Falcon84 said, in a non-dramatic way:

I suppose next time, we should just let a suspicious-looking person walk in there, and not have the police bother him, and then, when he does detonate himself and dozens others, you guys will be satisfied that he wasn't innocent.

That what you guys want?

From what I can see on this thread the only people putting forward this idea is yourself and those others who at this stage unequivocally support the killing of this guy.

Everyone else seems to be saying that, based on the alleged media reports and witness accounts, why was this "suspicious" person even allowed to enter the tube station, and then once apprehended why was he shot 5 times in the head?

Trying to be as non-dramatic and non-naive about this as possible, I think that these are reasonable questions.

It may turn out that this guy was a coke-pushing Black September Khmer Rouge anarchist on his way to kill hundreds somewhere in London (oops sorry for the dramatic license). If so, fair cop, although seeing the law being applied would be preferable to summary execution, but given the circumstances these things happen.

PGF

Perthfan - it's just annoying when you hear people in this thread who aren't critical against the Scotland Yard "action".
It's a fact that they killed an innocent person - and as somebody here wrote: we haven't been at the underground station. But people here already adjudge the Brazilian man because he was running at the station. If this is a good reason for the police to kill a person, the terror attacts bear fruit .

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 100): Jaysit, you have the luxury of sitting back here and pissing on the police of London, when they had to make a snap decision. They didn't have that luxury.

They did.

They'd been tailing this fellow for awhile. They probably fucked up big time. And now you're using an enhanced state of emergency to somehow justify their actions. Even they haven't been so brazen to do so.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 100): You'd rather scream about how fucking bad they are. I'd rather tell them "good job".

No. I know how to spot a fuck up when I see one.

And at least I know how to use a gun (irrespective of the asininine anti-second amendment policies the stupid District of Columbia have), and at least I know you don't shoot someone 5 times in the head, and like the US law enforcement agencies, I know that you intercept someone prior to when they did.

And as far as how "fucking bad" they are, somehow I don't remember our law enforcement forces shooting innocent people in the back of the head post 9-11. With power comes responsibility. I think that our folks - irrespective of all the pressures they were under in the wake of a 3000 strong mass murder - exercised that responsibility.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 100): I stand by what I said: you, #12, and the other one's screaming at the police are naive, and don't have a clue. Deal with it.

Right. We don't have a clue. In the future, I'll come to you for when Mr. Pink bludgeons Mr. Green in the library and my dice roll a double six.

And, no, you don't just "deal" with the death of an innocent man. Maybe the cops were well within their rights to shoot him, but in all likelihood, they fucked up. At least have an open mind to reserve your open congratulations and not shower your approval on what may have been either a genuine fuckup or at worst a genuine exploitation of power. What you're displaying is the same mob mentality you condemn in others.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 69): and that's my point! they lacked intelligence

They are not the only ones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                             

Quoting GDB (Reply 98): to criticize from a PC on the other side of the world isn't it?

-
an interesting thought. There now however is Brazil directly involved and I heard that even the Brazilian government got involved. So that it now is most important those in charge find out ALL the facts, things like why he apparently was allowed into the bus ? why police did NOT check him up upon leaving the house ? why police was not really informed about who was inside the house ? why they waited so long until they wanted to stop him ? an awful lot of questions, and a lot of contradictory reports.
-
I have checked up pictures of him and of one of those of Thursday, and now I would only visit London with a bulletproof-vest and a steal-helmet ! in other words rather NOT AT ALL !

#12, they didn't have a freaking crystal ball to tell if this guy was "innocent" or guilty, dude. You seem totally obliviious to that fact. All they knew is he was running, into the tube, and wouldn't stop. That's what they knew, so stop you're manure about an "innocent" man. Hindsight, especially from the naive, is certainly 20/20.

Quoting PerthGloryFan (Reply 102): Everyone else

No, not everyone else-you, and a few blinded, naive few, not "everyone else", Perth. You're in the minority here, not the majority. Maybe you should remember that.

Jaysit, I don't have to deal with anything. I know I'm right on this one, and I know you're deluding yourself on your off-base criticism of these police officers. They did what they felt was necessary under the circumstances, and I back them 100%. You and this small pack of naive monday morning quarterbacks can keep your delusions.

They might have been tailing, but if it is the case that he was asked to stop, then clearly they decided that tailing him further, as they thought he was a suspect, was now a danger to the public.
On crowded streets, buses, trains.

Had he stopped, he'd be alive, checked out who he was and be free too.
We don't know why he ran like he did.

But if it is proved that he was asked to stop, probably more than once, yet carried on running into what was (as far as he knew until he got to the platform 10's of feet underground), a dead end, then any inquiry will have to take this into account.
If the officers are found to have acted within the guidelines (which pre the suicide bombings they would not have done by their actions, but they've changed to take account of this new threat to the UK, after long planning and consultation with Police Forces who HAVE had to deal with this), then it is going to be hard to level any charges, though I doubt that the Officer who fired will stay firearms licensed, he probably does not want to now anyway.

But if they acted outside even the new rules, then they could be charged.
We will see.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): As taut as nerves have got to be in London right now, I don't fault the police one bit. Sounds like this guy was acting a little strange, and a little strang in an area under surveillence, and in a tube, well, right now, that will get you killed right quick.

As wrong as they were, I can't blame the police for what they did - the circumstances have been described over and over here, so I won't bother with them again. It was an accident, pure and simple. Some accidents are just unpreventable. The question I have is, were any non-plainclothes officers in the station who might have joined the chase? I can see why he might have run from a plainclothes officer, but once there's a uniformed officer there, it kind of takes away the possibility that he was being confused.

I do want to say that I don't believe that this guy deserved what he got, but the police did what they were supposed to do. Accidents happen, and this one was very tragic.

Quoting 787 (Reply 39): Ooops! And they call the Americans trigger happy? Fact is, if this had happened in the U.S., people on here would be ALL OVER the Americans screaming outrage. Not seeing that here. Why?

If this had happened in the US, it might have been a lot worse. First of all, it probably would not have been just 5 shots. Anyone remember Armaddou Diallo (sp?). Secondly, I'm not sure that they would have waited until they caught up with him to shoot him; they might have fired as he was running away, and could have hit an innocent bystander. I give credit to the London police for handling it the way they did, as wrong as they were about who it was that they were shooting.

-Mir

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 107): You're in the minority here, not the majority. Maybe you should remember that.

Falcon, in the 30's the majority in Germany thought Hitler was right.

#12, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Your naivte is showing again.  

Falcon84, the opinion of majority/minority doesnt mean right/wrong - this is what my Hitler comparison means.
Very simple.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 110): in the 30's the majority in Germany thought Hitler was right

-
off-topic in fact. But into history: in the elections to the Reichstag of the German Empire (without emperor but still having that name), the NSDAP (National-Socialist German Workers Party) did NOT get the absolute majority but became the largest party in the Reichstag. THAT means that a majority of Germans did NOT think Hitler to be right. Hitler then was appointed by State President FieldMarshal vonHindenburg to form a coalition government.
---- so much for correct history
-

Quoting GDB (Reply 98): No.12 and 077, come on, you are being absurd.

what, you don't think it's absurd that with whats happend in the last 2 weeks that they allowed him to even catch a bus, get your head out of the clouds! if he was worthy of watching for suspected acts of terrorism the day before then why the fuck was he allowed to leave his home and board a bus to a tube station....makes no sense at all?! that is what i call rather absurd! not to mention a huge risk to the public!

It cracks me up all you guys are so quick to heap abuse at the policeman and ask question about their actions, but all you say is, 'Why did the police not apprehend him before he got to station?', 'Why did the police shoot him?', 'Why did the police do this and that but not this, this and this'. But you haven't said why the guys actions were arousing the polices suspicion, why did he run when challenged by armed police, why did he jump a ticket barrier which is not a common occurrence in London. Your so critical of the action the police took but don't question the actions of the suspect, but based on very little facts except what you've read in paper and seen on the TV your still rushing to judgment.

Thankfully we have trained investigators looking into what happened based solely on the facts and not amateur anet detectives making snap conclusions.

only thing i can say that if it really was a terrorist and they had let him go because they didn't know for sure, it may have resulted in lots of more people than only that man...

they handled right, and to be honest, it was the man his own fault by running away.

anyway good luck to the family wich got involved in a tragic event...

Quoting Gman94 (Reply 115): It cracks me up all you guys are so quick to heap abuse at the policeman and ask question about their actions, but all you say is, 'Why did the police not apprehend him before he got to station?', 'Why did the police shoot him?', 'Why did the police do this and that but not this, this and this'. But you haven't said why the guys actions were arousing the polices suspicion, why did he run when challenged by armed police, why did he jump a ticket barrier which is not a common occurrence in London.

Truly amazing, isn't it? None of the clowns on here bashing the police are even ASKING why this guy acted the way he did-it's just the fault of the big, bad policeman for DARING to shoot somone acting strangely, oh, by the way, in an area where terrorism has recently occurred.

Again, it's naivte, nothing else.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 101): Of course it is - but I have a different job than the policemen who killed the innocent man. Of course police makes life more safe - but when they shoot innocent people we have to be able to critizise.

So how was the police supposed to pre-judge that this guy was innocent? What if he wasn't? What if he walked into the crowded train and blew himself up? What if he blew himself up in the train once the officers pinned him down? What if they shot him in the chest (if I was a suicide bomber, that's where I would srta my bomb!) and set of the bomb in the middle of the crowded train? Should the officers have risked their lives and everyone else's in the platform? I don't think so.

We don't know the circumstances that led this man to run, but his actions certainly were VERY suspicious.

And why are you people only complaining about this now? Why didn't you people begin complaining the day that this happened? I don't remember anyone complaining that the Met's actions were trigger-happy on the day that it happened.

Seems easy to complain about it now, doesn't it?

PPVRA

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 107): No, not everyone else-you, and a few blinded, naive few, not "everyone else", Perth. You're in the minority here, not the majority. Maybe you should remember that.

Right, Falcon.

When you're in the majority, then the majority's right.

Otherwise, majoritarian views are suspect.

Give the "majority on A.net" theory a rest. It bears as much weight as Ashley Simpson's "talent."

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 107): Jaysit, I don't have to deal with anything. I know I'm right on this one, and I know you're deluding yourself on your off-base criticism of these police officers. They did what they felt was necessary under the circumstances, and I back them 100%. You and this small pack of naive monday morning quarterbacks can keep your delusions.

How do you know what the circumstances are? There's plenty of grey area here in how this tragedy occurred. At least you can give this poor hapless Brazilian's death some dignity by keeping an open mind and be willing to support an investigation. The British police may not be guilty, but you give them carte blance and blanket Congratulations. Democracies function by treating the death of every innocent with a level of seriousness and respect. Thank goodness, our democratic systems don't run around saying "I'm 100% right and F*ck those who think otherwise."

And obviously you don't have to deal with anything. You're sitting behind a computer beating your chest, and I doubt if you make frequent trips to London, or have close family who live there. Some of us do, and will continue to visit, irrespective of thuggish terrorists. I've made 4 trips to London already and its only July. So, I do take both the rampage of Islamo-fascists as well as ill-conceived efforts by the cops seriously.

Seriously enough to note that not ONCE did our men and women in uniform here in the US kill an innocent man post 9/11. To say that our boys were under any less pressure than the Brits are is being naive, I say.

This thread is full of crap, which a lot of you have blatantly made up yourselves from various media stories.

A lot of you are saying that the armed offices were giving chase with M16 etc... where do you get that from? Its been clearly stated in many articles it was a hand gun not an automatic assault riffle, which, would be somewhat harder to conceal!

What I would like to hear more about is the wires he supposedly had coming out of a belt, yes, he was an electrician, but I haven't really heard anymore about this, and there were witnesses that said this - you think this could just have been made up to 'spice' up the story?

As has been said, no one can judge here as no one has all the facts!

What I will say however is, that we have to trust the police officers and their actions. They are the guys that try and keep the UK safe, they have access to information that none of us don't. You have to trust them, and trust them to take the right decisions.

I support the police force fully, and the officers in question, as they were aware of the full situation - they took the action they thought was right. No police officer goes to work one day with the aim of slotting someone for the hell of it, do you honestly think he enjoyed killing him? Think about it please...

Adam

And Qantas077 do you have to swear so much in your posts? Its kind of amusing to see how many variations of the word ‘fuck’ you have used too!

[Edited 2005-07-24 20:45:00]

Quoting BA757 (Reply 120): What I will say however is, that we have to trust the police officers and their actions. They are the guys that try and keep the UK safe, they have access to information that none of us don't. You have to trust them, and trust them to take the right decisions.

But they didn't.

And a perfectly innocent man is dead. Add his face to the list of the 52 innocents who lost their lives.

Btw, since when does killing an innocent man become the "right" decision? At best, its a wrong decision made under extreme duress, and, thus, defensible on that count.

You can't say that no one has all the facts, and then without having reviewed those yet to be disclosed facts, state that you believe what the cops did was beyond reproach.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 113): THAT means that a majority of Germans did NOT think Hitler to be right.

This is why I didn't mention 1933 but the 30's. I just wanted to say that the majority's opinion doesn't mean it's the "right" opinion (whatever "right" opinion means).

Quoting BA757 (Reply 120): Its kind of amusing to see how many variations of the word �fuck� you have used too!

BA757, QF077 is Australian and the word "fuck" is very common there  

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 118): So how was the police supposed to pre-judge that this guy was innocent?

PP, with their "pre-judge guilty" version they killed him. And as long as people who are running and wearing jackets etc are suspect, it is very dangerous driving by underground then.
MD11 already wrote in another thread, that the Police is in a very bad situation - but they have that job (and the power). The power can make them heroes, but it also can bring them into situations they are in at the moment.

It's just the "never judge the British police" mentality here, that sounds very strange. They made a big mistake - but it seems as if life of a single person doesn't count any more.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 119): Seriously enough to note that not ONCE did our men and women in uniform here in the US kill an innocent man post 9/11.

Are you sure? How about some of those more trigger-happy GIs in Iraq? Besides, you know what they say... never say never.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 121): Btw, since when does killing an innocent man become the "right" decision? At best, its a wrong decision made under extreme duress, and, thus, defensible on that count.

Dude, what's your problem? The police fu*ed up, they admitted it, they apologized, they will investigate the incident and if there will be grounds for it, the cops will be punished. I guess you may as well save your arrogant self-righteousness for some other ocassion.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 119): Seriously enough to note that not ONCE did our men and women in uniform here in the US kill an innocent man post 9/11.

Oh, right. Yes, US police have never shot someone by mistake, have they?  

Don't be absurd, the circumstances are entirely different. September 11th was an altogether different type of attack. Had it been on New York subways the circumstances whereby this occurred could easily have happened.

Let's be clear about one thing: British police are far from trigger-happy. I believe I saw reported (I could be wrong, I have nothing at all to back this up) that this was the first police shooting ever to take place in a public place in the UK.

Quite clearly, this was a terrible mistake. But what will need to be examined over the next few days is whether it was the result of negligence on the part of the police, or whether it was simply a terrible outcome when the police did everything they could. We don't know the answer to this, and speculation, whilst obviously inevitable, doesn't really get us too far.

We do know that the police are in an invidious position. They do have to make split-second decisions, and there is going to be the risk that they get it wrong. Hanging the officer concerned out to dry at this stage is as much a knee-jerk reaction as saying that this man deserved what he got. We don't know, but we are going to have to separate the situation whereby the police acted entirely correctly, but the result was a tragedy, from one where the police got it wrong. These things are not always black and white.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 121): You can't say that no one has all the facts, and then without having reviewed those yet to be disclosed facts, state that you believe what the cops did was beyond reproach.

No one has all the facts on this forum or in this discussion. It is as simple as that.

What I am saying is you have to trust the police, and believe what they did was right. If you don't respect the law enforcement officers who have access to a lot of intelligence, this is where problems start. You have to trust and respect people who try and keep peace and counter terrorism.

Yes like I said myself, I don't know all the facts like no one else does on here, but I think its just common decency to respect that those who do. You have to support them, they have a stressful and difficult job at hand and people that go around accusing them of been 'incompetent'** and such have no respect for them what so ever.

Adam

** I appreciate I have quoted a term here from the family of the dead guy. They are bound to be upset with the British police, but mistakes can be made, and maybe its a little harsh to accuse them of been incompetent.

You know, if you say something often enough you might see the light and join the majority.....

naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve naïve

the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat.the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat. the earth is flat.

Nope. Doesn't work. I guess you'll have to choose another word Alfalfa.

Qantas077 has said exactly what I was going to say. The one major thing -- if this guy was such a risk and a solid suspect, why was he allowed to get onto a bus used by the public?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 29): Also, I don't know how this works, but if plain clothes officers are monitoring (surveillance) a location, will the person living there know it?

Well that would seem to be somewhat counter productive really wouldn't it? Card placed through letterbox - "While you were out we visited. We've bugged your house, installed a minature camera, and we're sitting in the anonymous blue van across the street monitoring everything you do. If you have any questions about this situation, please call 555 123 4567."   

Nice to see how many people can tell us that the police were wrong, just by reading whats in the papers. Boy, if only it were that easy huh??.

Out of those of you who made negative comments, how many of you have actually been in a situation where you have had to make a split second decision whether to fire a weapon in order to resolve a situation??

I HAVE!!

Believe me, it is NOT an easy situation to be in.

I believe I acted responsibly and that I made the right decision. I have asked myself on more than one occasion 'Would I still be here if I hadn't pulled the trigger?'. Well, I'm still here, and for that I'm glad I did what I had to.

I fully support the actions of those officers.



Lee

Quoting BMIFlyer (Reply 128): Out of those of you who made negative comments, how many of you have actually been in a situation where you have had to make a split second decision whether to fire a weapon in order to resolve a situation??

A split second decision? Cmon, they supposedly had this guy and the 'house' under surveillance (for how many days/hours?). They had more than a fraction of a second to ascertain the risk (if any) this guy would pose. From what is in the media, it appears to me that their intelligence operation was a complete fuckup. And remember, the same media which we are using to be 'negative' about the incident, is exactly the same media which others are using to be 'positive' about the incident, except it seems we 'negatives' are the only ones wanting more answers to questions which haven't been answered by the media.

[Edited 2005-07-24 22:25:40]

Quoting BA757 (Reply 125): What I am saying is you have to trust the police, and believe what they did was right. If you don't respect the law enforcement officers who have access to a lot of intelligence, this is where problems start. You have to trust and respect people who try and keep peace and counter terrorism.

The British Police was once the envy of the world but standards have declined. Until the facts are fully known I consider that last week's episode is an embarrassment for the British Police. Are there now "trigger happy" officers out there whose directive is 'shoot first, ask questions afterwards'? As to "access to a lot of intelligence", IIRC the state of alert was reduced the day before the first bombings, so the intelligence was not that reliable. "Trust people who try and keep peace and counter terrorism"? I certainly do not trust Blair who opened Pandora's Box and led this country to war with Iraq on false intelligence and under false pretences. Somehow I think that the truth on last week's shooting will be buried by the present Government just like the inquiry into the death of weapons expert David Kelly.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 97): By the way, if this had happened here in the United States, the Brits and the Euros would have been having a transatlantic pissing competition in lecturing us on what a bunch of fascists our cops are.

Yes. I said it earlier here.

Quoting 787 (Reply 39): Fact is, if this had happened in the U.S., people on here would be ALL OVER the Americans screaming outrage. Not seeing that here. Why?

Again where is the "outrage"? I don't see it except for a trifle bit from just a few. You could say that those in Britain who yelled loudly over the Americans and Guantanamo now have their "own" Guantanamo (and a death no less) to rail about. But yet they are silent so it seems.

Thank you double standards.

JAYSIT: This is the first time I've really disagreed with you in all the posts I've seen you make on a.net (well there was one other time, when you made excuses for a drunk driver, but anyway...). Or rather, I can't say you are wrong, but I think you're jumping to conclusions as much as the people you are challenging. And I do think that the nature of the bombs (people acting quicky in crowded public places) is different to what happened on 9/11...

As I said, and as several others have said, why don't we all wait and see what comes out of the inquiry before judging either the poor dead guy or the police here? There is so much conflicting information that right now remains hearsay. No matter what comes of it, this is at the least a tragic mistake.

London is kind of a second home to me and my thoughts go out to everyone there. I think there are TWO groups who are under extra stress right now: average Muslims and the police. Not ONLY do these people have the same worries as everyone else when they get on a tube or whatever, but at the moment they are also under extra scrutiny and constant criticism no matter what they do, and people are making superhuman demands on them. This may be unavoidable, but I think we should give them all the benefit of the doubt when possible.

[Edited 2005-07-24 23:57:36]

Quoting SATX (Reply 43): Those are the kind of confident statements that would seem to require the whole story to be known before they could be made. How can we really know the whole story now that one side is dead? I'm sure we all have our views of what exactly happened, but since it will be impossible to get both sides it would seem to be more responsible to not speak in such absolute terms at this stage.

That is the real problem here I bet we will never know the thruth since half the history (th e brazilians version) is DEAD

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 57): Having read through roughly 2/3rds of this thread, I have come to the conclusion that none of us actually know what exactly happened on this rather tragic occasion.

I think exactly the same and so we see a lot of finger pointing, bottom line an innocent guy is dead.

Quoting GVBIG (Reply 59): Better being safe than sorry. Of course, you probably support the terrorists.

Love this kind of posts because it means that BY FAR I am not the worlds biggest idiot yeahh!!

Quoting Pelican (Reply 64): You 100% right. I can imagine a situation in which the police screwed up. On the other hand it's not unlikely that the police had no other choice than to shoot this guy. I hope for a close investigation. CCTV will play an important role in this investigation. I'm curious what we will see on this tapes. pelican

I can make bets the camera survellance will not be made public.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 65): f you look like this man you run the risk of being shot!

No London Olympiad in my 2012 agenda.... 

Quoting Gman94 (Reply 84): For crying out loud the only guys dropping bollocks are you guys, as I said in my earlier post you are just adding 2+2 and getting 26342187631. We know very minimal facts but you go off and make these fantastic conclusions and pass judgment already.

right on...

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 96): --- OK, WARNING FOR LONDON TUBE USERS --- Leave your house very early, don't run, don't wear jackets, don't use backpacks, and when there are people who threat you with weapons (knife, pistols, etc), it's always the police, there are no criminal people in London who threat you. And if you get killed by the police, they say "sorry" and add that you are guilty anyway.

very funny, but sadly true nowadays 

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 105): Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 69):and that's my point! they lacked intelligence They are not the only ones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

see reply 59...they lack intelligence  

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 106): I have checked up pictures of him and of one of those of Thursday, and now I would only visit London with a bulletproof-vest and a steal-helmet ! in other words rather NOT AT ALL !

For the same reason London, Washington, New York are now on MY black list ( luckily I have been there before) so I wont visit again, I imagine th ekind of tourism London is getting now...

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 107): I know I'm right on this one, and I know you're deluding yourself on your off-base criticism of these police officers. They did what they felt was necessary under the circumstances, and I back them 100%.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 107): You and this small pack of naive monday morning quarterbacks can keep your delusions.

Falcon you need to take a chill pill pal, this situation is not black and white and unfortunatelly there is a man dead, would you think the same if it was someone close or that you knew? If you have the camera video, the police files, the testimony of the persosn involved please share with us because you look bad just assuming a lot of things, and please try to keep calm and get perspective, we dont have to agree on everything, if you try to push your "rightfulness", you may get another vacation from A net, and I respect some of your views but there is no need to jump to conclusions when the whole enchilada is not known.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 119): Right, Falcon. When you're in the majority, then the majority's right. Otherwise, majoritarian views are suspect. Give the "majority on A.net" theory a rest. It bears as much weight as Ashley Simpson's "talent."

Very well said, who cares about the majority, only fools listen to the majority to build their views, so they feel "correct"

Quoting BA757 (Reply 120): As has been said, no one can judge here as no one has all the facts!

Thats the bottom line...  

We live in turbulent times and the suspicious behaviour of this guy meant he got tragically killed.

An example was today - an Asian guy got on the tube today with a big rucksack. As soon as he got on the tube he started fumbling in the bag so me and 2 other guys immediately grabbed the guy and checked the bag. It was full of dirty sports clothes but so what, did we act wrongly? I don't think so, you can't take any chances. Is it racist to target darker skinned people? Probably, but so what, we're all a little bit racist these days in this climate of fear.

I hope the next time a guy ignores a police warning, jumps a barrier and sprints onto a train whilst wearing a big ass jacket the police do exactly the same thing, whether he's a Brazilian or not.

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 126): Qantas077 has said exactly what I was going to say. The one major thing -- if this guy was such a risk and a solid suspect, why was he allowed to get onto a bus used by the public?

it's the question that all these non naive people on here seem to be avoiding...a man worthy of being deemed "suspiscious" and followed yet allowed to get on a public bus?!? should never have been allowed to happen! it's not a slap at the police it's a slap at there commanders who should have known more! they've managed to arrest people connected with thursday's bombs without any further loss of life, yet on the other hand they managed to allow a person they thought was "suspect" on to a public bus and ultimately taken his life! Sir Ian Blair's statement indicating more people may be shot isn't exactly the most comforting words.

I spent a lot of time reading and re-reading this thread . . . You guys beat up on Falcon pretty good . . . unfortunately, he's right on this one . . . .

Can't have imagined letting this guy go, and he blows up a train . . .

First reaction from the folks here that say the cops are fucked: "Why didn't they shoot the SOB when he ran?".

I don't appreciate this guys death - not at all . . . bottom line . . . Stop means frickin' stop. He's Brazilian. He's running for a train. Plain Clothes cops. Those three things are big tickets . . .

He's Brazilian . . . he understands STOP.

Running for a train after multiple homicide bombings on same? Ohhhh, smart, way to draw attention to yourself . . . . dumbass.

Plain Clothes cops - what I fund absolutely frickin' baffling is that some people here actually thing the cops tried to stop this guy witout identifying themselves as such . . . geeez, get frickin' real.

Now. . . all that said . . . does anyone, ANYONE, remember he was tailed leaving a residence tied to the bombers??? NOOOO, Scotland Yeard didn't pick the first guy walking out of a pub and say - "Hey, he looks interesting, lets tail him for a while - and maybe cap his ass later?"

For those never, ever stuck on a surveillance, never ever had to make a split second life or death decision that could - in the case of a homicide bombing have affect on hundreds of people - you haven't a dog in the hunt. Don't second guess these officers . . . let their peers do that.

IMO - justified shoot . . . period.

Look-to all those I've called naive-and I'm, not backing down on it, but consider this:

Those policemen, or law enforcement officers EVERY DAY are faced with situations where they have to make a snap decisions. Those decisions are to save the lives of others and (how dare they) save themselves as well. They don't have time to worry what people like you, who are going to flame them no matter what they do, and who think the cop should take a scientific poll involving some yahoo in bumfuck, North Dakota, before they decide to make a crucial decision. They're going to make it. If they hesitate, then they, and a whole lot of other people could be dead.

They gave this guy a chance. It's tragic he lost his life, but we're all responsible for our actions, and this dude is responsible for running away from the police, with an overcoat on, in the summer, and not obeying an order to stop, in an area where terrorism has taken place.

He's responsible for his own demise, not the police. The officers made a decision they thought would save lives, and they won't think twice about monday morning quarterbacks who have never been in their shoes, or even tried to imagine being in their shoes.

End of my part in this ridiculous debate. You guys keep blasting the police, and when you're own asses are on the line, maybe you'll understand what the hell I've been talking about.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 136): Now. . . all that said . . . does anyone, ANYONE, remember he was tailed leaving a residence tied to the bombers??? NOOOO, Scotland Yeard didn't pick the first guy walking out of a pub and say - "Hey, he looks interesting, lets tail him for a while - and maybe cap his ass later?"

he was tailed right on to a bus which lead to the tube station! how the hell was that allowed to happen? Scotland Yard knew that people from that house were of interest yet let him get on a bloody bus, with the unease around London at the moment and the public transport being targeted why the hell was that allowed to happen in the first place?! the split second decision came when they decided to take his life, they had ample time to apprahend him because as you said they were tailing him and he looked suspiscous...perhaps before he even got on the bus would have been smart! is it usually the police way to tail someone into a crowded area and possibley endanger other lives? he should never have been allowed to get that far if he was of that much interest!

you have to admit that it's extremly reckless of The Met to have allowed that to happen, and what kind of survelliance is it when you have no idea who the person is leaving the house?!? just that you suspect he maybe a terrorist, sorry but maybe is not good enough when your pointing a gun to someones head! it's not about blasting the police but the apparent failures in intelligence which lead to a innocent mans death, they without doubt in my mind should have known who the hell was living in that house, they knew enough to be watching it but had no idea who was living there, pretty bloody poor intelligence gathering if you ask me!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 118): actions certainly were VERY suspicious

-> from the reports I have seen, everything about the whole affair is suspicious. I hope the police in London does the required homework and can present full real facts rather soon. I mean, panicking of the man who became victim and some panicking of the policemen involved would at least be understandable.

Quoting Ryanb741 (Reply 134): As soon as he got on the tube he started fumbling in the bag

-> I also fairly often start "fumbling" in my luggage after having entered a train, so that THIS in my view is absolutely normal

Quoting Ryanb741 (Reply 134): Is it racist to target darker skinned people

-> it may be understandable, but it first of all simply is nonsense, and second, you may overlook the "white white" on the other side who may prepare something REAL . The actually dangerous point about the two London attacks in fact is that elQaeda for the first time REALLY has gone out of the self-chosen Arab "ghetto". The REAL news was that they recruited Pakistanis for a "job". And back to the victim of your "check-up". I in his case would have gone to the police to report "highly suspicious" men on the tube --- "no Sir, they were NOT stealing anything, do not know what they were looking for, but you see, I do NOT have valuables with me, Sir" and would deliver a clear description of you and the two others.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 136): letting this guy go, and he blows up a train . . .

-> ok ok, BUT police will have to tell WHY they let him onto a bus (or did I get this wrong ? ) and allowed him to blow up that bus !

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 136): Running for a train after multiple homicide bombings on same? Ohhhh, smart, way to draw attention to yourself

�
-> police will have to find out and explain about THIS. It presumably is NOT their fault, BUT it is what is called "facts-finding"

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 136): some people here actually thing the cops tried to stop this guy witout identifying themselves as such . . .

-> did they ? if so, how ? if correctly, we are back at the victim. Why did he run ? I would NOT run if fearing to be stopped by muggers. Even less if being stopped by a "sort of policemen" ----- to find out such facts if police-business, not mine --- YOU as a Brit pay them to do serious work, and now urgently required work

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 136): he was tailed leaving a residence tied to the bombers

> was he ? and why did they NOT check him upon leaving that residence ? why did they NOT know about him ? what have they been doing when doing "surveillance" ? were they checking up on the best beer available or what ? a whole lot of questions --- it is the business of the authorities to answer open questions, and as a Brazilian citizen is involved it no longer is "British only" ---- I hope that they at Metropolitan Police and Yard really do their homework most thoroughly indeed.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 71): -> do YOU always react in a way YOU YOURSELF regard as wise later on ?

Nope, nobody does. Not even the Police. But that's life.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 122): PP, with their "pre-judge guilty" version they killed him. And as long as people who are running and wearing jackets etc are suspect, it is very dangerous driving by underground then. MD11 already wrote in another thread, that the Police is in a very bad situation - but they have that job (and the power). The power can make them heroes, but it also can bring them into situations they are in at the moment.

All that happened in this event led the police to believe he was guilty. And given his suspicious actions, I tend to agree with that decision as tough as it may have been.

IMHO, the risk was too great and their actions are justified.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 122): It's just the "never judge the British police" mentality here, that sounds very strange. They made a big mistake - but it seems as if life of a single person doesn't count any more.

Nobody has a "never judge the British police" mentality here, at least i don't think so. We just happen to agree, even though we mourn the loss of an innocent soul, with the procedure and actions taken by the Met.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 138): he was tailed right on to a bus which lead to the tube station! how the hell was that allowed to happen? Scotland Yard knew that people from that house were of interest yet let him get on a bloody bus, with the unease around London at the moment and the public transport being targeted why the hell was that allowed to happen in the first place?!

Certainly a screw up on their part if that is the case. But screw ups happen, it might have prevented this tragedy... They'll learn from their mistakes. But it doesn't change anything when it comes down to prevention at the Tube.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 138): you have to admit that it's extremely reckless of The Met to have allowed that to happen, and what kind of survelliance is it when you have no idea who the person is leaving the house?!? just that you suspect he maybe a terrorist, sorry but maybe is not good enough when your pointing a gun to someones head! it's not about blasting the police but the apparent failures in intelligence which lead to a innocent mans death, they without doubt in my mind should have known who the hell was living in that house, they knew enough to be watching it but had no idea who was living there, pretty bloody poor intelligence gathering if you ask me!

That falls into the "profiling" category. You mean if he is from the USA, his name is John Smith, has blue eyes and blond hair he shouldn't be thought of as a possible terrorist?


Look, they should have stopped him before getting he got on the bus (how do we know he got into a bus btw?). Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, the police didn't stop him. When he got to the Tube, he wouldn't stop (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) and it was too late.

PPVRA

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 141): their actions are justified

-> maybe of course, BUT they will have to present full details of the matter

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 141): You mean if he is from the USA, his name is John Smith, has blue eyes and blond hair he shouldn't be thought of as a possible terrorist?

in such a case he IS NOT THOUGHT of as a possible terrorist. as simple as that. if in Europe and being Arab or Brazilian looking you rather transfer critical tasks to a "European looking" colleague. anything new or particular about that ?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 141): he got on the bus (how do we know he got into a bus btw?). Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, the police didn't stop him

-> open questions to be answered by the "Yard" .

Quoting N229NW (Reply 132): As I said, and as several others have said, why don't we all wait and see what comes out of the inquiry before judging either the poor dead guy or the police here? There is so much conflicting information that right now remains hearsay. No matter what comes of it, this is at the least a tragic mistake.

Exactly, And, well, what I've been saying is that this was CLEARLY a mistake. When you kill a man who is as far removed from the 7/7 bombings as the Golden Girls are, you've made a mistake. The London police have acknowledged their error and an investigation is underway.

To say that what the London police did was irreproacheable is ridiculous. Its not. At worst it was a case of gung ho-ism; at best it was a tragic mistake. If the British themselves have acknowledged the error of their ways, to have Fox News and the self-anointed all knowing majority on A.net to assert otherwise can be pretty amusing (were it not based on such a tragic event).

It seems that the man in question had overstayed his visa. Might suggest why he ran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

Jaysit, I would think it unlikely in the extreme that the police were in any way gung-ho in this case. You must remember that ordinary police officers are not armed here as is the case in most countries. The armed units are the elite, specially selected for their calmness and decision-making capacities. It isn't a case of an ordinary policeman over-reacting quite simply because these are not ordinary policemen. Now, quite clearly this is a tragic error, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the police did anything wrong. It may well be that they acted perfectly properly - hard as that may be to accept where an innocent man is killed. Equally of course, it may be that avoidable mistakes were made, but I do think just as incorrect to rush to judgement saying that they got it wrong as it is to say they were right.

In any case where firearms are discharged, the officer in question is removed from firearms duties (but not suspended from general duty) , and an independent investigation is undertaken. The problem here is that these enquiries can often take months. Police shootings (any shootings for that matter) are so rare here that to equate it with the situation in other nations would be a mistake.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 143): a man who is as far removed from the 7/7 bombings as the Golden Girls

I always thought that Estelle Getty was a bit shifty...and I heard she made some mysterious trips to Afghanistan in the late 90s...   

Quoting PerthGloryFan (Reply 102):
Everyone else

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 107):
No, not everyone else-you, and a few blinded, naive few, not "everyone else", Perth. You're in the minority here, not the majority. Maybe you should remember that.

What I actually said was:
From what I can see on this thread the only people putting forward this idea [of allowing a suspected terrorist on a train and blowing it up] is yourself and those others who at this stage unequivocally support the killing of this guy.

Everyone else seems to be saying that, based on the alleged media reports and witness accounts, why was this "suspicious" person even allowed to enter the tube station, and then once apprehended why was he shot 5 times in the head?

Hey Falcon84 (even though you claim you're not coming back to this thread) - you're right, I am naive. Naive enough to believe you could read and understand English.

Where the hell did this majority-minority bullshit come from?

Ok let's start again. In my opinion (and am I naive enough to believe I can have one?), there seems to be two views on this tragedy expressed on this thread.

One general view is that the cops were right to do what they did, no explanation required and that's how it should always be in this type of situation - shoot and ask questions later.
I think I'm on pretty safe ground by saying that you, Falcon84, hold this view.

The other general view seems to be - we don't really know if they did the right thing because, for example, based on the very limited public information available, there may have been opportunity to at least confront the "suspect" before he even got to the tube station. The fact that after the tragedy the dead guy was found to be not involved with terrorists just compounds what appears to be less than satisfactory action.

Now I haven't bothered to add up the numbers for each side of the argument and I don't care who is the majority. My "everyone else" statement was referring to those other posters on this thread (however many there are) who disagree with you. Ok? Jeez, what a bloody effort!

BTW I thought the whole idea of "regime change" (doncha just love politically expedient euphemisms) in Iraq was to remove a government that delighted in terrorising its citizens with the sort of thing that happened in the tube station. Wasn't the aim to introduce the rule of law, basic human rights, natural justice, etc, into that country? Perhaps the "Coalition of the Willing" need to get there own houses in order first?

PGF

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 143): it was a case of gung ho-ism; at best it was a tragic mistake

-> mistake or/and misunderstanding looks likely, it will be the job of the police to clarify the matter

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 143): the self-anointed all knowing majority on A.net to assert otherwise

-> WHO did "assert otherwise" ? Hardly a majority

Quoting Banco (Reply 144): they acted perfectly properly

-> the death of an innocent is the result of something going wrong, whatever, so the better wording may have been that they tried their best

According to the "Sun" : ""MORE people could be shot in the hunt for four suicide bombers, Britain�s top cop warned yesterday. Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair insisted a �shoot to kill to protect� policy against suicide bombers would continue despite armed officers killing an innocent man. Sir Ian said: �Somebody else could be shot. But everything is done to make it right." """
-
Such a position makes London an extremely dangerous city, I am afraid. And may well succeed in what the terrorists did NOT succeed in and that is to scare away the tourists.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 147): Quoting Banco (Reply 144): they acted perfectly properly -> the death of an innocent is the result of something going wrong, whatever, so the better wording may have been that they tried their best

No, that's not quite what I mean. It may have been the case that the police did everything absolutely correctly and made a judgement call that they cannot be faulted on. Sometimes, just because the person turns out to be innocent doesn't mean that the police could have responsibly acted any other way. This is an important qualification. We can all think of circumstances where the police have absolutely no way of knowing that a person is innocent, and that everything they do lends credence to the belief of a danger. It is perfectly possible that the same thing has happened here, that the police simply had no alternative at the time. You cannot use hindsight in these cases, you must understand the situation of the moment. They may have over-reacted, they may not, we just don't know. But it is important to remember that just because an innocent died, does not necessarily mean that their actions were wrong. Not an easy concept for us all to grasp, but an important one.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 148): According to the "Sun" : ""MORE people could be shot in the hunt for four suicide bombers, Britain�s top cop warned yesterday. Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair insisted a �shoot to kill to protect� policy against suicide bombers would continue despite armed officers killing an innocent man. Sir Ian said: �Somebody else could be shot. But everything is done to make it right." """ - Such a position makes London an extremely dangerous city, I am afraid. And may well succeed in what the terrorists did NOT succeed in and that is to scare away the tourists.

Hmm. Let me guess here: I'll bet the question was something along the lines of "Can you guarantee that this will never happen again?".

What else could he say?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): A terrible blunder by this guy

-> of course, but the whole matter is nevertheless a mistake/misunderstanding, whatever. And why did they allow a "suspect" to get onto a bus ! and to proceed towards a tube-station ?

Quoting 787 (Reply 39): Rule is that you do not run from the police. Not here, not in London, not in the U.S

-> you also do NOT run from armed muggers, true --- but it looks as if the man really was panicking

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 55): it illustrates that anyone is now fair game...whether your running from police or seen to running from them for whatever reason, wearing a backpack, wearing a jacket and baseball cap, happen to jump a toll gate, happen to behave in a supposedly suspect manner (i'd really love to know how he was behaving when the police requested the order to neutralise him) which is so ambiguous to say the least, what's suspect to the police may not be suspect you or i if it's how we go about our everyday lives, does that warrant having 5 bulletts pumped into my head?!

-> THIS indeed is the problem. You canNOT know what police-agents may regard as suspicious. Making the risks incalculable.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 65): if you look like this man you run the risk of being shot!

-> this exactly is the problem

Quoting Ryanb741 (Reply 134): an Asian guy got on the tube today with a big rucksack. As soon as he got on the tube he started fumbling in the bag so me and 2 other guys immediately grabbed the guy and checked the bag. It was full of dirty sports clothes but so what, did we act wrongly?

YES, for various reasons :
A) self-justice is NOT allowed and is criminal
B) imagine, everybody doing such things, "grabbing" whomever they regard as suspicious
C) it was extremely dangerous. Had he BEEN a terrorist, your intervention might well have caused the explosion. Had he BEEN an armed criminal he may have shot you in no time.
-> I hope you apologized and explained WHY you did it, showing at least some style and behaviour !