the shot man was not a bomber

Originally posted by rhb
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 timef ...[text shortened]... events unfolded in such a manner that for them to conclude in the way they did is just farcical.

perhaps they wanted to see where he was going? is that so hard to imagine? perhaps they wanted to see whom he met, if he went to another residence, etc. He got to the train station, they challenged him, he jumped the turnstiles and ran onto a train. They feared he was wearing a bomb, and acted to protect the members of the public aboard that train.

personally, if i was aboard a tube train in London in the wake of the bombings and a guy ran on, chased by police and they hesitated, resulting in him blowing up me and everyone else present, i'd be pretty p^ssed off. those are circumstances in which i would be questioning the competence of the police (assuming i lived, that is).

Originally posted by Freddie2004
To be quite frank I couldn't care less if he was retarded, foreign, whatever.

I wonder if you would still think the same way if you were not white or if you had a disability which might make you act in a way which the police might see as suspicious.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I wonder if you would still think the same way if you were not white or if you had a disability which might make you act in a way which the police might see as suspicious.

Not to mention if you happened to be Muslim.

Would you be happy to see internment camps for Muslims, Freddy--in the name of security--"until things settle down"?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Not to mention if you happened to be Muslim.

Would you be happy to see internment camps for Muslims, Freddy--in the name of security--"until things settle down"?

this is being plain silly.

Originally posted by dfm65
perhaps they wanted to see where he was going? is that so hard to imagine? perhaps they wanted to see whom he met, if he went to another residence, etc. He got to the train station, they challenged him, he jumped the turnstiles and ran onto a ...[text shortened]... stioning the competence of the police (assuming i lived, that is).

You answer your point yourself.

They feared he was wearing a bomb. At that point there is no justification for 'waiting to see where he was going or whom he might meet'.

The fact is they could have ended this sooner, and with much lesser consequence.

As it stands now, they have blown their cover to the other residents of that block, some of whom may be a genuine threat and can now lie low for a time whilst other links within that 'cell' continue to plan the next act of terrorism. [edit] Not forgetting that an innocent man lies dead aswell.

If the authorities are going to fight this threat they need to do it in such a manner that leads to public confidence, that includes the whole of the public, not just the white classless majority. I don't see how that has been done so far.

Originally posted by Freddie2004
this is being plain silly.

Sure it is silly--but what if the police "feel" that it's the right thing to do?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sure it is silly--but what if the police "feel" that it's the right thing to do?

then they would be wrong, but in the situation we were talking about they were right. nuff said.

Originally posted by Freddie2004
then they would be wrong, but in the situation we were talking about they were right. nuff said.

It is right to kill an innocent man?

I hope you are never in a position of power in this country.

Originally posted by Freddie2004
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 ...[text shortened]... n the summer and has "wires" coming out of his jacket???

Fred

LOL. Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

So to your question? What would I have done as a police officer if I saw a man leave one of the thousands of houses under surveillence since 7/7, wearing a jacket, with headphones on. Why, I'd chase him onto a train, pin him to the ground and shoot him a few times.

I've a question for you now Freddie... You remember 7/7 right? Where there were a few bombs in London. 3 of them were on the tube. 1 was on a BUS. So my question for you is, why did your beloved law enforcers/judges/executioners allow a suspected suicide bomber travel by bus before attempting to apprehend him? Surely if they suspected him enough to execute him at the tube station, they must have suspected him just as much when he left his house, where circumstances would have allowed a bit more thought to go into any decision they made.

D

Originally posted by dfm65
personally, if i was aboard a tube train in London in the wake of the bombings and a guy ran on, chased by police and they hesitated, resulting in him blowing up me and everyone else present, i'd be pretty p^ssed off. those are circumstances in which i would be questioning the competence of the police (assuming i lived, that is).

Would you be p^ssed off if you weren't after committing any crime and the cops executed you?

D

Originally posted by Freddie2004
this is being plain silly.

How so? What's the difference between executing innocent people in the name of the greater good, and internment camps for brown people in the name of the greater good?

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Would you be p^ssed off if you weren't after committing any crime and the cops executed you?

D

<sarcasm mode: on> Well, he wouldn't be able to be p^ssed off anymore. So I guess it would be okay.

Originally posted by Freddie2004
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!

Fred,

A week ago you were advocating identity cards.

Now you are advocating police shooting people without checking their identity.

You might want to live under a police state where police are given license to shoot on site, if you where too many clothes or live in the wrong block of flats, but I do not.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Would you be p^ssed off if you weren't after committing any crime and the cops executed you?

D

i would be if they shot me after i simply raised my hands and showed i wasn't a threat. if i ran into a train station and onto a train in a city where several bombs had been set off on trains in recent weeks, i would have to concede i saw their point of view.

EDIT: and it is inaccurate to label it an execution. executions do not take place 'in hot blood', as this killing was. this is just an attempt to distort the debate with emotionally-charged language.

Originally posted by dfm65
i would be if they shot me after i simply raised my hands and showed i wasn't a threat. if i ran into a train station and onto a train in a city where several bombs had been set off on trains in recent weeks, i would have to concede i saw their point of view.

EDIT: and it is inaccurate to label it an execution. executions do not take place 'in hot blood' ...[text shortened]... is killing was. this is just an attempt to distort the debate with emotionally-charged language.

Your narcissism is astounding. Please point me to somewhere that it states that executions aren't executions if they take place 'in hot blood'.

It was an execution, plain and simple. The law enforcers took it into their own hands to judge an innocent man guilty and they executed him while they had him pinned on the ground.

D