A bomb or a fish supper?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Jul 2005, 17:15

Let's hope it was the former that the man had under his jacket. Were the Police right to shoot to kill? IMO undoubtedly, though I'm sure there will be a huge backlash at their so called heavy handed tactics. After all, they really should have arrested him, bailed him, given him legal aid, waited a year for the trial, acquitted him on a technicality and then been sued by him for wrongful arrest.........

Post by **wangi** » 22 Jul 2005, 17:19

"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him,"

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Jul 2005, 17:20

After him running away from them, jumping a barrier and throwing himself through the open doors of a stationary train........

Post by **wangi** » 22 Jul 2005, 17:25

But what that quote left me thinking is if the police threw him to the floor then why not contain him and arrest him. Rather, they unload a few guns worth into him... (or even just shoot his legs). But then if he had a bomb strapped to him he could have set it off...

Of course this is but one eye witness account.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 22 Jul 2005, 17:34

According to the Scotsman website

Police have been given orders to shoot to kill if they believe someone is about to detonate a bomb. Unconfirmed reports suggested the dead man was involved in yesterday's attacks in London.

.

CatzVP · Post by **CatzVP** » 22 Jul 2005, 17:36

killing is the only way to prevent hand detonation of explosives.

Lets hope they got it right, if they did they saved many lives.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Jul 2005, 17:56

And if they didn't there'll be riots in Muslim communities up and down the country........

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 22 Jul 2005, 18:35

Epykat wrote:And if they didn't there'll be riots in Muslim communities up and down the country........

well, in all communities, I hope.

Don't forget that all you had to do previously was drink lemonade in a pub, hold a table leg and Bang, youre dead.

ooops, silly us! it was a table leg...

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 22 Jul 2005, 18:57

The Police should be commended for their courage here. My heart goes out to the officer who was forced to fire these shots, but he should be given the 100% support of the whole country. Anyone who seeks to criticise him needs to take a look at theirselves.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 22 Jul 2005, 19:24

Well, I just hope he turns out to be guilty of something other than wearing a padded jacket on a hot day and not stopping when being chased by plain clothes police officers.

It just doesn't add up to me. How could they pump him with 3 or maybe as many as 5 bullets without the risk of setting off explosives if that's what they believed was under the jacket?

I'm not at all sure about the Police being courageous here. They had their man. If hand detonation was an issue then shoot his hands off first.

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 22 Jul 2005, 19:48

ecm wrote:Well, I just hope he turns out to be guilty of something other than wearing a padded jacket on a hot day and not stopping when being chased by plain clothes police officers.

It just doesn't add up to me. How could they pump him with 3 or maybe as many as 5 bullets without the risk of setting off explosives if that's what they believed was under the jacket?

I'm not at all sure about the Police being courageous here. They had their man. If hand detonation was an issue then shoot his hands off first.

In the current climate, only a fool would ignore Police instructions. Take no chances I'm afraid - and how realistic is it to shoot someone's hands off?

If in the fullness of time we find this guy was maybe mentally ill and wasn't carrying explosives then its a shame. But the Police should not be criticised for their heroic efforts at preventing the loss of human life.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 22 Jul 2005, 19:52

And he apparently emerged from a house the police had under surveillance.......

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 22 Jul 2005, 20:00

Poppy wrote:And he apparently emerged from a house the police had under surveillance.......

Well, then, it seems rather incompetent to have let him leave this house in the first place or to get as far as jumping onto the train before letting him have it.

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 22 Jul 2005, 20:05

ecm wrote:
Poppy wrote:And he apparently emerged from a house the police had under surveillance.......
Well, then, it seems rather incompetent to have let him leave this house in the first place or to get as far as jumping onto the train before letting him have it.

So you'd let him have it before he even went near the tube then? Maybe as he stopped for a pint of milk? Make your mind up!

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 22 Jul 2005, 20:11

Jamesie wrote: So you'd let him have it before he even went near the tube then? Maybe as he stopped for a pint of milk? Make your mind up!

I didn't mean to imply he should have been shot dead anywhere.

I was just considering why the police might not have apprehended the guy at this house or nearer it.
I'm sure there's a prefectly reasonable explanation for their actions.
There usually is.

Post by **wangi** » 22 Jul 2005, 20:25

Jamesie wrote:In the current climate, only a fool would ignore Police instructions. Take no chances I'm afraid - and how realistic is it to shoot someone's hands off?

Right i'm not saying this guy wasn't carrying a bomb - obviously none of us know about that.

However what I will say is people act anything but rationally when they are confronted by police - many innocent people do run (for no real reason).

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Jul 2005, 21:31

ecm wrote:It just doesn't add up to me. How could they pump him with 3 or maybe as many as 5 bullets without the risk of setting off explosives if that's what they believed was under the jacket?

They explained that bit on the news earlier. Apparently they've been told to go for the head because most bombers carry their bombs around the chest area. Unfortunately you don't normally get a second chance when shot in the head. The reason given for so many bullets was that the Police use low velocity bullets which are safer for passersby but they need more to do the job. I'm totally behind the Police in this I have to say. They just don't have the option to take chances.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 22 Jul 2005, 21:45

Let's be honest, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
We can be certain that the policeman who pulled the trigger did not leave home this morning wondering how many people he was going to kill today....and I bet he won't get much sleep tonight if ever again

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 22 Jul 2005, 22:51

foxy wrote:Let's be honest, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
We can be certain that the policeman who pulled the trigger did not leave home this morning wondering how many people he was going to kill today....and I bet he won't get much sleep tonight if ever again

Foxy, you've put in words what I have been thinking .... esp. the "damned if they do/damned if they don't". The problem with this "instant reporting" we are getting with folk using their mobiles is that it is not exactly free from emotion due to shock/excitement nor does it provide proper context. But because it's what we hear first, it stays in our minds as the "truth". Let's bear in mind we were told at first that there had been 6 bombs on the underground on the 7th - it turned out that this inaccuracy was the result of the echo of the bombs reverberating through the underground system!

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 23 Jul 2005, 08:25

Well, I'm sorry but there is something grossly amiss about this story, so far.

faced with an articulate and entirely credible witness like Mark Whitby, both police and media seem to have been robbed of the power of speech and comment on the matter.

if the man was a suspected loaded suicide bomber, why chase before killing?
if he wasn't, why kill?

don't forget, these weren't your usual uniformed bobbies - theye were the plain-clothes hoody variety, who always look psychopathically scary to me even though I'm just your average criminal...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 11:14

Poppy wrote:The problem with this "instant reporting" we are getting with folk using their mobiles is that it is not exactly free from emotion due to shock/excitement nor does it provide proper context. But because it's what we hear first, it stays in our minds as the "truth". Let's bear in mind we were told at first that there had been 6 bombs on the underground on the 7th - it turned out that this inaccuracy was the result of the echo of the bombs reverberating through the underground system!

Everyone at first thought that there had been 6 blasts, but I disagree that this stays in our minds as the "truth" - I think people are more than capable of keeping up with a news story as it develops and changes. It's an organic thing which can be disproved, amended, enhanced, or reported in any number of ways.

I think that the fact that loads of Londoners have mobile phone cams is a good thing and provides even better context than media organisations and government announcements - perhaps they are not "free from emotion" but they are also, in a collective sense, less likely to be able to edit and spin which can serve to distort what enters our minds as the "truth".

I would argue that rapid online fact-checking, (which is done at lightning speed these days and puts newspapers to shame), collective knowledge bases like wikipedia (which had an excellent real-time page concerning the London Bombings), photostreams from mobile and digital cams as events take place (like Flickr) and even opinionated "blogs" (weblogs) provide a genuinely democratic and genuinely free press - pretty much the only real "truth" we have.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Jul 2005, 11:39

Dadaist wrote: I think people are more than capable of keeping up with a news story as it develops and changes. It's an organic thing which can be disproved, amended, enhanced, or reported in any number of ways.

Yes, I would like to believe we are Dadaist, but I was amazed while on holiday to speak to a group of British tourists (on the day of the London bombs) who all believed the Madrid train bombs had been the work of Basque separatists. As Poppy says, the first story is the one that has most impact for some people

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 12:37

Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote: I think people are more than capable of keeping up with a news story as it develops and changes. It's an organic thing which can be disproved, amended, enhanced, or reported in any number of ways.
Yes, I would like to believe we are Dadaist, but I was amazed while on holiday to speak to a group of British tourists (on the day of the London bombs) who all believed the Madrid train bombs had been the work of Basque separatists. As Poppy says, the first story is the one that has most impact for some people

I think that says more about those tourists and our media than it does the Spanish electorate, a majority of whom decided that the impact of the first story being wrong was to boot out the Aznar government.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Jul 2005, 12:49

Exactly. Aside from the tragedy of the event, the Madrid bombing story was HUGE news as it illustrated that a terrorist act can have a political effect ( in this case bringing down a pro-Iraq War government) but all this was lost on my fellow tourists, who had obviously only paid heed to the very first broadcast about the event - complete with Spanish Government spin - and not the subsequent amendments/discussion etc.

I suspect many readers/viewers may be similarly removed from events unfolding in London. Would they be more involved I wonder if it were their own town/city?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 13:16

Whilst we are on the subject of bombs, the media, and foreign lands :

There is a company called EDO MBM in Brighton which makes bomb parts (the release mechanism, I think). Last week the staff held a two minute silence for the victims of the London bombs and then returned to work to make their own.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 23 Jul 2005, 17:00

Did not mean to imply there was anything bad about instant news - just that it needs to be treated with a certain amount of caution, just as much as we need to treat what the media and official sources say with caution.

And not everyone has the means or time or, sadly, the inclination to keep up with changing news or check what's said.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 17:54

The Met now "regrets" the incident as a "tragedy" as the individual was not connected to the attacks, says the BBC :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 23 Jul 2005, 18:14

Jamesie wrote: If in the fullness of time we find this guy was maybe mentally ill and wasn't carrying explosives then its a shame.

Shame isn't the word here. It doesn't even come close.

Talk on BBC 24 just now that it wasn't even a Police op but perhaps SAS.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 18:56

Jamesie wrote:The Police should be commended for their courage here. My heart goes out to the officer who was forced to fire these shots, but he should be given the 100% support of the whole country. Anyone who seeks to criticise him needs to take a look at theirselves.

Does your blanket ban on criticism by "anyone" include the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards?

Does your blanket ban on criticism by "anyone" include the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

Does your blanket ban on criticism by "anyone" include the family of the individual who was shot?

I do not seek to criticise him, so don't worry. I will leave it to the correct investigatory process to come to it's conclusions. But Epykat (who thought the Police were undoubtedly right to shoot to kill) and you (who thought that 100% of the country should support officers and not seek to criticise) should perhaps go and read some Kafka.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Jul 2005, 19:19

Dadaist wrote:The Met now "regrets" the incident as a "tragedy" as the individual was not connected to the attacks, says the BBC :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

Our worst fear come to fruition. This is truly terrible news.

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 23 Jul 2005, 19:23

I do not seek to criticise him, so don't worry. I will leave it to the correct investigatory process to come to it's conclusions. But Epykat (who thought the Police were undoubtedly right to shoot to kill) and you (who thought that 100% of the country should support officers and not seek to criticise) should perhaps go and read some Kafka.

If the regulatory authorities seek to levy criticism on the marksman in question then they are empowered to do so, with the relevant evidence at their disposal.

What irks me is where, in a situation of heightened alert, this chap was reacting in the way he is trained to do so yet is still subjected to a minute level of public backlash. Thankfully the vast majority of public opinion is behind him, which can only help this individual come to terms with the taking of a life.

Note the interesting phrasology of the reports:

BBC:

"Police cordoned off a 200-metre area around the station
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed. "

Unconnected to Thursday's incidents, yes, but does not go as far as to state he had no connection with any other incidents. No doubt we'll find out in the days to come.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 23 Jul 2005, 19:25

I don't need to read Kafka, the Evening News or the Daily Record thanks. I know what my opinion is and it is that the Police, in the present climate, did the right thing. I also think Mr Magnolia is being a wee bit insulting to the Police to imply that they simply drew their guns and started chasing the guy. These are professional and well trained people whatever anybody thinks, he would have had plenty of warning and plenty of chances to stop. He chose not to, for whatever reason, and therefore had to bear the consequences. If the Police had let him go or tried to arrest him and he HAD had a bomb the consequences don't bear thinking about. These guys don't have a crystal ball. As Foxy says, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 19:55

Jamesie wrote: If the regulatory authorities seek to levy criticism on the marksman in question then they are empowered to do so, with the relevant evidence at their disposal.

Thanks for answering at least some of my questions. Can you go back and at least try Q3 - I'll give you some marks if you show your working.

What irks me is where, in a situation of heightened alert, this chap was reacting in the way he is trained to do so yet is still subjected to a minute level of public backlash.

What irks me is even when the Met's own anti-racist unit describes the force as "institutionally racist", when it's officers get training from the Israelis (having heard Tom Hurndall's sister speak, I am under no illusions what that means) somebody describes the officer involved as a "chap". What is this - cricket???

Thankfully the vast majority of public opinion is behind him, which can only help this individual come to terms with the taking of a life.

I'm sure the vast majority of Israeli public opinion is behind each and every IDF soldier who has shot somebody. I'm sure the vast majority of US and UK white public opinion is similarly focused. But it does tend to be the minority groups who get targeted (excuse the pun) in each of these countries so I guess your "vast majority" theory must hold true.

Note the interesting phrasology of the reports:

BBC:

"Police cordoned off a 200-metre area around the station
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed. "

Unconnected to Thursday's incidents, yes, but does not go as far as to state he had no connection with any other incidents. No doubt we'll find out in the days to come.

I'm as interested in knowing the truth of this matter as you are. But your implication here is only that he might be connected to another incident, for which I would have expected us to perhaps ship him to Egypt to get tortured or Guantanamo to get chained up. But shooting a chap five times just isn't sporting in my opinion.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 20:02

Epykat wrote: I know what my opinion is and it is that the Police, in the present climate, did the right thing.

I'm sure they will be pleased to know that, especially as they themselves say the incident is "regrettable" and "tragic".

Yes, their statement should have read "we don't regret what happened, it wasn't a tragedy that we shot him in the face".

Democracy surrenders!!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 23 Jul 2005, 20:05

'All's fair in love and war' as the saying goes.