Don't haggle with SO19!!
One down three to go ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
Looks like some of our 'Special' boys took him out rather than the police.
quote:
Originally posted by DaveFJ
One down three to go ?
From the BBC website;
quote:
they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him
Well, the policeman who pulled the trigger will have been suspended by now, and will be the subject of a police enquiry run by another force (this is
the standard procedure). If they judge that the shooting was unreasonable or unjustified then that officer will be charged with murder.
This may seem harsh, but as JAG says, there have to be controls otherwise they'll be popping off randomly at every asian with a rucksack.
David
quote:
Originally posted by marktigere1
Looks like some of our 'Special' boys took him out rather than the police.
I think the actions taken, whilst in Iraq or other parts of the middle east would inflame the situation, will here make young potential suicide
bombers (or just bombers) think twice before going ahead with their actions.
I quite agree though, that we need to catch these people alive to glean information from them.
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Well, the policeman who pulled the trigger will have been suspended by now, and will be the subject of a police enquiry run by another force (this is the standard procedure). If they judge that the shooting was unreasonable or unjustified then that officer will be charged with murder.
This may seem harsh, but as JAG says, there have to be controls otherwise they'll be popping off randomly at every asian with a rucksack.
David
Is there not a New law to do with bombers that the police can shoot to kill ?
All armed services, civil and military, must abide by their rules of engagement. these are not a "licence to kill" or shoot to kill policy.
I am sure that before these officers pulled the trigger they would be certain that they were doing it to prevent further loss of life, otherwise they
will be up on a murder charge. Could you make a split second decision like that?
I would imagine that the police rules of engagement are similar to the rules that the british army in northern ireland had to follow, these rules were
very much in the terrorists favour.
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
It has a distinct wiff off the boys from Hereford -- but as more than few ex-SAS people now work for other agencies who knows.
heard on t news someone was shot on harrow road,coverage isnt too good here,anyone care to keep moi updated?
What other reason would there be? If they can still move they can shoot you back or set their bomb off. If I was carrying anything, including a table leg, and an armed policeman told me to drop it or he'd shoot it would be dropped before he'd finished saying it. I don't think the Scotsman was targeted for being Scottish, he was obviously seen as a threat.
Even the British Army have rules of engagement. When my cousin was in Northern Ireland with the Staffs he had to get shot at first before he was even
allowed to cock his weapon!!
quote:
Originally posted by James
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
It has a distinct wiff off the boys from Hereford -- but as more than few ex-SAS people now work for other agencies who knows.
I'd be surprised, there's not enough SAS for Iraq/Afghanistan plus all the covert missions as it is- let alone having them hanging around train stations waiting for someone to maybe come along!
James
Give the copper with the gun a medal. It's about time we started wiping out these scum!
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
From the BBC website;
quote:
they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him
It seems they had this guy under control and then CHOSE to kill him.
If he was carrying explosives and was about to 'push the button' fair enough - otherwise I am very concerned about the actions of these people.
[Edited on 22/7/05 by JAG]
it would be wrong if it was avoidable, simlpy because you cannot act as captain judge and jury, and executioner. It would seem highly unlikely that this man was innocent, but he should still have had a trial if it was possible to take him alive. Lets just hope they find conclusive proof and dont get prosecuted for his death.
its been reported that he had a large coat on, and was wearing a bomb belt with wires on it.
a few bullets in the head would remove the possibility of him setting it off.
he was followed from a house the police had been watching, was warned to stop, and ran away from the police. If I were innocent and armed police
challenged me, i wouldnt move a muscle unless they told me to.
But this guy chose to run. Five seconds later there could have been another explosion.
atb
steve
only trouble is, if he was wearing a bomb belt there would've been a controlled explosion at the scene.
Apparently the "policemen" were carrying handguns, i didnt think any police used handguns, always sub machine guns when they were armed.
Does seem like SAS or some other special forces.
They carry Glock 17 pistols or Heckler and Koch MP5 9mm carbines depending on their needs.
[Edited on 23/7/05 by Peteff]
On the telly this morning a retired senior cop (ex-sweeney) has said he suspects it was an SAS job.
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
only trouble is, if he was wearing a bomb belt there would've been a controlled explosion at the scene.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
bit of a mistake there then - but why did the guy run? perhaps he was involved in some other illegal thing?
ok bit of a mistake, but the guy must have had something to hide. i would have slotted him aswell when he ran onto the tube, better safe than sorry
i hope nothing happens to the firearms officers.
it may sound harse but i dont feel sorry for the guy with the table leg mentioned earlier, he wasn't just "carrying" it, he was
pretending it was a gun.
"you fly with the crows you get shot with the crows"
No, not the story thats usually told.
the table leg guy had picked up the leg from being repaired, and was drinking in a pub. someone saw a bag with a long object in it, and though the guy
had an irish accent. (he was scottish). The police were called, and shot him in the street.
If thats 'ok' i would suggest that our scots members never come to the UK with any long thin objects in a bag - certainly dont think of
going fishing, or a bit of pitch and put.
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by lewis635
ok bit of a mistake, but the guy must have had something to hide. i would have slotted him aswell when he ran onto the tube, better safe than sorry
i hope nothing happens to the firearms officers.
it may sound harse but i dont feel sorry for the guy with the table leg mentioned earlier, he wasn't just "carrying" it, he was pretending it was a gun.
"you fly with the crows you get shot with the crows"
The security forces would have done anything to avoid a fatal shot, you cannot interrogate a corpse, and boy, they can interrogate!
Sorry steve, i must have got it wrong, i suppose being scottish is reason enough I'm scottish so can get away with saying that.
i understood he was imitating a sawn off.
a most unfortunate turn of events.
does anyone on the 'smoke his ass' brigade feel bad that he might just have been a window cleaner dropping in for he money, or something
equally innocent? Its a scandilous f$%k up...
[Edited on 23/7/05 by JoelP]
i think its just a really bad set of events thats led to it. If the guy was brazillian, as has been reported, he may not have understood the police
shouting for him to stop, and thought he was being chased by 3 muggers. It was compunded by the fact he ran and got onto a tube to escape. He thought
the police were yobs, and they thought he was a dark skinned bomber. At the minimum, it shows perhaps that a shoot to kill policy isnt going to
work....
atb
steve
I read a bbc news flash on their website which i believe was pulled fairly quickly stating that the "police" gave chase takled the guy held him and then was shot repetedly by another "police" anyone have any comments ?
quote:
Originally posted by liam.mccaffrey
I read a bbc news flash on their website which i believe was pulled fairly quickly stating that the "police" gave chase takled the guy held him and then was shot repetedly by another "police" anyone have any comments ?
I am VERY concerned by the actions of this group of people (Police or SAS or whatever).
This was an execution.
He shouldn't have run - but they should have had more reason to confront him than the current excuse that 'he left a house that was under
surveillance'
A totally innocent man (their own admission) has been deliberately killed on the streets of Britain by our Police/Security forces.
He wasn't even Asian - he was Brazillian
when all this is said and done, the real villains of the piece here are the terrorists.
Let's not blame our security services too quickly.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but we never had that benefit when 4 people blew themselves and many others up. The security forces are now trying to
protect us, and their job is not an easy one, and they are understandably jumpy in the face of repeated bombings.
If London had never been attacked, this tragedy would not have happened, so for the "muslim council" to get on their high horse is WELL out
of order!
just to add my 2p...
this brazilian guy learned english in 9 months whilst living in the uk and has been in london for 3 years or so, so he would have understood english
completely. he was an electrician so would need to understand things in order to his job. he also would know that you stop and use a ticket at a
ticket barrier to access the tube, not hurdle/jump over it. he would also know of the events of the last 3 weeks and so should use some common sense.
it may be unlucky that he was seen at/in/near an address under surveillence, and reports that because he is from brazil and was wearing the coat
because he feels cold in england, even in the summer wears thin, he'd been here three or so years, so plenty of time to adjust. why did he run?
well, we'll never know but in the current climate it seems very foolish and unfortunate that he did. I was also of the impression that the police
were wearing police marked baseball caps (worn the correct way round 
) and that they challenged/warned him they were police and were armed, though
this does appear to be being questioned by one witness's claims in the papers this morning.
all imvho.
Ned.
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
If London had never been attacked, this tragedy would not have happened, so for the "muslim council" to get on their high horse is WELL out of order!
Before anyone judges the the security forces, just take time out and put yourselves in their position. Would you have done the same? i know i would
have.
Although his death was unfortunate we shouldnt blame the police.
It is sad that it has (apparently) turned out this man was not armed.
However I cannot agree that the security forces were in any way in the wrong.
to tackle the points raised...
there are strict rules of engagement laid out which will very probably be similiar to those issued in northern ireland for many years. The rules are
very clear and drummed into all soldiers/police. Basically you may only use lethal force if the suspect is beleived to be an immediate threat to life.
To give an example from NI. If a rioter was holding a lit petrol bomb and about to throw it you may open fire, if however he has thrown it and it is
still in mid air he is no longer a threat and you cannot shoot him. A fine line I know !
There is no such thing as 'shooting to injure'. If you have to open fire it is always as a last resort and the ONLY option is lethal force.
shooting people in the leg or whatever is strictly for the movies. The only change in police tactics has been that it is now policy to aim for the
head if possible rather than the heart. the reason for this is that it is actually a lot more difficult to kill someone than you would think and the
only sure way to prevent someone from firing a weapon or setting off a bomb is to destroy the brain as quickly as possible. even then a single shot to
the brain does not always kill instantly - hence multiple shots.
As for the defence of - he may not have known what was being said - well we can only have conjecture, however If he was living in London he knew the
curent situation so why jump the turn stile with a backpack ?
I cannot believe that he did not understand he was being persued by police. they would have issued verbal warnings (at least 3 times) before firing,
surely anyone living in london understands the word 'Police' shouted in your ear ?
In all just a sad outcome that could have been avoided if the suspect had complied with the orders.
what would we be saying now if he had carried a bomb and the police officer had tried to 'talk him round' only to have many killed in
another explosion ? we would be criticising the Police for inaction. Its a difficult job and they are highly trained - they deserve our support not
vilification.
Dave (16 years in the armed sevices)
[Edited on 25/7/05 by DaveFJ]
quote:
Originally posted by ned
I was also of the impression that the police were wearing police marked baseball caps (worn the correct way round
Ned.
quote:
Originally posted by DaveFJ
There is no such thing as 'shooting to injure'. If you have to open fire it is always as a last resort and the ONLY option is lethal force. shooting people in the leg or whatever is strictly for the movies. The only change in police tactics has been that it is now policy to aim for the head if possible rather than the heart. the reason for this is that it is actually a lot more difficult to kill someone than you would think and the only sure way to prevent someone from firing a weapon or setting off a bomb is to destroy the brain as quickly as possible. even then a single shot to the brain does not always kill instantly - hence multiple shots.
Dave (16 years in the armed sevices)
[Edited on 25/7/05 by DaveFJ]
quote:
TextTo give an example from NI. If a rioter was holding a lit petrol bomb and about to throw it you may open fire, if however he has thrown it and it is still in mid air he is no longer a threat and you cannot shoot him. A fine line I know !
I wonder why it took seven shots to the head to kill him.... that to me sounds a bit like loss of control and not very professional. He was held down,
and a single shot would have done. But they used EIGHT - seven to the head, and one to the shoulder. Coultnt have been much head left by then I
suspect.
Interesting tack for muggers tho. Just shout out 'halt armed police' and they wont try and run away.
atb
steve
[Edited on 25/7/05 by steve_gus]
well , apparently , his visa had expired and could have been kicked out , so thats probably why he ran .
He probably didnt expect them to shoot !!
Its funny how the muslim council want answers to this outrage , when justice and law enforcement are much more brutal in those 'muslim '
countries .
If you are sitting on top of that guy Steve and you think he's carrying a bomb
than the last thing you consider is:would one shot be enough cause it looks more proffesional in the newspaper.
The only thing that comes to mind is take the target out as fast and accurate as possible.One shot in the head is no garantuee that the target will be
unable to take any action like push a button.
Even multyple shots destroying the brain completely can sometimes not prevent that nerves can actuate certain muscles.
My English is beyond any doubt much worse than that from the Brazilian man who was shot but if I would be in London at this moment and somebody would
yell "STOP-POLICE" than not a single molecule in my bird brain would think about moving any fraction of an inch!
I rather would take the chance of being conned and stabbed by muggers than take one or more bullets to the head from the police.
Let's not forget that those policemen risk their lives for the people in London and they know that it never will be good,no matter what they
do.They are either too late and the bomb hase gone off,or they are to early and just killed an "innocent" citizen.
The chance that the security forces can catch a bomber a live on the spot are very small,if not impossible.
I think that the security forces are very proffesional and that one victim,considering the circumstances,can be regarded as minimal.
I just heard on the Belgian news that they now say that the Brazilian guy was executed by the police.This kind of bulshit is not going to help anybody
except the bombers.
i would have thought on the one hand that the bombers would revel in the police cock up. On the other, they know that the police are out to kill them,
no questions asked. I would expect it to be a totally different feeling from a 'glorious way to go' - cowering somewhere, waiting for the
door to burst open to get their seven bullets.
[Edited on 25/7/05 by steve_gus]
Well said cita, it is times like this that we all need to support the police. that includes the press, like you said these comments only help the bombers and extremists.
Quite right indeed!!!!!!
It makes me so angry that the Muslim community can "demand" answers to why somebody was shot.
I am not a racist person by nature, but I think I am not too far from the truth if I say that we welcome people of all origins into our country, and a
very substantial number of these are asians.
A considerable number of these are muslims.
The logic then seems to utterly break down in my (evidently odd) mind............................they have been welcomed to the country, paid benefits
to assist in daily life, live in some modicum of comfort, and then certain members of that group of people decide the declare hatred of that country
and try and destroy the fabric of it. When law enforcement then try to maintain the fabric of society, that same group of people "demand"
answers.....................................................................If anything is going to drive a racial wedge into society in this country,
this is it. My feelings now are why should "we" tolerate this crap.
We had the issues with Northern Ireland, which were terrible, ugly and damaging to all, but there was a cause, however just or unjust it may be jusged
to have been, there was reason and a cause viewed as attainable by both "sides".
This current terrorism has no attainable goal, what do the terrorists hope to achieve???????
Arab society is tribal, and the various factions will fight each other unless directed against an outside enemy. Hence the appeal of bin Laden and
his contrived ideology. He and his associates are useful idiots for various authoritarian regimes (Iran, the former Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the
Palestinian Authority) who would prefer that internal political unrest be focused outwards.
If these ****ers can win world domination in the bargain, so much the better. They're still smarting from the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and
I think that's the key to the general unhelpfulness of the 'silent majority'.
So, I think that kicking asses and taking names is definitely in order at this time, up to and including gutting enemy governments.
These comments are directed at terrorism generally, and not the shooting. Wrong place and time, not dressed for success, and disobeyed police
warnings. Accidents are freaks by nature.