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

[Az]

That's a very mild way of putting it.

Police lying

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
That's a very mild way of putting it.

No, it's an unemotional and, from what I can see, the most accurate way to put it.

My feeling is that the police in this case:

a) decided that this guy was guilty ahead of time
b) were probably jumpy/pissed due to previous suicide bombings and attempted bombings, and were likely given lowered requirements to shoot from their superiors
c) ****ed up the pursuit completely, allowing him to get to a place where they considered him an extreme menace (given part a)
d) due to a, b and c (all factors completely within the control of the police themselves) the officers on the scene were way too eager to shoot given any reason, real or imagined. The guy who opened up first needs to have his balls served up on a silver plate. The ones who fired next have lower responsibility (once one of your comrades fires it's a natural human reaction to assume that there's a valid threat and back him up). The people who organised the cluster**** of a surveillance operation and those who provided the "rules of engagement" (during the preaction briefing, or whatever they call it) need to be given a good looking-at too.

[KrazyHorse]

My immediate assumption whenever there's a police shooting (or a military shooting if they're engaged in any sort of police action, as in the Occupied Territories or Iraq) is that:

a) if the shooting is pristine it will be reported as such by those involved
b) if there's something questionable about it those involved will claim it was pristine, and report things in the most favourable possible light. The truth in most of these cases will never be uncovered, as it was likely a case of somebody opening up a little early (while there were still other options, but these options were fading fast)
c) if there's something unquestionably wrong about it all or most of those involved will lie their asses off to protect themselves and their comrades. Often times there's so much evidence of wrongdoing, however, that their collaboration will be insufficient to protect them.

[KrazyHorse]

And the above is why it's so necessary to have civilian oversight of the use of deadly force by military or police forces.

Every shooting needs to be looked at carefully, because the necessary powers we give the police to protect us are also those which make it easier for them to commit murder than anybody else.

[chequita guevara]

edit: Hadn't gotten to the part about the CCTV yet.

[Chemical Ollie]

I'd rather live in a country where terrorists kill a few innocent people on the street than a country where the police kill innocent people on the street.

[Spiffor]

I expect the Brits to react quite strongly about this news. They are the kind of people who protect their freedoms.

[Bereta_Eder]

lying incompetent brits. what else is new apart from gay canadians defending them.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



ISTR most of us said lets wait and see what the investigation shows. I still think that was reasonable. What was accomplished by prejudging the situation?

You're quite right of course

Like, let's invade Iraq and that will confirm Saddam had WMD

Why believe it? Because the goverment told me so it must be true.

[Bereta_Eder]

and killers lets not forget.
they'd probably kill asher and then say he was so canadian he looked dumb enough to be a suicide bomber

[BlackCat]

Hate to say it, but not much has changed.

The first reports indicated that he acted stupid, this second says that there were reason to belive that he was a bomber.

Besides, that ch4 site is still not verified, so ...

[Alexander's Horse]

the police came up with quite a lurid tale for the media - someone is going to face serious charges and heads should roll.

[Kuciwalker]

Obviously, given the new information, this was wrong (putting it mildly).

Given the previous information we had, the argument was not so clear at all.

[Alexander's Horse]

The sort of questions that will be asked is why was that load of cobblers put out when things like the CCTV footage would have been available from day one - that smacks of cover up and senior officers will be implicated or damaged - they were either complicit or incompetent - maybe government spin doctors will be exposed again too.

But the good news is the shoot to kill/ shoot first ask questions later policy is probably dead in the water. I hope this young man didn't die in vain. He was just running for his train.

[kittenOFchaos]

We have two main groups of posters and so-called "facts" going public.

The "facts" in the immediate aftermath were such that only morons would have condemned the shooting. Had he vaulted the barrier, had he run, had he being in a heavy coat that could give doubt to what he had underneath...he had to be shot.

However, if the truth of the matter is that he didn't run, didn't vault the barrier, was in a denim jacket and wasn't acting suspiciously then all the Police involved in giving the public information, the Officers involved in the surveillence and up the chain of command where they covered-up facts should be prosecuted. Now, some can be done for unlawful killing, the others for perverting the course of justice or a similar charge.

For people that thought the killing was unjustified given the first "facts" the arguement was based on really want to handicap any attempts to deal with potential terror attacks.


What annoyed me was once the mistake was realised that no "blood-money" (compensation) was immediately offered to his family. Anyway this cookie crumbles that should have been forthcoming - at the very least it would have allowed them to pay for legal representation.