Yesterday it was announced that a terrorist was shot dead on a train after a police chase - a cop put five (yes, five) rounds into his head at point blank range.
Today it was announced that the shot man WASN'T actually a terrorist, just a guy running away. The police have apologised for this unfortunate misunderstanding. I bet that just impressed the shit out of his family.
What was I saying about scary.......................?? Hmmm.

I'm wondering why he ran?. Although we now know he wasn't involved in either bombing, there still has to be a reason for his actions. Any additional info we're not hearing from you side of the lake?

Bill

The police state tactics that seem to be emerging in various countries including the U.S. in response to terrorism threats, real or imagined. These "Rambo-style" tactics often lead to abuses and trampling of Constitutional rights. Ben Franklin said..."those who would give up essential liberties for a little security, will have neither liberties nor security..." All the best...
Gil

The world is changing and not for the better. Cop's in England have got to be wound up tight, right now. I think the shooting was a tragedy, but, what if he wasn't shot 5 times to the head and he WAS a bomber and he was shot in the chest, 5 or even 10 times and he went bang. The whole world would think" English copper's are stupid, you don't shoot a man wearing a bomb in the bomb ! !
Here in the good old USA, we can't go a few months with out some pilot flying his plane in restricted air pace around Washington,DC causing one F16 to get a missle lock and another F16 trying to get the planes attention. Trust me,are fly boy's protecting are sky's are going to get your attention or blow you out of the sky, Make no bones about it.... So, as far as I'm concerned are English friends have the right to stop a would be threat anyway they can. ....the old saying NO mean's NO.....today STOP means STOP !!!

Gents,

This is the latest news as I understand it. The shot man came out of an address that was under surveillance by the Police in connection with terrorist activities. He was followed to the tube station. It is quite likely that the initial surveillance team were unarmed, given the fact that the first part of his journey was by bus, one of which was blown up, and he was allowed to do this unchallenged. When he arrived at the tube station it would appear that an armed response team took up the job of tailing him. He was challenged, ran away towards the tube station, vaulted the barrier and ran towards the tub train got on board and was then shot, eight times and not five as the earlier news indicated.

One news report stated that he travelled to this country on a student visa and overstayed, that may be the reason he ran away when challenged, or another suggestion is he did not understand, whatever the reason it was tragic.

Having said that those officers had to make a split second decision as to whether he was a terrorist or not and was going to explode a bomb or not. I think it was a courageous decision they made and acted on, and for what it is worth the right one. It is easy for people to be wise after the event and say what should have happened and what should have been done, but, personally I don't think any other course of action was open to them. It takes a nano second for a suicide bomber to detonate his weapon and that is the time frame the Police have to work in, and in that time they have to make a decision and act upon it, and shoot to kill is their only option once commited. The headshot (mutiple shot's) is the most efficient way to accomplish this and cause immobilisation of the target. I think the Police are doing well under very difficult circumstances and the last thing they need is a bunch of do gooders criticising their tactics. If we did it their way we would all be blown up and terror would win.

Well, that's what I think, I'll shut up now.

John

JayB - et al, please don't misunderstand what I said earlier. I would have happily shot the 'bar steward' myself - if it runs, it dies! My mention of the events as I knew of them at the time, was more towards what, at least to me, seemed rather a waste of ammo. Either the man wasn't too confident as to the stopping power of his weapon or, as I have seen people do under fire, he emptied the clip without realising it. I have seen professional soldiers do this and then swore blind they hadn't fired until they took out the magazine and checked it - only to find it empty! I am all for a 'shoot to kill' course of action, let's leave wounding a man in his gun hand to the experts like Steven Seagal, Sly Stallone and all the others!

I'm a retired policeman. After 30 years doing that job I found that anyone who runs from the police has good motive to do so. During my carrier the law changed from shooting fleeing fellons regardless of situation to only shoot them if they are a danger to another. That is where we are today and the officer that shot the fleeing suspected bomber acted in an instant to prevent what his information led him to beleave was a suicide bomber. I am sure that he did not wish to kill the man but his concern was the safety of others. He acted as a hero, not as a murderer. Sorry, but that is not a police state, rather it is police officers doing their sworn duty. They are doing the rotten job that no one else wants or has the corrage to do.

Lets do some monday morning quarterbacking of the suspect. All this guy had to do was stop running. I wonder why he didn't. Expired visa or not why was he in the house under survelance? Many of these suicide bombers are visiting beyond their visa's.

It is time for society to wake up and recognize that we are living in a very violent time and the police are faced with violent people. Today it is hard to distinguish the motive of a running 'suspect' who is running into a tube station and refuses to stop. Multiple shots to the head was the proper action under the circumstances. You stop the brain and you stop the ability to trigger a bomb. Some might not like that but do you let someone run in and set off a bomb and idely sit by. Not in my view and I don't even see the incident as tragic. I do see it as stupid on the suspects part.

We are in a war against terrorism. This is a new role for policemen and they are our first line of defense in this war in our home countries. They are now our anti terrorism war troups in our home towns. I expect them to act just like in this incident. Act first and explain, not appoligise, later.
Shooting from the hip,
Chris

I don't envey the police now a days there job is harder than it ever was. The police were acting on iformation that the man was a terrorist and with him running i don't think there was any other choice for the officer, the sitiution didn't turn out as it was thought to be, but i don't think the officer should be blamed, not based on the info he was givin, i wouldn,t want to have to make that decision in a split second. I think he acted honorably, just my 2 cents
ps Thanks for your 30 years Chris

The poor innocent dude in London was shot at 4 feet. True, he should have stopped, but he didn't. At that range a bomb would have taken out the local cops who managed to shoot him eight times in the head. At four feet they could have maced him or used a stungun. Maybe the cops should have taken him down on the street outside the tube.

We will see more of this because folks want it and the police will give it to us. Yes, this smacks of a police state when police carry out the sentence prior to the arrest, charges, hearing and trial. The real question is how much safer are we? Reminds me of the "no knock" laws of the 1970s, Waco, Randy Weaver and MOVE. All the best...
Gil

It appears the man shot by the police was a Brazilian, and he was in the country with an expired passport. That might explain why he was running away. A British policeman shooting someone is a rare occurrence indeed.
They are usually above reproach in their actions. In addition to fleeing, the man may well have been dark complexioned, most Brazilians are, as well as most muslims. Split second decisions are difficult, and this one turned out badly. I suspect many of us would have shot at the fleeing man. Twenty-twenty hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's never been wrong yet! Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Quote::

After 30 years doing that job I found that anyone who runs from the police has good motive to do so. During my carrier the law changed from shooting fleeing fellons regardless of situation to only shoot them if they are a danger to another. That is where we are today and the officer that shot the fleeing suspected bomber acted in an instant to prevent what his information led him to beleave was a suicide bomber. I am sure that he did not wish to kill the man but his concern was the safety of others. He acted as a hero, not as a murderer. Sorry, but that is not a police state, rather it is police officers doing their sworn duty. They are doing the rotten job that no one else wants or has the corrage to do.

Umm, contrary to your opinion we have this little piece of paper we don't really use to much that is just slightly applicable - the US Constitution (I bring this into it because ths above quote is from an American). We have this amazing setup the police arrest the people based on probable cause/evidence. The DA prosecutes the defense attorney defends and the JURY decides the case; if guilty either the jury or judge determines the punishment.

In this case there was no evidence of crime (it's still not illegal for anyone to be friends with anyone), no crime committed, and not even really good suspicions of a crime having been planned. If they (the police) had valid reason to believe this person was involved in a conspiracey to blow something up waiting until he was in the tube station was STUPID, INSANE, and GROSSLY negligent. IF he had a bomb how in the blazes did this cop know the trigger mech wouldn't be set off when he shot the man??

Beyond that, in this case the cops acted as police, DA, jury, judge, and executioner.

Quote::

It is time for society to wake up and recognize that we are living in a very violent time and the police are faced with violent people. Today it is hard to distinguish the motive of a running 'suspect' who is running into a tube station and refuses to stop. Multiple shots to the head was the proper action under the circumstances. You stop the brain and you stop the ability to trigger a bomb. Some might not like that but do you let someone run in and set off a bomb and idely sit by. Not in my view and I don't even see the incident as tragic. I do see it as stupid on the suspects part. We are in a war against terrorism. This is a new role for policemen and they are our first line of defense in this war in our home countries. They are now our anti terrorism war troups in our home towns. I expect them to act just like in this incident. Act first and explain, not appoligise, later.

Here again is a gross twisting and destruction of the Constitiution (thank you very much, the terrorists win every time that happens). There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the POLICE are in ANY way involved in fighting a war. It isn't there JOB, they aren't part of the military (contrary to the opinions of said group of civilians). The people who are the first, second and last line of defense in this war are the private citizens (also know as the militia) as described in the US Constitution. Of course admitting that would greatly reduce the authority of multiple groups. The OTHER groups involved in the war on terrorism are the military and spy groups.

The part which I highlighted is the single scariest portion of the whole post - screw anyone's rights, guilty first, worry about it later. Last I checke, the above ref paper still proclaims innocent until PROVEN guilty. Flight doesn't prove anything there are several locations in the US I'd run like the wind from the local LEOs for fear of my life and limb.

I can't second guess the police. Maybe this maybe that, they are on the front line protecting themselves and the rest of us. I am happy they hit the target. I remember all to well a similar case in New York City where the police let loose and emptied several guns at the victim. Lots of shots not many hits.

Some times bad things happen. Not because somebody wanted it that way, It just happened. In difficult times everybody needs to be carefull not just the police!

Grimel,

I read with interest your comments and applaud the way you defend the American constitution, but I would like to take issue with you on a couple of points.

I should point out that you will probably consider me biased as I am also a retired Police Officer, didn't manage 30 years only 24 before inuries gained at work forced my discharge.

Anyway bias aside, for you to make sweeping statements like, STUPID, INSANE and GROSSLY NEGLIGENT, you would have needed to be part of the enquiry, an expert in surveillance, privvy to all avaialble information, with sufficient experience in similar operations and on the scene. Plus if the suspect had stopped when told to and not run into the tube station, vaulting the barrier the outcome would have been different.

To say that the Police are not involved in fighting a war on terrorism, and war is not their job, well, maybe technically war is not there job, but crime is, and terrorism is a crime. So therefore when the Police are fighting terrorism, using all resources available, they are well within their remit.

I am not wishing to be argumentative, just wanted to point out what I see as flaws in your argument.

Latest news is that more suspects have been arrested, one of whom is believed to be one of the bombers from last weeks failed attempt. No one was shot but one was zapped with a Tazer.

John

Gil, in answer to your suggestion of using Mace or a stun gun - our police have a CS gas spray that is not one of the most powerful ones you can get by a country mile and as to the stun gun, they are illegal here. The police have Taser guns, have had them for about a year. The first one ever to be used didn't work and they are very rarely deployed due to poor design and poorer performance. It doesn't matter what the police do in this country, there are always 'tree huggers' jumping up and down and going around protesting about all sorts of crap. They can never be right, some a**hole will always come up with a better way of doing things. Pity they don't join the police and offer their vast amounts of wisdom BEFORE all these things go wrong.
As to your constitution, don't forget that we don't have one here. I can think of several instances where we are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent - although these things usually refer to Customs & Excise, Income Tax and suchlike, but there are STILL times when the onus of proof lies with the individual rather than the state and sometimes it can be very difficult to prove you DIDN'T do something.
Del.

Quote::

Beyond that, in this case the cops acted as police, DA, jury, judge, and executioner

You are quite wrong with this statement. In the US the Police are charged with duties that are very clearly defined. These duties are in line with the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, State Constitution's, and further defined by Federal, State, and local laws. These laws have been further clarified by US and State Supreme Court decisions.

'Probable Cause' is a term you need to be more familiar with and please research that yourself in your home state. It is a much broader term by definition in law than you submit.

Every day the Police face the possibility of having to take a life or losing their own life. That is the real world and it is obvious that many have not walked that road in those shoes. Policemen know the responsibilities of their jobs and in most cases understand and have a better working knowledge of the law than the adverage citizen. Witness street lawyers, prision lawyers, and monday morning quarterback's.

I have met and worked with Police Officers from all over the United States including Federal, State, and local Officers. I even have had the pleasure to met and work with some Police Officers from other countries including England and Canada. I have NEVER met an officer whose goal in life was to be an Executioner. Police departments go to great length to weed out people who lack the respect for the job they seek or hold. Sure, there is a history of crooked cops, even mean ones, but they are the extreme exception to the quality of todays Police Officers.

Some Officers do go to higher education to obtain law degrees and I am sure many attorneys desire to be a DA or even a Judge. I have never met a Police Officer who wanted all the titles you suggest. Policemen are charged with a duty to protect and sometimes that involves using deadly force.

In knowing all of these Lawmen I have never known one who was to be feared or wanted to be feared. I don't understand why any law abiding person would fear the Police anywhere in the free world. That fear is without merit.

In my 30 years I pulled my pistol numerous times with full intent to use it but thankfully in each instance the persons dropped their weapons and surrendered. It could have easily gone the other way and either they or I would have been on the receiving end of a bullet.

But back to the case under discussion. The Police Officers did have probable cause to stop and detain the suspect. Their information went beyond 'mere suspicion' (legal term) into the realm of probable cause. With the information that the suspect came from a house under surveillance for terrorism activity, and that he was possibly a bomber headed for a bus or tube station, the Officers had full authority to stop him for investigation.

Wishing that he had been stopped before he got on the bus is nice but the Police were unable to effect stopping him before he boarded. They were ready for him at the station and when he was challenged he did not stop, rather, he fled into the station, jumped over a barrier, and continued to flee before being overtaken.

So the Police had information on a possible bomber and when they challenged him he fled which would indicate to any 'reasonable person' (another legal term) that the suspect had started an overt act to commit the act that was suspected.

Mace, Pepper Spray, Stun guns, and Tasers will not stop everyone, especially a determined one or one on drugs. That is a matter of history in use. None of those methods are appropriate for a person suspected of wearing or carrying a bomb. Stun Guns and Tasers, being items that deliver a pulsing electric shock, cause mussel spasums. Those spasums could cause a bomber to push a button on a bomb. The electrical pulse itself could ignite the detonator on a bomb. "Please stop! Please don't push that button!" are not words that are expected to stop a suspected suicide bomber who is standing in the middle of a crowded tube station. As I said before this situation called for the use of immediate deadly force.

Was there a chance that the bomb would go off anyhow? Yes, a 50/50 chance and the Officers knew that but it was the only option available to them. Doing nothing was not an option. They knew that a brain shot stops ALL conscious thought and movement. Were 6 or 7 shots excessive or Over Kill? 10 or 20 shots? No, just insurance! Life insurance for the Officers and people in the tube. It is nice to know that the Police have the courage to protect us even when many will surely condemn them.

Having made these two posts I know that there are people who agree and disagree. Thats ok, it's human nature. It was not my intention to hurt anyones feelings and surely mine are not hurt. But all here know how I feel about the incident and that I support the Police who protect us. I don't hang my head about that either.

With all respect,
Chris