[Bobboau]

my point exactly .

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
Am I the only one who sees you only need to shoot someone once in the head to "kill" them? What was he going to do - use his remaining minute electrical impulses to trigger a bomb?

Edit: Which is actually all beside the point. The guy was innocent of the crime he was shot for.

And please, no pish about "if he had nothing to hide he shouldn't have ran". That's like saying I should be perfectly happy with the police being able to stop and search me on a whim because I have nothing to hide. It's the cowards way out of defending freedom and democracy.

A single shot will not necessarily destroy the brain; the actual purpose of shoot-to-kill is to do that, although I don't think as many as 5 would be required.  The issue is not just killing the bomber (the decision to fire would only take place in the certainty that the target was a bomber, at least for a legal shooting; this will doubtless be part of the CPS investigation), but to rapidly and completely paralyse them.   I also believe handgun bullets are not as effective at killing as higher calibre weapons.

As it stands we don't know the situation that occured or the 'rules of engagement' with regards to armed police deployment.  IMO there are 2 fundamental questions, neither of which have really been answered - 1/ why did he run, and how (i.e. in a suspicious manner)? and 2/ did the police identify themselves appropriately?

What you also have to bear in mind, I think, is that if he had been a bomber, this would have been hailed as the right response.  So to me the issue to do with police culpability  is not shoot-to-kill, but how suspects are identified and police are identified to them.

@Bob; it was said to be an 'automatic pistol' by the witness.  Standard SO19 issue is the Glock 17, which is technically a semi-auto, and that'd probably be the weapon used. (the alternative to an automatic pistol being a revolver)

[vyper]

Surely, if we can admit there are such problems in identifying such an idividual then we can also admit that the current shoot-to-kill policy is too high risk?

[Bobboau]

well it could make a bit of a diference, something that puts out ten rounds per second you could excuse fireing off 5 rounds into someone. though, if the guy was trying to make sure he was dead he simply might have not realised weather or not he had made any fatal shots in the frantic situation. as has been said, we simply don't know.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
Surely, if we can admit there are such problems in identifying such an idividual then we can also admit that the current shoot-to-kill policy is too high risk?

That would depend upon exactly what steps the police went through when identifying the victim as being a threat.

[Sandwich]

Was it reported anywhere that poliece shot him in the head 5 times?? AFAIK all the reports simply stated that he was shot 5 times, without specifying where. I was the one who brought up the shoot-in-the-head deal...

[aldo_14]

Now that you mention it, no.  Common consensus is it was the head because (it's been suggested; and contradicted by one expert consultant on the telly) that chest shots could detonate a device if there was one.  It's also been suggested there were 2, not 5 shots by another witness.

[vyper]

Look - it just doesn't cut it.  An innocent man is dead, at the hands of the police. (Yes, I say innocent because I still believe anyone is innocent until proven guilty.)

[karajorma]

Except the police who shot him of course. They're already guilty in your mind at least, right?

[WMCoolmon]

It sounds like fear of the unknown, to me. What does a terrorist look like? How do they act? All people really know is that they act 'different' - and human history has a long list of times when 'different' people were persecuted for no other crime than being different.

[vyper]

And where did I say that? I said it's unacceptable to unload five rounds into a mans head. I then got into a debate over the nature of current security policy. Where exactly did I state the individual officer was guilty of anything bar excessive force (which can be pinned on his superiors if you so wish)?

Edit: And for the record, as far as I'm concerned the police are nothing but a tool of opression that just happens to protect us at the same time. Since the days when the police first gave up the right to strike they've started seeing themselves as "better" than the average man in the street.

[aldo_14]

Well, you are holding them to higher standards than the average man on the street, aren't you?

I mean, we know nothing about the events prior to, and during this shooting.  We have the barest facts; a house was under surveillance, this guy left it in (reportedly) suspicious clothing, the police challenged him, he ran despite repeated warnings, and then he was shot between 2-5 times.

We don't know how the police identified themselves, exactly how or if he was restrained, how he (the victim) was dressed (specifically RE: the eyewitness who said he saw a bomb vest), what the police thought was going on in the house he left, the exact number of rounds (eyewitnesses vary between 2 and 5), how the victim reacted to being challenged and if he acknowledged they were police officers, and soforth.

And it may be that it was a serious, unlawful crime.  But I'm not going to hang someone until the facts are known; a (real) suicide bomber is a literal 'kill or be killed' scenario, and I want to know exactly what went on and whether it was sufficient for those police  to legitimately believe this was that scenario.  That's why we have an independent group with the purpose of investigating exactly this sort of scenario.

As it stands your making the assumption that this police officer is a cold blooded, trigger happy murderer without any actual evidence that would support that; because regardless of policy, it's still the officers choice to pull the trigger.

[vyper]

No I'm making the assumption he was wrong to put five bullets in a man's head. Beyond that I'm assuming nothing. Even if we can agree it was right to kill the individual, five bullets can still be argued as excessive force.

[q]Well, you are holding them to higher standards than the average man on the street, aren't you?[/q]

No, actually, I'm trying to hold them to the same standards.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, you are holding them to higher standards than the average man on the street, aren't you?

They weren't deadly force, though. Somebody goes waving around a loaded gun and shooting people, I'm going to watch them more carefully than someone who just runs away.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
No I'm making the assumption he was wrong to put five bullets in a man's head. Beyond that I'm assuming nothing. Even if we can agree it was right to kill the individual, five bullets can still be argued as excessive force.

It's not even confirmed it was 5 bullets; another eyewitness put it as 2.  Given the nature of the incident, it's very likely either eyewitness could have miscounted; perhaps through shock, or echoing in the station.

Originally posted by vyper
No, actually, I'm trying to hold them to the same standards.

Then innocent until guilty would apply, and we're only just - in terms of public knowledge - at the evidence gathering stage.

Also, if you were an armed policeman (amongst a reported 20 others, IMO reducing the chances of being mistaken for a lone lunatic) chasing a suspected suicide bomber, who had left a suspect premises, was wearing unusually bulky clothing (confirmed by all eyewitnesses so far), and who fled into a station when challenged (and continued to flee, towards a train - which of course was considered a particular at-risk target given recent events)... what would you do?  

Bearing in mind the only way to stop a suicide bomber is immediate incapacitation.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
They weren't deadly force, though. Somebody goes waving around a loaded gun and shooting people, I'm going to watch them more carefully than someone who just runs away.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but.....

Loaded gun - or suspected firearm - would be handled under shoot-to-stop policy as a last resort.  It's a different paradigm to a suspected suicide bomber who would be able to detonate their vest even if shot in the chest.  Again, the question here (in the investigation) will likely be how valid was that suspicion, and was it adequate for the shooting.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by vyper
Besides you don't shoot a man five times in the head to kill him, you shoot him five times in the head to make sure no one can operate on him and save him. No?

Originally posted by vyper
Because one bullet to the head can be operated on, and sometimes a man can be brought back from certain death. Putting five bullets in his head is rather more final - considering there won't be a head to operate on.

Edit: And more to the point it just shows sheer bloody viciousness.

Originally posted by vyper
Which is actually all beside the point. The guy was innocent of the crime he was shot for.

Originally posted by vyper
Look - it just doesn't cut it.  An innocent man is dead, at the hands of the police. (Yes, I say innocent because I still believe anyone is innocent until proven guilty.)

Originally posted by vyper
as far as I'm concerned the police are nothing but a tool of opression that just happens to protect us at the same time.

you quite obviusly don't like the cops.

"No I'm making the assumption he was wrong to put five bullets in a man's head. Beyond that I'm assuming nothing. Even if we can agree it was right to kill the individual, five bullets can still be argued as excessive force."
but your first makeing the assumption that there were five bullets put into the guys head, I beleive the facts we know are, he is dead from 2-5 gunshots one or more of wich was to the head. and as for being exesive force, if you don't know the situation you can't know.

[WMCoolmon]

What bothers me is that if the incident is considered "justified", then it means that things are basically running on fear. If a police officer is suspicious of a person because of their clothing, and they run, it's fine for the officer to assume they're a terrorist and shoot them?

Maybe they shoplifted some $50 item, or threw a straw wrapper next to the "X pounds penalty for littering" sign, that doesn't seem to warrant death to me.

There's other factors that could be involved here, but IMHO this indicates that some kind of policy change needs to be made - wasn't there some big hubaloo about new, non-fatal methods of incapacitating people?

[vyper]

[q]you quite obviusly don't like the cops.[/q]

There is a difference between not trusting and not liking.

[q]and as for being exesive force, if you don't know the situation you can't know.[/q]

I think we can rely on common sense to know that shooting a man five times in the head is excessive force. We are still allowed to think for ourselves... for now.

[q]was wearing unusually bulky clothing (confirmed by all eyewitnesses so far)[/q]

Who you yourself just said could be mistaken due to the shock they were suffering at the situation unfolding in front of them.


This all comes down to the important point that I have made before. Freedom is not free, and if you want a free society you must accept the risks that come with it - that includes not being able to shoot everyone you're afraid is a suicide bomer.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Now that you mention it, no.  Common consensus is it was the head because (it's been suggested; and contradicted by one expert consultant on the telly) that chest shots could detonate a device if there was one.  It's also been suggested there were 2, not 5 shots by another witness.

Yeeaaahhh... don't assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME.

What kind of shooting was it? Was the guy actively on the run when he was shot? If so, it bloody unlikely that he was shot 5 times in the head, or even that the police were aiming for his head, as they'd be stupidly ignorant to think they could hit somebody's head when he was running.

Was he shot by one police officer 5 times, or shot once by 5 individual officers?

See what I'm getting at? There's a TON of details nobody's being told, details that would clear up this muddle.

Anyway:

Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission said the killing was a direct consequence of British police officers being sent to Israel to receive training on how to prevent suicide bombings.

"To give license to people to shoot to kill just like that, on the basis of suspicion, is very frightening," Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain said.

The difference between what happened in London and what Israeli security forces' orders are is that Israeli forces are under strict orders to use lethal force ONLY when positive identification as a terrorist is made. Suspects are not shot on sight - that's a ridiculous modus operandi. This Massoud character nicely makes you think from what he said that British officers were trained by Israel to shoot-to-kill on basis of suspicion. Nice subtle twist of facts.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
Who you yourself just said could be mistaken due to the shock they were suffering at the situation unfolding in front of them.

But so far there are multiple eyewitness accounts that are clear and concur on the clothing of the victim; specifically bulky and unusually heavy for this time of year.  Whereas there are specific differences on the number of shots fired, for example.

Originally posted by vyper
This all comes down to the important point that I have made before. Freedom is not free, and if you want a free society you must accept the risks that come with it - that includes not being able to shoot everyone you're afraid is a suicide bomer.

If it is a real suicide bomber, do you think the police should shoot-to-kill with the inherent purpose of ensuring that bomber cannot detonate their bomb?  Or shoot to injure, leaving the possibility open the bomber can probably still trigger it at any point?