Originally posted by no1marauderYeah maybe you should do the same asswipe.
Moron: They were under "shoot to kill" orders for anyone acting suspicious.
I certainly doubt that those were their orders. As for the rest, you are assuming that the police's initial reports are 100% accurate when already some parts of it have been shown to be false. I know you don't care how many non-White people get killed, but maybe y ...[text shortened]... l investigation before handing out medals to police who killed a man who was guilty of no crime.
Originally posted by dfm65I still don't see how the police could handle a 'suspected terrorist' so badly that he was able to travel to and gain access to a tube train before being shot 8 times whilst under restraint. It sets a very dangerous precedent.
no-one is suggesting it is. he was shot in the head because he was being investigated in relation to recent terrorist bombings, and when challenged by police fled into a tube station and onto a train, leading police to believe there was a reasonable probability he was planning to detonate an explosive device and kill a number of people. i can't see what's so hard to understand about that.
From his point of view, he was shot (bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm is reporting 8 times now btw) because he fled. Given the confusion it is unlikely he established he was under investigation in relation to recent terror attacks. His demeanour has been described as being like that of a cornered rabbit when he jumped on the train.
Intersting quote from the above article: "Over the past year there have been an increased number of immigration checks at Tube stations - a policy widely reported in Brazilian papers in London." No wonder he ran, if as reported, his VISA had expired.
To run signalled possible guilt, but not of the crime the police hoped he was about to perpetrate (what a scoop that would've been though eh?! Those invovled would probably have been Knighted for bravery). This highlights the inherent problem of operating a shoot first policy, when the guilty are judged for the maximum possible crime in the first instance.
1 edit
Originally posted by rhbFurther to that - the shoot to kill policy was not advertised first. This is quite an important point and it hadn't really occured to me before. Had the authorities warned people that they had given the police the right to blow people away on suspicion - he might not have fled; after all given the choice between exile and death... Remember the normal procedure for the police up until now has not been to chase people and then summarily execute them. One failure of the policy was not to say they'd do it.
I still don't see how the police could handle a 'suspected terrorist' so badly that he was able to travel to and gain access to a tube train before being shot 8 times whilst under restraint. It sets a very dangerous precedent.
From his po ...[text shortened]... y are judged for the maximum possible crime in the first instance.
Also, even allowing for that, by the time they'd caught up with him they should have been able to work out that he can't have been a terrorist, or at least not one with a bomb on him, as he and they and the passengers on the train were all still alive...until they pulled the trigger without thinking.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt's murder, pure and simple. The fact that some people are defending this type of procedure is a sad sign of the times.
Further to that - [b]the shoot to kill policy was not advertised first. This is quite an important point and it hadn't really occured to me before. Had the authorities warned people that they had given the police the right to blow people away on suspicion - he might not have fled; after all given the choice between exile and death... Remember the ...[text shortened]... e passengers on the train were all still alive...until they pulled the trigger without thinking.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyThe police were ordered to overreact, not that it normally takes much encouragement. We need the resignations of some senior figures starting with the primeminister and the home secretary - they instigated the policy.
Yes, i agree. Obviously the police over-reacted.
Originally posted by DeepThoughti'm glad to see that you are outraged by this senseless shooting, as the rest of us should be. But here in America it is very common indded for the police to shoot first and ask questions later. Especially if you are a person of color or just look like an average working class citizen. Sad to see Britian go down the "it's a matter of public safety" tubes as America has so long ago.
The police were ordered to overreact, not that it normally takes much encouragement. We need the resignations of some senior figures starting with the primeminister and the home secretary - they instigated the policy.