Terrorist shootings and Mosque raid

[equivalent]

Well, I think SilentDeaths' point still remains. Even while tailing, there were opportunities to arrest, if that was part of the policy.

I still think we should stay off the personal side of what it's like for the policemen involved. Most people obviously imagine it must be terrible, but I'd be lying and sentimental if I said I knew what it felt like.
It won't logically stop criticism either - for all you know the policy of tailing but not arresting may equally have caused the grief and stress for everyone concerned. In that case no-one making decisions last week would have been responsible, but instead the people who decide policy, who, being multitude, never have to take individual responsibility.

btw iranu, your friend may do a specific aspect of neuroscience research now, but psychology degrees teach you a lot of unproven theories. A neuroscience/ neuropharmacology degree teaches you to be be more cautious. Didn't you wonder about the evidence for the 'heroic' theory? It appeals quite neatly to intuition, which, as Steven Pinker* said, is often wrong.

*computational neuroscientist (and, yes, psychologist). Also very funny.

[Rave]

Hellfire. I come into this thread a moderate 12-24 hours before the guy was pronounced not to be a terrorist. At that point I sounded a note of caution that nobody should take any pleasure in his death until it was confirmed that he actually was a terrorist.

Whereafter I was roundly ignored and heckled.

The next day it turns out I was right to sound that note of caution. I am at that point accused of having 20/20 hindsight.

NO FOOLS. HINDSIGHT IMPLIES BEING WISE AFTER THE EVENT. CHECK THE SODDING TIMELINE. I WAS RIGHT, YOU WERE WRONG. SUCK IT DOWN.

Thanks, that is all.

[Rave]

Of course, had Rave's wife \ child \ mother, etc, been torn limb from limb by this bloke, him having been a suicide bomber and the police having not acted, he'd still be as self-righteous and 'told you so' about the whole thing.

May as well make my point absolutely clear then. I actually did, provably (see my posts for proof), say that we should wait for the official announcement of who had been killed before we got all excited. I was ignored, and then I was proven 100% right. What am I supposed to do in that situation? Say 'yeah, I was right, but even though you all jumped on me I'll let you get away with it?'

I don't know exactly how I'd react were my wife or any other member of my family was killed. I'm a cold rational b*stard though so the likelihood is it'd probably take me at least a week to understand how I felt, and in that time I wouldn't be saying anything, let alone 'kill all dark skinned scum'. TBH I'm probably cold enough that they could blow my wife up and it'd only take me a few months to get over- if you wanna call me on that one when she does get blown up Stewart- feel free. In the mean time, don't try and pretend you understand my moral values.

[equivalent]

Well, cold rationalism is a good thing on this thread IMO. Better that than celebratory dismissiveness, from which you learn nothing except to repeat or misapply clichés.

[Stewart]

I don't know exactly how I'd react were my wife or any other member of my family was killed. I'm a cold rational b*stard though so the likelihood is it'd probably take me at least a week to understand how I felt, and in that time I wouldn't be saying anything, let alone 'kill all dark skinned scum'. TBH I'm probably cold enough that they could blow my wife up and it'd only take me a few months to get over- if you wanna call me on that one when she does get blown up Stewart- feel free. In the mean time, don't try and pretend you understand my moral values.

If you could get over the murder of your wife in a 'few months', I'm not sure I want to understand your moral values.

NO FOOLS. HINDSIGHT IMPLIES BEING WISE AFTER THE EVENT. CHECK THE SODDING TIMELINE. I WAS RIGHT, YOU WERE WRONG. SUCK IT DOWN.

Anyway, I'm under orders from the misses not to get invovled (Yes, under the thumb already ), so I shall simply say, posting in the style of Mr T does not make you any more or less correct.

[SilentDeath]

The reason they didn't stop him earlier was they were tailing him to see if he lead them to any of the bombers. Only when he got near the train station did they think they had a suicide bomber. That was when he was challenged.

Can I ask Silentdeath what should be in the new policy for police who confront suicide bombers?

Yes, so follow him to a busy public place, confront him, tell him you will shoot, then let him run 100 meters in a busyer public place. Thats really the best thing to do


For policy, in this case, well all cases *where possible*, confront suspected terrorists before they pose any danger to the public. It would remove any need to kill innocent people because of crappy intelegence.

The police risked the life of everyone that he got within 5-10 meters of.

Bomb could have went off when he died - the electronics to sense when someone dies is likely very simple, so they better hope none of the terrorists know any basic electronics if they are to continue doing that.


They had plenty of oppertunity to stop him before, and then killed him when it wasnt necassary.

If this bloke had been a bomber we would all be cheering the police on - good work old chap - saved alot of people today - bravo.

I would acctually be pissed off that they didnt get some information out off him first. As I said before, this was a last resort, and a failure of policy.

And what do the terrorists think now? we keep being told we shouldnt live in fear or change the way we live. We already have by being scared enough to kill an innocent person.

[Rave]

If you could get over the murder of your wife in a 'few months', I'm not sure I want to understand your moral values.

Hey, guess that makes you better than me then. Have a biscuit.

[Stewart]

Hey, guess that makes you better than me then. Have a biscuit.

I pity the fool who offers me a biscuit.

[equivalent]

I agree with SilentDeath, as I said in the 2nd post of this thread, I thought it was a pity they couldn't have questioned their suspect. Some people on this thread seem to think all terrorists are equally dedicated, (so kill 'em all, hoohah!) but that's just not true, a lot of useful info has been obtained from some.

People seem to think this shooting is a decisive move that will make us safer, and we can apply it to all terrorists. Ahh, no. How many times has a terrorist been shot en route to an attack? Yeah, you have to be prepared, but don't get carried away, guys.

I still can't understand how people can just dismiss this as 'one of those things'. There are still serious questions. In fact, there were more questions asked about the three unarmed IRA killed in Gibraltar in 1989, and they were actually known to be IRA by the shooters.

[nichomach]

Most of the fuss about the 3 ira terroritsts in Gilbrator was from there family and known ira sympathisers, they had also planted a bomb from what I remember at the time.

You remember incorrectly; there were quite a few Gib residents who were eyewitnesses who were ALSO highly disturbed. Note that I don't say that the decision to shoot was wrong, but it's worth noting that disquiet was nowhere near as restricted as you suggest. Further, they had NOT planted a bomb (although I don't doubt that they intended to do so at some point); it was suspected that they might have and it was decided to shoot rather than attempt to arrest to minimise the risk to innocent civilians.

They also were definetly known by the security forces to be terrorists, even known by name, whereas unfortunatley this guy was an unknown.

Quite so, and this is what causes me grave disquiet about the recent shooting; in the Gibraltar case, the security services had good intelligence and they knew who they were shooting at. In this case, they did not have a clue who the guy was, they had no evidence that he was involved in any form of terrorism, and they based their decision to pursue and kill him purely on the bases that he'd emerged from a block of flats that they were surveilling and that he ran away when a bunch of guys in plain clothes started pointing guns at him and shouting.

Note that; he came out of a block of flats, not even from a specific flat that they regarded as suspect, but from any one of the flats in that block. So does that give a license to the police to shoot anyone who comes out of a block of flats that may have one flat housing suspected terrorists as long as they're wearing a bulky jacket?

I don't disagree with a decision to shoot a specific someone who has been positively identified as a terrorist suspect where they appear to pose an imminent threat (as in the Gib case). That isn't what happened here, though. The truth is that there was a failure of intelligence leading to an innocent man being shot to death; the police didn't know who they were following and they didn't even know from which domicile he'd emerged.

One of the questions this shooting raises is do we follow someone if there a suspected terrorist hoping they lead us to other terrorists, even when we suspect they maybe a danger to public saftey.

No; but you've got to have firm grounds for stating that they are a suspected terrorist, not just that they live in a block of flats that may have one flat where suspected terrorists might live.

The police arrested at gunpoint a guy outside downing street who they thought may have a bomb, he was innnocent and he didnt get shot.

I'd guess that that guy didn't run away, and obeyed instructions - lucky for him, eh?

The firearms officers may have been advised that Jean Charles de Menezes was a suspected terrorist, but if that's the case, they were badly advised. I don't say that the new rules under Operation Kratos are wrong, indeed they may well be very right, but they're only right if they're applied appropriately, and I don't think that's what happened in this case.

[iranu]

I'd guess that that guy didn't run away, and obeyed instructions - lucky for him, eh?

Well what else are you supposed to do - shout, stay back I've got a bomb! Anyone who runs from armed police, after being challenged, no matter what the reason, is liable to be shot.

There's no point in arming police if they are not given the authority to use their judgement and training in a given situation.

Stop, Armed police!! Oh look sergeant he's legged it. Oh, nevermind. Back to the station for a cupper then?

Review and improve procedure (this is done) by all means. Have an inquiry into the death of this man and if there is wrong doing then apply the law.

But do not blame or hamstring the security services who are trying to protect millions of Londoners of the death of a man who was stupid enough to run from armed police.

[nichomach]

The point that I'm making (and I'm not suggesting hamstringing the police) is that it might, just might, be a good idea to have some reasonable suspicion that the guy you're about to plug actually IS a terrorist before you kill him? To have at least the vaguest notion of who he is?
As I noted above:

I don't disagree with a decision to shoot a specific someone who has been positively identified as a terrorist suspect where they appear to pose an imminent threat (as in the Gib case). That isn't what happened here, though. The truth is that there was a failure of intelligence leading to an innocent man being shot to death; the police didn't know who they were following and they didn't even know from which domicile he'd emerged.

As for him being "stupid" enough to run from armed police, perhaps being scared enough to run from a load of guys in plain clothes who pull guns on you and start shouting is a little more understandable? Are you telling me that you wouldn't be scared ****less if you suddenly had a load of guys in plain clothes pull guns on you with no warning?

[Big RICHARD]

Are you telling me that you wouldn't be scared ****less if you suddenly had a load of guys in plain clothes pull guns on you with no warning?

Are you telling me that in those circumstances, you'd RUN? Do me a favour!

[nichomach]

I don't think anyone can say what they'd do in that situation - I think it's entirely possible that someone whose first language wasn't English, who comes from a culture where if the police pull a gun on you then stopping and sticking your hands up in a good few cases just makes it easier for them to shoot you, who's confronted by people that he might not even know WERE police, might very well run.

[TiG]

I've read the front cover of all the national news papers today and no-one seems to seriously question the events. But they do say he spoke perfect English and his friends/family say he had no reason to run.

So he's lived in this country for several years, he can't of missed the events of 7/7 and 21/7 and given the nature of the feeling in the country, he runs, jumps a barrier and makes for a train given the fact he was wearing clothes that meant he could well be carrying a bomb.

So when told "stop police or we'll shoot" he decides to run... and to run for a train, looking like he was carrying a bomb.... I'd have shot him dead too.

If he was a terrorist and the police didn't take him down before he got on the train and blew himself up, the police could have well been slated for incompitence of stopping him. Its a lose/lose for the police.

Those officers risked their lives, and could well have been blown up.

But one thing i will say, whenever i go abroad i know how police and stop is said. Its one of the basic common sense things to learn are!.

I feel for his family, but i cannot condone the police considering the information about this i've heard. Simple message, DON'T RUN!...

TiG

[nichomach]

And still no-one questions the basis for the police pursuing and attempting to stop him in the first place.