Even more trouble in London

Man shot by armed police on Tube

A man has been shot at Stockwell Tube station by armed police officers, police confirm....

BBC News Story

This is just getting crazy.

I was supposed to be going to London tommorow to visit an old friend i havent seen for 6 years but thats been cancelled now. I hope this spurs our government to take more action at the roots of terrorism and islamic extremists, like stopping the anti British/US imams preaching at Mosques around our country. If they dont like us, get out and stay out.

Cripes.. they really weren't taking any chances with him... :eek:

Blimey, he'd better be a terrorist or the witness had better be mistaken, or the proverbial is going to hit the fan and no mistake. Five shots into a prone suspect?

At the risk of politicising this thread - we spent years and years claiming we didn't have a shoot to kill policy in Morthern ireland. Didn't take long for that to change.

There must have been a reason for killing the suspect. Surely he would have been much more use to the police investigation alive rather than dead. Perhaps he possesed a weapon himself such as a gun or an explosive.

This is getting bad, good luck brits.

this inicident happened right on my doorstep.

damn. I live no more than 500 m away from this incident.

then there have been unconfirmed eyewitness reports of another smoking package on the Victoria line from Brixton, which is my other local tube station.

*shakes head*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Unless that man was wearing TNT under his jacket, that is just plain unnecesarry force. He was on the ground when they shot him five times.

---

Quote:

---

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man had been wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

---

Whether this witness is right or not remains to be seen.

There better be a reason for him to be shot or Blair's head should fall for leading the country into this out of control mess....


...which more or less makes me believe that, terrorist or not, with gun and explosives or not, they will make sure something is found on him. All hell will break loose if they dont.


Having said that, I d prefer him caught alive but I understand this was nearly impossible amidst the chaotic situation of London the past week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Not possible? The man was lying prone on the ground. Even if he was wearing a bomb, it seems stupid to SHOOT at him; what if you hit the explosives?

Whatever happens, I don't think those cops should be getting any promotions.

---

I imagine that activating a bomb belt is still possible lying down. If the man had been able to activate a bomb belt because the police had only forced him to the ground, and more people had died, what would the reaction have been then?

Quote:

---

it seems stupid to SHOOT at him

---

Quote:

---

Officers would be trained to aim for the head as shots to the torso could trigger a hidden explosive device, he added.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Now I know. :book:

Once again though, there had better be inconclusive proof of him carrying an explosive device, or this is just outrageous.

---

Or at the very least proof that the officers genuinely believed that he had explosives and was going to use them. The dead man's behaviour was very suspicious to say the least - he ignored the police's warning, ran away from them and jumped onto a train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Now I know. :book:

Once again though, there had better be inconclusive proof of him carrying an explosive device, or this is just outrageous.

---

You do mean conclusive?

I have read the associated press version of this story and it sounds like the police had been concerned about the individual for a while.

Reminds me of when the French shot that one Algerian terrorist about 10 years ago.

A successful hunt.. good show! :yes:

What I thinks worst about all this is the Muslim Council's reaction to it, it reeks of their hypocrisy and subversive support for the terrorists.

Since the first London blasts they've been, quite tastelessly in my opinion, spewing guff about potential backlashes and that the terrorists "aren't 'real' muslims" (whatever a real muslim is), and then they have the downright gall to have a pop at the police for shooting a potential terrorist. If the terrorists aren't 'really' muslims, why on earth should the muslim council, as a muslim interest group, care if they get shot. Their statement also uses quite nauseatingly emotive language depicting the terrorist as a lovely chap who you'd take home to meet your parents, but the, no doubt non-muslim police, as evil vicious monsters. Their response reeks of the racism and unwillingness to face up to the problem that is so inherent in their community.

I wonder how long it'll be before Sir Ian Blair has any white officers involved facing a disciplinary hearing on trumped-up racism charges.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

A successful hunt.. good show! :yes:

---

Not quite - it would have been really successful had they been able to catch him alive to interrogate him.
But before we judge the necessity of killing the suspect we should certainly wait until more information is available...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

and then they have the downright gall to have a pop at the police for shooting a potential terrorist.

---

Do you have any links to this story?

really, if they shot him 5 times amongst a crowd then I reckon the police must have believed he was an immediate threat.

And elsewhere in London the bomb disposal lot have been called out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Do you have any links to this story?

---

About half-way down the bbc story linked at the beginning. Their meaning is quite evident given the tone of their statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

About half-way down the bbc story linked at the beginning. Their meaning is quite evident given the tone of their statement.

---

Well I think such a statement:

Quote:

---

"There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear.

"It's vital the police give a statement about what occurred and explain why the man was shot dead."

---

is perfectly reasonable, don't you think? Why do you have a problem with it? It seems to reflect the view of most patrons who posted in this thread.

The statement is subversively confrontational. The man shot isn't even known to be muslim, only asian, and they keep on stating that the terrorists aren't muslims anyway, so why do they feel it necessary to make a statement about the incident if not to 'have a pop' at the police?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

The statement is subversively confrontational. The man shot isn't even known to be muslim, only asian, and they keep on stating that the terrorists aren't muslims anyway, so why do they feel it necessary to make a statement about the incident if not to 'have a pop' at the police?

---

For all we know the BBC might have asked for a statement about the incident.
What would you expect them to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

For all we know the BBC might have asked for a statement about the incident.
What would you expect them to say?

---

There is that I suppose, but if the BBC had asked them to issue a statement then there would be no need for it to include this section:

"...to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead..."

since it would be just be reiterrating the information in the report. They could've just as easily said:

"There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to shoot the and they should make those reasons clear."

as opposed to:

"There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear."

The section: "...to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead..." is extrememly emotive, conjuring images that the police unecessarily shot the man in cold blood; the use of 'but' instead of 'and' makes it seem as if the reasons are not imediately apparent, which, of course, they are; and "need to" is rather more confrontational than "should".

Also, no where do they seemingly acknowledge that this man was an obvious threat and that the consequences had the police not killed him could've been far more catastrophic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Cripes.. they really weren't taking any chances with him... :eek:

---

The alternative?

I think we should wait for more information on the circumstances before we start apporting blame or constructing scenarios for what should have happened. I suspect there is more to this case than meets the eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Hold down his arms, considering there were 3 of them?

---

Yeah and go boom. I'd rather shoot really, blaim the times not the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

The section: "...to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead..." is extrememly emotive, conjuring images that the police unecessarily shot the man in cold blood; the use of 'but' instead of 'and' makes it seem as if the reasons are not imediately apparent, which, of course, they are; and "need to" is rather more confrontational than "should".

---

A man just got shot in front of dozens of people by the police. It's quite an emotive topic, hence the emotive language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

Also, no where do they seemingly acknowledge that this man was an obvious threat and that the consequences had the police not killed him could've been far more catastrophic.

---

The MCB are just asking for the police's reason for killing the person. If the man was 'an obvious threat' then that is a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

A man just got shot in front of dozens of people by the police. It's quite an emotive topic, hence the emotive language.

---

True, but the implications of their emotive language are that the police did it in cold blood. Surely as a powerful political entity the muslim council should act as a beacon of calm and not start inflaming the subject by bandying about veiled threats at officers who were doing their job to protect the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

The MCB are just asking for the police's reason for killing the person. If the man was 'an obvious threat' then that is a reason.

---

Then why, as I've stated earlier, do they need to ask? If the muslim council and muslim comunity at large wish to distance themselves from terrorists then confronting the police when they shoot one in order to protect the public isn't the way to do it.

True, but the implications of their emotive language are that the police did it in cold blood. Surely as a powerful political entity the muslim council should act as a beacon of calm and not start inflaming the subject by bandying about veiled threats at officers who were doing their job to protect the public.


They sure made it sound like it was the worse atrocity.