Having read Mr Paris's article I would add that the report that the man the police shot has nothing to do with the current terrorist campaign is a little fishy to say the least.

He came from a house that was under police surveillance, ran when challenged, jumped the ticket barriers and was then shot.

I realise it's early days in this story but there is some serious explaining required here. He has all the possible hallmarks of some sort of guilt and yet is totally innocent?

We need to be convinced that this is indeed the awful tragedy we're apparently supposed to believe it is. So far I feel we know less now than we did before he was shot.

GM

I think he's a perp who wandered into the wrong shoot. But one way or another, he's someone the police wanted, but they're not yet ready to say why.

It looks to me like most of the people here (and more the commentors than the posters) aren't actually skeptical of the state per se, they just want to use its power for goals they personally approve of. It's not just when violence is involved either--I've seen various comments praising the likes of George Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Ronald Reagan, for example.

guy herbert wonders:

"What is it that causes skepticism here about the motives of the state and its agents to collapse as soon as Islamist violence is involved? I really want to know."

Might it be that the single valid function of the state which most people here condone is the protection of the individual?

Now, they might not be getting it, but if you are troubled by a recent enthusiasm for policemen and boots, that might be the reason why.

Ken Hagler says: "It's not just when violence is involved either--I've seen various comments praising the likes of George Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Ronald Reagan, for example."

Oh, darling, thank you for the light relief! You're a treasure!

Could Guy Herbert and Euan Gray be made aware that we know what their initials are, and there is no reason to reiterate them at the end of every comment.