Shoot first

mainly a fair comment.

Not sure about your planet, but on ours we take offense when someone takes our money/benefits and also wants to kill us.

This is not Brazil, it is the UK, where he had been living for 3 years. Long enough to know our ways i think.

Are you deliberately ignoring the news reports?
There were 2 police units involved, go back to one of my previous posts where it is explained.

There was a reported amount of 3 officers involved, do you have evidence to say only one opened fire?

If we had people like you in charge, we would all be dead.

 

Firing eight shots does not have to mean he panicked. If you are to kill with certainty a terrorist who might still have control of a detonating device you have to assume "last legs" capability and fire more than is strictly needed. This has been done deliberately many times, in well publicised cases, including by media darlings the SAS , the highest trained lot of them all. People are comparing the eight shots to a hysterical mad-woman-with-revolver scenario ( albeit 6 shots to be pedantic ). Give it time and we'll know more.

 

If I didn't say it on THIS forum (I've mentioned it at "the other place") I'll say it again - you only need 2 bullets to kill someone - 1 isn't sure enough. 8 is over the top.

If the visa was valid, than what was his real motive for running? Surely plain clothes coppers still have to carry a badge?

As for asylum - I know exactly what it means - seeking protection in a new country because your own is unsafe.

If Brazil is so unsafe that he then thinks British plain clothes coppers are gangsters out to get him (so he runs), then my point IS still valid - would he not want to claim asylum here (as it's obviously so unsafe there that a person shouting "Police stop!" and brandishing a gun is not a policeman?

He didn't (claim asylum), therefore, in a roundabout way (not very well put I admit) he shouldn't have felt the need to run when confronted over here. Does this make any sense (probably not, but I know what I mean even if no-one else does!)?

Run he did, and he paid the ultimate price, unfortunately. Let's face it, you're a copper, you tell someone to STOP when they are walking around in London in the middle of a (hot, for once) summer's day with a thick jacket on, and they don't - what you gonna do?

Obviously the police got an innocent man, but how the hell were they to know BEFORE they shot him? Adding yet more red tape to their workload won't help at all will it?

 

Surely the offensive part is the latter? Does it matter if he was (is?) on benefits. I mean yes, what an ungrateful b...... and so on but he might have been entitled to them anyway.

Human instincts don't change that much that quickly. My question would be why didn't he shout/scream something when he was in public?

That's the whole point. We have NO real knowledge of what actually happenned. We are merely speculating. I think we need the full facts to be made public before drawing any conclusions.

Actually if we were all pacifists, there won't be any killings at all.

 

8 Bullets being over the top....well at the end of the day he's just as dead isnt he, whether it was one bullet in the head at close range or eight?

I see we're all up for trying to understand the fear that made the poor bloke run in the first place, but hows about some understanding that the policeman who opened fire was scared he was about to get blown up as well, and thus maybe loosed off a few more rounds than was really necessary (which is worrying if they are sprayed all over the station but if they all hit the target, then its not too bad IMHO)?

At the end of the day the police aren't robots, they get scared too - they are trained to supposedly deal with it but no amount of training can ensure that everybody acts perfectly when it comes down to making that split second judgement.

 

There could be literally hundreds of reasons why he ran. He was afraid, had some friends in low places, owed money, didn't believe they were police, he thought they were going to mug him. etc. etc. None of these meant he deserved to die as being hinted at by some here.

 

Well, yes, trying to kill us is offensive i admit. He may well be entitled to them, i am just pointing out the fact that it could rub salt..

I think either your point or mine is fair.

Exactly!

But we are not, and never will be.
A pacifists ideals are not going to help us one bit in the current situation.

Edit to add-

Dev,
I hope you dont think that i believe he deserved to die. I dont think that at all, i am merely trying to put some possible reasons across as to why the situation evolved the way it did.

I do however understand why the police have put the 'shoot to kill' policy inplace.
In an ideal world only terrorists/suicide bombers would recieve the sharp end of that policy, sadly we dont have an ideal world.

 

These guys were just carrying out orders, it was only a matter of hours after an attempted bombing which as it turns out would have been on a larger scale than the first. Somewhere somehow intelligence got it wrong, for some reason the guy ran, he hurdled barriers and headed for a train, the Police opened fire at the very last minute. In that situation Im not sure those officers had a choice.

I would be seriously questioning the officers who let him get that far, why the hell didnt they just pull him when he left the building? At the end of the day its one huge fcuk up that leaves the police looking pretty dam stupid when in reality they are doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances.

 

No Andy you didn't.

I also understand why the police felt it necessary to shoot him but I feel there are many questions that need answering, some of these I've already asked in earlier posts. I'm just having problem understanding the events as reported. It just doesn't seem to add up. To me at least. We just need to wait until more facts are revealed.

 

OK Dev, im obviously not doing well at explaining myself here.

Hope i didnt cause offense to you.

 

Why would you think that?

Shit, let me edit my post

 

How's that?

 

I 'think' we are both reading the same page, but wording it differently. In my case badly.
FWIW i agree mostly with your points on this.
In particular that none of us have any full knowledge of what happened (possibly never will).
What i am sure of is that these are trying times, and likely to get worse. We will probably see more public outrage at the actions of the establishment, but what are we to do....

 

Not out!

 

Wishful thinking?

 

I'm going to my basket.

 

That's more or less my view too. I accept that occasionally innocent people will get shot by the police but everything in this case so far points to a huge cockup somewhere along the line. Whether it was the initial intelligence, the surveillance, the communication between the various groups of officers involved or the actual shooter himself (IMO the least likely) we'll have to wait to find out.

As for the part about whether a bomber was on benefits or not, OK, it might make you more angry but it's really irrelevant. It angers me that this is brought up by the media because the only reason to do so is to make an association between benefit claimants and terrorists and generally re-inforce the Dail Mail "thieving useless scrounging scum" stereotype of people who claim benefit, the vast majority of whom do so quite legitimately.

Michael.

 

Michael,
Fair comment that the media should maybe not bring benefit to the equation, but they have and people will react to it.

I actually believe that it is a good thing for the UK to accept asylum seekers (so long as they are genuine, and people must realise the difference between them and illegal imigrants), but it bites the hands that feed when they are planning an atrocity like we have seen.

Strangely, i agree with most of this aswell. Although i suspect we have different ideas on what the cockup may have been.

The problem as i see it, with regard to peoples reaction, is that the UK people have always and will continue to become more angry/reactive when there is a direct threat to our country and way of life. Althoug, maybe that is not a problem, the true problem lies with the people who attack us.

 

On BBC2 last night it was suggested that most of the muslim terrorists are middle class not benefit seekers,nearly all people on bebenfits need them until they find another job or are well enought or go back to work

When the IRA were bombing London you didn't hear the Irish moan when they were stopped so what is the difference when Arab/Indian looking peaple are stoped now?