U.K Police Shoot to Kill......

[sgtmac_46]

Expressing concern over a blatant bungle means you hate law enforcement? Smacks of nonsense similar to that of "If you criticize the Iraq war or the president, then you are happy to see US troops have their heads sawed off." Baseless vitriol.

Do you think all cops really deserve a blank check? That any hint of demanding accountability means you despise anyone in a uniform?

Doesn't sound like the only baseless vitriol going around. The insinuation that Tgrace was responding to was that the police had somehow been at fault in this situation. The mistake made was the fatal mistake on the part of this gentleman to run. That it might be an understandable mistake on some level does nothing to wrench the source of that mistake on him.

Now, that having been said, lets get back to the issue. If you believe the officers are somehow culpable, then illustrate that point. Lets not make wide ranging blanket statements, such as talking referring to US troops, when we are talking about a single incident. Stick to that incident.

 

[ginshun]

Strange situation.

It would seem pretty tough to blame the cops though. They are looking for terrorists, and when they confront this guy he takes off running, jumps a turnstyle and heads toward a crowded subway car.

You really hae to wonder why he was running in the first place though. Maybe he was guilty of something minor and just figured he could outrun the cops who would normally not have guns anyway?

I have also read reports that he was shot 5 times in the head at point blank range. That wouldn't seem to me to be normal police procedure. I can't fault them for shooting him in the first place, but this sounds a little more like an execution that subduing a suspect.

It really is easy to bring up lots of questions when looking at something like this in hindsight.


Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

Shot seven times in the head and oncein the shoulder. Thats pretty good shootin', especially with handguns and a running target.

 

[Tgace]

Expressing concern over a blatant bungle means you hate law enforcement? Smacks of nonsense similar to that of "If you criticize the Iraq war or the president, then you are happy to see US troops have their heads sawed off." Baseless vitriol.

Do you think all cops really deserve a blank check? That any hint of demanding accountability means you despise anyone in a uniform?

"Concerned over a blatant bungle"? First the quote was "well he jumped a turnstile so I guess they were justified" (more or less), where is that a fair statement? Second, while unfortunate, "bungle" implies some sort of fault on the officers part, which hasnt been proven yet.

 

[sgtmac_46]

"Concerned over a blatant bungle"? First the quote was "well he jumped a turnstile so I gues they were justified" (more or less), where is that a fair ststement? Second, while unfortunate, "bungle" implies some sort of fault on the officers part, which hasnt been proven yet.

Further the term "blatant bungle" would insinuate that it was not only a mistake, but that it should have obviously been a mistake before it was made. hmmm.

 

[Tgace]

Of course...the attempt at switching the topic to Iraq and the President wasnt suprising either. Again, Im sure the poster has nothing but the "highest regard" for law enforcement, knowing how tough the job is and...yadda yadda.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Of course...the attempt at switching the topic to Iraq and the President wasnt suprising either. Again, Im sure the poster has nothing but the "highest regard" for law enforcement, knowing how tough the job is and...yadda yadda.

I'm sure you are correct.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Very questional police procedure!!!

Somebody's going to tell me now that British Police are not used to firearms therefore it justifies their mistake huh?

 

[Tgace]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/032237ea-fca9-11d9-8386-00000e2511c8.html

 

[Knarfan]

Expressing concern over a blatant bungle means you hate law enforcement? Smacks of nonsense similar to that of "If you criticize the Iraq war or the president, then you are happy to see US troops have their heads sawed off." Baseless vitriol.

Do you think all cops really deserve a blank check? That any hint of demanding accountability means you despise anyone in a uniform?

Concern ? Yeah right

. Blatant bungle ? I think that you need to stop fantasizing & get in touch with reality . If the officers thought he was a terrorist & they followed procedure how is that a blatant bungle ??? So far this is what I'v heard .#1 He was told numerous times to stop & he refused to . I'll award this bungle to the victim . #2 He was dressed in a suspicous manner (wearing winter cloths in the middle of the summer ) will call this one a toss up . #3 He jump the turn style . Just alittle suspicious ah ? I think he deserves at least a bungle for that one . #4 Wearing a back pack ! hum , why on gods green earth would the cops be suspicious under those curcumstances ?????????????? It's not like they should have been on high alert for any reason

. Also I heard that he was an illegal alian & maybe he ran because he didn't want to be deported ? I really don't know . None of us do , but to call it a blatant bungle by the police ? The police don't deserve a blank check , but they don't deserve blatant bungle either . How about unfortunate accident with the unfortunate victim getting some of the blame . Isn't that probably more accurate ? Try & take your ego out of it .

 

[Tgace]

Latest news story is that he understood English.

 

[michaeledward]

I also think insinuating that these officers felt justified in shooting a man because he jumped a turnstyle typical passive aggressive liberal ********. But Im sure the poster has nothing but the highest regard for law enforcement.

I wonder how the poster can be sure of anothers thoughts.

Of course, under pressure to make an instant decision, being 'sure' certianly helps.

 

[michaeledward]

"Concerned over a blatant bungle"? First the quote was "well he jumped a turnstile so I guess they were justified" (more or less), where is that a fair statement? Second, while unfortunate, "bungle" implies some sort of fault on the officers part, which hasnt been proven yet.

Hey, he broke the law. He entered the subway without paying his fare. In this black and white world (you're either with us, or your with the terrorists), any law breaking is grounds for immediate adjudication and summary execution.

Go Judge Dredd!

 

[Tgace]

A guy with a backpack jumps a turnstile in London knowing the current atmosphere and wont follow police instructions? What do people think the Cops should have done?

As to the number of shots fired. That just goes to show the publics ignorance regarding the immediate lethality of bullets (particularly handgun bullets) . If you are trying to stop a man carrying a command detonated device, you shoot until the guy stops moving. Even twitches mean he could probably press that button.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=17077

But the investigation was dealt a blow and the reputation of British police severely tarnished when a Brazilian man was shot dead by mistake on Friday by detectives hunting the bombers. Despite the concerns of human rights activists, police say that they will not abandon what they called their "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" policy with suicide bombers. They have warned that more people could be killed during the investigation.

An opinion poll yesterday showed that 71 percent of Britons defended the policy, under which police marksmen have been told to aim for the head rather than the chest to kill a suspected bomber.

Interior Minister Charles Clarke defended the policy, saying: "A mistake was clearly made which will be regretted forever. But I don't think that means that they are wrong to have a policy [to deal] with these appalling circumstances."

 

[Knarfan]

Latest news story is that he understood English.

I saw an interview with his roomates the other night & they were Brazilian & also spoke pretty good english .

 

[arnisador]

The fact that he failed to follow police instructions is very telling to me. That's always a bad idea.

I say again, it's the terrorists who are to blame for putting everyone in this situation. They aimed to create terror and affect morale...it's working.

 

[Marginal]

Of course...the attempt at switching the topic to Iraq and the President wasnt suprising either. Again, Im sure the poster has nothing but the "highest regard" for law enforcement, knowing how tough the job is and...yadda yadda.

It was a comparison between similarly useless vitriol. Wasn't a topic switch. Just two similar lines of logical fallacy.

Don't like the phrase "blatant bungle"? Oh? Now overemotional garbage is forwned upon?

 

[Flatlander]

I've thought about this for a long time before weighing in. I've decided that my opinion doesn't count. Because there are so many unknowns, my instincts tell me to trust the people who are responsible to administer the law. More specifically, I have faith in the British justice system to determine for themselves whether or not this shoot was good. There are processes in place - checks and balances - to ensure that police execute their duties appropriately. They're in a better position to pass judgement than I, as they have better access to information.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I wonder how the poster can be sure of anothers thoughts.

Of course, under pressure to make an instant decision, being 'sure' certianly helps.

About the same way that these officers can be sure of the thoughts of another. Thanks for helping make that point.

Hey, he broke the law. He entered the subway without paying his fare. In this black and white world (you're either with us, or your with the terrorists), any law breaking is grounds for immediate adjudication and summary execution.

Go Judge Dredd!

Way to distort reality, and detriorate in to histrionics there partner. It really helps when people do that.

Now, it's time for a little intellectual honesty test. Since no one answered my question, i'll repeat it.

Now, lets put this in perspective. You and your family are a hundred yards down the subway line, watching this event transpire. The gentleman in question is running TOWARD you, currently in a lightly occupied area of the station, but he's heading toward a crowded area and you. The police are chasing him. They believe he is a suicide bomber. At what point do you want the police to make the decision to shoot him? 100 yards away, 50 yards, 10 yards, or never? Do you want them to give every suicide bombing suspect acting this way the benefit of the doubt?

Please, your honest response. Pick an option.

 

[OUMoose]

Now, lets put this in perspective. You and your family are a hundred yards down the subway line, watching this event transpire. The gentleman in question is running TOWARD you, currently in a lightly occupied area of the station, but he's heading toward a crowded area and you. The police are chasing him. They believe he is a suicide bomber. At what point do you want the police to make the decision to shoot him? 100 yards away, 50 yards, 10 yards, or never? Do you want them to give every suicide bombing suspect acting this way the benefit of the doubt?

Please, your honest response. Pick an option.

Let me see if I have this correctly. There's some guy running toward me, and behind him there's a cop ready to open fire? and there's the possibly of my child getting shot? Never. Whether or not it was some stupid kid, or a real bomber, I'd be moving my family and myself to a safer area. If the cop shot and killed my child because he/she thought the person evading was a bomber... I guess I have to wonder who's the bigger danger, in the end.