Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grug on July 24, 2005, 06:19:44 am
-
Thought I'd do an 'aldo'. :p
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1421179.htm
British police remain under orders to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head if necessary, London's police chief Ian Blair has said, despite having mistakenly killed an innocent man.
I wonder, if at any time they may abuse that order...
//Update:
Aldo's Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
Karajorma's Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm
-
You know, if terrorists were out to spread fear and panic, they may as well hang their bombs up on a coat hanger right now.
The threat of being gunned down by armed policemen while on your way to work in the capital is a much more worrying threat. "Well done" to the English Government.
-
So what happens if some smarter-than-usual bomber decides to make a bomb with a kill switch?
-
Then he does what he would have managed to do had he not been shot in the head. At least this way he might get taken down before he reaches his choosen target.
Fact is that the guy was acting suspicously and then ran. While I hate the idea of a shoot to kill policy, as long as the police still challenge before shooting the alternative is many times worse.
-
But they had the guy pinned on the floor - if he had triggered something it would go off regardless of them shooting him.
On top of that it turns out he was innocent. I wasn't aware that running was a crime these days. Nor would I say he deserved it for acting suspiciously (whatever that means..).
To avoid this they should have subjects freeze and instantly drop to the floor, spread eagle. Therefore unable to trigger anything (not counting a dead mans switch.. which would go off regardless of whether the subject was shot or not). As it is, we've a massive transportation system with thousands of civilians travelling it on a daily basis... and a lot of trigger happy armed forces with orders that they can shoot to kill if they feel it necessary.
Suffice to say, I'm damned if I'm going up to London any time soon. Between the bombers and the armed forces - the likelyhood of being unfortunately caught up in something just doesn't seem worth the risk.
-
You know most people that come out of sex shops and what not usually act suspicious. :p
-
was this individual running from the police?
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
But they had the guy pinned on the floor - if he had triggered something it would go off regardless of them shooting him.
It's pretty easy when you're in a situation like that to trigger a bomb. Had the man been a suicide bomber shooting him was the only way to cancel the possibility of him setting off the bomb without a dead mans switch.
Originally posted by Kalfireth
On top of that it turns out he was innocent. I wasn't aware that running was a crime these days. Nor would I say he deserved it for acting suspiciously (whatever that means..).
I wouldn't say he deserved it either but had he been sensible enough to stop when he was challenged the police would probably have simply felt him up and sent him on his way. Choosing to run towards a tube train the day after 3 attempted tube train bombings when being ordered to stop by armed police was certainly not a smart idea.
Originally posted by Kalfireth
To avoid this they should have subjects freeze and instantly drop to the floor, spread eagle. Therefore unable to trigger anything (not counting a dead mans switch.. which would go off regardless of whether the subject was shot or not).
Which is exactly what they did to that guy in Whitehall. It's probably what they would have done in this case too had the guy not run away.
It's very easy to make judgements about what the police should or should not have done in that situation but I'm keeping an open mind until the report is published and the full facts of the case are available for everyone to read.
Originally posted by Kalfireth
As it is, we've a massive transportation system with thousands of civilians travelling it on a daily basis... and a lot of trigger happy armed forces with orders that they can shoot to kill if they feel it necessary.
They've always had that order. All that has changed is that now they target the head rather than the heart.
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Suffice to say, I'm damned if I'm going up to London any time soon. Between the bombers and the armed forces - the likelyhood of being unfortunately caught up in something just doesn't seem worth the risk.
I'm going in on Tuesday. I'll be damned if I'm letting anyone scare me out of living my life.
-
There is no such thing as a 'Shoot to Kill' policy.
The rules state that you may open fire if there is a threat to you, or the people you are protecting.
You must give a warning, if there is time to do so.
You may NOT aim to wound - it is clearly laid out that you 'aim for the exposed part of the target'
Basically - If you can see all of them, then aim for the centre of the body, if you can only see their head, then aim for the centre of their head.
The requirement is to STOP the threat, and if that means killing, then that is what will happen, but nowhere does it state 'shoot to kill' in the Green Card (Rules of Engagement)
There is a lot of stuff in there about giving three warnings and such, but the fact is that all of these decisions are made in seconds or less, and there is no way back once committed. If the guy HAD been a bomber, and got onto the train killing another 20-30 people, then everyone would have been condemning the police for being too slow.
I no longer have a Green Card, but you can be certain that those policemen would have followed the rules laid down there....
-
Exactly Clave. I'm waiting for the real story on this to come out rather than assuming the police cocked it up.
As far as I can see the police acted on their information in exactly the way they should have. If new evidence comes to light I'll change my point of view but I'm willing to give the police the benifit of the doubt until there is a reason not to.
-
Meh, perhaps I'm alone here in feeling that the public should not live in fear of armed forces for going about their daily lives.
Why did the guy run? I don't know. I've never had a gun pointed at me and been ordered to freeze... and perhaps he did have something to hide. Perhaps it'll turn out he was a major leader of a child porn ring or something - I don't know. Or perhaps he just ran rather than froze. Perhaps he was late for work / home / whatever. I don't know the details.
I do know that the way this country is going really bothers me. Joe public shouldn't have to wander around worrying about being pulled in for questioning by the police or being bombed by whoever. I will admit that I'm a little biased on that front though, as a friend of mine had his jaw broken as he was attacked by a group of youths about half a minute from his own home.
In a country where an innocent man is shot, thug culture seems to be on the increase and the goverment resorts to rewarding children for going to school by giving them IPods... I fail to see why I should have much respect in the establishment. The word "cock up" springs to mind.
Still - if you're happy with the way things are then power to you :)
-
I think it's a cear case of suicide by cop, or the guy should get a Darwin Award. According to the TV, he spoke good English and when the police aimed guns at him and yelled at him to stop, he ran away and jumped over a ticket barrier. Then he runs into a train, when trains have been attacked 6 times in the last 15 days. :wtf:
They are not the actions of a mentally stable person who retains the will to live.
-
Fair enough then, I retract that part of my arguement.
-
From what I've been hearing, he could not speak english. He was also an illegal. That certainly explains why he was running from the cops.
The fact that they had him pinned to the ground and THEN emptied half a clip into him is just over kill.
-
you know we have cops with guns, we've had them for some time in fact, and no one is too worried about getting guned down by them on there way home...
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The fact that they had him pinned to the ground and THEN emptied half a clip into him is just over kill.
That's mostly what I was thinking :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I do know that the way this country is going really bothers me. Joe public shouldn't have to wander around worrying about being pulled in for questioning by the police or being bombed by whoever.
So blame the government for putting us in that position. What I'm seeing is people blaming the police for the cock-ups the government are responsible for.
It's the current govenrment that's responsible for making things worse with a stupid unnecessarry war in Iraq instead of trying to make things better by using the money sensibly in Afghanistan as I've said time and time again.
And yet as a country we elected that prick Blair and gave him a third chance to screw us over. I'm definately not happy with the state of affairs but until the man in the street starts to realise how badly we're being f**ked over as a nation I see little we can do about it.
-
weren't the cops chasing him in plain clothes though ?
-
Look, guys, you can't argue with 5 shots to the head (of which apparently one in the mouth) was reasonable force. It defies reason.
-
I'm not saying it was right, just that it was one of those things that happens, and it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time (ie just after the bombings) and doing the wrong thing.
I don't particularly care how many bullets were used, or whether he was pinned down or not, the fact remains that he behaved in EXACTLY the same way a suicide bomber would have done, and paid the price.
And no, I'm not 'happy' that we have police with assault rifles or SMGs roaming the streets, it's not really ideal, but for the time being, that is how things must be.
-
And no, I'm not 'happy' that we have police with assault rifles or SMGs roaming the streets, it's not really ideal, but for the time being, that is how things must be.
And so shooting people on sight ISN'T terrorizing the populace? :wtf:
-
It should really go without saying that they had the guy pinned and still felt the need to unload five shots directly into the head. Now I'm no surgeon but I'm fairly sure that one would do the job - a second if you really had to be sure. It's not like we're talking body armor or bullet range here.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
It should really go without saying that they had the guy pinned and still felt the need to unload five shots directly into the head. Now I'm no surgeon but I'm fairly sure that one would do the job - a second if you really had to be sure. It's not like we're talking body armor or bullet range here.
I'm not sure a shot to the head is necessarily fatal; I think there have been documented cases where people have survived one. 5 does seem to be overkill, but then that would be the point in a real scenario.
The one thing that makes me think this could have been a bad shoot, is that it was plain clothes armed officers. That to me raises a bit of a problem, as it *could* explain why he ran, if his grasp of english was poor enough to not understand any initial warning.
I think the shoot-to-kill policy is the only way you can handle suicide bombers, but they should try and restrict armed officers to be fully uniformed. Whether or not that's actually possible, I'm not sure; if this guy had been a bomber, then there wouldn't have been adequate deployment time (I'm assuming the police officers who shot him were part of the undercover surveillance team observing the house he left).
-
you'r makeing judgements about a situation were you realy don't know all the facts, for all you know five cops shot him at the same time.
-
I'm not going to jump to conclusions over the shooting - the facts will come out in the inquiry - but I will say that it's the government's fault at least as much as the police who were involved. We're on the slippery slope, and accelerating....
-
Out of interest... has anyone thought about bomb/metal detectors built into the walls of major stations? Lets put it this way... on a busy day in London it'll take you at least a minute or two to get from the entrance to a subway station to the actual platform itself. That may not be plenty of time - but it's some time at least. It beats the notion of ununiformed armed police running around the place.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Out of interest... has anyone thought about bomb/metal detectors built into the walls of major stations? Lets put it this way... on a busy day in London it'll take you at least a minute or two to get from the entrance to a subway station to the actual platform itself. That may not be plenty of time - but it's some time at least. It beats the notion of ununiformed armed police running around the place.
It's been proposed by the Met, but the current technological level of detectors means that not only would you get a massive amount of false positives, I think you'd also be giving out a substantial does of radiation in turning them high enough to detect across a large area.
Qinetiq (IIRC) has also proposed a system that uses CCTV and movement tracking to detect likely bombers; they're trying to sell it to the Israelis as well. But it would strike me as - aside from inherent intrusiveness - being both unreliable and somewhat useless in a large crowded area where movement is affected by congestion.
NB: Bob; the witness statement is pretty clear that a single officer, armed with an automatic pistol, shot 5 times point blank; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
-
The way the police ruthlessly executed this poor guy was really quite chilling. Seemingly for no other reason than he looked foreign. He wasn't even from the right continent to be a terrorist. Even worse it's almost as if the police are pleased with what happened because it demonstrates their shoot to kill policy to would be terrorists. The police are a law unto themselves these days.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
Seemingly for no other reason than he looked foreign.
He doesn't actually look that foreign. Take a look for yourselves. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm)
-
Which makes it more alarming. They're shooting anyone.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Out of interest... has anyone thought about bomb/metal detectors built into the walls of major stations? Lets put it this way... on a busy day in London it'll take you at least a minute or two to get from the entrance to a subway station to the actual platform itself. That may not be plenty of time - but it's some time at least. It beats the notion of ununiformed armed police running around the place.
At this point, sniffer dogs are probably a better idea. I think that guards should be re-introduced to stations as well.
I also think that police should have less-than-lethal weapons for use in situations like this. Something that will cause extreme pain and/or instant paralysis, but that won't kill the target.
-
but would probly give them time to detonate there bomb, yeah, great idea.
-
Not to mention the fact that shooting a suicide bomber with a taser is likely to be the last thing you ever do.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
At this point, sniffer dogs are probably a better idea. I think that guards should be re-introduced to stations as well.
I also think that police should have less-than-lethal weapons for use in situations like this. Something that will cause extreme pain and/or instant paralysis, but that won't kill the target.
AFAIK there's not an instant paralysis weapon (most likely some form of toxin, I reckon) that wouldn't be fatal as well.
-
You know we've never given the police a shoot-to-kill policy in this country before, and when we do... oh look, an man dies for doing nothing more than being afraid of the police. Hell, I am afraid of the police and I'm an honest citizen whose biggest crime is probably downloading the Aerosmith Gold album as a torrent.
-
A Brazilian, surprisingly enough. If the cops were on plain clothes, he was right to run away - how can you know if they're actual cops? I'd probably do the same, and end up getting shot for it too. England is right off my travel plans until I hear an official apology and an announcement that proper measures are being taken to prevent this from happening again.
-
Like you Brazillians are to be completely trusted. :rolleyes::nervous::shaking:
/me runs from Styxx.
-
I don't know if anyone can be blamed in this horrible situation. It seems like so many elements came together to create the outcome of this situation.
Is it right that he was killed, no of course not. But can you blame the police? Or can you blame the guy for running? I guess we won't know until the details come out.
I mean, it's a sad case, and maybe the only good to come of it will be that the need for as much restraint as possible when it come to taking drastic action.
However, you can plainly see how hard a job police forces have. What decision do you make on a whim?
You need to respond to the situation as you experience it. You have to make a decision on a dime, and people could die. What's the right choice? What's the wrong one? If the guy had been carrying a bomb, then people would have been saved. Now he wasn't, and a horrible mistake was made and now people have to live with the consequences. These kinds of decisions are made every day, both right and wrong.
I'm not saying we should accept wrong decisions, but we can't be so quick to lash out when horrible mistakes are made in situations that are so complex.
People try to do their best every day, and we can only hope that they make the best decisions they can in any given situation.
-
Based on what I've seen/read so far:
To the guy that got shot, probably looked like he was about to get gang-raped by a bunch of armed thugs...
To the cops, looked like he was running from the law.
-
So they were plain-cothes police officers? :shaking:
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
You know, if terrorists were out to spread fear and panic, they may as well hang their bombs up on a coat hanger right now.
Like I said right after the failed bombing attempt (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,34006.msg703863.html#msg703863):
Originally posted by Sandwich
You don't need to kill ANYone to be an effective terrorist. All you have to do is generate terror. And in that light, this second round of bombings - failed as it may have been - was more successful than the first round.
Originally posted by vyper
Look, guys, you can't argue with 5 shots to the head (of which apparently one in the mouth) was reasonable force. It defies reason.
Can we please see some evidence that the guy was shot to the head? I'm not even tryong to make a point either way, but all I see here are people making all these seemingly ridiculous claims about the guy being shot to the head, and now this, with one to the mouth, without ANY sort of evidence (a simple news item would do)! If all this is just assumptions, you guys should be ashamed of yourselves! The closest I've heard is this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm):
[q]"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him," he told BBC News 24.
...and the policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand.
"He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him. [/q]
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Out of interest... has anyone thought about bomb/metal detectors built into the walls of major stations? Lets put it this way... on a busy day in London it'll take you at least a minute or two to get from the entrance to a subway station to the actual platform itself. That may not be plenty of time - but it's some time at least. It beats the notion of ununiformed armed police running around the place.
Can't work like that. I go through a metal detector every day going into the mall where I work. They don't have the range, they don't have the specificity, and they don't have the ability to differentiate between a bomb detonator and someone's cellphone/glasses case/pacemaker.
Originally posted by Styxx
If the cops were on plain clothes, he was right to run away - how can you know if they're actual cops?
Originally posted by Solatar
To the guy that got shot, probably looked like he was about to get gang-raped by a bunch of armed thugs...
This is what I've been thinking the whole time... that the guy simply saw armed men yelling at him, right after a couple of major terrorist incidents, and just panicked and ran. Bad choice, obviously, but certainly understandable.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Which makes it more alarming. They're shooting anyone.
I have a feeling that we will be seeing a lot more of that in the years to come. I'm not quite sure which is worse: Suicide bombers or trigger happy cops. The way I see it, we're pretty much ****ed either way.
Out of interest... has anyone thought about bomb/metal detectors built into the walls of major stations?
It would not be efficient even if it did work because metal is in almost everything. My necklace is made out of sterling silver, I have metal rivets in my jeans, my belt buckle is steel of some sort, my glasses frames are also metal (I think), my watch has some metal in it, I think my shoes have a steel shank in them. And that is just what I'm wearing all the time, not the extra stuff I might be carrying around.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
So they were plain-cothes police officers? :shaking:
If that's true, it absolves the guy of all blame and puts it squarely on the cops. That's inexcusable.
He was doing exactly the right thing... get as far away as possible, into a crowd so they won't be able to find him. He just had the misfortune to trip. :(
-
Depnds on whether or not he started running because someone yelled out "Armed police. Stop or we'll shoot" or not.
-
Well, the issue of plain clothes is going to be a key thing in determining guilt / culpability. On the other hand, there were 20 of them (sheer quantity would indicate officialdom) ; one eyewitness identifies there being both plain and uniformed officers present at the time. I think plain clothes (armed) officers may also have to wear police caps when in active persuit.
[q]I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out and people were panicking and I heard two shots being fired."[/q]
(NB: I think the 'bomb belt' is mostly likely to have been some sort of puffy jacket with the puller drawstrings sticking out)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
A Brazilian, surprisingly enough. If the cops were on plain clothes, he was right to run away - how can you know if they're actual cops? I'd probably do the same, and end up getting shot for it too.
So if some people with guns shout at you "ARMED POLICE! STOP RIGHT NOW OR WE'LL SHOOT!" in a place that has been bombed 8 times in the last 15 days, where the presence of Plain Clothes Police Officers is well known, you would not stop? If no then you probably would get killed just like this guy.
And they explained that they shot him in the head 5 times to destroy his brain, not solely to kill him. If his brain is destroyed it can't send any random nerve signals to the hands or feet, which could, through random chance set off the bomb they thought he had. And besides, 2 bullets vs. 5 bullets, doesn't make any difference to how dead he is.
-
I don't think any of the eyewitnesses so far have said they didn't think the persuing men were armed police.
-
They wear those Caps with POLICE written on them.
-
Latest is the guy was illegal, his student visa having expired some time in 2003. That would give him a reason to run.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
So if some people with guns shout at you "ARMED POLICE! STOP RIGHT NOW OR WE'LL SHOOT!" in a place that has been bombed 8 times in the last 15 days, where the presence of Plain Clothes Police Officers is well known, you would not stop? If no then you probably would get killed just like this guy.
So, did they shout that? Did they wear these caps? If yes, then you can say that the victim was in the wrong to run away, but we can't be sure of that. If the cops wanted to kill him and not leave a chance for him to detonate any explosives, shouting "POLICE!" sure wouldn't help, he could have detonated it then and there. Or stopped, agreed to be searched, and detonated it when the cops were close.
Still, I don't feel like being shouted at and searched in a public place. As far as I'm concerned, this shows that the terrorists are already winning on England.
-
I consider it pretty obvious that they wouldn't have just pulled out their guns and shouted "stop!". They'd have had to have given some kind of warning, they wouldn't have just started shooting at him.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
So, did they shout that? Did they wear these caps? If yes, then you can say that the victim was in the wrong to run away, but we can't be sure of that. If the cops wanted to kill him and not leave a chance for him to detonate any explosives, shouting "POLICE!" sure wouldn't help, he could have detonated it then and there. Or stopped, agreed to be searched, and detonated it when the cops were close.
AFAIK they did shout some form of warning to him, which prompted him to jump over the safety/entry barrier at the tube station. But we don't know - and won't - until more facts emerge.
The police are allowed to shoot without warning if they believe the public is in immenent danger; I'm not sure if this was the case here, or what the specifics of 'immenent danger' would be. Again, this is the sort of thing the inquiry will have to go over.
IIRC, If he had stopped, the police would order him to remove his top - slowly - before approaching. Either that or order him to keep his hands up and visible whilst an officer moved in to check for a device. You could see this procedure when someone was arrested outside the MoD the day prior.
-
Update; it's been confirmed that the victim was shot 8 times, 7 in the head. To me that's definately excessive force, and it does raise concerns over the legality of this, especially of the mentality of an armed officer who needs to fire 7 times.
(My honest expectation was that it would turn out to be 2 or 3 shots)
-
[q]Update; it's been confirmed that the victim was shot 8 times, 7 in the head.[/q]
Holy. ****.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Update; it's been confirmed that the victim was shot 8 times, 7 in the head. To me that's definately excessive force, and it does raise concerns over the legality of this, especially of the mentality of an armed officer who needs to fire 7 times.
(My honest expectation was that it would turn out to be 2 or 3 shots)
British police don't normally carry firearms right? Perhaps the lack of experience contributed to the excessive force applied.
-
The policemen who do carry weapons are supposed to be much more highly trained as a result of the fact that most cops don't carry guns.
They don't just simply give a gun to a bobby and tell him to get on with it you know :D
-
I say again, what's the difference between shooting 8 times and shooting twice? Why is it so excessive? The guy's still just as dead.
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
I say again, what's the difference between shooting 8 times and shooting twice? Why is it so excessive? The guy's still just as dead.
Because 2 or 3 shots are all that are needed; any more would be simply unecessary and would seem as evidence of an emotional desire to kill. In which case, it would raise concerns over the mental state of the officer, in the sense that an overly emotional (perhaps angry, wanting revenge) individual is less able to think rationally.
i.e. it's not the number of shots so much as the reason for that number.
Originally posted by Deepblue
British police don't normally carry firearms right? Perhaps the lack of experience contributed to the excessive force applied.
Armed officers are specially trained; these guys would probably be SO19, and they're pretty much the UK equivalent of SWAT in terms of expertise. It's not a case of handing out guns to untrained officers.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Because 2 or 3 shots are all that are needed; any more would be simply unecessary and would seem as evidence of an emotional desire to kill. In which case, it would raise concerns over the mental state of the officer, in the sense that an overly emotional (perhaps angry, wanting revenge) individual is less able to think rationally.
According to some high ranking offcial who was on Talksport this morning, they would have shot him the amount of times they did to destroy his brain, so it couldn't send any random signals.
-
My understanding is that you only need about 2 direct shots to kill the brain with a pistol calibre weapon (due to the radial damage from shots; although one is surviveable). Although it is hard to get exact details off the net on this (shots to head to kill).
-
Am I the only one who finds the concept of UNarmed police officers strange?
-
For the cop that jumped him I think the number of bullets he spent are irrelevant; it's hard to be professionally detached when the target you're on top of could be holding a detonator putting your own life, as well as those of everyone around you at risk. It wouldn't take that much time to fire that many rounds in the hands of a professional, either.
-
The police exists to risk their lives to protect innocent people, not to risk innocent people to procect their own lives.
;)
-
what about risking inocent people to protect other innocent people?
-
...or risking their lives to protect their own lives? :D
-
I heard on the news that English wasn't his first language, which does present the possibility that he didn't fully understand what the cops were yelling.
Though the fact that he'd been living there a few years beforehand might suggest that he'd know it fairly well by now.
Though the most likely scene in my mind given the evidence, is:
People were in panic. Several people bust into the train un-uniformed screaming something this guy doesn't quite catch / understand. He jumps to the conclusion they are quite possibly terrorists taking hostages.
He decides his best chance of survival is to bug out and so runs. Unfortunatly trips, then the cops unload into him to the horror of the people around the scene.
It was an honest mistake by all parties involved. Tension and panic were high, this poor fellow followed his instincts, as did the cops which contributed to a bad ending.
The fact that there were un-uniformed police does contribute some concern however. Something I'm sure will probably be made sure not to happen again...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Am I the only one who finds the concept of UNarmed police officers strange?
Armed cops don't have a good excuse to get Jackie Chan on a crooks ass. :D
Though the fact that he'd been living there a few years beforehand might suggest that he'd know it fairly well by now.
Not really. My former chinese professor has been living in the US for 15+ years and his english was poor.
-
Originally posted by Grug
Though the most likely scene in my mind given the evidence, is:
People were in panic. Several people bust into the train un-uniformed screaming something this guy doesn't quite catch / understand. He jumps to the conclusion they are quite possibly terrorists taking hostages.
He decides his best chance of survival is to bug out and so runs. Unfortunatly trips, then the cops unload into him to the horror of the people around the scene.
Did you even read the accounts of witnesses before forming this conclusion? He was first challenged outside of the tube station. He ran inside and was killed seconds after getting on the train.
Oh and ever report I've heard states that he spoke good english. He apparently came here on a student visa. If he was an undergrad he would have to speak good english as undergrad courses are all taught. (Some PhD courses can be done without a firm grasp of the language if they are principally research based).
Oddly enough his family are insisting that he wasn't an illegal immigrant which opens up the question of why the hell he ran again.
-
Oddly enough his family are insisting that he wasn't an illegal immigrant which opens up the question of why the hell he ran again.
He got scared paniced? People do dumb stuff when they are scared.
-
Exactly,people do strange things when instinct tells them to get the *** outa there. I probably would do the same if strange men in ordinary clothes told me to get down, I'd run a country mile.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Am I the only one who finds the concept of UNarmed police officers strange?
I find armed (beat) officers stranger, myself.
NB: If he was a student; AFAIK any foreign student will have to have passed some form of certification (TOEFL for example) to prove english proficiency before being accepted to any course, including research. Certainly all the app forms I've seen for postgrad courses - including research - require it.