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
Printable View
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
Whether this witness is right or not remains to be seen.Quote:
Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man had been wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".
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.
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:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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
You do mean conclusive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.....
Not quite - it would have been really successful had they been able to catch him alive to interrogate him.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
But before we judge the necessity of killing the suspect we should certainly wait until more information is available...
Do you have any links to this story?Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
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.
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 Ser Clegane
Well I think such a statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
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.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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
"...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.
The alternative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.
Yeah and go boom. I'd rather shoot really, blaim the times not the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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
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 thrashaholic
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
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.
Do police hold people down and then shoot them?? That doesnt seem like standard practice to me? Correct me if Im wrong.. That sounds more like an execution to me...
'If' they did, I hope they have a damn good explanation...
The implication of their emotive language is that an emotive event has occured. The MCB wants an explanation to the event, which is fair enough. As I said before, this explanation could be that the man was a terrorist, an explanation the MCB would accept. However the police aren't really saying much at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by thrashaholic
I have to say when I first heard one of the eyewitness' describe what he saw on the BBC, I was more than a bit taken aback by how cold blooded the shooting by the police seemed. He stated that the guy was on the floor - tripped or pushed by the police, maybe a combination of both - and that they pounced on him and shot him at extreme close range five times.. Just like that. Blimey. If I was a muslim I would be feeling very nervous if I was wearing a backpack on the underground right now, if we suddenly have a shoot to kill policy by the police and one they are using in such lethally quick ways. The MCB is definitely correct in asking for reasoning by the police.
However, the police have seemingly tracked down a terrorist and even if he has been killed, it is clearly a good thing that someone who would be willing to kill innocent people on a train / bus, is no more.
By the way, to all those gun freaks on the forum, this just shows why you don't need to have guns legalised and a system as we have over here works perfectly. But I don't wanna turn this into a gun thread, they do get quite stale.
Oh common, of course they shoot him in the head, and if it was a mistake it were the circumstances that were the architect. Right there these guys had a dillema, shoot or risk something much much worse. And if you were a muslim you should be very nervous, with all these freaks among you that are the very essence of the problem of the 'good' muslims in the west. Blaiming the victim on the rise once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
Quote:
Stockwell passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen a man of Asian appearance shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers".
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said.
Do you not think it is very odd, that the police kill the bloke in downright cold blood - as the guy was on the floor, well covered and police all around - with 5 shots to the head, yet they then frantically call in an air ambulance to try and keep him alive?! Seems like a bloody mix up and heavy handedness if they wanted him alive to me. And surely it is common sense to realise he would have been better alive to the investigation rather than dead. Every eyewitness seems to allude to the over reaction of the police force in the situation and I have to admit I still can't quite understand why that kind of force was really needed in the situation.Quote:
"He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him.
"They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him. He died at the scene."
You don't shoot someone in the head to take him alive, they wanted to prevent an attack. Hysteria or not, cold blooded murder it isn't for sure. Where should they shoot? In the chests or legs? The only place the boms sure as hell aren't is the head. I think it is bad taste to question ones motives in circumstances such as these, give them some credit, I am sure they didn't enjoy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
I have read nowhere that he was shot in the head 5 times. LOL ! You don't need 5 shots to the head to kill a normal man. From what I have read he was shot 5 times.
The problem with this is:
1. If he was carrying explosives any trained officer would have shot him in the head.
2. If he was clearly overpowered why shoot him at all ?
We don't have enough "official information" yet, but at this time it looks like this was most likely an execution of a suspect by the police.
The police need to answer some questions, and they better have good answers because the Brit public is not so easily placated like people of certain other countries are.
Any organisation or individual is perfectly, completely and totally justified in asking for the reasons behind this killing.
If you were "brown" and walking down the tube at Liverpool or any other station would you not be concerned about this killing and the manner in which it was carried out ? Why has there been no explanation given by the police ? What should this convey to the Asians living in Britain ?
Most Asians don't feel safe anymore than the average white Brit does. In order to keep the situation from turning into a dangerous riot the authorities must launch an independent investigation into this killing. Everything must be done to ensure that the due course of law was followed and it must be disclosed if the suspect was actually a dangerous threat.
This is Britain 2005, not some Inquisitor state in Medieval Iberia, it is completely insane under the current tense situation to allow police officers to perform their duties in this manner without a single statement from the authorities.
Obvious to you, maybe, but not to me. The term execution implies cold blooded killing with premeditation and motive. But that seems absurd here. There's no motive in the police wantonly killing someone who might help you catch suicide bombers. And there's no sense in them planning to chase a man into a tube station and kill him in front of dozens of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
From what we know so far, the dead man appears to have been under surveillance - hence the large number of plain clothes armed police. My interpretation is that the suspect "made" the plain clothes officers around him and started to run for it. Heading into a tube train full of people, wearing a heavy winter coat, my belief is that the police thought it was possible the suspect would detonate explosives concealed on his body.
Yes, in an ideal world, the police might have restrained him or shot him in the head. But this was a break neck pursuit, adrenaline pumping. What happened probably seemed different to the police officers running in a headlong pursuit than it did to startled commuters in the train or people like us sitting at home in front of our computers.
A pursuing policeman caught up with the suspect as he entered the train and then rapidly pumped bullets into him to kill him. He did not try to restrain the man nor aim for the head, presumably because these would have taken more time and he feared immediate detonation of a bomb.
To be honest, I would have done the same. If I were trained in firearms, I might have second thoughts after the event - thinking, could I have avoided lethal force? could I have detonated the bomb by shooting? But from the comfort of my armchair, I can totally understand the policeman's action.
Now, I may be wrong with this interpretation. No doubt we will learn more in due course. But if I am right, you may call it an execution - I call it reasonable force.
According to this graphic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm#graphic
The man was challenged i.e "stop or I fire" kind of instruction, to which man refused to comply.
That is at least some reassurance, however the question remains unanswered by the autorities, at this time, as to why he had to be shot 5 times at point blank range.
Why did the police shoot a suspected sucide bomber in the head?
Really think about it for a second - the sucide bomber has been caught - he has nothing to lose at that time - and set off his bomb killing himself and the cops holding him.
Why more then once you ask - same scenerio - the possibility of the sucide bomber setting off his bomb must be reduced, the extra shots were to make sure.
The only thing the police need to do - is justify the reason for using deadly force in stopping this guy. And its best left up to the testimony of the individual police officers involved.
Simon, I realised that statement would be inaccurate, and I had already edited it in the time you were writing your reply.
No problem, Sinan. I hope my post was not too gung-ho in response. Apparently, the police have now said the man was unconnected with the bombings, making the whole thing a tragedy.
NP Simon. Your pst was great, well written and well constructed, lot of sense there. No offence at all.
So we were right in challenging authority and asking questions.
Please have a look at the following link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
A police force that cannot tell the difference between an asian and a south american... He was "brown" and running away from the police, so that obviously was enough of a reason to shoot? He may have been an illegal immigrant fearful of deportation, or his understanding of english may not have been good. There are any number of reasons. The police were in plain clothes, so it is highly likely that the man may not have known that they were police at all. It was commented that he was wearing a heavy coat in "summer". To a Brazilian an english summer is not a summer.
If this execution style killing had happened in Iraq or any of the "axis of evil" countries, the British Goverment would have totally condemned it. A totally transparent investigation is needed.
Those that see this killing as justified, making use of a "just in case" logic are actually bordering on the realms of the undemocratic.
Well, whenever the police kill somebody the case is automatically referred to the independent police complaints commission, so there will be a independent investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beorhtwulf
His ethnic background doesn't matter. As it was the guy was Brazilian. Would it been better if he was Asian? Would it have been ok then? Think about what you have just said. Also contemplate this: one of the bombers on the seventh was of West Indian extraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beorhtwulf
If he was already apprenhended shooting him and blaming it on the current climate is not valid.
Sorry that is the same (edit: not sane) pathetic excuse the suicide bombers are giving for their actions.
We are victims of circumstance, blame someone else, I won't take responsibility for my actions it was the situation, my mummy didn't love me etc
The only worse thing then terrorism is a police state that uses state sponsored terrorism.
If the guy was apprehended then it would be murder at that point. To kill the person makes them judge, jury and executioner.
It would not have been better of course. You're merely twisting my words. The fact is that this man was named as unconnected with the bombings in London. My exact point is that people may now be targeted because they are non white and running from police. This is not a good situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
I'm thinking about what I have just said, the question is: are you?
As I heard he was followed by three policemen dressed as civilians, who then wanted to stop him. I would run if three total strangers in normal clothes tried to stop me in the subway. I think this is very serious indeed and gives policemen (who are only people) a license to shoot anyone whom they think looks funny. Of course something needs to be done and a suicidebomber can't be stopped by telling him politely to lay down the bomb, but this does not seem the right way to go to me.
Then choose your words more carefully. However, now you have explained more clearly I quite agree with you about the dangerous precedent which this incident may provide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beorhtwulf