London Bomb suspect shot

**750Y** · 25th July 2005, 07:04

After the recent bombings in england the poms seemed united in the message that 'it won't change us'. Sadly with all the best intention (albeit naive) it's gone well past that point now.

**unhingedlizard** · 25th July 2005, 08:18

They were lucky it was police and not SAS. During the IRA years they wouldnt have stoppped at five shots, they are trained to keep firing until the clip is empty. If he had a trigger cable tied to his hand, no pinning down on earth could have stopped his setting of a device. In this situation a 'ask the suspicious man nicely what he is doing' has cost the lives of people many many times before.

**SimJen** · 25th July 2005, 08:24

seems he had an excellent grasp of english according to his family.
He had been living in London for four years as an electrician. Police had been watching a suspicious house which he came out of, they followed him to the train station where they obviosly thought he was going to do something. He had a large jacket that could have concealed something. Still five caps in the head is probably a bit OTT.

**Lou Girardin** · 25th July 2005, 08:29

Interesting comments, for once I'm completely on the cops side. The Pommie cops have had training from Israeli security forces in how to deal with suicide bombers. Obviously the main strategy is to kill as quickly as possible. People have survived being shot in the head without being incapacitated before.
If they hadn't killed him and he had detonated a bomb, what would have been said then?
Being from Brazil is no excuse unless he was a complete idiot as well. Only an idiot would have tried to run when told to stop by 6 men wearing suits. especially with what has happened over there in the last 2 weeks. As far as I know, UK street gangs don't wear suits.

**chris** · 25th July 2005, 08:51

Fella runs onto train with 6 armed police chasing him, shouting at him to stop. Fella then detonates bomb killing 40 people. Outcry follows 'why didn't the police shoot him?" asks one family member.

**marty** · 25th July 2005, 09:19

a friend of mine is a london met cop, who has been on a permanent AOS-type section for about 5 years. he was one corner away when the harrods bomb went off back in the 80's, so he's no gung-ho shoot em up guy. they basically cruise around in a transit, fully cammed up, waiting for gun related action. this has been a 24/7 job for about 50 cops in london for the past 5 years. he was in germany racing ironman when the 1st bombs went off, but now back in london, says that the whole police force is walking on glass - even more so than when the IRA were active in london - at least they had a ring first policy. the met cops are under huge pressure to keep the peace, and i can only hope the likes of pathos have the opportunity to be a commuter on the tube one day, so that they can appreciate the sheer numbers that are at risk from the likes of these bombers, and the panic that can occur when something even quite minor goes wrong.

all the bombers on 7/7 had families that had NO idea what they were up to - we need to wait a bit and see what comes out in the wash. why was he at the surveilled house?

**spudchucka** · 25th July 2005, 09:24

Originally Posted by MikeL

Well I guess I'm heavily outnumbered on this one. Best thing would be to retire graciously from the debate...

But before I do, let me leave you with one question:

The "shoot first, ask questions later" policy was defended by the British lord who conceived it on the grounds of the "unique" circumstances which have apparently made it necessary. In what previous historical contexts have we heard similar justifications for contraventions of human rights?

In what historical context have we had crazy bastards armed with high explosives, willing to blow themselves sky high with the sole intention of killing civillians for the purpose of creating terror?

When in history has there been jumbo jets hijacked and crashed into high rise buildings for the sole purpose of killing thousands of innocents?

In what historical context have these wankers been able to spend five minutes at a computer terminal and subsequently possess the knowledge of how to construct explosive devices?

Its a new era Mike, history is important but at the same time history is currently being re-written. The lessons of the past in relation to terrorists offer a very clear explanation as to why this shooting happened.

The fact that he wasn't a bomber doesn't change anything. The cops that shot were acting on what they believed to be true at the time based on the circumstances and the dead guys actions. How many idiots have been shot by cops the world over because they presented a firearm that afterwards turned out to be a toy or a replica. Everyone says, "That cop shoulda known it was a toy blah blah blah". Bollocks, its a gun and the idiot that was pointing it at someone got shot, end of story. This is no different.

**Biff** · 25th July 2005, 09:57

Originally Posted by MikeL

The "shoot first, ask questions later" policy was defended by the British lord who conceived it on the grounds of the "unique" circumstances which have apparently made it necessary. In what previous historical contexts have we heard similar justifications for contraventions of human rights?

Gibralter 1988. SAS soldiers shot dead a number of IRA operatives who were planning to detonate a bomb. Good job too. Scum.

**Lou Girardin** · 25th July 2005, 10:29

Originally Posted by spudchucka

In what historical context have we had crazy bastards armed with high explosives, willing to blow themselves sky high with the sole intention of killing civillians for the purpose of creating terror?

When in history has there been jumbo jets hijacked and crashed into high rise buildings for the sole purpose of killing thousands of innocents?

In what historical context have these wankers been able to spend five minutes at a computer terminal and subsequently possess the knowledge of how to construct explosive devices?

Its a new era Mike, history is important but at the same time history is currently being re-written. The lessons of the past in relation to terrorists offer a very clear explanation as to why this shooting happened.

.

It's simply a matter of degree. The Israelis were the first terrorists of the modern era, the Irgun blew up the King David hotel in 1949.
The other complication is that one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
The French maquis in WW2. The Vietcong. The ANC. The Basques and so on.
It's endless, this Islamic era will pass too, only to be replaced by someone else.

**SuperDave** · 25th July 2005, 17:29

I always thought that a single bullet to the head from point blank range was a pretty certain death, but from reading all this I think I was wrong.

In light of all these other details and hearing that the guy was fluent in English then I have to agree that he was a douche for running - he was asking for it.

The police force in London is really taking action. Good on them for not pussying out of a kill that at the time appeared to be the most suitable and effective action to defuse a potentially devastating situation. Oh yeah, go the pun!

**SPman** · 25th July 2005, 17:45

Its a new era Mike, history is important but at the same time history is currently being re-written.

I certainly hope it isn't being rewritten!
Added to, constantly updated in the light of evolving events and conditions,written, in fact, yes, but when mention is made of "rewritten", I tend to get rather more worried than usual!
Those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it..........

or something,

**Skyryder** · 25th July 2005, 18:04

So here's an 'electrician' leaving a house that's under observation for terriorist activities.

Now if he had been a drainlayer, cabinetmaker, anything but a sparky I might have some sympathy. But I'm a cynic...............so my guess is that he may have had something to do with the manufacuture of the bombs. Wild guess I know....................learn't it from Kojack

Skyryder

**mstriumph** · 25th July 2005, 18:13

.. i think so, too.
All the brit. bravado and stiff upper lip in the world doesn't alter the fact that terrorism is a focal-shift in combat similar to that which happened when the world moved on from opposing armies camped on adjacent hills, meeting in the valley at dawn and each granting the other side respite to bury their dead.

The new rules are ... there ARE no rules. Chivalry is dead and chaos walks abroad.

Originally Posted by 750Y

After the recent bombings in england the poms seemed united in the message that 'it won't change us'. Sadly with all the best intention (albeit naive) it's gone well past that point now.

**curious george** · 25th July 2005, 18:16

I would agree with the general feeling of most people here, but one point still nags me.

Under current law, an innocent man was shot and killed with 5 bullets to the head.

Of course, nobody's completly innocent; running was probably the stupidest thing he ever did and he was being watched for a reason, but to my knowledge, no evidence of any wrongdoing has ever come to light.

Wrong guy completly, or right guy, but a shot him a little early before his next bomb went off?

I know a few people Police would like to 'watch' for suspicious activity, and given the right reasons would. But would you support the POlice the same way?