Bleeding heart liberals!

[KATWYN]

matter for Courts to decide, not a red-neck reactionary lynch mob.

[onearmedbandit]

Agree with Lou and Hitcher on this one. No-one is above the law. If they failed to carry out correct procedure, told mis-truths about what happened, then someone has to answer to this.

[KATWYN]

and shifty, too-close-together eyes and stuff. Er, fuck yeah.

.

That description sounds like a certain president.......

[jazbug5]

Well, mister Fat Jim, I expect they will have a very good explanation for their actions when it comes to trial. And for why the surveillance guy that Lou mentioned earlier was not with them when they moved in and shot him in the head at point blank range.

After all, groups of four people together at once have never been known to make a mistake or, say, be overtaken by group hysteria or anything before.

Edit: stuffed up my writting

[Indiana_Jones]

Cops can't win, they're scorned if they get the wrong person and looked down apon if they do stop the right person and shit on if they don't stop someone. Catch 22

-Indy

[jazbug5]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Indy, but I don't believe it's in the job description to shoot people rather than apprehend them. Especially when you consider what we now know... to criticize what has happened here, or at least call for it to be looked into is not the same thing as slagging off all police.

[Ascott]

They should have listened to Enoch Powell and this may not have happened?

[Ixion]

The cops are doing a very difficult job, for which they have my support and admiration. Unfortuneatly, even decent hardworking people doing a difficult and praiseworthy job, can stuff up. Shit happens, but it still left an (apparently) innocent person dead.Maybe these coppers stuffed up. That's what the courts will decide

[Ixion]

They should have listened to Enoch Powell and this may not have happened?

I see the River Tamaki running red with much blood ?

[Biff]

You don't seem to know what really happened.

Neither do the overwhelming majority of people, other than what we've read or heard. But we form opinions anyway.

The cops asked the guy to stop. He didn't.

From what I've read they did identify themselves as cops - but the guy took off running none the less.

He was an illegal immigrant.

Maybe he genuinely didn't hear the cops identify themselves.

Maybe he thought he was going to be deported?

He ran, onto a busy tube station during a period of increased tension in London following the recent spate of bombings.

He ran onto a tube train and refused to stop, was bundled to the floo, and told to put his hands out, the guy pulling them in instead, under himself.

The cops made a split seconds decision. Was he trying to detonate a bomb?

Hero ? Bit strong a term maybe. But I've the utmost respect for these cops, although the entire operation was fucked up big time. Thankfully the majority of other operations that were probably ongoing all around the UK at the time this took incident took place weren't botched in the manner in which this one was. :spudwhat:

"The cops lied" - From what I know/read/heard/recall it was Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair who fucked up during a press conference within minutes of this incident taking place. He'd received dodgy information from the field and decided to go to the press without first authenticating every minute detail of what was, a relatively lengthy foot pursuit and a alleged attempt to conduct a further terrorist attack on a train. He made a serious error in judgement IMO.

I'm glad we armchair critics live a peaceful life down here. Away from all the real nasty shit.

[Mooch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ml/default.stm

This link has the list of events that led up to the shooting. The police got it wrong earlier and through a chain of events led to the shooting of an innocent person. Each officer involved was acting on the information they'd been given and believed they were dealing with a terrorist that was intent on killing innocent people. Based on the information the officers had, they were putting there own lives at risk and were acting in a kill or be killed environment.

Around the time of the London Tube bombings I was spending around 3 hours a day commuting on the Tubes.

First of all, people with rucksacks are very common. Some are students; others use them for shopping, work etc. Many people don't have cars so carry plenty of shopping on the transport system (Including my Wife and I).

Second, the Tubes aren't full of White Poms, it's very multi-cultural, more so than Auckland or Wellington so every race / faith / religion were victims. The bombers killed people of the same faith, but remember, they were brainwashed extremists, probably started off not unlike a couple here that seem to have an issue with all "Ragheads".

After the first round of bombings people were somewhat nervous. You'd get on the Tube system and notice everyone would check everyone else out, especially if a person happened to be of "middle eastern" descent and carrying a rucksack. I guess peoples self preservation instincts were kicking in. Some people (not many) would not get on the carriage in middle eastern people with rucksacks were present. I didn't do that, but I can say it was hard not thinking, "is the person standing / sitting next to me intent on blowing the rest of us up".

Some people would have there rucksacks open so other passengers would feel more comfortable, this is still happening now. Prior to the bombings you wouldn't do that kind of thing unless you wanted to get robbed.

Going through some the stations, you wouldn't want to make any sudden movements, armed police were there and very alert! finger on safeties. I’m sure around the time there were plenty of plain clothes police. On a couple of Tube rides a man would stand at one end of the carriage watching people , plenty of spare seats around him at the time.

I was on the Tube system on the second round of bombings, something was up that day even before the attempts, lots of delays with security alerts from stations before hand. Fortunately the bomb mix didn’t go off, only the detonators so none of the busy lunch time crowd were killed. It did highlight one thing thought; it showed that the bombers could easily strike a third time.

I guess I’m trying to give people a feel of what it was like at the time. The Brazilian was shot under these circumstances. The officers that held and shot him were acting on what they’d been told were a positive ID. If it had been a terrorist they would have surely saved lives and would be the best way to avoid a backpack of explosives taking out everyone else. How ever, wrong guy, an innocent person was shot. Shit, I’m in London, went through the bombings, but I can’t decide, I can see either point of view. Should the officers be charged for murder based on the information they were given, I don’t think so. Should someone be charged with the murder of the Brazilian man? That’s one for the courts. Either way I feel sorry for the man’s family. They are also victims of the London Bombings.

[jazbug5]

Both Biff and Mooch make very good, balanced points in their posts: hopefully something positive will come of the enquiry when all of the facts/if all of the facts come to light. No-one would argue (I hope) that those cops got up that morning and thought 'I know, I'm going to empty a cartidge into the head of some random dark-skinned fella'. No doubt they felt they were acting on good faith; I am sure they are not comfortable now with what happened. But it all still needs to be looked at thoroughly.

There are so many precedents of what can happen in these sorts of high-tension situations, not least in London during the height of the IRA bombing campaign. It will be interesting to hear more about why it was he was targeted, and where that information came from; given the complexity of this whole situation, given that terrorist operatives could look like anyone at all (there have been several cases of white converts involved), and how dangerous it is to send a group of young, amped up, tooled up guys out after someone specifically, there shoulde, one would hope, have been some strict guidelines. There are people in the force whose job it is to be aware of these things, to have read up on studies of group psychology- like, for example the many written about My Lai.

I don't profess to know much about what is and is not possible in terms of reaction times etc, but like many people (and this is important, because public anger against police is not what we want) I am wondering why, if they had the guy held down, they could not have simply knocked him out- and why they had to put so many bullets into his head? Adrenaline is a powerful thing, and I am not convinced that enough thought is put into preparing these guys for that red cloud. I have been a photographer (in London) at many public demonstrations etc, and I have seen many examples of this, including seeing an old lady knocked out by the police and dragged along the ground, then a fellow photographer get his camera smashed for recording it. Most police actually behaved really well, but I was surprised then that individual guys with such short fuses/poor stress handling skills were put on the front line.

And as a last 'off-topic' side issue, those who think that not wanting to arm the police is a pinko-commie idea? What if we allowed it, gave them free reign and five years later (a wildly outside chance, I know) a communist, totalitarian regime somehow got into power.. and they were weilding their guns on their behalf? Would that make you nervous at all...?

[pritch]

And as a last 'off-topic' side issue, those who think that not wanting to arm the police is a pinko-commie idea? What if we allowed it, gave them free reign and five years later (a wildly outside chance, I know) a communist, totalitarian regime somehow got into power.. and they were weilding their guns on their behalf? Would that make you nervous at all...?

Marginally relevant, I know, but when firearms controls were first introduced into this country it was as a measure to prevent a possible revolution. The then Govt may have been a bit jumpy after watching the events in Russia unfold?

Of course they wildly underestimated the apathy of the New Zealand public :-)

[WINJA]

Agree with Lou and Hitcher on this one. No-one is above the law. If they failed to carry out correct procedure, told mis-truths about what happened, then someone has to answer to this.

I DONT THINK ITS A BAD THING THAT THEIR GOING TO COURT , I JUST HOPE THEY GO B4 A PANEL OF 3 JUDGES RATHER THAN A JURY SO THAT THE CASE IS JUDGED WITH SOME LOGIC AND NOT WITH THE HEART , I THINK THEY SHOULD BE JUDGED ON WEATHER THEY LIED AND TRIED A COVER UP .
THE COPS DID THE BEST THAT THEY COULD IN THE SITUATION AND HOPEFULLY A COURT CASE WILL PROVE IT

[Skyryder]

The guy did a runner. He paid the price. Plenty here alude to the same if we do the same on our bikes. As for the language thing. A dog may not fully understand the command but they as sure as hell understand the tone if there is any confusion.

As for the Police lies. Thats a disciplineary matter not a murder or manslaughter charge.

Skyryder