Police on shoot to kill
23 July 2005, 10:30 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stamford
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchy260
Yeah because a young 'innocent' asian with no bomb was gunned down in front of an array of people.
Innocent until proven guilty or does that not count for young asian lads!
No bomb= no threat
Innocent until proven guilty or does that not count for young asian lads!
No bomb= no threat
The police should have searched the guy KNOWN TO BE LINKED WITH ACTIVE SUICIDE BOMBERS 1st properly giving him ample chance to detonate anything he MAY have had, with the risk of killing loads of innocent people in the process???
If this is seriously yor attitude, I would be very concerned where your loyaltys are regarding this issue.
23 July 2005, 10:34 AM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
FFS you are unbelievable!!!
Firstly do you think they had an opportunity to search him bearing in mind at any second he could have detonated a bomb carried about his person which would have killed them all? NO! They believed him to be a suicide bomber, they risked their lives jumping on him and werent about to hang about to find out if they were about to be blown up.
Secondly he is not an innocent man! They were tailing him because they had good intelligence to believe he was one of the original 4 bombers or assocaited to them. Just because he didn't have a bomb on him at the time does not make him innocent!
I can not believe there are such STUPID people about! You are over the age of 12 arn't you?
Firstly do you think they had an opportunity to search him bearing in mind at any second he could have detonated a bomb carried about his person which would have killed them all? NO! They believed him to be a suicide bomber, they risked their lives jumping on him and werent about to hang about to find out if they were about to be blown up.
Secondly he is not an innocent man! They were tailing him because they had good intelligence to believe he was one of the original 4 bombers or assocaited to them. Just because he didn't have a bomb on him at the time does not make him innocent!
I can not believe there are such STUPID people about! You are over the age of 12 arn't you?
Originally Posted by Mitchy260
Shot an innocent you mean
No bomb was found FFS.
No bomb was found FFS.
23 July 2005, 10:35 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm and was he 1 of these 4 suspected terrorists!
No he wasn't meaning bad intelligence and wrong decision!
Why let him walk into a packed tube station if they believed him to be a suicide bomber!
As soon as he left his house he should have been challenged! If he was a major threat then his house would have been surrounded by armed response before he even left.
It makes me stupid because i believe an innocent was gunned down for no reason!
The proof is in the pudding and he was unarmed making him an 'innocent'
No he wasn't meaning bad intelligence and wrong decision!
Why let him walk into a packed tube station if they believed him to be a suicide bomber!
As soon as he left his house he should have been challenged! If he was a major threat then his house would have been surrounded by armed response before he even left.
It makes me stupid because i believe an innocent was gunned down for no reason!
The proof is in the pudding and he was unarmed making him an 'innocent'
Last edited by Mitchy260; 23 July 2005 at 10:39 AM.
23 July 2005, 10:39 AM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Excuse me? I think you find the reports on this are still unconfirmed. At the moment they are saying it is possible he was one of the four or was associated to them.
Your attitude seriously worries me when there are people around thinking this blokes life was more important than the officers trailing him or the passengers at the tube station.
Why is that because he was Asian and therefore any action taken against him must be racially motivated? FFS get a grip.
Your attitude seriously worries me when there are people around thinking this blokes life was more important than the officers trailing him or the passengers at the tube station.
Why is that because he was Asian and therefore any action taken against him must be racially motivated? FFS get a grip.
23 July 2005, 10:40 AM
#36
I think you need to look at this on another level.
what if you happend to talk to a guy at work that you have known for a whislt, it just happens this guy is linked to terrorism, but you dont know it.
he is seen with you at work and you are therefore linked to him, you are running for a train the next day, you are being watched, three guys come out of the crowd with guns raised, would you really stop?
they pin you down, you struggle they shoot you in the head.
im not saying thats how it was, but its something you need to consider.
I think you are out of order saying that mitchy is being anti uk, because of his comments.
he is speaking what he feels is right, get a grip!
what if you happend to talk to a guy at work that you have known for a whislt, it just happens this guy is linked to terrorism, but you dont know it.
he is seen with you at work and you are therefore linked to him, you are running for a train the next day, you are being watched, three guys come out of the crowd with guns raised, would you really stop?
they pin you down, you struggle they shoot you in the head.
im not saying thats how it was, but its something you need to consider.
I think you are out of order saying that mitchy is being anti uk, because of his comments.
he is speaking what he feels is right, get a grip!
23 July 2005, 10:41 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was believed he was not 1 of the 4.
Associated can mean girlfriend/cousin/friend. It doesn't make them suicide bombers!
We'll find out in the next few days no doubt but i would say the officers were in the wrong!
They will now be suspended and involved in a big court battle! Guaranteed!
Associated can mean girlfriend/cousin/friend. It doesn't make them suicide bombers!
We'll find out in the next few days no doubt but i would say the officers were in the wrong!
They will now be suspended and involved in a big court battle! Guaranteed!
Last edited by Mitchy260; 23 July 2005 at 10:43 AM.
23 July 2005, 10:42 AM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
No he is saying they should have searched him ffs. So the officers should have risked themselves being blown up and others at the station by what they had good reason to believe was a suicide bomber? You get a grip.
They had no option but to do what they did once the suspect ran into the tube station, jumped the barriers and attempted to board a train.
They had no option but to do what they did once the suspect ran into the tube station, jumped the barriers and attempted to board a train.
23 July 2005, 10:45 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said they should have searched him? They shouldn't have let him get into a packed tube station is all i said!
If the intelligence was that good his house would have been surrounded and cordoned off and he would never have been able to leave his residence!
Thats good intelligence! Good intelligence is not shooting dead an unarmed man!
If the intelligence was that good his house would have been surrounded and cordoned off and he would never have been able to leave his residence!
Thats good intelligence! Good intelligence is not shooting dead an unarmed man!
23 July 2005, 10:53 AM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can't believe you are arguing the acted incorrectly! They acted on intelligence given to them, they did their job which was to shoot dead anyone suspected of being about to detonate a bomb.
The bloke was challenged by police. He ignored that warning and ran for it. When you have armed officers pointing guns at you telling you to stop then if you ignore that then you deserve everything that happens to you.
Any innocent person with half a braincell would stop dead in their tracks, not run away from armed police.
The bloke was challenged by police. He ignored that warning and ran for it. When you have armed officers pointing guns at you telling you to stop then if you ignore that then you deserve everything that happens to you.
Any innocent person with half a braincell would stop dead in their tracks, not run away from armed police.
23 July 2005, 11:02 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how did he know they were armed police when dressed in civilian clothing? 3 civilians chasing you with guns is totally different to 3 uniformed policemen chasing you with guns! Someone mentioned police flak jackets? Ive not heard of this report?
He may have made a run for it for many reasons unrelated to the terrorist bombings!
This is just another side to the coin, it wasn't meant to start an argument! Not everyone will agree with you B2Z but this doesn't make them stupid!
He may have made a run for it for many reasons unrelated to the terrorist bombings!
This is just another side to the coin, it wasn't meant to start an argument! Not everyone will agree with you B2Z but this doesn't make them stupid!
23 July 2005, 11:20 AM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know it doesn't, but when the police challenge someone ordering them to sop they will actually be announcing they are police at the time funnily enough. The reason I called you stupid was because you thought the officers who bailed on top oh him shouldn't have shot him dead. They had no choice and were acting under orders of shoot anyone who is suspected of setting off a bomb.
IF and its a massive if in my book they find this bloke was unrelated to any of the bombers the people who will have fingers pointed at them will be the intelligence officers who gave the information in the first place, not the officers who acted under orders.
But even this I find pretty much impossible to be the case, they didn't just go through the telephone directory and pick out any Asian person they felt like blaming, they would already have had a file on this suspect which is how they knew where he lived and where to find him. Don't forget the orginal 4 bombers already had files open on them by the anti terrorist branch and had been investigated. This bloke I would hazzard a guess would have had a similar file.
The whole point of not arresting these people is that 1) to be able to detain them under the anti terror law they would have to have evidence of these people having already posed a threat to the public and 2) you monitor them closely in the field to try and find out who is further up the chain of command. These are the expendables they are dealing with, the intelligence teams need to know who is pulling the strings to be able to find out who is funding them and get as much of the network under surveilance as possible. The very reason they didn't just go this blokes house and arrest him there ands then would be to have gasined further intelligence from him by either who he was meeting up with or by where he was going.
IF and its a massive if in my book they find this bloke was unrelated to any of the bombers the people who will have fingers pointed at them will be the intelligence officers who gave the information in the first place, not the officers who acted under orders.
But even this I find pretty much impossible to be the case, they didn't just go through the telephone directory and pick out any Asian person they felt like blaming, they would already have had a file on this suspect which is how they knew where he lived and where to find him. Don't forget the orginal 4 bombers already had files open on them by the anti terrorist branch and had been investigated. This bloke I would hazzard a guess would have had a similar file.
The whole point of not arresting these people is that 1) to be able to detain them under the anti terror law they would have to have evidence of these people having already posed a threat to the public and 2) you monitor them closely in the field to try and find out who is further up the chain of command. These are the expendables they are dealing with, the intelligence teams need to know who is pulling the strings to be able to find out who is funding them and get as much of the network under surveilance as possible. The very reason they didn't just go this blokes house and arrest him there ands then would be to have gasined further intelligence from him by either who he was meeting up with or by where he was going.
23 July 2005, 11:36 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is all very straightforward IMO.
He had been under surveillance as a suspect, he came out dressed in an unusually heavy jacket for the weather conditions, he refused to stop when challenged by the police and ran away jumping over the ticket barrier and onto an Underground train!
Just tell us your reaction under the same circumstances Mitchy. You must realise that suicide bombers can detonate their explosives very easily. Having jumped on him are you really going to give him the chance to kill you, your mates and the travelling public on the train?
Those men were extremely brave in the way they stopped him from doing what they had a perfect right to expect under the circumstances.
Try looking at it from the security forces' point of view!
Don't worry however, if he is found to have been innocent later, Billy will doubtless have them prosecuted in an International Court and your conscience will be assuaged!
Les
He had been under surveillance as a suspect, he came out dressed in an unusually heavy jacket for the weather conditions, he refused to stop when challenged by the police and ran away jumping over the ticket barrier and onto an Underground train!
Just tell us your reaction under the same circumstances Mitchy. You must realise that suicide bombers can detonate their explosives very easily. Having jumped on him are you really going to give him the chance to kill you, your mates and the travelling public on the train?
Those men were extremely brave in the way they stopped him from doing what they had a perfect right to expect under the circumstances.
Try looking at it from the security forces' point of view!
Don't worry however, if he is found to have been innocent later, Billy will doubtless have them prosecuted in an International Court and your conscience will be assuaged!
Les
23 July 2005, 11:41 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes true leslie but im arguing the fact the situation should not have gone that far! He should have never been allowed to enter the tube station!
If he was followed from a home address and was deemed a threat i feel they should have dealt with the situation much earlier?
We dont really know the facts of the case yet? Maybe he was already in the tube before the police started surveying him?
If he was followed from a home address and was deemed a threat i feel they should have dealt with the situation much earlier?
We dont really know the facts of the case yet? Maybe he was already in the tube before the police started surveying him?
23 July 2005, 12:30 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several issues with shoot to kill. One is that, as any sporting gun will know, you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot and you never shoot anything that you can't kill in a sporting manner. I would say the security forces played that pretty much by the book yesterday.
The second issue is that this will become a reinactment of the Irish "shoot to kill" claims which resulted in every PC do-gooder on earth becoming involved and, for all i know, the enquiries might still be going on. After the shooting yesterday I was sitting wondering how long it would be before we saw terms like "shoot to kill" coming to the fore and how long it will be before a range of do-gooders arrive in the UK to demand resignations, compensation and inquiries. All of this plays very neatly into the hands of the terrorist and, of course, you need only look as far as your friend Red Ken to see how it will work and the sort of people who will be running it. Irish and British security forces were effectively rendered unable to take any action against Irish terrorists because the "political" cost was much greater than the human cost of the occasional dead person. The government described it as an "acceptable level of violence." As I have pointed out earlier the aim of the terrorist is to gain more power over the demoncratic majority than he is entitled to so cries of "shoot to kill" and demands for an enquiry will, in time, neutralise the effectiveness of the security forces because the political cost of shooting a terrorist will become greater than the political cost of letting him kill people on a train. At this point the government have to "talk" to the terrorist and he becomes part of a legitimate political process which gives him international credibility and power well beyond the actual size of his support. It also encourages others to try a similar route.
Quite simply that is how international terrorism works and Red Ken and Blair have both shown that they either support the terrorist or that they are open to engaging terrorists in governing the people of the UK. In Northern Ireland a member of Sinn Fein became education minister. How would you like one of the people who was the mastermind behind the recent bombs to be, in 20 years time, deciding how your kids are educated just on the strength of the fact that his organisation controls bombers? Well, that is what you are facing and either the people of the UK wake up and smell the coffee pretty quickly or you will already be half way down the road to welcoming Arab terrorists into government in the UK.
By all means it is important that the security forces get the right man and that control is in place but it is also important not to allow the do-gooders to strengthen the position of the terrorist. In the end it is your choice: you can have a shoot to kill policy with general support or you can have Arab terrorists deciding how your children are educated. Take your pick.
The second issue is that this will become a reinactment of the Irish "shoot to kill" claims which resulted in every PC do-gooder on earth becoming involved and, for all i know, the enquiries might still be going on. After the shooting yesterday I was sitting wondering how long it would be before we saw terms like "shoot to kill" coming to the fore and how long it will be before a range of do-gooders arrive in the UK to demand resignations, compensation and inquiries. All of this plays very neatly into the hands of the terrorist and, of course, you need only look as far as your friend Red Ken to see how it will work and the sort of people who will be running it. Irish and British security forces were effectively rendered unable to take any action against Irish terrorists because the "political" cost was much greater than the human cost of the occasional dead person. The government described it as an "acceptable level of violence." As I have pointed out earlier the aim of the terrorist is to gain more power over the demoncratic majority than he is entitled to so cries of "shoot to kill" and demands for an enquiry will, in time, neutralise the effectiveness of the security forces because the political cost of shooting a terrorist will become greater than the political cost of letting him kill people on a train. At this point the government have to "talk" to the terrorist and he becomes part of a legitimate political process which gives him international credibility and power well beyond the actual size of his support. It also encourages others to try a similar route.
Quite simply that is how international terrorism works and Red Ken and Blair have both shown that they either support the terrorist or that they are open to engaging terrorists in governing the people of the UK. In Northern Ireland a member of Sinn Fein became education minister. How would you like one of the people who was the mastermind behind the recent bombs to be, in 20 years time, deciding how your kids are educated just on the strength of the fact that his organisation controls bombers? Well, that is what you are facing and either the people of the UK wake up and smell the coffee pretty quickly or you will already be half way down the road to welcoming Arab terrorists into government in the UK.
By all means it is important that the security forces get the right man and that control is in place but it is also important not to allow the do-gooders to strengthen the position of the terrorist. In the end it is your choice: you can have a shoot to kill policy with general support or you can have Arab terrorists deciding how your children are educated. Take your pick.
23 July 2005, 12:47 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to admit that shaggys previous post kinda worries me, it is very valid and sort of pulls the entire 'shoot to kill theory' very much closer home to us all. As stated we all may be related, acqainted with, involved or simply friends with someone 'being watched' and not know they are involved with anything. Therefore this equally opens us all up to being subject to the 'shoot to kill theory'. I personally am quite shocked and concerned at this thought as it had never crossed my mind before. Also, just to say i find a lot of the argueing regarding the incidents pretty pointless. At the end of the day it happened, nothing can be done now, and to be honest i dont think most of the posters to this topic have the entire truth or facts as to what happened to make a valid and fair judgement. Its all speculations and to fall out and 'bitch' about it to each other is really in fact, pretty immature considering most people on here posting will be older than me and i am prepared to absorb everyones opinion and 'facts' previously posted then post a rational and mature reply. thanks, moan over lol
Last edited by scoobygurllover; 23 July 2005 at 01:02 PM. Reason: i cant spell lol
23 July 2005, 12:56 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bit of a joke really......how do you shoot to hurt and not kill? shoot them in the body? isnt the human heart in there?
the police shoot to stop and always have.....if you are a baddy robbing a bank i expect they will shoot you in the body as its easier to hit....if you may be wearing a bomb they will prob shoot you elsewhere....ie- your head!
they shoot to stop....and he was stopped.
the police shoot to stop and always have.....if you are a baddy robbing a bank i expect they will shoot you in the body as its easier to hit....if you may be wearing a bomb they will prob shoot you elsewhere....ie- your head!
they shoot to stop....and he was stopped.
23 July 2005, 01:46 PM
#53
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newport, Wales, Wales, Wales
Posts: 17,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As said before
Sorry folks but when you use force of this nature, you only ever use deadly force. When you are in a situation when you use you weapon either in an offensive or defensive engagement, you do so with the intent to kill, that is how I was trained and all those around me, and always were and always will, past present and future.
I actually welcome this action. It does indeed show that the security forces haven't lost there ability for decisive, positive action. It shows the intent to meet deadly force in kind. It sends a message we are not a soft target.
When we engaged IRA Vol's in Ulster or the mainland and used such force, no one batted an eyelid. We had a job to do and so did they, we were given the mandate to met the threat in a correct manner. The RA gave warnings and fought a campaign that followed a convention that was only to kill Security Personnel, Protestant Paramilitaries, Establishment figures and the destruction of property. Yet as stated no one complained during the 30 year war against them when we shot and killed their soldiers.
Lets not go bleeding heart liberal shall we. These people believe they are engaged in a war aginst the UK, its establishment and people. Lets fight the war head on, not with one hand tied to to the mast of ' Civil Liberties'. When it comes to Sarin nerve agent or a small dirty nuclear device killing hundred's there are no 'Civil Liberties'.
Sorry but I feel strongly about this, mainly because when we got shot, the majority of the bleeding heart liberal brigade didn't give two ****s about us either, and we were there to defend all UK citizens, no matter what their belief
Sorry folks but when you use force of this nature, you only ever use deadly force. When you are in a situation when you use you weapon either in an offensive or defensive engagement, you do so with the intent to kill, that is how I was trained and all those around me, and always were and always will, past present and future.
I actually welcome this action. It does indeed show that the security forces haven't lost there ability for decisive, positive action. It shows the intent to meet deadly force in kind. It sends a message we are not a soft target.
When we engaged IRA Vol's in Ulster or the mainland and used such force, no one batted an eyelid. We had a job to do and so did they, we were given the mandate to met the threat in a correct manner. The RA gave warnings and fought a campaign that followed a convention that was only to kill Security Personnel, Protestant Paramilitaries, Establishment figures and the destruction of property. Yet as stated no one complained during the 30 year war against them when we shot and killed their soldiers.
Lets not go bleeding heart liberal shall we. These people believe they are engaged in a war aginst the UK, its establishment and people. Lets fight the war head on, not with one hand tied to to the mast of ' Civil Liberties'. When it comes to Sarin nerve agent or a small dirty nuclear device killing hundred's there are no 'Civil Liberties'.
Sorry but I feel strongly about this, mainly because when we got shot, the majority of the bleeding heart liberal brigade didn't give two ****s about us either, and we were there to defend all UK citizens, no matter what their belief
23 July 2005, 02:11 PM
#55
Originally Posted by Mitchy260
Yes true leslie but im arguing the fact the situation should not have gone that far! He should have never been allowed to enter the tube station!
If he was followed from a home address and was deemed a threat i feel they should have dealt with the situation much earlier?
We dont really know the facts of the case yet? Maybe he was already in the tube before the police started surveying him?
If he was followed from a home address and was deemed a threat i feel they should have dealt with the situation much earlier?
We dont really know the facts of the case yet? Maybe he was already in the tube before the police started surveying him?
Keep up the good work
23 July 2005, 03:32 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The Sunshine State !!!
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchy260
And how did he know they were armed police when dressed in civilian clothing? 3 civilians chasing you with guns is totally different to 3 uniformed policemen chasing you with guns! Someone mentioned police flak jackets? Ive not heard of this report?
He may have made a run for it for many reasons unrelated to the terrorist bombings!
This is just another side to the coin, it wasn't meant to start an argument! Not everyone will agree with you B2Z but this doesn't make them stupid!
He may have made a run for it for many reasons unrelated to the terrorist bombings!
This is just another side to the coin, it wasn't meant to start an argument! Not everyone will agree with you B2Z but this doesn't make them stupid!
In instances like this you have to make a split decision. They were chasing somebody that intelligence had identified as being an "ACCOMPLICE" ie they had done something wrong.If he was an accomplice to a pack of suicide bombers whats to say he ain't carrying.
Also, to one of your previous "statements" they shot him 5 times because they were using low velocity bullets, they do this to minimise any potential harm to innocent civillians [i.e the ones not running away]. To shoot him from a distance in a crowded tube station is simply ludicrous this ain't Hollywood.
Your are right to say that these police will be investigated as is with all fatal shooting the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) gets involved.
And
.....whoever said something earlier about "shooting all asians" [or something similar] needs to leave the board and remove their head from their *rse, what a stupid comment.
I beleive they did the right thing. You cannot take any chances not with this sort of itelligence linked with the guy, it's either leave it and let him run whereby there is a high chance he will either detonate whatever he may have concealed thus killing more people (or he could escape to come back another day) or put him out of action and shoot him.
Did the right thing.
Roo
23 July 2005, 04:02 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Home to a T25 and a WRX PPP
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to say that anyone who comments on here having read press reports on this matter is assuming they are all correct and all seeing when we have a very politically motivated press every one should read it all with a liberal pinch of salt.
Having said that the inevitable inquiry we would like to be independent, unbiased and fair, well the government dont really excel in that do they? And their "intelligence" is hardly to be relied on, think Iraq and Hutton.
This guy was shot in circumstances that only those there fully know and not what passers by are speculating on, he HAS to be considered innocent, whoever shot him and what ever agency he/she worked for, is the only one who can justify their suspicions in due process.
The regiment (SAS) I very much doubt are patrolling the streets of london in civvies armed, there aint enough of them and this is not hollywood, someone has already said that, but if they are needed I am sure they are not too far away.
Having said that the inevitable inquiry we would like to be independent, unbiased and fair, well the government dont really excel in that do they? And their "intelligence" is hardly to be relied on, think Iraq and Hutton.
This guy was shot in circumstances that only those there fully know and not what passers by are speculating on, he HAS to be considered innocent, whoever shot him and what ever agency he/she worked for, is the only one who can justify their suspicions in due process.
The regiment (SAS) I very much doubt are patrolling the streets of london in civvies armed, there aint enough of them and this is not hollywood, someone has already said that, but if they are needed I am sure they are not too far away.
23 July 2005, 05:28 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Exactly the same thanks.
The officers acted under orders. They thought this suspect was acting strangely after emerging from a building that was under surveilance, he was wearing clothing that didn't go with the conditions, ie a big heavy coat in 72 degrees, he didn't stop when cautioned by the police, he ran into a tube station, jumped over barriers and ran onto a tube. They had every reason to believe he was about to detonate a bomb given the current climate and therefore acted correctly under the orders that have been given, ie to shoot dead anyone they believe is about to detonate a bomb.
For anyone to carry on running from armed police who have ordered them to stop and identifying themselves as police is very idiotic indeed. I have absolutely no sympathy for the fact he was shot. He should have stopped when told to do so, end of story.
The officers acted under orders. They thought this suspect was acting strangely after emerging from a building that was under surveilance, he was wearing clothing that didn't go with the conditions, ie a big heavy coat in 72 degrees, he didn't stop when cautioned by the police, he ran into a tube station, jumped over barriers and ran onto a tube. They had every reason to believe he was about to detonate a bomb given the current climate and therefore acted correctly under the orders that have been given, ie to shoot dead anyone they believe is about to detonate a bomb.
For anyone to carry on running from armed police who have ordered them to stop and identifying themselves as police is very idiotic indeed. I have absolutely no sympathy for the fact he was shot. He should have stopped when told to do so, end of story.