UK Police shoot *Suspected* suicide bomber

[Darth Wong]

Seems he was shot 8 times.

Obviously, the police must have been extremely agitated to shoot him so many times. Most likely they were afraid that he was going to detonate a bomb so they kept shooting him until he stopped moving.

[Gud]

Obviously, the police must have been extremely agitated to shoot him so many times. Most likely they were afraid that he was going to detonate a bomb so they kept shooting him until he stopped moving.

Perhaps the police officer in question shouldn't be one if he can't keep his head cool during stressful situations.

[Darth Wong]

Obviously, the police must have been extremely agitated to shoot him so many times. Most likely they were afraid that he was going to detonate a bomb so they kept shooting him until he stopped moving.

Perhaps the police officer in question shouldn't be one if he can't keep his head cool during stressful situations.

Who said he didn't keep his head cool? He didn't miss, did he?

"Agitation" in this case simply refers to their heightened concern that he was going to do something very bad, not some cop crapping his pants and losing control of himself.

[sonyboy]

argh, you people! You don't have to be "asian" in appearance to commit terrorist acts! Talk about racism, geez.

Based on the same concept, saying if you were filling out a form and it asks for your race, that would also be racism too wouldn't it? 7 bullets at his head? That tells me what the cops who done this feel like at that moment.

[the rat]

One puzzle solved. Why was he shot in the head?

A woman has just been interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme. I didn't catch her name nor her relevance to the case but she did explain why this guy was shot in the head.

She said that pre-9/11 all police were trained to shoot to the body mass. however, post-9/11 they accepted that they were dealing with a threat they had never faced before. The police spoke to different agencies around the world who had to deal with suicide bombers and conducted experiements where different weapons and different callibre bullets were fired into different explosives that are worn by suicide bombers around their body.

They decided that the headshot should be way to go.

[FuNEnD3R]

It's a no win situation. If they didn't shoot him and he was a real bomber, then this topic would be about why the cops let the bomber go and should have shot him when they suspected something wrong.

[SHS`]

They decided that the headshot should be way to go.

Obviously not heard of Dead Man's Handle? Primed to fail-deadly as opposed to fail-safe of course...

It's a no win situation. If they didn't shoot him and he was a real bomber, then this topic would be about why the cops let the bomber go and should have shot him when they suspected something wrong.

Reality check please. If you give the police the carte blanche to shoot people on suspicion, innocent people will get shot. Even if the dead guy was some crazed Islamist Fascist hell bent on mass murder of infidels (unlikely given he's Brazilian and Roman Catholic)... by standers could still have been killed as bullets don't magically stop upon hitting their intended target: ricochet, penetrating soft tissue, et cetera...

Also, however good one's aim, there's still a likelihood you'll set of the nutjobs explosive device, either by hitting their unstable homebrewed explosive, or the fact its got a Dead Man's Handle.

If things exploding and people dying are inevitable, I'd sure as heck prefer something like this to have occured rather than having to worry about stray bullets when I return to London plus whatever threat Islamist Fascist nutjobs are scheming as well...

In any case, George Galloway & Lord Stevens should go about making love children and I'm rather disappointed in Red Ken Livingstone, whom can normally be replied on for a bit of controversy but instead adopted the "yes-men" approach.

If al-Wotsit wanted to effectively besiged London where an ordinary person can have 5 (now 8?) bits of lead unloaded into him and society apparently seems to shrugs its shoulders... they have actually partially achieved their aim.

Oh, and news just in... in the same incident... the train driver had a gun pointed at his head? Sorry, but if that isn't mentalist (accrediting the police) I'm not sure what is...

[psoTFX]

Based on the same concept, saying if you were filling out a form and it asks for your race, that would also be racism too wouldn't it? 7 bullets at his head? That tells me what the cops who done this feel like at that moment.

huh? Go re-read your posting ... you may not have intended it the way it sounded but quite frankly it came across as a "any asian looking person is a terrorist, all others aren't" line. As for the number of shots, it tells you not a jot unless you're the coroner and/or a member of the investigative team. So I'd strongly recommend you comment on what is known, not what you "think".

Reality check please. If you give the police the carte blanche to shoot people on suspicion, innocent people will get shot. Even if the dead guy was some crazed Islamist Fascist hell bent on mass murder of infidels (unlikely given he's Brazilian and Roman Catholic)... by standers could still have been killed as bullets don't magically stop upon hitting their intended target: ricochet, penetrating soft tissue, et cetera...

I'm not sure what's up with you Jon? You've gone from being someone who reasonably examines the situation ... to someone who quotes wikipedia as if it were lore and is more left-wing than Mr. "Look at me, look at me" Galloway.

Carte blanche? Please, get a grip ... unless there is some conspiracy going on there can only be one or two deaths at the hands of armed police a year ... a _year_.

Also, however good one's aim, there's still a likelihood you'll set of the nutjobs explosive device, either by hitting their unstable homebrewed explosive, or the fact its got a Dead Man's Handle.

Yeah, I mean what the heck would the police service know? What the heck would the Israelie police service with whom our service has held discussions know? Yeah, you're knowledge of these things is soo much greater

rather than having to worry about stray bullets when I return to London plus whatever threat Islamist Fascist nutjobs are scheming as well...

Perhaps you shouldn't return to London then? No offence intended but you're commentary is just ... out of this world with regards actual reality.

In any case, George Galloway & Lord Stevens should go about making love children

George "I applaud your stance Mr. Hussein" Galloway? Just about sums it up for you I guess.

and I'm rather disappointed in Red Ken Livingstone, whom can normally be replied on for a bit of controversy but instead adopted the "yes-men" approach.

Have you ever wondered Jon these people have a _lot_ more information than you? No? Well I'm telling you they have much more information than you or I ... and thus are far better informed than any of us. There are some that would call you a "yes man" for phpBB, always agreeing with the lines taken. But then you have information at your fingertips others do not ... amazing how a little information can change your viewpoint ...

[Riamus]

For the first comment you make, I'm sure you also don't see a bunch of bombs going off on trains and buses either. With all that is currently going on, it could cause new things to happen that you don't normally see.

Pardon me? I live here, heck I've lived here my entire life ... how about you? Attacks by small sections of society on other members is not new and not limited to London. Whenever something like this happens tensions rise and things kick off ... but don't go away thinking of London being filled with howling white folks running down the road with burning torches chasing muslim members of society.

I don't believe I said that. Anyone else think I did?

psoTFX, just as you clearly continue pointing out, no one has all the information. The police/coroner/etc will know much more information that has not yet been released. This means also that you don't have all the information either, regardless where you live. Please try to keep that in mind before going around throwing sarcasm at everyone who doesn't agree with you. No offense meant, but doing that makes you sound arrogant. I doubt you mean to sound that way, but it does when you keep up the heavy sarcasm.

Who knows? You could be completely wrong. It could really be that some cop screwed up and took vengeance out on the suspect. Perhaps the cop lost a family member (wife? child?) and shot out of anger. Regardless where you live, this *IS* a possibility. Even the most peaceful place on earth, if it has humans, can perform vengeful acts (we're humans afterall). Think about the number of shots fired... that's rather extreme however you look at it.

I am NOT saying this is what happened. I am NOT saying the cops were wrong. Without further information released, no one is going to be able to really say who was right or wrong. It's best to look at things from all sides rather to assume from your own prior experience that something is true or false. Until the facts are revealed, discussing and debating an issue is fine, but to stand firmly behind one side (cops) without really knowing all the facts, isn't necessarily a good idea. That is how people end up eating their words later. That's why I am standing in the middle and pointing out things from both sides.

[Darth Wong]

If al-Wotsit wanted to effectively besiged London where an ordinary person can have 5 (now 8?) bits of lead unloaded into him and society apparently seems to shrugs its shoulders... they have actually partially achieved their aim.

An "ordinary person" who decides to do a pretty good impersonation of a duck, during duck hunting season.

Oh, and news just in... in the same incident... the train driver had a gun pointed at his head? Sorry, but if that isn't mentalist (accrediting the police) I'm not sure what is...

They didn't actually shoot him, did they? Maybe that's because this guy wasn't an idiot and knew to stop running or struggling when the police told him to.

I'm not sure what's up with you Jon? You've gone from being someone who reasonably examines the situation ... to someone who quotes wikipedia as if it were lore and is more left-wing than Mr. "Look at me, look at me" Galloway.

Why is "left-wing" necessarily incompatible with "reasonable"?

[psoTFX]

I don't believe I said that. Anyone else think I did?

Re-read what you wrote above ... you're suggesting that this hasn't happened before, that things may occur that I've not witnessed before ... sorry to burst your bubble but London has been attacked by terrorists for decades. It's faced serious rioting and the odd (luckily rare) burst of racial tension ... we've been there, done that and things have and will continue to move on. If you think I'm being arrogant in stating the obvious I do appologise.

psoTFX, just as you clearly continue pointing out, no one has all the information. The police/coroner/etc will know much more information that has not yet been released. This means also that you don't have all the information either, regardless where you live. Please try to keep that in mind before going around throwing sarcasm at everyone who doesn't agree with you.

I suggest you actually read what I've written riamus and stop accusing me of things I've not committed. I've commented on the facts as reported by the police thus far ... the surveilance, the chase. What I've not commented on and where I get annoyed with people who do is the actual shooting ... there is still little information available on that.

No offense meant, but doing that makes you sound arrogant. I doubt you mean to sound that way, but it does when you keep up the heavy sarcasm.

No offence ... yeah, sure ... I criticise you and you come back with "no offence but you sound arrogant".

Who knows? You could be completely wrong.

Who knows? The officers who carried out the shooting, that's who ... and I've commented on those elements for which there is little to no doubt. On the actual shooting I've not commented. I strongly urge others do likewise till the inquest reports.[/list]

Why is "left-wing" necessarily incompatible with "reasonable"?

sigh, let me rephrase for you Darth ... "Mr. Galloway" (who happens to be far left) is incompatible with reasonable.

[Riamus]

I don't believe I said that. Anyone else think I did?

Re-read what you wrote above ... you're suggesting that this hasn't happened before, that things may occur that I've not witnessed before ... sorry to burst your bubble but London has been attacked by terrorists for decades. It's faced serious rioting and the odd (luckily rare) burst of racial tension ... we've been there, done that and things have and will continue to move on. If you think I'm being arrogant in stating the obvious I do appologise.

And, if you read what I was replying about, it was in regards to you stating that since you've not seen any mobs pretending to be cops or people jumping barriers, that it isn't a possibility. It was a statement saying that -- Even though, you don't normally see that happening, that it could because of these attacks. Simple as that.

No offence ... yeah, sure ... I criticise you and you come back with "no offence but you sound arrogant".

I said that to offer helpful insight into what others are going to see from your comments. If you don't want to accept what is meant to be useful criticism (even though you are perfectly willing to offer criticism), then so be it. I said "no offense" to show you that it was meant to be helpful. I also pointed out that I didn't believe you were really meaning it to sound that way. As such, I was not saying you were anything, just that it sounded that way. I'm sorry if you're unwilling to accept criticism meant to help.

Who knows? You could be completely wrong.

Who knows? The officers who carried out the shooting, that's who ... and I've commented on those elements for which there is little to no doubt. On the actual shooting I've not commented. I strongly urge others do likewise till the inquest reports.

"Who knows" is a normal way, at least here, to say the same things as "You never know" or "It could be" or whatever else. It does not mean that no one knows.

And, as far as your comments on the shootings, you may not state specific beliefs, but your entire manner shows that you believe the police to be fully in the right of things and that there was no error in shooting the suspect multiple times. As I've stated, until we know all the facts, we cannot be sure that the police were right to shoot the suspect.

[psoTFX]

And, if you read what I was replying about, it was in regards to you stating that since you've not seen any mobs pretending to be cops or people jumping barriers, that it isn't a possibility.

That states the obvious ... what do you think I or others thought you meant?

IIt was a statement saying that -- Even though, you don't normally see that happening, that it could because of these attacks. Simple as that.

And I'm telling you that aside from some increased vandalisation of mosques in parts of London and a (understandable if unnecessary) apprehension amongst commuters when someone of asian appearance boards a train carrying a large bag ... that this kind of mob attack with people pretending to be armed police has not occured (or at least not reported). Yet you continue to say "but it's possible". It's possible the sun may explode tomorrow but it's not likely and no evidence exists to suggest otherwise.

"Who knows" is a normal way, at least here, to say the same things as "You never know" or "It could be" or whatever else. It does not mean that no one knows.

So, you agree that it doesn't mean "no one knows" ... yet to you continue to suggest no one knows by telling us the facts thus far reported are ... wrong/lies?

And, as far as your comments on the shootings, you may not state specific beliefs, but your entire manner shows that you believe the police to be fully in the right of things and that there was no error in shooting the suspect multiple times.

uhm, again you haven't read what I've written ... I've actually stated quite openly that given the information made available thus far I would myself have found it a hard choice not to shoot. I've in no way stated, anywhere, that it was acceptable to shoot multiple times. The reasons there are something we are yet to be made privy to.

[Riamus]

Ok, I'm done debating it with you because neither of us apparently understand each other in the least bit. I try explaining my view and you take it incorrectly. You try to explain yours and apparently I also take it incorrectly. So, I'll just step aside with regards to trying to keep clarifying who means what rather than just killing the thread.

I'll leave it that I did not say that the facts we do know are false. I stated only that we don't have the facts about the actual shooting (ie. Why? Was the suspect really shot point blank while held down? etc). And, as far as your not stating the shootings were okay, you just seem to criticise people who argue that the cops were wrong to shoot the suspect. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but it just seems that way. Oh well.

[psoTFX]

Goodness me ... I've said time and again directly or indirectly we do not have the facts as to the actual shooting ... it's the whole backbone to the postings I've made in this topic?! Crikey! Who's posts have you been reading?

As for "you just criticise the people that say the cops were wrong" ... no, not quite. However I do criticise those people who without any reason at this stage label this terrible event as criminal or in some way premeditated/common place.

Should significant evidence come to light suggesting the officers had absolutely no reason at all to suspect this guy I'll change my view. But as it stands right now this guy appears to have acted in an incredibly suspicious manner (as Darth says "A person doing a good impression of a duck during duck hunting season") a day after four bombs were planted ... and a fortnight after 50+ people were killed and 700+ injured in similar attacks.