Man running from police shot dead in London

bullrunner

Macros42 wrote:

I'm going to keep saying this until someone listens. His innocence or guilt is not in question here. The method of his execution is.

i agree...especially with the way you worded it as 'execution' (i dont mean that in a sarcastic way)

The Gnome

Where's Judge Dredd when you need him eh?

seamus

bullrunner wrote:

i agree...especially with the way you worded it as 'execution' (i dont mean that in a sarcastic way)

Yes, but we all have the same information, which right now is very little. It's an execution, but, eh, that's about it. We have no further information to ask the right questions or to draw conclusions.

roberteboot

I have to say reading the reports that are coming out now it seems like he had plenty of opportunity to detonate a bomb.But didnt.And they shot him.Its a little worrying.

"As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified.

"He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor.

"One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead, five shots, he's dead."


I mean from that it DOES seem like if he was going to detonate a bomb he could have.

Zaphod B

bullrunner wrote:

Its not controlled...its murder...regardless of what the (suspected)suicide bomer intended!

Right, never mind the actual events of this case, since we don't know them all yet. Let's just focus on the theory. You consider it murder "regardless of what the (suspected) suicide bomber intended"? So even if he genuinely intended to blow up a carriage full of commuters, to shoot him dead is murder? Well damn, in that case maybe we need more murderers in the police force...

cormie

cormie wrote:

Undercover police remember, what if he thought it was just a racial attack? Maybe if they were uniformed police he would have stopped for a routine check.

I also wonder had they of shouted "Stop, Police" or mentioned Police somewhere, would he have kept going. Who knows if they did or not. I think they took the necessary action for a situation where somebody is hurdling and running onto a busy tube train though.

Devious

The Gnome wrote:

Where's Judge Dredd when you need him eh?

EXACTLY what i was thinking gnome! A complete overhaul of the justice system whereby one man is bestowed with the power of judge, jury and executor would eliminate the need for debate on events like this.

Dinner

cormie wrote:

I also wonder had they of shouted "Stop, Police" or mentioned Police somewhere, would he have kept going. Who knows if they did or not. I think they took the necessary action for a situation where somebody is hurdling and running onto a busy tube train though.

It'd be standard to shout Stop Police or something to hat effect. They couldnt have told the passengers in the station to evacuate without mentioning somewhere that they were the police.

bullrunner

Zaphod B wrote:

Right, never mind the actual events of this case, since we don't know them all yet. Let's just focus on the theory. You consider it murder "regardless of what the (suspected) suicide bomber intended"? So even if he genuinely intended to blow up a carriage full of commuters, to shoot him dead is murder? Well damn, in that case maybe we need more murderers in the police force...

who polices the police? dont they have to adhere to the same laws as everybody else? what happened to innocent until proven guilty.

In my opinion the only way they would be justified in killing this guy is if they could prove (beyond all reasonable doubts) that the only way to stop this guy blowing himself up was to shoot him dead! There are ways of incapacitating people without killing them...thats why the stun gun was developed!

Villain

from SkyNews:

Eyewitnesses have told of their face-to-face encounter with the suspected suicide bomber.

Mark Whitby said he was sitting on the Tube at Stockwell when the man ran in to the carriage.


He described suddenly hearing people shouting "get down, get down".

Mr Whitby said: "An Asian guy ran on to the train. As he ran, he was hotly pursued by what I knew to be three plain-clothes police officers.

"As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified.

"He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor.

"One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead, five shots, he's dead."

"I'm totally distraught," he added. "It was no more than five yards away from where I was sitting as I saw it with my own eyes."

Mr Whitby said the suspected bomber "looked like a Pakistani" and was wearing a baseball cap and a thick coat.

He added: "He was quite large, big built, quite a sort of chubby guy."

Teri Godly, who was also in the carriage when the suspected bomber boarded, said: "A tall Asian man with a beard and a rucksack got on after me.

"Then about eight or nine police with shotguns boarded after him and started shouting to us all 'get out, get out of the station'.

"People started screaming and we all started running quite calmly up the stairs. There were six or seven gun shots behind us. It was very surreal. No one was pushing or shoving. We were in a state of shock.

"It was only afterwards that I realised how lucky we had been."

Chris Wells, a 28-year-old company manager, said he was travelling on the Victoria Line towards Vauxhall when he left the train at Stockwell.

He saw about 20 police officers, some of them armed, rushing into the station before a man jumped over the barriers with police giving chase.

He said: "There were at least 20 officers and they were carrying big black guns.

"The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting 'get out, get out'."

seamus

bullrunner wrote:

In my opinion the only way they would be justified in killing this guy is if they could prove (beyond all reasonable doubts) that the only way to stop this guy blowing himself up was to shoot him dead! There are ways of incapacitating people without killing them...thats why the stun gun was developed!

There are no non-lethal weapons that could guarantee that you will prevent someone from activating a detonator. Death will in fact guarantee that.
There will be an ombudsman's investigation into this, you can be sure of that. That's who polices the police. Innocent until proven guilty is all nice and fluffy until that incident where you haven't really got time or opportunity to haul someone in front of a judge.
If, in a trained officer's judgement, someone is posing an immediate, intentional mortal risk to members of the public, he has every right to disable him by whatever means necessary. In this case, death is the only way of disabling him.

BizzyC

In fairness, what did you expect them to do? a guy who's suspected in being part of yesterdays bomb attempts is running away from them, with a bag on his back, to get on a train full of people?
Where they supposed to sit back and go "Let's see how this plays out......bang(bomb)"

They had to act there and then, they expected him of being a bomber, he was trying to run away from them, to an area he's suspected of trying to bomb a day earlier, that's full of innocent people he might have killed............

Nuttzz

Mr Whitby said the suspected bomber "looked like a Pakistani" and was wearing a baseball cap and a thick coat.

its 22 degrees celsius in london, and the tube is even warmer, i wonder what was under the thick coat?

patzer117

BBC News reported that security forces did everything possible to revive the suspected suicide bomber... After unloading 5 bullets into his head

Dinner

Mr Whitby said: "An Asian guy ran on to the train. As he ran, he was hotly pursued by what I knew to be three plain-clothes police officers.

Teri Godly, who was also in the carriage when the suspected bomber boarded, said: "A tall Asian man with a beard and a rucksack got on after me.


"Then about eight or nine police with shotguns boarded after him and started shouting to us all 'get out, get out of the station'.

Thats not right....

Zaphod B

bullrunner wrote:

who polices the police? dont they have to adhere to the same laws as everybody else? what happened to innocent until proven guilty.

In my opinion the only way they would be justified in killing this guy is if they could prove (beyond all reasonable doubts) that the only way to stop this guy blowing himself up was to shoot him dead! There are ways of incapacitating people without killing them...thats why the stun gun was developed!

Innocent until proven guilty is entirely irrelevant to what you said in that post - you said "regardless of [the dead guy's] intention", meaning you considered it murder even if he was a suicide bomber.

Personally I think it depends on what they knew. If they saw an object which was almost certainly a bomb, then I don't think the same rules apply - I think they should have stopped him in any way possible, including shooting him dead, before he managed to detonate said bomb among a large concentration of people. If on the other hand all they knew was that he had a rucksack, padded jacket or something which 'could be' a bomb, then I agree with you. My problem was with the "regardless of his intentions" part - if the police knew with absolute certainty (which looks very unlikely in this case, but we're talking hypothetically here) that the suspect really had a bomb and really intended to use it, then I don't think for a second they should be considering the different ways to incapacitate him - he'd want to blow himself up in any case, so why bother messing about with stun guns!?

Shabadu

Arabel wrote:

Thats not right....

I didn't thinkpolice would use shotguns around civilians either, no range and too widespread area of damage. Probably a couple of police with semi-automatic rifles.

Dinner

Shabadu wrote:

I didn't thinkpolice would use shotguns around civilians either, no range and too widespread area of damage. Probably a couple of police with semi-automatic rifles.

Well yeah thats not right either. But I found it strange that one witness said 3 men boarded and another said 8 or 9.

*Page*

AIM WAS TO ARREST MAN

Specialist officers had been tailing the man shot at Stockwell Tube station from his home, says Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt.

Police believed the Asian man was responsible for an attempted attack on the nearby Oval Tube on Thursday and had set up surveillance on him.


Brunt said officers had followed the man from his home and that the initial plan was to arrest him.

But from his home to Stockwell Tube, events overtook police and marksmen were forced to shoot.

Despite temperatures of around 22C (72F), officers and witnesses said the man was wearing a heavy coat under which it was feared may have been a bomb.

Brunt said: "Intelligence officers had suggested he was the bomber from Thursday.

"Officers were confronted with the very real possibility that this man did have a bomb."

Initial examinations though, said Brunt, did not discover any explosives on the suspect.

seamus

And already, as we can see, we have "eye-witness" accounts beginning to contradict eachother. Quite often in situation such as these, witnesses who were right beside the incident are known to get basic facts about it completely wrong, and other witnesses will subconsciously make up things to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. You'll hear people say "I saw at least twenty police officers" when there may have only been five, or "I saw them all shoot", when in fact the witness wasn't even looking in that direction at the time of shooting.

Eyewitness reports immediately following any incident like this is sketchy at best.

LostinBlanch

Who actually thinks it was plainclothes police? It could just have easily been SAS men waiting around at major tube stations. You don't think that they haven't been posted there ready to deal with copycats, even if only for a few weeks or so?

Megatron

LostinBlanch wrote:

Who actually thinks it was plainclothes police? It could just have easily been SAS men waiting around at major tube stations. You don't think that they haven't been posted there ready to deal with copycats, even if only for a few weeks or so?

yes it was more than likey undercover CIA agents :rolleyes:
or better yet ( going from another thread ) undercover CIA Cows :rolleyes:

Jim

Starting to sound like the film The Seige.

Megatron

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

Starting to sound like the film The Seige.

i don't remember undercover CIA cows in that movie

Ancient1

Megatron wrote:

shotting him once in the head won't do much other than it might cause a nervous responce and se tthe bomb off , it's better to do multi shots ,hence letting the attacker die slowly, alowing you to have more control over the body

Actually the opposite is true.

“The kind of tactics the Met appear to have used this morning are very similar to the very tough tactics that the Israelis use against suspected suicide bombers.”

In the Middle East, security forces tend not to shoot suspects in the chest or abdomen because of the risk of detonating explosives strapped to waistcoats habitually worn by bombers.

“To be blunt, they go for a head shot,”

If they think somebody is a potential suicide bomber about to detonate, they try to kill them immediately.

“The Israelis are prone to taking very strong actions in these circumstances.

Have a look at this.

Megatron

Ancient1 wrote:

Actually the opposite is true.





Have a look at this.

ok i accept that i am sort of wrong.

However the way the story was reported the bomb was meant to be in the bag, not around the suspects body. hence the body shots.

Ancient1

Yeah...we won't know for sure for the next while.

therock67

Nuttzz wrote:

British police dont go around shooting people for jollies you know....

Well some of them do... http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,1498392,00.html

Two Scotland Yard officers involved in shooting a man dead six years ago, claiming they mistook a table leg he was carrying for a gun, were arrested yesterday on suspicion of his murder.
Harry Stanley, 46, a painter and decorator, died after being shot in the head and hand outside an east London pub on September 22 1999. Only last month, Chief Inspector Neil Sharman, 42, and Constable Kevin Fagan, 38, the two Metropolitan police marksmen concerned, succeeded in overturning an inquest verdict of unlawful killing. But yesterday they were arrested after new forensic evidence came to light following a re-examination of existing material.

The arrests are the latest twist in the long-running legal battle over the shooting outside the Alexandra pub in Hackney, east London. An anonymous 999 caller claimed to have spotted an Irishman wielding a gun wrapped in a plastic bag.

As Mr Stanley, a Scotsman, left the pub, carrying a bag containing a wooden coffee table leg his brother had repaired, he was challenged and shot dead by the two police marksmen, who said they thought he was pointing a sawn-off shotgun at them.

Scotland Yard, however, is standing by the two policemen. A senior officer insisted last night that they would not be suspended or face disciplinary action, but that the Met would await the outcome of the Surrey police inquiry.

Assistant Commissioner Steve House, head of the Met's central operations, said: "These officers were asked to make a split-second life and death decision ... six years later their decision is still being examined by the legal system. How many of us would want to be in that position?"

Last night Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, called Surrey police's handling of the case a "complete disgrace".

Zaphod B

therock67 wrote:

Well some of them do...

They shoot people unnecessarily because they're not properly trained, because they're lacking in common sense or because they panic. Not "for jollies". There's really quite a big difference there.

therock67

Zaphod B wrote:

They shoot people unnecessarily because they're not properly trained, because they're lacking in common sense or because they panic. Not "for jollies". There's really quite a big difference there.

The reason they were tried for murder is not because they made a mistake or were not trained properly. It was because they were "trigger happy." That's shooting people "for jollies" and it's a product of how they are trained.

Kingsize

going on the latest news it seems the cops fukked up in some way because
they knew where this guy was living & he still made it to a tube station meaning that if he did succesfully explode a bomb they'd probably get some of the blame anyhow.
yeah innocent until proven guilty may be a fluffy & unrealistic & naive assumption in some circumstances but it's one of the basic tenets of western democracy.
i.e our "way of life" that george w bush & Tony blair are so convinced that they are defending.
i would think that its more naive to believe that the police are infallible & i wouldve thought that the knee jerk arrests of Irish "terror cells" such as the maguires, the birmingham 6 & the guildford 4 would make people( irish people at least) think before assuming that its black & white.

Dinner

Kingsize wrote:

going on the latest news it seems the cops fukked up in some way because
they knew where this guy was living & he still made it to a tube station.

They didnt really fu(k up. Police followed him from his house to find out if he would lead them to the ringleader, he went to a tube station in a big bulky coat, so they shot him.

seamus

therock67 wrote:

The reason they were tried for murder is not because they made a mistake or were not trained properly. It was because they were "trigger happy." That's shooting people "for jollies" and it's a product of how they are trained.

There's nothing here to suggest they were trigger happy. The problem stems from the 999 caller who claimed he was carrying a gun. Imagine it, guy is walking down the road, table leg in his hand, pointing forwards. Two armed police officers surprise him, shout at him to freeze, so he turn towards them in shock. From their perspective, a gun is being pointed towards them, mere milliseconds away from being fired and killing one or both of them. So they each open fire once.

Nothing to suggest being trigger happy there. What should they do, wait until someone fires on them?

Kingsize

doesnt make sense seeing as thyve been telling us that the ringleaders usually flee the country before the "action" takes place.

steviec

Arabel wrote:

They didnt really fu(k up. Police followed him from his house to find out if he would lead them to the ringleader, he went to a tube station in a big bulky coat, so they shot him.

That's it in a nutshell. As soon as it became apparent he was heading anywhere near a crowded area though(I mean he must have been wearing the bulky coat as he left his house) they should have stopped him then instead of letting him get so far.

As it happens it looks like he wasn't carrying explosives but in the split second they had to make a decision I think the police did the right thing, assuming the intelligence is strong enough to link him to the previous bombs. Even if its 50/50 I'd rather the police shot the guy who they knew was responsible for other bombs than give him that possible opportunity to kill many more.

*Page*

In england anyone who is holding a weapon for the law (police or raf etc.) they need to give a warning call and then a warning fire before they can shoot a body. if they do not give the two warnings then they will be charged.

Jip

Whatever about the rights and wrongs, what puzzles me is that if he was a suspect from yesterday why did they even let him near a tube station today if they thought he had a bomb. It's too much of a risk to let him near a highly populated area with any sort of explosive device, they could have intercepted him earlier.

If they suspected he was a bomber which may be the case as they shot him, they should have also expected him to go somewhere to detonate it, not lead them to any ringleaders.

steviec

Jip wrote:

Whatever about the rights and wrongs, what puzzles me is that if he was a suspect from yesterday why did they even let him near a tube station today if they thought he had a bomb. It's too much of a risk to let him near a highly populated area with any sort of explosive device, they could have intercepted him earlier.

If they suspected he was a bomber which may be the case as they shot him, they should have also expected him to go somewhere to detonate it, not lead them to any ringleaders.

Thats true. Hopefully there'll be an explanation released soon.

Zaphod B

therock67 wrote:

The reason they were tried for murder is not because they made a mistake or were not trained properly. It was because they were "trigger happy." That's shooting people "for jollies" and it's a product of how they are trained.

The police are not trained to immediately shoot at anyone who looks a little bit dodgy. This is quite simple: "For jollies" means for pleasure. Armed police do not generally shoot people for pleasure - not necessarily because there aren't policemen who get their kicks this way, but if nothing else because they know it results in too much hassle for them afterwards.

jank

Initial examinations though, said Brunt, did not discover any explosives on the suspect.

So they unloaded into an unarmed man?

therock67

seamus wrote:

There's nothing here to suggest they were trigger happy. The problem stems from the 999 caller who claimed he was carrying a gun. Imagine it, guy is walking down the road, table leg in his hand, pointing forwards. Two armed police officers surprise him, shout at him to freeze, so he turn towards them in shock. From their perspective, a gun is being pointed towards them, mere milliseconds away from being fired and killing one or both of them. So they each open fire once.

Nothing to suggest being trigger happy there. What should they do, wait until someone fires on them?

Fair enough but I think we're getting a bit bogged down in why they shoot. The point being that there is evidence to suggest that plenty of police historically in England, the six counties, Gibraltar etc. are unable to react properly in these situations and unarmed people are killed because of panic or whatever the motivation. Not necessarily trying to prosecute these particular individuals but they don't seem to be able to effectively deal with suspected threats.

Coconut

*Page* wrote:

But from his home to Stockwell Tube, events overtook police and marksmen were forced to shoot.

Yeah, this bit probably needs explaining..

*Page*

BOMB CONFERENCE DUE http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189944,00.html



A press conference being held by the Metropolitan Police following the shooting of a suspected suicide bomber in south London this morning has been delayed.

The conference at the QE2 centre in Westminster is now due to start at 2.45pm.


The suspected bomber was shot dead by police after boarding a stationary Northern line train at Stockwell Tube station.

Eyewitnesses said the man had been carrying a large rucksack, was wearing a thick overcoat and looked "petrified, like a cornered fox".

Police ordered passengers off the train before opening fire on the man.

The incident followed four attempted bombings in the capital on Thursday.

We will be covering the conference live here.

seamus

therock67 wrote:

Fair enough but I think we're getting a bit bogged down in why they shoot. The point being that there is evidence to suggest that plenty of police historically in England, the six counties, Gibraltar etc. are unable to react properly in these situations and unarmed people are killed because of panic or whatever the motivation. Not necessarily trying to prosecute these particular individuals but they don't seem to be able to effectively deal with suspected threats.

I still don't believe you can use the NI police force of the 70s and 80s as a template/example of the British police as a whole.

Megatron

seamus wrote:

I still don't believe you can use the NI police force of the 70s and 80s as a template/example of the British police as a whole.

not using it as our prime example ,just one of many tbh.

But saying that i've never had a prob with a Bobbie while i've been over in the UK.

keep thinking of a line from a show ( 1 million extra kudos points if you can tell me which one) :

"A man who expects to die tomorrow, will find a way fo dieing tomorrow"

steviec

therock67 wrote:

Fair enough but I think we're getting a bit bogged down in why they shoot. The point being that there is evidence to suggest that plenty of police historically in England, the six counties, Gibraltar etc. are unable to react properly in these situations and unarmed people are killed because of panic or whatever the motivation. Not necessarily trying to prosecute these particular individuals but they don't seem to be able to effectively deal with suspected threats.

What your saying there is exactly like saying that muslims have a tendancy to run into crowded areas and blow themselves up. Racism is ok when its directed towards the british though.

Zaphod B

Coconut wrote:

Yeah, this bit probably needs explaining..

Yeah, the whole thing needs a hell of a lot of explaining. From the general crapness of the reports about yesterday's events and those of this morning, you'd think that the police and government either know something they don't want us to know, or are utterly incompetent and haven't got a clue. Neither is a particularly reassuring thought. In Blair's statement yesterday with John Howard, he said he wasn't going to talk about the facts of the event... which perhaps wasn't too clever, considering no-one else would tell us anything either, most news reports being along the lines of "Some suspected attempted terrorist suspects are suspected of exploding suspected bombs or attempting to explode suspected bombs". Widespread panic is probably inevitable, though I'd say due less to the actions of terrorists and more to the uselessness of the government in telling the people what's going on.

Kingsize

it wasnt just the NI poliice seamus & Innocent Irish People are still treated like terrorists by the british police under the PTA (or whatever it is called now)

Sparky

seems their searching an address in Harrow rd now.

Zaphod B

steviec wrote:

What your saying there is exactly like saying that muslims have a tendancy to run into crowded areas and blow themselves up. Racism is ok when its directed towards the british though.

Yup. I'm not exactly patriotic. By which I mean I tend to wonder whether the vast majority of my countrymen have beed intentionally bred and brought up to be incredibly stupid. Reading almost any popular British newspaper fills me with rage at the editors and 'journalists', and don't even get me started on the politicians. But when someone like BloodBath makes a comment like "They [English people] are racist enough as it is without these bombings giving them more excuses to firebomb asian shops", as though every white man in England has been waiting for a reason to go out and commit race-hate crimes, I have to wonder whether immense stupidity is not solely the preserve of the English.
I don't believe what TheRock said was anywhere near this bad; the point about British police not being particularly good at dealing with firearms is a fair one, but personally I think it's because guns are not generally a big part of the culture either of the police or the country, and I think that's probably a good thing.