Datheus Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050722/wl_nm/security_britain_panic_dc I was under the impression that officers did not carry firearms. I suppose it could just be bad reporting. Maybe it was SAS or some sort of JTF--whatever the British may use as a SWAT equivalent. Or does a city like London have a specific detatchment with issued weapons for high-risk scenarios? Edit: Okay. They have a special unit for operations in urban areas called SO19. These are the guys that shot this "bomber". And as it turns out, he wasn't even at all related. Read more here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 law enforcement officers carrying weapons doesnt bother me, however shooting and killing innocent unarmed people does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by acdcfanbill law enforcement officers carrying weapons doesnt bother me, however shooting and killing innocent unarmed people does If this man was innocent, why jump over barriers and run onto a train when being chased by armed police? I'm sure most people would stop if they had not of done anything, or not planned anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by Pal™ If this man was innocent, why jump over barriers and run onto a train when being chased by armed police? what would you have done ?? Imagine being in a foreign country, and being chased and shouted at by cops in guns. Being Brazilian, getting chased by armed cops there usually means your times up over there its not like an episode of law and order, where Mariska or Ice T will take him down to the precinct and get him a soda before playing good cop bad cop for an hour I remember on the very day(before it was revealed that it was a botch) an eyewitness saying he ran past him and looked "absoloutely terrified"...really not the look a suicide bomber utterly convinced that he is martyring himself to reach divine salvation... subsequent reports have revealed that the brazilian man was on the ground when he was shot....if S019 are such crack shots, was that really necessary.. Then there was that poor "muslim looking" guy who got arrested in front of 10 Downing Street. He was nothing more than a curious tourist looking at the historic builiding Seriously, is the UK really that messed up ?? mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 If I saw a man advancing on me dressed in street clothing, pistol drawn, I would run as well. And I probably wouldn't care if he said he was an officer. I know for a fact I haven't done anything. Hence, there's no reason that I should be taken into custody by a police department. Especially an undercover officer. Why should I believe this person is an officer? I'd expect an officer in blue at my door, asking for permission to enter, and showing me his badge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Yeah, the whole world is going to s**t at the moment. It's really bloody depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 But if he had ran in and blown up the station, wouldn't people be saying, "why didn't they take him down?" I'm not saying what happened was right, but considering the current state of affairs, I can at least understand their rationale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by Prime But if he had ran in and blown up the station, wouldn't people be saying, "why didn't they take him down?" I'm not saying what happened was right, but considering the current state of affairs, I can at least understand their rationale. Uh... no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by Prime But if he had ran in and blown up the station, wouldn't people be saying, "why didn't they take him down?" I'm not saying what happened was right, but considering the current state of affairs, I can at least understand their rationale. They did shoot the guy 8 times in the head - a trifle unnecessary, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Uh... no? No what? That no one would have been upset that if the guy indeed was a suicide bomber and wasn't he stopped when they had the chance? What are you disagreeing with? I'm just saying it is easy to villify the police after the fact. I think you are right that they were wrong, of course, but at that moment I believe they thought they were doing the right thing. Originally posted by The_One They did shoot the guy 8 times in the head - a trifle unnecessary, don't you think? But this article says nothing about being shot 8 times in the head. The article says that the police fired between four and seven times. For that matter, witnesses can't even decide on how many shots were fired. Some say five, some say six or seven. So how many times was he actually hit? Where was he hit? Does anyone really know? I'm just saying that personally I don't know what really happened enough to say that the police were obviously in the wrong. I haven't read enough about the incident to know all the details. And the person in question was directly linked to the "anti-terrorist" probe. It may have been mistaken indentity in the end, but at the time the police believed he was a suspect. But all this goes to show how ****ed up everything is getting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
•-BLaCKouT-• Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 There are two sides to this (as with everything). Yes, if he had been a bomber and had blown up the train/station before the police had shot him, there'd be all hell breaking loose with people whining "why didn't armed police stop this bomber?" As it stands, the same people are whining "why ws this innocent man shot?". Both questions are/would be vaild. Both sadden me. Poor intelligence seems to be the answer. As for him running, side one of the coin: Four armed police officers chasing him and he didn't stop. He jumped the barriers at the tube station and ran onto a crowsed train. If I had a gun, suspicion and a puclic-funded motive, I'd be trigger happy too. Side two of the coin: From what I gather, the guy didn't understand a lot of English. Hell, there are a lot of people in this country that don't, and some of them live here. I'm not judging, that's just the way it is. So this guy doesn't understand what the police are shouting at him. They're also plain clothes police. He's got four people in regular street clothes running after him with guns... in a strange country I think I'd be tempted to run too. According to witnesses on the train, they only put on their 'Police' caps when he was on the train. Presumably face-down, but it's a little late by then anyway, he's still been running away from them. Also, according to witnesses, they weren't shouting their warnings at the station/train like they were supposed to. But that's more-or-less hearsay I suppose. So there you have it. Oh, and as for 8-times-in-the-head being "excessive", the sad fact is that 1 time in the head would have been excessive. After the first shot it's all academic, really The worst part is, the casual racists (you know the type) at my work are in their element The last few weeks have fuelled a new era of suspicion and intolerance that isn't doing anyone any good. Bastards. B. edit: Oh, and I assume everyone knew this; but when you're aiming at a bloke who may have explosives strapped to his body in various/multiple places, the safest place to shoot him is going to be in the head. For everyone's safety I mean. But you knew that, right? That's why the police have been given shoot-to-kill permission at the moment. I just got the impression that some people may have been... unclear on that? No offence like, seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 There are other ways to stop someone from blowing **** up that don't require a gunshot to the head. I don't think shooting someone should be the first reaction you take, regardless of the scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
•-BLaCKouT-• Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Seriously though, like what? You don't know where he's got the detonator planted. You take his knees out, he can still slap a button in his pocket. You take his shoulders out, he may have some other way of setting it off. It sounds far-fetched, but these guys mean business. I'm pretty sure I'd have a backup-plan for detonation. B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by •-BLaCKouT-• Seriously though, like what? Stun gun. If you've ever been hit with one, you know damn well he'd be completely incapable of moving any part of his body. Originally posted by •-BLaCKouT-• You don't know where he's got the detonator planted. You take his knees out, he can still slap a button in his pocket. You take his shoulders out, he may have some other way of setting it off. It sounds far-fetched, but these guys mean business. I'm pretty sure I'd have a backup-plan for detonation. And there's also the chance that he didn't even have the detonator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
•-BLaCKouT-• Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Stun gun. Point Originally posted by InsaneSith And there's also the chance that he didn't even have the detonator. Also true. But there's also an equal chance that he does, and he's going to activate it when he gets as close to as many people as possible. Sadly, this will always be a possibility. I know where you're going though. I wish it hadn't happened too. I can see what was going through their minds though. You should've read the UK papers on Friday/Saturday, they were full of themselves. Pathetic. As if the police could do no wrong. As if they're not human too. B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Well being who I am, I naturally distrust all cops. They've been nothing but powerabusing bastards in my experience with them. Another point is, wouldn't he kill more people at the terminal than he would on the train or in the tunnel? Hell, even on the street. If I were a bomber I'd let loose on the street at the busiest time of day, taking out as many people as I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Might the pulses from the stun gun interfere with the bombs, and/or devices set to trigger them? I wouldn't know, considering I don't know how the bombs, nor stun guns work, but shouldn't that be considered too? I'm a bit neutral. The poor guy got killed, and I undertand why he was running, so he is not at fault. The police were not thinking about the rules of opening fire, they saw a suspect, with a suspiciously large jacket, heading for the train, running from the police. That would probably be enough to spar the police into action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by Kjølen Might the pulses from the stun gun interfere with the bombs, and/or devices set to trigger them? I wouldn't know, considering I don't know how the bombs, nor stun guns work, but shouldn't that be considered too? Unless they hit the explosives with the device itself, there's no way stunning a person would trigger bombs strapped to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Another point is, wouldn't he kill more people at the terminal than he would on the train or in the tunnel? Hell, even on the street. If I were a bomber I'd let loose on the street at the busiest time of day, taking out as many people as I could. Yeah, he probably would kill more people, but it's more scary when it goes off on the subway so the people onboard are stranded in the dark, electrified tunnel. It's harder to rescue people in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I however was under the impression that killing more people would have a bigger morale effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith I however was under the impression that killing more people would have a bigger morale effect. It would, but the people who were actually in the attack would be more horrified than if they were walking down the street and a car explodes. The people who aren't injured can just run away, but on the subway they're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'd much rather be afraid of Muslim terrorists than of the law enforcement of my own country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothiX Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 From what I gathered from the newspaper: The man was running from the police because he was illegally staying in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Stun gun. If you've ever been hit with one, you know damn well he'd be completely incapable of moving any part of his body. Perhaps I'm thinking of something different, but isn't a stun gun need to be in contact with the target? I was under the impression that the suspect was some distance away from the police, and thus they felt the only option was to shot him... Is that not what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 He was shot at point-blank... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.