Man running from police shot dead in London

LostinBlanch · 22-07-2005 01:49PM

Who actually thinks it was plainclothes police? It could just have easily been SAS men waiting around at major tube stations. You don't think that they haven't been posted there ready to deal with copycats, even if only for a few weeks or so?

Megatron · 22-07-2005 01:52PM

LostinBlanch wrote:

Who actually thinks it was plainclothes police? It could just have easily been SAS men waiting around at major tube stations. You don't think that they haven't been posted there ready to deal with copycats, even if only for a few weeks or so?

yes it was more than likey undercover CIA agents :rolleyes:
or better yet ( going from another thread ) undercover CIA Cows :rolleyes:

Jim · 22-07-2005 01:54PM

Starting to sound like the film The Seige.

Megatron · 22-07-2005 01:55PM

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

Starting to sound like the film The Seige.

i don't remember undercover CIA cows in that movie

Ancient1 · 22-07-2005 01:58PM

Megatron wrote:

shotting him once in the head won't do much other than it might cause a nervous responce and se tthe bomb off , it's better to do multi shots ,hence letting the attacker die slowly, alowing you to have more control over the body

Actually the opposite is true.

“The kind of tactics the Met appear to have used this morning are very similar to the very tough tactics that the Israelis use against suspected suicide bombers.”

In the Middle East, security forces tend not to shoot suspects in the chest or abdomen because of the risk of detonating explosives strapped to waistcoats habitually worn by bombers.

“To be blunt, they go for a head shot,”

If they think somebody is a potential suicide bomber about to detonate, they try to kill them immediately.

“The Israelis are prone to taking very strong actions in these circumstances.

Have a look at this.

Megatron · 22-07-2005 02:01PM

Ancient1 wrote:

Actually the opposite is true.

Have a look at this.

ok i accept that i am sort of wrong.

However the way the story was reported the bomb was meant to be in the bag, not around the suspects body. hence the body shots.

Ancient1 · 22-07-2005 02:02PM

Yeah...we won't know for sure for the next while.

therock67 · 22-07-2005 02:10PM

Nuttzz wrote:

British police dont go around shooting people for jollies you know....

Well some of them do... http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,1498392,00.html

Two Scotland Yard officers involved in shooting a man dead six years ago, claiming they mistook a table leg he was carrying for a gun, were arrested yesterday on suspicion of his murder.
Harry Stanley, 46, a painter and decorator, died after being shot in the head and hand outside an east London pub on September 22 1999. Only last month, Chief Inspector Neil Sharman, 42, and Constable Kevin Fagan, 38, the two Metropolitan police marksmen concerned, succeeded in overturning an inquest verdict of unlawful killing. But yesterday they were arrested after new forensic evidence came to light following a re-examination of existing material.

The arrests are the latest twist in the long-running legal battle over the shooting outside the Alexandra pub in Hackney, east London. An anonymous 999 caller claimed to have spotted an Irishman wielding a gun wrapped in a plastic bag.

As Mr Stanley, a Scotsman, left the pub, carrying a bag containing a wooden coffee table leg his brother had repaired, he was challenged and shot dead by the two police marksmen, who said they thought he was pointing a sawn-off shotgun at them.

Scotland Yard, however, is standing by the two policemen. A senior officer insisted last night that they would not be suspended or face disciplinary action, but that the Met would await the outcome of the Surrey police inquiry.

Assistant Commissioner Steve House, head of the Met's central operations, said: "These officers were asked to make a split-second life and death decision ... six years later their decision is still being examined by the legal system. How many of us would want to be in that position?"

Last night Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, called Surrey police's handling of the case a "complete disgrace".

Zaphod B · 22-07-2005 02:12PM

therock67 wrote:

Well some of them do...

They shoot people unnecessarily because they're not properly trained, because they're lacking in common sense or because they panic. Not "for jollies". There's really quite a big difference there.

therock67 · 22-07-2005 02:21PM

Zaphod B wrote:

They shoot people unnecessarily because they're not properly trained, because they're lacking in common sense or because they panic. Not "for jollies". There's really quite a big difference there.

The reason they were tried for murder is not because they made a mistake or were not trained properly. It was because they were "trigger happy." That's shooting people "for jollies" and it's a product of how they are trained.

Kingsize · 22-07-2005 02:24PM

going on the latest news it seems the cops fukked up in some way because
they knew where this guy was living & he still made it to a tube station meaning that if he did succesfully explode a bomb they'd probably get some of the blame anyhow.
yeah innocent until proven guilty may be a fluffy & unrealistic & naive assumption in some circumstances but it's one of the basic tenets of western democracy.
i.e our "way of life" that george w bush & Tony blair are so convinced that they are defending.
i would think that its more naive to believe that the police are infallible & i wouldve thought that the knee jerk arrests of Irish "terror cells" such as the maguires, the birmingham 6 & the guildford 4 would make people( irish people at least) think before assuming that its black & white.

Dinner · 22-07-2005 02:27PM

Kingsize wrote:

going on the latest news it seems the cops fukked up in some way because
they knew where this guy was living & he still made it to a tube station.

They didnt really fu(k up. Police followed him from his house to find out if he would lead them to the ringleader, he went to a tube station in a big bulky coat, so they shot him.

seamus · 22-07-2005 02:29PM

therock67 wrote:

The reason they were tried for murder is not because they made a mistake or were not trained properly. It was because they were "trigger happy." That's shooting people "for jollies" and it's a product of how they are trained.

There's nothing here to suggest they were trigger happy. The problem stems from the 999 caller who claimed he was carrying a gun. Imagine it, guy is walking down the road, table leg in his hand, pointing forwards. Two armed police officers surprise him, shout at him to freeze, so he turn towards them in shock. From their perspective, a gun is being pointed towards them, mere milliseconds away from being fired and killing one or both of them. So they each open fire once.

Nothing to suggest being trigger happy there. What should they do, wait until someone fires on them?

Kingsize · 22-07-2005 02:30PM

doesnt make sense seeing as thyve been telling us that the ringleaders usually flee the country before the "action" takes place.

steviec · 22-07-2005 02:32PM

Arabel wrote:

They didnt really fu(k up. Police followed him from his house to find out if he would lead them to the ringleader, he went to a tube station in a big bulky coat, so they shot him.

That's it in a nutshell. As soon as it became apparent he was heading anywhere near a crowded area though(I mean he must have been wearing the bulky coat as he left his house) they should have stopped him then instead of letting him get so far.

As it happens it looks like he wasn't carrying explosives but in the split second they had to make a decision I think the police did the right thing, assuming the intelligence is strong enough to link him to the previous bombs. Even if its 50/50 I'd rather the police shot the guy who they knew was responsible for other bombs than give him that possible opportunity to kill many more.

*Page* · 22-07-2005 02:34PM

In england anyone who is holding a weapon for the law (police or raf etc.) they need to give a warning call and then a warning fire before they can shoot a body. if they do not give the two warnings then they will be charged.

Jip · 22-07-2005 02:37PM

Whatever about the rights and wrongs, what puzzles me is that if he was a suspect from yesterday why did they even let him near a tube station today if they thought he had a bomb. It's too much of a risk to let him near a highly populated area with any sort of explosive device, they could have intercepted him earlier.

If they suspected he was a bomber which may be the case as they shot him, they should have also expected him to go somewhere to detonate it, not lead them to any ringleaders.

steviec · 22-07-2005 02:38PM

Jip wrote:

Whatever about the rights and wrongs, what puzzles me is that if he was a suspect from yesterday why did they even let him near a tube station today if they thought he had a bomb. It's too much of a risk to let him near a highly populated area with any sort of explosive device, they could have intercepted him earlier.

If they suspected he was a bomber which may be the case as they shot him, they should have also expected him to go somewhere to detonate it, not lead them to any ringleaders.

Thats true. Hopefully there'll be an explanation released soon.

Zaphod B · 22-07-2005 02:39PM

therock67 wrote:

The reason they were tried for murder is not because they made a mistake or were not trained properly. It was because they were "trigger happy." That's shooting people "for jollies" and it's a product of how they are trained.

The police are not trained to immediately shoot at anyone who looks a little bit dodgy. This is quite simple: "For jollies" means for pleasure. Armed police do not generally shoot people for pleasure - not necessarily because there aren't policemen who get their kicks this way, but if nothing else because they know it results in too much hassle for them afterwards.

jank · 22-07-2005 02:41PM

Initial examinations though, said Brunt, did not discover any explosives on the suspect.

So they unloaded into an unarmed man?

therock67 · 22-07-2005 02:41PM

seamus wrote:

There's nothing here to suggest they were trigger happy. The problem stems from the 999 caller who claimed he was carrying a gun. Imagine it, guy is walking down the road, table leg in his hand, pointing forwards. Two armed police officers surprise him, shout at him to freeze, so he turn towards them in shock. From their perspective, a gun is being pointed towards them, mere milliseconds away from being fired and killing one or both of them. So they each open fire once.

Nothing to suggest being trigger happy there. What should they do, wait until someone fires on them?

Fair enough but I think we're getting a bit bogged down in why they shoot. The point being that there is evidence to suggest that plenty of police historically in England, the six counties, Gibraltar etc. are unable to react properly in these situations and unarmed people are killed because of panic or whatever the motivation. Not necessarily trying to prosecute these particular individuals but they don't seem to be able to effectively deal with suspected threats.

Coconut · 22-07-2005 02:42PM

*Page* wrote:

But from his home to Stockwell Tube, events overtook police and marksmen were forced to shoot.

Yeah, this bit probably needs explaining..

*Page* · 22-07-2005 02:44PM

BOMB CONFERENCE DUE http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1189944,00.html

A press conference being held by the Metropolitan Police following the shooting of a suspected suicide bomber in south London this morning has been delayed.

The conference at the QE2 centre in Westminster is now due to start at 2.45pm.

The suspected bomber was shot dead by police after boarding a stationary Northern line train at Stockwell Tube station.

Eyewitnesses said the man had been carrying a large rucksack, was wearing a thick overcoat and looked "petrified, like a cornered fox".

Police ordered passengers off the train before opening fire on the man.

The incident followed four attempted bombings in the capital on Thursday.

We will be covering the conference live here.

seamus · 22-07-2005 02:46PM

therock67 wrote:

Fair enough but I think we're getting a bit bogged down in why they shoot. The point being that there is evidence to suggest that plenty of police historically in England, the six counties, Gibraltar etc. are unable to react properly in these situations and unarmed people are killed because of panic or whatever the motivation. Not necessarily trying to prosecute these particular individuals but they don't seem to be able to effectively deal with suspected threats.

I still don't believe you can use the NI police force of the 70s and 80s as a template/example of the British police as a whole.

Megatron · 22-07-2005 02:49PM

seamus wrote:

I still don't believe you can use the NI police force of the 70s and 80s as a template/example of the British police as a whole.

not using it as our prime example ,just one of many tbh.

But saying that i've never had a prob with a Bobbie while i've been over in the UK.

keep thinking of a line from a show ( 1 million extra kudos points if you can tell me which one) :

"A man who expects to die tomorrow, will find a way fo dieing tomorrow"

steviec · 22-07-2005 02:50PM

therock67 wrote:

Fair enough but I think we're getting a bit bogged down in why they shoot. The point being that there is evidence to suggest that plenty of police historically in England, the six counties, Gibraltar etc. are unable to react properly in these situations and unarmed people are killed because of panic or whatever the motivation. Not necessarily trying to prosecute these particular individuals but they don't seem to be able to effectively deal with suspected threats.

What your saying there is exactly like saying that muslims have a tendancy to run into crowded areas and blow themselves up. Racism is ok when its directed towards the british though.

Zaphod B · 22-07-2005 02:51PM

Coconut wrote:

Yeah, this bit probably needs explaining..

Yeah, the whole thing needs a hell of a lot of explaining. From the general crapness of the reports about yesterday's events and those of this morning, you'd think that the police and government either know something they don't want us to know, or are utterly incompetent and haven't got a clue. Neither is a particularly reassuring thought. In Blair's statement yesterday with John Howard, he said he wasn't going to talk about the facts of the event... which perhaps wasn't too clever, considering no-one else would tell us anything either, most news reports being along the lines of "Some suspected attempted terrorist suspects are suspected of exploding suspected bombs or attempting to explode suspected bombs". Widespread panic is probably inevitable, though I'd say due less to the actions of terrorists and more to the uselessness of the government in telling the people what's going on.

Kingsize · 22-07-2005 02:52PM

it wasnt just the NI poliice seamus & Innocent Irish People are still treated like terrorists by the british police under the PTA (or whatever it is called now)

Sparky · 22-07-2005 02:59PM

seems their searching an address in Harrow rd now.

Zaphod B · 22-07-2005 03:06PM

steviec wrote:

What your saying there is exactly like saying that muslims have a tendancy to run into crowded areas and blow themselves up. Racism is ok when its directed towards the british though.

Yup. I'm not exactly patriotic. By which I mean I tend to wonder whether the vast majority of my countrymen have beed intentionally bred and brought up to be incredibly stupid. Reading almost any popular British newspaper fills me with rage at the editors and 'journalists', and don't even get me started on the politicians. But when someone like BloodBath makes a comment like "They [English people] are racist enough as it is without these bombings giving them more excuses to firebomb asian shops", as though every white man in England has been waiting for a reason to go out and commit race-hate crimes, I have to wonder whether immense stupidity is not solely the preserve of the English.
I don't believe what TheRock said was anywhere near this bad; the point about British police not being particularly good at dealing with firearms is a fair one, but personally I think it's because guns are not generally a big part of the culture either of the police or the country, and I think that's probably a good thing.

Man running from police shot dead in London

Comments