London terror attacks

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Saturday, July 30, 2005 21:41
VIEWED: 6537
PAGE 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Friday, July 22, 2005 10:40 PM

More (attempted) attacks yesterday (Thur 21st) and today a man is shot in Stockwell tube station.

The thing that really scares me is that the man shot in stockwell was pushed or tripped to the floor and THEN shot FIVE TIMES by the police while he was on the ground.
This doesn't sound right, one attack and one attempted attack and we seem (to me) to be throwing away our own rules and morality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706421.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

To me this seems a scary road to start down. Apparently he wasn't a bomber (as first thought) but a man being watched by the police after yesterdays attacks.
The extra powers of the police to shoot to kill suicide bombers have already been seemingly perverted. So where does it end?

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

SIMONWHO

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:06 AM

It's already clear this wasn't a random guy, this was someone they were following. He tried to run away from the police, leapt over the ticket barrier and jumped on a train packed with random travellers.

Armed police have the right to fire if they believe that their or other lives are at risk. Are you seriously telling me that they should have tried to just tackle him when these bombs can be activated with just one push of a button?

They did exactly the right thing. Whether they got the right guy or not is another matter but if the same situation happens tomorrow, I hope they follow the exact same procedure.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:26 PM

Quote:
Armed police have the right to fire if they believe that their or other lives are at risk.

Yes they do. My problem is not with the fact that he was shot, but that he was shot five times from close range, with some reports saying he was even being held down.

Quote:
"The policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand, he held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him."

However I didn't have the full facts at the time of posting, and with hindsight it may have been beter to wait before posting:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Are you seriously telling me that they should have tried to just tackle him when these bombs can be activated with just one push of a button?

My understanding at the time, based on initial reports and what police had said, was that he was a suspect but there was no reason to believe he had a bomb.

The thing is we are changing our procedures in the light of these attacks, which could easily be perverted into something much worse.

Quote:
In the past two years, firearms and surveillance units of the police have been retrained in new procedures under the Kratos rubric, and these include changes to the rules of engagement.

Quote:
We can speculate about the kind of effect that giving someone a warning might have, if you suspect they might be a suicide bomber.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4709889.stm

You give someone a warning and they blow up the bomb, so you don't warn them, fair enough (I know thats not what happened in this case). The problem is that it can allow the police to shoot anyone and mearly say that they believed they had a bomb. I don't think that thats a situation we're currently in, I trust our police force. But we have to be careful we don't go down that road. We must question the actions of those in authority in this country, now more than ever.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:03 PM

At this particular moment, I believe it is the DUTY of everyone to NOT behave in a way that will get you shot. Do not wear heavy coats in heat, do not scowl at police officers, do not run in the tube, etc. This might sound like I'm gladly accepting the police state mentality, but no, it's simply being realistic.

Chrisisall

BECSTHEBEAST

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
do not run in the tube, etc.

Chrisisall

i know the guy who was driving this train - the shooting was in the first carriage. He saw three plain clothed men on top of a guy and heard fice shots fired whilst the guy was pinned down on the floor.
the driver - in uniform - ran from his cab to get help and another copper put a gun to his head and told him that because he was running (to get help) he was now a suspect.
Ken Livingstone has told drivers they are now to stay in the cabs WHATEVER happens because he can't guarentee they won't get shot - while refusing to support calls for double crewing

if there had never been a death in police custody that was suspicious then maybe i'd be a bit more prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt - may be we will never know what happened at Stockwell - i hope my suspicions are proved wrong but this looks like execution without trial

smile pretty and watch your back

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:28 PM

So sorry to hear things are so tense. I wont defend the Judge Dred actions of the police except to say they're probably scared s*#tless of bein' blown up at any second, I know I would be.
The operative word here might be: eggshells.

I hope your suspicions are proved wrong as well.
Be careful out there, fellow Browncoat.

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 23, 2005 3:29 PM

I don’t know what happened in this event. But I would caution against too quickly and too harshly criticizing the British police. Although it is distasteful that this man may have been shot while on the ground, it is also not without a possible justification. If the police believed that this guy was a suicide bomber and that he did have or could have had a bomb, then it behooves them to kill this guy before he could have detonated the bomb, particularly if there were innocent people around.

It is possible that this was an over reaction, but then one must be fair in their criticism. The British police are charged with protecting the British people from an enemy that is capable and willing to do great damage to innocent people with no regard for their own lives. Mistakes are bound to be made, and unnecessarily ridiculing policemen who act in good faith is not the direction you want to go when your population is dependent on a police force capable of reacting to terrorism. That doesn’t mean that bad cops shouldn’t be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but it does mean that responsible citizens and media should keep the wild speculation and fruitcakey conspiracy theories to a minimum.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know what happened in this event. But I would caution against too quickly and too harshly criticizing the British police. Although it is distasteful that this man may have been shot while on the ground, it is also not without a possible justification. If the police believed that this guy was a suicide bomber and that he did have or could have had a bomb, then it behooves them to kill this guy before he could have detonated the bomb, particularly if there were innocent people around.

It is possible that this was an over reaction, but then one must be fair in their criticism. The British police are charged with protecting the British people from an enemy that is capable and willing to do great damage to innocent people with no regard for their own lives. Mistakes are bound to be made, and unnecessarily ridiculing policemen who act in good faith is not the direction you want to go when your population is dependent on a police force capable of reacting to terrorism. That doesn’t mean that bad cops shouldn’t be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but it does mean that responsible citizens and media should keep the wild speculation and fruitcakey conspiracy theories to a minimum.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

I agree to a point. But not questioning police actions at the best of times could lead to something far worse (IMHO) than terrorism.

Quote:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

CHRISISALL

Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
fruitcakey conspiracy theories

I wasn't aware of any connected with this particular incident...(?)

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
fruitcakey conspiracy theories

I wasn't aware of any connected with this particular incident...(?)

Chrisisall

I don’t know that there are any, either. But if there were I probably wouldn’t have paid much attention to them anyway. It was more of preemptive suggestion, then an accusation.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I agree to a point. But not questioning police actions at the best of times could lead to something far worse (IMHO) than terrorism.

I agree with that. Please feel free to question police actions and motives; just remember who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

For instance, is it really reasonable to question police for shooting someone five times as opposed to some other number of times? If the situation is bad enough that one needs to shoot someone, then I would argue that it is bad enough that one probably needs to kill someone. So if you’ve made the decision to shoot, then you might as well shoot a dozen times as once, and make sure the job is done quickly. Shooting to immobilize someone is a good way to get yourself killed.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE