"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
So the police can shoot on sight anyone they "presume" to be a bomber?

If that's a reasonable presumption, yes!

[MarkG]

these people do not just want to be martyrs. if that was their case, they would be burning themselves up or stuff like that. their first target is to execute the goals of their group, which is to kill as many people as possible...

[Eli]

Extra judicial killings of innocents? I wonder what Ken Livingstone has to say.

[Verto]

Originally posted by MarkG

"I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun.

"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

If they thought the guy had explosives on him, pushing him to the ground (and then shooting him in the head, so as to not trigger the explosives) is a sound precaution.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If that's a reasonable presumption, yes!

I don't know about you, but personally, I would like the police and counter-terror officers to be acting on a basis of investigation rather than presumption.


I don't want to live in a society where police can tackle and execute anyone they don't like the looks of. As I said before, Britain is a scary place.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I don't know about you, but personally, I would like the police and counter-terror officers to be acting on a basis of investigation rather than presumption.


I don't want to live in a society where police can tackle and execute anyone they don't like the looks of. As I said before, Britain is a scary place.

Nice idea, and I agree.

Though, I also think that the police should react when nessecary as in this case. If the jerk hadn't done what he did he would be alive today.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Asher

You would seriously fire at somebody from afar you had reason to believe was strapped head to toe in explosives?

Oh, right, yes. The police shouldn't shoot at people they suspect might have bombs on them- but once they know they're clean and no danger to anyone, then it's fine for them to unload into them.

Edit: Verto at least makes the reasoning behind shooting him repeatedly in the head a bit less nonsensical.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

No wonder they don't let British cops carry guns.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

And why couldn't they shoot him in the leg or shoulder? Most cops are trained to shoot to maim, not kill.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I don't know about you, but personally, I would like the police and counter-terror officers to be acting on a basis of investigation rather than presumption.

I agree. When they think someone running into a subway has a bomb, they should defer to a committee.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Verto


If they thought the guy had explosives on him, pushing him to the ground (and then shooting him in the head, so as to not trigger the explosives) is a sound precaution.

That would be a justifiable precaution... if the man was actually involved in the bombings in some way. But apparently he was completely unconnected. The police would need to of had a reason to believe he had explosives on him, but apparently no such reason exists - either they where incompetant in their investigation, or reckless in their pursuit.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Verto


If they thought the guy had explosives on him, pushing him to the ground (and then shooting him in the head, so as to not trigger the explosives) is a sound precaution.

If they were truly worried about not setting off explosives, they probably wouldn't be shooting at him.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
And why couldn't they shoot him in the leg or shoulder? Most cops are trained to shoot to maim, not kill.

Because they thought he had a bomb.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Because they thought he had a bomb.

And sending bullets flying in the direction of what could potentially be a live bomb makes perfect sense.

Think.

[Gibsie]

I would assume by the time they had him on the ground they'd worked out he was no threat, which is why executing him is okay, silly.