It appears that the ‘bomber’ who was shot by the police yesterday was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is horrendous news.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
67 comments to Not a ‘clean shoot’ after all |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
It’s a story with loose ends though. He came from a house under police surveillance, ran when challenged, jumped the ticket barriers and was reported by at least one witness to have been wearing a bomb belt with wires coming out of it.
But he’s got nothing to do with the bombing.
I’ll choose to believe this but I would also like some misgivings cleared up – if only to stop the conspiracy theorists leaving conspiracy links on my blog…
GM
It was always a possibility and it means there are now two tragedies (not including the bombings).
The first is that an innocent person may have been killed.
The second is the alacrity with which this will be siezed by Islamofacists and their Leftist supporters.
”We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005. For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets”.
There needs to be something more than this if there is not to be a suspicion that tye police were acting under pressure to get a result.
If a satisfactory justification is not quickly forthcoming the the terrorists will have been handed a huge propaganda coup and the Britons anti-terror policies will be neutered.
An emergency inquiry should be set up,a coroners court should be instituted without delay.We cannot have any doubts as to the efficiency of out police service,there can be no Nu labor buck passing or obfuscation at this time.
If I’d emerged from a building to be shouted at in a language I did not understand very well by a large group of men who had guns I think I would have run very fast to somewhere that seemed safe – possibly an Underground station.
Let’s not forget though that this is a direct result of the terrorist attacks and instinctivelt blaming the police would be wrong.
The witness report can be ignored. Witnesses are unreliable, and the ones that volunteer their information to the press tend to be more unreliable than normal. Any major incident attracts all sorts of random, imagined eye witness reports.
It seems likely the guy had something to hide or he wouldn’t have run from the police. Maybe he had 1/2 ounce of weed on him. Maybe he’d nicked something from a car earlier that week. Maybe he knew that the house had dodgy extremists in, and he didn’t fancy spending several months in a cell without trial or legal representation, trying to convince people he wasn’t one of them.
Come to that, maybe he was one of them?
It’s an unfortunate incident. I hope it isn’t precedent setting. I can’t help wondering if tazers might not be a good solution to this kind of thing.
Just because they had a case of mistaken identity I wouldn’t be so fast to condemn those cops… It could still very well be a good shoot.
By that I mean that given the information the police currently had and the situation they were involved in they may very well have been following the correct procedure when they shot this man, and unfortunately they were wrong through no fault of their own.
I’d just hate to see these guys hung up to dry when had this guy actually been a bomber they’d probably have done the right thing.
Hank,
In all probability these men will be hung out to dry,that is the way of Blairite Britain,viz the ICC prosecution of the British soldiers who could have bee quite adequately tried for the same offence by court martial.
Politicians are never to blame and someone has to be sacrificed to asuage Muslim opinion.The row has only just started,once the BBC,Guardianistas,Newt Livingstone,Liberty,MAB and all pile on this it will run and run.
I haven’t really formulated my thoughts yet … and they went in another direction at first, but as Gary says, the man exited a house that was under high surveillance. He ran when he was told to halt by the police. That is most rare. In other words, he was already very nervous before the police told him to halt. Third, he jumped the ticket barrier.
He jumped on the train and when the police stopped the doors from closing, a witness on the train who was sitting opposite the door said he looked cornered, like a hunted animal. To state the obvious, he was definitely trying to escape.
Another witness said he was wearing a belt with wires coming out of it.
Now, G Cooper and Peter, consider carefully the words from the Met: ”We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.” In other words, very specific about the events he was not connected with. It never said he wasn’t a terrorist.
It may be that they got the wrong man for the earlier bombings, but this was a bomber nevertheless, and they do not want to say too much for security reasons. It struck me when I read the first report how extremely precise were the words describing what the man had not been involved in.
G Cooper is right, of course. If it turns out the man was totally innocent, which I don’t think it will, that will be a victory for the left and for the Islamofascist whiners. But the guy was already nervous and didn’t obey a police command to stop. He could have been a player in another strand of the investigation that the police aren’t ready to go public with yet.
Peter writes:
“The row has only just started,once the BBC,Guardianistas,Newt Livingstone,Liberty,MAB and all pile on this it will run and run.”
Sadly, this is entirely true.
Whether they know it or not, the ordinary folk of this country have a war on two fronts. One is against the adherents of an alien faith which despises them and wishes them subjugated to its merciless rule.
The other is against fanatical Moslems.
Hank, I have a feeling, given the wording of the Met’s press release, that they got a right man, although not the right man for this particular investigation. And they’re not ready to say anything about the investigation in which this man was a player.
Robert Alderston, with respect, you don’t seem to be very well travelled. If, in a foreign country, you see a group of policemen with guns and they are shouting a word at you – as in “Stop!” – you would not take flight. I assure you, you wouldn’t. You would stop and try to understand what they wanted from you. Most probably you would raise your hands to show that you meant no harm.
Second, a Brazilian, if such he was, would not be able to get around in London unless he had at least a command of basic English. (Whereas a Frenchie or a Spaniard or a Paki would be able to stop a couple of strangers and quickly find someone who could help him in his own language. A Brazilian would be unlikely to randomly stop a stranger who could speak Portuguese.) So I think we can assume this fellow could speak enough English to get around by himself. He would have understood three or four uniformed police who were armed shouting, “Stop!” meant he should not proceed.
He fled. He jumped a ticket barrier. He was already very, very nervous.
Verity,
If the man had been carrying a bomb the police would have announced it,it was after all the reason they blew his brains out.
What is unsatisfactory is the fact that this is being left open to speculation.We are all aware of the grave situation,we are all sympathetic to the difficulties tha the police face,but why does this smell like another Blairitanian cover up?
The surveillance of the house is blown,nobody associated with it will be anywhere near it now,a little none sensitive information concerning any discoveries would go a long way to dispelling doubt.
And for the record if three men in civilian clothes started to chase me in London,I would try and leg it also.I have also seen pickpockets and fare dodgers leaping the barriers.
Verity,
According to the reports I have read and seen the policemen who challenged him were in plain clothes. If that is incorrect and they were uniformed then it would put a different spin on it.
I would be more inclined to think that he was acting suspisciously because he had half an ounce of weed or a stolen car stereo under his jacket.
As for whether or not I’m well traveled that’s one of those things that is highly subjective, I would say that I have only had a gun pointed at me by agents of a state on one occasion so I guess I need to get around a bit more!
I must admit immediately that I hadn’t read that the police were in plain clothes. And yes, that does put a very different spin on it. Certainly.
Thoughts: he still emerged from a house that was under surveillance. They don’t surveille houses for grass or stolen stereos, god knows. So the house was dangerous.
IF he was a terrorist – albeit on a different strand, still under investigation – he would have understood immediately why he was being told to stop, whether by men in uniform or not. He would know. And he didn’t. He fled.
I cannot get away from the point that the police wording was very precise about what he was not involved in.
Verity,
Another point is that this was an area where one might indeed get a gun pointed at one.The man might have been carrying a large amount of heroin or coke for dealing purposes.Apparently two houses in the area have been raide,but I can find no details as yet,early days
Peter – I appreciate what you’re saying, but I do not believe that terrorists are stupid enough [well, yes, they are very stupid, but I refer to the people running them] to hole up in a house with drug dealers or receivers of stolen goods. They will have had the money to put a deposit down on the entire house.
I’m sticking to my theory that this fellow was a terrorist for a different episode and wandered onto the wrong set. I cannot get over the precision of the Met’s denial.
Some more detailed news in the <="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article301232.ece"> Independent
Sorry,the link didn’t work Independent
Peter writes:
“Some more detailed news in the Independent”
Just as an observation, the handful of adjectives thrown into that “news” report typifies the Independent (sic).
What a bloody disgraceful rag that paper is.
Thanks, Peter. My reservations remain, even after reading the Independent piece. Again, the quote from the Met: We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of July 21 is very precise.
Was the deceased [and God rest his soul if he was innocent] a Brazilian Brazilian? Or an Islamic immigrant?
Too much confusion to speculate, although we cannot help speculating.
GCooper,
In the absence of any official announcements we are forced to glean information where we may,that is what i am complaining about.
Examine the doubtful “eyewitness account of five shots,try counting any sudden noise,you probably don’t start counting until the third bang.This has now become a matter of “fact”,maybe the were five shots maybe there were not,it is one salient point the police could clear up.It is going to be used as a gratatuitous use of force.
Verity,
That is what i am banging on about,there are many points that the police could clear up now,instead the are leaving too much time for the myths to develop.,see above
I will wait for more facts to come out before saying much more about this incident. Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye… and perhaps not. Hopefully we will soon know.
Peter – Good point. Who would know whether they heard five shots? This “five shots” is becoming a legend. Even a trained observer, going about his life in a normal situation, may not even now how many shots he’d heard.
Given the precision of the Met’s announcement, which struck me strongly from the first beat, I believe there is more to this. I also believe that we may not get any further information on this for the time being.
Thus, our speculations, although very interesting, are not informed.
Verity,
The first shot is just a noise,the second one is a “What the fuck is that where did it come from”, the third is “Christ it is a gun how far under this road can I get”,and that is with decent intervals,I very much doubt that the rapid firing of a semi-automatic pistol would be that distinguishable.
I’ve read witness accounts stating there were 2, 4 or 5 shots. In other words, we only know there were enough shots to kill the man.
I feel the conspiracy theories just bursting to get out….
GM
Peter writes:
“In the absence of any official announcements we are forced to glean information where we may,that is what i am complaining about.”
No need to be so defensive – I was simply commenting on the ToyTown journalism of the “Independent” (sic).
I’m disappointed (though not surprised) by the lack of information from the Met. But I scent mischief. I don’t trust Bliar’s namesake placeman an inch and I suspect there’s a great deal more that will (or at least should) come out before we can pass informed comment.
I was just taking a swipe at a newspaper that makes the Daily Spurt seem respectable.
GCooper,
Not defensive just railing against the lack of concrete information,which is if it isn’t sorted out soon is going to provide ammunition in the days to come,Once the myths take hold ther will be no shifting them,remember te lefts mantra about Tony Martin,”He shot a teenager in the back”,actually he shot somebody in the dark,but the former is here to stay.
Myths in times of conflict are extremely powerful things.
Peter – Yes, yes, I was agreeing with you.
G Cooper – I too scent mischief, as I said from my very first post further down on an earlier thread. It is not hanging together and the Met is manipulating the news in some way.
This may be good – as in not giving anything away to terrorist organisations eagerly scanning the news to know what we know; or bad – as in hiding things from the population.
We know that during wars, and we are at war, governments hiding things is a price we have to pay, because maybe they’re hiding the right things.
In normal circumstances, with an honest(ish) prime minister and a normal person who shared my British instincts in charge of the Met, I would feel fairly assured that they were working in the interests of the British people.
But Tony Blair is dishonest through to his bones, and Ian Blair is a very wild, ditzy card and I do not think these two provide safe hands. And that is without even mentioning the Gramcians inching their way forward to post-cabinet careers in the BBC.
Last week, I went outside with a pistol for a random blast of gunfire in the back yard. I came back in the house, and asked “witnesses” if they’d heard it and whether it was loudly disturbing. Both of them were instantly able to state exactly how many rounds I’d fired: “You shot one, and then after a few seconds, you shot eight more.”
That was exactly correct: I’d left one round in the magazine.
I know how this happens. It’s about rhythm and tempo. A sequence of sounds like that can be identified as a rhythm, or a sequence of discrete rhythms, after it begins. I don’t believe that everyone can necessarily do this: it so happens that the two people I’m talking about are trained in music. But it is quite absurd to be dismissing witness accounts so blankly.
BTW, Verity: You wanna swap passports for comparison? I get around. I’ve been to lots of places overseas where, if I were confronted in the style apparent in these reports, I’d run for my life, too. Yes, that house was under surveillance. It is really beyond your ability to conceive that — just maybe — this man did not know that? Think about it.
Peter writes:
“Myths in times of conflict are extremely powerful things.”
I completely agree with you.
And they are being created in newsrooms, even as we type.
Verity,
Not arguing,just giving you the benefit of my experience,if you hear firing ,be down ther or don’t be there.
I would agree with Billy Beck on rhythm,but in this case I think the papers are going for the most spectacular numbers.
Verity writes:
“In normal circumstances, with an honest(ish) prime minister and a normal person who shared my British instincts in charge of the Met, I would feel fairly assured that they were working in the interests of the British people.”
I suspect that’s the very nub of the problem. What you and I (and very many others) consider ‘the British people’ isn’t what the Bliar twins understand us to be.
They are trying to square a circle which, ‘as any fule kno’ is a mathematical absurdity.
Since Ian (no relation) Blair hung three of his officers out to dry on false racism charges,he is a man wo climbed the ladder by being impeccably PC,it can be expected that the shooter will lose his career as will the officer in charge who gave the order to go.
The phone line to Brussels will be red hot as Mandelson advises Tony who to ditch in order to prevent his suit getting spattered with blood.
Any relatives of the unfortunate victim will be outside Matrix Chambers on Monday morning.
Off topic but food for thought It isn’t Iraq
Peter: what the papers are playing for has no necessary connection to witness statements. In other words: if that witness is correct in his statement, then that is a fact regardless of the fact that any given editorial staff is jumping up & down in glee over it. We already know that they’re irrational. I, for one, don’t intend to be like them, and that means that irrelevancies are just exactly that: irrelevant.
Billy Beck – BTW, Verity: You wanna swap passports for comparison? I get around. I’ve been to lots of places overseas where, if I were confronted in the style apparent in these reports, I’d run for my life, too. Yes, that house was under surveillance. It is really beyond your ability to conceive that — just maybe — this man did not know that? Think about it.
OKay, I’ve just taken a nanosecond to think about it! Thanks for the opportunity! As you have given me no good – or any – reason to “wanna swap passports” – I’ll pass; thanks all the same – dewd.
Why not tell us the names of these “lots of places overseas where, if I were confronted in the style apparent in these reports, I’d run for my life.” Sounds really dramatic, dewd, but are any of those “lots of places” in the first world? Are any of these “lots of places” the world’s fourth largest economy? Could you explain – do us a favour and make it brief because otherwise you may drop your splif and we may yawn ourselves to death – what you are talking about? Could you please try to get off your fantasies and hang with the programme, dewd?
We are talking about Britain.
Verity: from London to Jakarta, baby. You pick ’em. Paris, Strasbourg, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Bermuda, Osaka, and all over America, just off the top of my head. (I’ve been traveling professionally probably about as long as you’ve been alive. It would take me a while to detail the whole thing for you.)
Let me help you out with something: “dramatic”, is getting summarily shot dead by cops when you weren’t doing what they thought you were doing. You sound like you’re a tad behind the news.
Drinking too hard?
Another clue: you should try to be nice to me. People get things their way from me, and I always take it to the wall. You wanna get snippy?
Be nice.
Billy
The witness statement was to the press.
I understand that, Peter.
What’s your point?
The point Billy is there is no corroboration,that it is not a signed witness statement,it is was statement to the press hungry for something dramatic. There is no proof either way and the police have neither comfirmed it or denied it. That is all it is a numbe in a newspaper.
Paris, Strasbourg, Hong Kong, Frankfurt, Tokyo – whoa! You’ve certainly covered the Third World waterfront, dewd! That is so scary!
Another clue: you should try to be nice to me. People get things their way from me, and I always take it to the wall. You wanna get snippy? Be nice.
Perry or whatever editor is on duty: I thought we were enjoined from issuing fatwahs in this parish.
“You’ve certainly covered the Third World waterfront, dewd! That is so scary!”
When was the last time you were in Jakarta? I’ve been there twice this year. The Marriott where I stay in Port au Prince is surrounded with ten-foot walls and razor-wire. Ever been to Barbardos? Grenada? Tobago?
Oh…waitaminnit while I set the wayback machine…
“…are any of those ‘lots of places’ in the first world?”
“We are talking about Britain.”
Well… we were, until you started cunting-off about it.
First inclination is to go along with the thought that there is something fishy going on. With the first bombing I felt that the police, MI5 or whatever, had had a large degree of luck in getting so much evidence so quickly, but with the second incident they really did seem to be ‘on the ball’, and, even a old cycnic such as myself, felt a stirring of pride in the apparent efficiency of ‘Plod’ et al. Only a stirring mind you, I have for too long been embarrassed by the charade that is modern Britain.
Now we have the thought of yet another ‘error’ shooting by our ‘protectors’, this is the second such error, and the guy was not even carrying a table leg! and they say that we – the general populace – are not to be trusted with firearms. For sure, I think we would be safer handling firearms than would appear to be the case with government agencies.
That the ‘terrorist’ was on the floor, with two officers sitting on him, when he was shot, certainly doesn’t sound – if I may use the word – kosher, to me. It couldn’t have been to prevent triggering of a bomb, as it seems that the real suicide bombers are equipped with a ‘release to trigger’ type of device. If the Officers were so well trained, they would surely have known this, thereby making the shooting a very chancy affair.
I live most of the year in the US, and most commenters here have be very admiring of the apparent efficiency of our, (UK), security forces, and quite surprised that a ‘terrorist’ was shot so peremptorily, most saying that it would not have happened in the US, that the fallout from such a shooting would have made it very unlikely to happen in say – New York, and what great guys those Brits must be, – if only they really knew!
Aren’t the best and most experienced officers on a two year sabbatical, teaching golf in Spain?
If they had been so good, they would not have lowered the alert level, just three weeks prior to 7/7. Relying on CCTV to catch ciminals after the event really doesn’t make London, or anywhere else, a safer place, it just makes for a lazy and inefficient security force.
My sour cynicism has returned, and I have a sneaky feeling that this is all just another gigantic, bureaucratic ‘cock-up’, by all involved, and just when I was beginning to enjoy a small feeling of pride in the old country…
Peter: you’re reaching, man. It’s quite possible that that man’s statement is true (i.e.– that it relates the actual facts) even if he was the only who saw what happened, which would necessarily preclude corroboration. It equally possible that it’s true without him writing it down and signing it. And as long as we’re insinuating motive here, let me point out that the fact that the police haven”t confirmed what the man said could be just exactly as dubious as the fact (which I will stipulate, and it should be clear that that’s what we’re doing, although we have excellent reason in history) that the UK press would be gleeful over his statement.
Earnest,
Is not the problem te fact that this government has lied across the board,announced bogus figures,double counted expenditure,made false claims about improvements,the EU,education, health etc, now when they really need us to believe them they have lost all credibility.
When an official makes a statement we merely think “I wonder what is really happening?”
Absolutely scandalous that we should be reduced to this pass!
Billy,nobody is reaching the man could be simply wrong,he could be exaggerating to get his fifteen minutes of fame,he could even be innumerate.You don’t know ,I don’t know.The policeman knows,the armourer who checked his gun when it was handed in for the investigation knows what ammunition was issued and what was left in the clip.But they are not as yet saying.
As an American I may be ignorant of some aspects of the police force in London, but it’s my understanding that very few officers carry guns on the beat. What level of firearms training did the shooters receive? How likely is it they would have had any experience using a gun to stop a fleeing suspect?
“the man could be simply wrong,he could be exaggerating to get his fifteen minutes of fame,he could even be innumerate.”
Yes, he could. I’m not denying any of that. But that’s not all there is to it, by a long shot. It is equally possible — since that’s where the thing lays right now — that he’s not any of those things.
Did anyone here see the man who described the shooting in a TV standup? I did. If it’s the same person quoted by the print types, he looked as squared-away and lucid as anyone could hope for in those circumstances.
And the cops “are not yet saying”.
Of course, they don’t have to, do they? There are any number of rationales for not telling what they know. But you know what?
I’ve seen a lifetime of bullshit behind those rationales.
Erroneous,
Some information on police firearms training the same unit that Stockwell policeman is in.
Ernest Young – come on! You know that no human being can think that fast in a life and death situation! They can’t sit back and take notes for someone to transcribe later.
That said, there’s something that doesn’t hang right about this whole thing – and didn’t from the beginning.
I agree with you. It is a charade. It is Alice in Wonderland. None of it is real. From Tony Blair’s clenched jawed speeches which mean nothing to arrests of terrorists who will never be tried to “securing our borders” while scores of people who have no rights to be in our country pour in. It’s all cardboard cutout-land.
“You know that no human being can think that fast in a life and death situation!”
You should speak for yourself, little girl. Because when you attempt an argument like that, all you’re doing is making it clear that any sort of reliance on the competence of those who tout their competence to manage these sorts of affairs is only among the most dangerous of all delusions.
Our man had lived in Britain for 3 years. He would have a working knowledge of the language. He would know what “stop, police ” mean. Don’t let the libs fob us off with he did not spika da english
Another clue: you should try to be nice to me. People get things their way from me, and I always take it to the wall. You wanna get snippy?
You’re a pretty tough guy. I for one am certainly afraid of you – I have no doubt that in addition to being a 79th degree black belt for “longer than I have been alive” you personally stormed the beaches at Normandy and killed 415 men with your secret Ninja training.
If you’d like to “take it to the wall” with me and give me a lesson in just how tough you are shoot me an email, tough guy. With the amazing amount of travel you do I am sure you could find yourself in the Seattle area in the near future.
“I have no doubt that in addition to being a 79th degree black belt for ‘longer than I have been alive’ you personally stormed the beaches at Normandy and killed 415 men with your secret Ninja training.”
You’re wrong. Anything else I can help you with?
Don’t be a judy-boy: there’s an e-mail link at my blog, and you didn’t have to do this right in front of everybody, but you did, so now you can deal with it. The last time I was in Seattle was a bit over a year ago, but let me know if you’re really interested and I’ll keep you posted the next time I’m headed out there.
It seems likely the guy had something to hide or he wouldn’t have run from the police.
Not necessarily. You come from Brazil and you live in one of the rougher bits of south London. A handful of burly men suddenly produce guns and run at you, shouting in not particularly recognisable accents… What do you do in the next second? (a) Guess they might be policemen who have mistaken you for a suicide bomber, and everything will be OK after a few cuts and bruises and several days in custody, or (b) assume they are local gangsters and run for your life, hoping to get away by jumping onto a train. If it were me, the thought someone might have mistaken me for a mad bomber would never enter my head.
“Nothing to hide; nothing to fear,” is utter nonsense. What we all have to fear is the hostility of those in a position to harm us. They may be mistaken rather than malevolent, as sems to be the case here with the police. But their conception of benignity may involve destroying our way of life, as Blair and the bombers in their different ways strive to do.
In either case blamelessness in your own terms will not save you. Venality is not a great threat. The worst evil in history has come about through attempts to force good on unsuspecting others quietly pursuing their own ends. Quite a lot of bad things happen in error.
While Mrs Blair, the BBC, Guardian and a million other anti-British parasites are busy hauling one copper through hell, maybe they could find 5 minutes to demand an explanation for this, from the Independent article:
Just when we need an actual, real policeman in charge of the Met, we’re presented with a poseur with a fat face, a pompus, preening clown. This fool – why does he strike me as someone who practices in front of his bedroom mirror? – sees an opportunity to show off where the rest of us sees a terrorist attack.
Peter says above:
You’re right, and one inevitable outcome will be that no serving officer will put their heads above the parapet. Why do so when an honest mistake drags you through the courts for years and destroys your livelihood? Our soldiers are now experiencing the reality of taking orders from a government of Gramscian Marxists. They now realise that the government is not on our side.
I hope all you blathering idiots that mindlessly cheered at the shooting and then exclaimed on how the bastard deserved to be shot again are having a fine laugh at your own foolishness… Here is the price of blind, unintelligent rhetoric and the actions that follow.
As opposed to what, Stephen? Are you saying that if those cops thought they had a suicide bomber in front of them and he had just run onto a train full of people, they should NOT have shot him dead? Tell me, what action would you suggest they should havetaken? Lets hear it.
There is an embarrassing amount of testosterone flowing around this thread. Remember, Billy Beck, commenters here are, as a rule, adults (or adult-like) who are trying to engage in a rational discussion.
Take a look at my earliest comments in this, James. Take a look at my exchanges with Peter.
I know rational discussion when I see it, quite without your assistance, sir.
I cannot honestly say what the cops should have done, I wasn’t there. however If I was being chased by guys dressed in ordinary clothes who were brandishing guns, I too would have ran. And why shoot the man five times while he is laying down? That strikes me as sheer savagery. I any case I take more issue with all the cheering that some posters here proclaimed at the killing of a man without the due process of even making sure he is guilty of something. An apperantly innocent man died. Would you feel so dismissive if it was a family member of yours that got those bullets? Or shall we simply say that; “hey accidents happen, he shouldn’t have ran” Can you honestly say you wouldn’t have run?
Yes, most certainly. In a city where people have been killed by suicide bombers and in which no one except the state runs around with assault rifles, running takes an almost wilful disregard for your own life.
Seems to me, though the police may or may not have acted in an extreem manner (if I thought I was chasing a sucide bomber I’d probably shoot them dead too), the real question is WHY did they think they were chasing a suicide bomber. What information were they acting on.. and if it was grossly incorrect, that is where the heat needs to be turned up.
this certainly gives some possible reasons as to why the poor fellow might have been running..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C22989-1707480%2C00.html
Don’t believe authority’s BS, or worst still your own.
You guys need to read this:
Trust you media whores have received your copy.
(4494 bytes)
TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD
Urgent Release For All Press
Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following
points should be emphasised in your reports:
The dead man is to be referred to as the “suspect” and never the “victim”. The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.
He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.
Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.
Remind the reader what would (never say “might”) have happened if the suspect “had” been a suicide bomber and the police had “not” shot him. Exaggerate.
Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.
Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.
When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the real bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.
Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.
Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.
It should not be written that he “failed” to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stoping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as “refused” or “resisted”.
Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.
One witness thought he saw a “bomb-belt” on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was). Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.
The police began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the bombers (by describing the apartment block as a “house”, for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.
Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.
Avoid mention of the suspect’s family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like “regret” and “tragic”.
Assert that the way in which the suspect “dived or fell to ground” was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to “get down” as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.
Report it as if “the regulations” required the police to shoot him.
Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.
Don’t mention the war.
Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.
If the suspect turns out to be non-muslim you should still continue to question muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.
If the suspect does turn out to be muslim connect muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.
Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect’s character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, “If he hadn’t have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today…”
Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.
All other topics, speculation, criticisms of the police, or discussions, are forbidden