range. 

Second guessing the police is never a good thing.

Last thing we need is CNN to play none-stop "the hateful, white, abusive police" coverage like during the Rodney King fiasco.

Second guessing the police is never a good thing.



That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Second guessing the police is never a good thing.
Are the police always right?

Last thing we need is CNN to play none-stop "the hateful, white, abusive police" coverage like during the Rodney King fiasco.

Puerile flapdoodle spoken like Bernie Goldberg.  Perhaps you would prefer a "fair and balanced" analysis panel on FOX, like the one that's on RIGHT NOW, Ann Coulter and Michael Reagan!
:D ;D