Originally posted by rhbso if you were that policeman you would have thought..."hmmmm he might be innocent so i'll let him get on the train and just hope he doesn't kill everyone"....i'd be more worried if we had cops like that protecting us than ones who shoot to kill people ignoring police shouts to stop!
you missed the third option in the decision there... that this man might be innocent, and pose no threat to anyone.
Originally posted by rhbno, i covered that with 'might'...
you missed the third option in the decision there... that this man might be innocent, and pose no threat to anyone.
in fact, given the circumstances, perhaps i should say 'there was reasonable cause to believe, given the timeframe in which the decision had to be made'.
Originally posted by Freddie2004You go on believing a world where being suspicious is enough grounds to execute someone. I'll go on believing in a world where I have the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
read my post above! he left a residence that was UNDER SURVEILANCE!!! the police had a millisecond to decide wether to risk 50 people's lives and let the man get on the train in the hope that he wouldn't blow himself up, or kill him and protect everyone!
1 edit
Originally posted by Freddie2004Why did they follow him on a bus as far as the train if they suspected him?
so if you were that policeman you would have thought..."hmmmm he might be innocent so i'll let him get on the train and just hope he doesn't kill everyone"....i'd be more worried if we had cops like that protecting us than ones who shoot to kill people ignoring police shouts to stop!
Do the words "police state" make you feel more nervous or secure?
As for surveillance...everywhere in London is under surveillance. Everyone is a potential criminal--and now, presumably, guilty until proven innocent.
Originally posted by Freddie2004Had that option been taken this time that man would still be alive, as would everyone else on that train.
so if you were that policeman you would have thought..."hmmmm he might be innocent so i'll let him get on the train and just hope he doesn't kill everyone"....i'd be more worried if we had cops like that protecting us than ones who shoot to kill people ignoring police shouts to stop!
The intelligence that led to them following that man wasn't exactly spot on. On that basis, until the authorities can give the public confidence that their intelligence can be relied upon, then a 'shoot first ask question later' policy is not acceptable.
Originally posted by XanthosNZok so was the plan to wait and see if he had explosives on him, by which point he would have been able to blow everyone up. Why can't you see that ???
You go on believing a world where being suspicious is enough grounds to execute someone. I'll go on believing in a world where I have the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Originally posted by rhbyes they would all be alive...but what is going to happen next time when the police are following someone else who runs onto a tube ignoring the police and they decide to let him go and 3 minutes later he blows the carriage up???
Had that option been taken this time that man would still be alive, as would everyone else on that train.
The intelligence that led to them following that man wasn't exactly spot on. On that basis, until the authorities can give the public confidence that their intelligence can be relied upon, then a 'shoot first ask question later' policy is not acceptable.
fred
Originally posted by XanthosNZconsider a case where a man, say, brandishes a gun in a public place and screams he's gonna kill someone. there's an armed cop present. he draws and orders the guy to drop the gun. instead, the guy aims it at the cop or someone else. the cop shoots him dead. later, it turns out the weapon was a realistic looking toy. i think the cop did right in protecting the public, and i think the tube shooting incident was similar in many respects in terms of the decision faced by police, the reasonably perceived threat to citizens and themselves, and the timeframe available in which to make the decision.
You go on believing a world where being suspicious is enough grounds to execute someone. I'll go on believing in a world where I have the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Originally posted by Freddie2004Freddie, you need to get a brain. The guy was from Sao Paulo. A "hot summers day" to you might be a cool winters day to him. You don't have an ounce of cop-on do you?
That is not the point. The number one priority in these times is to prevent any more suicide bombs going off. The man was wearing a thick jacket on a hot summers day. He was seen leaving a house that was under surveilance and was followed on a bus to stockwell tube station. He was called at to stop and there is no doubt that the undercover officers shout ...[text shortened]... [b]do let a suicide bomber through. How much of the rap will they be getting then?
Fred [/b]
The whole of Britain is under surveillance at the moment. That means nothing.
Being incompetent in letting a suspect get onto a train, isn't an excuse to execute a man who is pinned to the ground.
So lets get this straight. He got executed for wearing a heavy jacket, living in a house which was under surveillance (along with 90% of housing where brown people live) and he ran when people who looked like civilians started pointing guns at him? Apparently, he had wires coming out of his clothing, so maybe he was listening to music, hence he didn't hear the shouts of policia???
And here's something that nobody has brought up. What if he was simple or mentally retarded in someway, and didn't understand what was going on and just got plain frightened. I know this isn't the case here, but what if it happens again? Running is now considered to be an admission of guilt or terrorism, and punishable by execution? So are we going to suddenly see all those joyriders on "Cops" getting executed at the end of the chase?
Who's saying anything about letting people they are chasing get away. There is a big difference between letting someone get away, aprehending them, and executing him while pinned to the ground.
Hey Freddie, and dfm, here's a webpage with a lot of people who are of the same opinion as you guys. You'll feel right at home...
http://www.drypool.net/cgi-bin/system.pl?id=wngb
D
Freddie/DFM/Jimyslip
Please see Bosse de Nage's post.
Why did they wait until the guy got to the station if they had suspicion? They could've stopped him as he left his property.
I would be more in line to your point of view if these police officers had been on patrol outside Stockwell tube and the same events had transpired as this shortens the timeframe somewhat, and makes the decision to kill much more of a 'split decision'.
As it is, these events unfolded in such a manner that for them to conclude in the way they did is just farcical.
Originally posted by RagnorakTo be quite frank I couldn't care less if he was retarded, foreign, whatever. The fact of the matter is that our police did what they felt was the right thing to do. why can you not grasp that the police didn't know if he was foreign, retarded or anything else, all they knew was that a guy running out of a house that was under surveilance was ignoring police demands and was getting onto a train with a puffed up jacket. THEY DID THE RIGHT THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! why can't you see that they couldn't tell where he was from or anything like that. they had to make a split second decision, to either eliminate this guy, potentially preventing another suicide attack, or to let him go and risk a train load of people being blown up. they made the RIGHT decision.
Freddie, you need to get a brain. The guy was from Sao Paulo. A "hot summers day" to you might be a cool winters day to him. You don't have an ounce of cop-on do you?
The whole of Britain is under surveillance at the moment. That means nothing.
Being incompetent in letting a suspect get onto a train, isn't an excuse to execute a man who is p ...[text shortened]... you guys. You'll feel right at home...
http://www.drypool.net/cgi-bin/system.pl?id=wngb
D
Please share with us exactly what you would have done in that situation as the policeman with the gun, bearing in mind that you know nothing about him except that he has come out of a building under surveilance since 7/7 and is wearing a thick jacket in the summer and has "wires" coming out of his jacket???
Fred
If the reports are correct, the man was pinned to the ground before he was shot. So if he had been a terrorist, he would have run and blown up the train while he was pinned to the ground?
If given a choice, I would much prefer to live with a slightly higher danger of terror attacks than to live with a police which kills innocent people for suspicious behaviour. Besides, I don't believe there will be fewer terror attacks that way. I suspect the terrorists would just take more precautions, and there would be more attempts.
Originally posted by Freddie2004I have not seen reports that he ran from the house. Only that he ran whilst at the tube station. Please substantiate that point.
To be quite frank I couldn't care less if he was retarded, foreign, whatever. The fact of the matter is that our police did what they felt was the right thing to do. why can you not grasp that the police didn't know if he was foreign, retarded or anything else, all they knew was that a guy running out of a house that was under surveilance was ignoring ...[text shortened]... nd is wearing a thick jacket in the summer and has "wires" coming out of his jacket???
Fred