PDA

View Full Version : Further London Explosions


Need for Speed!
21st Jul 2005, 13:33
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm)

BBC News reports 3 'Minor Blasts' on the tube and one on the No. 26 bus in London between 1238 and 1250 today.

No casualties reported, may it remain that way.

NFS

Navaleye
22nd Jul 2005, 11:36
This is indeed good news. Taking the fight back to the scum. Well done the Met.

Here. (http://www.sky.com/skynews/home)

teeteringhead
22nd Jul 2005, 11:45
Agree strongly Navaleye , well done SO19 or whoever it was.

Just heard an eyewitness account on the lunchtime news; sounds as if suitably "Gibraltarian" ROE were in force too:rolleyes:

markerboy
22nd Jul 2005, 12:09
Yeah, and now lets wait for the lefties to start complaining about the amount of force used!!

engineer(retard)
22nd Jul 2005, 12:27
Markerboy

I do not see why they can complain, he has the right to remain silent:ok:

Retard

SwitchMonkey
22nd Jul 2005, 12:37
My thoughts are with the Officers concerned. It should never be an easy thing to take a life - no matter how correct the act is.

airborne_artist
22nd Jul 2005, 12:46
Indeed, well done the Met.

Let's hope that the Home Office backs up those police officers who have to make tough calls in split seconds. MoD seems to have difficulty doing the same for servicemen in similar situations.

Canary Boy
22nd Jul 2005, 12:46
V disappointing that the BBC are already 'questioning' the ROE - intimating that the 5 rounds fired may have been OTT. Why can't they resist the journo urge and wait until any salient facts are released? Well done to whoever it was that did what was required. :ok:

Darth Nigel
22nd Jul 2005, 13:06
Well, my favorite line was this one:
Three eyewitnesses were taken to a nearby veterinary surgery by police before being taken away for interview.

NHS must have really gone down-hill since I moved away :E

Archimedes
22nd Jul 2005, 13:22
The best press commentary so far ran something like this:

Presenter: So you saw what happened?

Witness: Yes [explains what he saw] ... shot him five times.

Presenter: Were those warning shots?

Witness: Er....


:rolleyes:

SASless
22nd Jul 2005, 13:30
Yes it was a warning....a warning that he had picked the exact wrong bunch of cops to tangle with! He must have thought they were the standard "unarmed" variety and thus unable to adequately defend themselves.

It is always a bad move to get into a gun fight without having a gun.:E

Before you Huffy Muffs say something....a bomb can be construed as being a deadly weapon.

airborne_artist
22nd Jul 2005, 14:30
Interesting that the suspect dived down the Tube and onto a train. He may well have been carrying an armed IED, as it's most unlikely he ran down there to avoid capture.

Gainesy
22nd Jul 2005, 15:00
5 rounds fired may have been OTT

Five rounds fired may have been due to a stoppage.

Jackonicko
22nd Jul 2005, 15:02
Hmmm.

Several unanswered questions spring to mind.

If he presented an immediate danger (eg if he was thought to have a 'device' under his unseasonal coat) then why shoot him five times in the torso, rather than in the head? And according to eyewitnesses he was pushed to the ground and shot, so they were near enough to avoid risking putting rounds into the detonators, etc. And one or two in the cranium would seem so much less..... 'American' .... than a fusillade of five in the torso, and would seem so much less like over-reaction to the public at large.

And if he didn't present an immediate danger, then wouldn't the int value of taking him alive have been worth something? Wouldn't it even be adequate compensation for missing the glee that I'm sure we all feel for having 'got one of the bastards?'

And if he wasn't an immediate threat but wasn't worth taking alive, wouldn't it have been sensible to capture him and then shoot him 'trying to escape', or at least out of public view? (And though I'm a liberal-ish journo, that's not an otion I could bring myself to condemn).

Is there anything we could do to 'gag' witnesses? Why do I know that he was pushed to the floor in a way that suggests he could have been restrained (or shot more sensibly)? Why do I know that they put five rounds into him? The simple fact that the police shot a suspect who they feared was about to detonate a bomb would be so much better from a PR point of view.

And had he been taken alive, how could we have interrogated him rigorously and effectively enough while complying with existing human rights legislation?

I'm not a fan of Gitmo/Abu Ghraib/exporting folk to Jordan, and wouldn't condone using those methods, but against a terrorist suspect are our laws and practises sufficient?

Being realistic, this could easily be presented as 'police overreaction', and could sow further discord in the Moslem community. Nothing (repeat NOTHING) justifies what these scum (terrorists of all flavours) do, but we do need to be mindful that they draw some support from decent human beings who have real (or real seeming) grievances. Presenting them with more causes for concern seems silly.

Maple 01
22nd Jul 2005, 15:11
Jacko - it's hard enough to hit a running target at the main point of impact (or whatever the Rocks keep telling me) let alone go for a head-shot, at lest this way if he was hit he was staying down

Aren't police MP5s single shot? (Assuming it was an MP5)

Speedpig
22nd Jul 2005, 15:55
If you are pursuing a suspect you believe to be carrying an explosive device would it be fair to assume that the device is primed?
In which case, I wouldn't want to risk the remotest possibility that the suspect could denonate if kept alive, taking you, your colleagues and a lot of innocents with him.
A very dramatic demonstration to the perpetrators that our security services mean business.
All over every front page in the world, I imagine, they will see thier failure.
I assume that if this guy is a failed suicide bomber then he won't now be in Paradise with 80 maidens at his beck and call?
Shame, he's really missed out.

adr
22nd Jul 2005, 15:57
I haven't heard anything to confirm that it was torso shots (rather than head shots) that killed this chap. Witness reports on News 24 indicate that officers piled on top on him and then shot him. In ordinary circumstances, to kill someone under restraint is clearly disprortionate. But if they could feel him struggling to get a hand free, then given his unseasonable big coat, I don't see their response as disproportionate at all.

MP5s? Yes, but some SO19 officers engaged in non-uniformed duty carry more concealable weapons. The guys who were fast up to keep up with this guy were reportedly not in uniform.

adr

Unwell_Raptor
22nd Jul 2005, 16:01
Armed police are more common by the week. Officers with Glock automatics are a common sight at LHR.

OFBSLF
22nd Jul 2005, 16:13
First reports are often wrong. Eye witnesses are often wrong. The press is hardly ever right.

With that out of the way...

Aren't police MP5s single shot? (Assuming it was an MP5)The witness that I saw being interviewed said the police were undercover and were armed with semi-automatic pistols.

So first reports suggest that the suspect was shot with a pistol, not an MP5. I've no idea whether the UK police MP5s are select-fire or semi-auto only. Even if they are semi-auto only, it does not take long to fire 5 shots.

vortexadminman
22nd Jul 2005, 16:28
I concur well done SO19. Mind you I hope it all was for right reasons as I m sure it was, cause if not London underground are getting really OTT about ticket dodgers!!:ooh:

The Gorilla
22nd Jul 2005, 16:34
Oh yeah well done!! Not connected at all with yesterdays bombings it now seems!! Now it's ok to shoot people who are wearing a big coat in july and who run away from the police!!

Human rights people are going to have a very lucrative field day over this!!

:mad:

Navaleye
22nd Jul 2005, 16:58
He was being trailed as likely suspect. He jumped the ticket barrier, ran towards a train. Despite being challenged to stop he did not. The actions of the police were entirely appropriate and reasonable. Protection of the public comes first. I would have done the same thing. The officers concerned are to be congratulated. I welcome a similar course of action under similar circumstances in the future. We are at war.

The Gorilla
22nd Jul 2005, 17:00
Naval

Well I do suspect that, unlike the poor Iraq squaddies who are up for courts martial, these policemen will be protected by their chain of command. For a while anyways!

:(

althenick
22nd Jul 2005, 17:31
Well I do suspect that, unlike the poor Iraq squaddies who are up for courts martial, these policemen will be protected by their chain of command. For a while anyways!

Alas my Simian friend that will not be the case. I have a mate in the Lothian and borders police and he said the procedure after any shooting is to all-but arrest the police marksman and debrief him (read interrogate) According to my mate it's not something you want to be on the recieving end of. As for the shooting. Do not all civilian issued Hand guns have a maximum of two automatic discharged rounds? and would this not apply to police hand guns? if that is indeed the case then the marksman would had to have squeezed the trigger at least 3 times. Does anyone have any info on police sidearms?

RTR
22nd Jul 2005, 17:40
For pete's sake! Stop cringeing. This is a state of extreme concern and if someone is suspected and he won't stop when challenged then the ultimate occurs. That is NOW the ROE according to the police - shoot to kill. What the hell is wrong with that?

Would you prefer that they didn't get to him/them and he/they detonate on the bloody train! Get real. This a REAL situation. If these people want to live by the sword then they die by it. I am happy with that!

L Peacock
22nd Jul 2005, 17:59
I had always been led to believe that plod are trained to shoot at the body under all circumstances. Anyone out there suitably qualified to confirm or deny?
I had pondered.. OK random searches on the tube. What does a copper do on discovering and individual wearing an IED, presuambly with a hand held trigger. Lose, lose situation. Now I see the only realistic tactic that may be employed.

Just hope that pick pockets, dodgy street traders and the like have the comon sense to stand still and do as they're told when challenged.

BEagle
22nd Jul 2005, 17:59
RTR - absolutely. To hell with the huggy-fluffy wet-pants attitudes of some; if the bug.ger didn't stop when lawfully ordered and the officers thought that they had genuine reason to suspect that their lives and those of many others were at risk, then just waste the ba$tard......

One down.....

Jackonicko
22nd Jul 2005, 18:04
Maple,

I'd understood that he was shoved to the ground and was on the floor (terrified, "like a scared rabbit") when shot, and not running away and thereby making himself a target. Don't get me wrong. If they thought he had a bomb I entirely commend the decision to shoot him, but if so, I'm scared crapless that they thought it a good plan to fire five rounds into his bulky coat/bomb belt rather than his head, if the latter option was available, as it seemed to be.

Random thought
Do the police have good enough training for this? The police firearms people seem to have a bit of a habit of shooting harmless nutters with replica guns or table legs in Tesco bags, and of being less than 'surgical' when killing in a way that the SAS do not. With this in mind, would it not be better to be aiming to use the professionals for these kind of ops rather than the SO19 wannabes? They do a difficult job fairly well, but this is serious, and no matter how short they crop their hair, and no matter how far they get away from the pointy hat traditional constable's uniform, and no matter that they wear black overalls with military style boots they are policemen and not the SAS, and given the choice I'd have more confidence in the armed forces than I do in the police.

Hmmm.

Marker and Canary Boys,
So it's OK to jump in and validate the police's actions, and to judge the force appropriate before all the facts are known, and to issue willy nilly congratulations for taking out another bad guy (he must have been bad, he had a brown face) but it's not OK to question those actions, or whether there has been excessive force? Surely we should all wait for the facts before judging the actions of the police, even if, like me, you can't help but smile to yourself while being pretty sure that this was a 'result', however messily it might have been achieved?

To paraphrase:

"V disappointing that the 'Enoch had it right'/'Tony Martin's a hero'/'send 'em home' loonies are already speculating about the ROE - intimating that the 5 rounds fired were an entirely proportionate response. Why can't they resist the right wing nutter urge and wait until any salient facts are released?"

Well done to whoever it was that did what was required. Even if it was shooting a shoplifter, fare-dodger or illegal immigrant........

Speedpig
22nd Jul 2005, 18:15
Oh yeah well done!! Not connected at all with yesterdays bombings

..... read not identified from CCTV footage.

Does not mean not connected. The nice officers would not have had this person under surveillance all morning if he hadn't been suspected of something.....

genuine reason to suspect that their lives and those of many others were at risk, then just waste the ba$tard......

... well said BEags.
Fight terrorism with retribution of a public nature.

Now install sniffing devices in every entrance to every form of public transport.... just like airports already have.... who cares if it takes 20 more seconds to get on your train, but how the h*ll do you do it at bus stops?
We will come to accept it eventually.

L Peacock
22nd Jul 2005, 18:20
Jacko

Much as I hate the b@st@#ds when they are pointing a laser gun at me on the A1 and much as I respect many of your aviation related opinions, I think your random thought is out of order.
The police firearms units are trained to do their job. They are the experts in this case and you are not.
They're not wannabes, they are the professionals. (though I imagine not Bodey and Doyle)

Speedpig
22nd Jul 2005, 18:21
5 rounds fired were an entirely proportionate response

apparently.... and I know nothing about it before I get to receive incoming (I quote an "expert" from TV).... the gun used was low velocity and one round may not have incapacitated sufficiently..

trailfinder
22nd Jul 2005, 18:21
The Indy was briefed on this last week:

Anti-terror police will useshoot-to-kill policy

By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 14 July 2005

The face of British policing has been changed forever by the revelation that suicide bombers have struck for the first time in this country.

For several years police chiefs had been preparing for the day that fanatics prepared to take their own lives commit an outrage on British streets. Police had visited Israel and Sri Lanka, which have suffered many suicide attacks, and had sent out guidance to officers on how to tackle a suspected bomber. But last week's atrocities in central London have turned a theoretical exercise into one with a chilling relevance to everyday policing.

Armed officers responding to alerts will follow a "shoot-to-kill" policy, while further security precautions will be taken in buildings regarded as prime targets. It is also understood that fresh advice has been circulated to chief constables in the wake of last Thursday's atrocities, who in turn have passed the information to front-line officers.

British planning for a suicide bombing predates 11 September, but was given fresh impetus by those attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. After leading a police delegation to Israel and Sri Lanka, Barbara Wilding, then a deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, produced a confidential report in 2003 on how to tackle the threat in Britain.

Its general advice for officers was not to challenge suspected bombers, but to alert anti-terrorist officers immediately. If the terrorist appears to be about to blow himself up, officers are told to move passers-by discreetly away from him.

<b>Armed police officers arriving on the scene will be operating a shoot-to-kill policy, aiming for the terrorist's head. They will not shoot at the chest, as is the practice in Britain, for fear that would detonate explosives strapped around the bomber.<b/>

Police are testing mobile or hand-held scanners that can detect hidden weapons or bombs packed with nails and bolts. Work is also under way on how bomb-sniffer dogs can be deployed in the fight against suicide bombers.

The National Suicide Terrorist working group, comprising senior officers, regularly updates its advice to chief constables. A police source said: "It is ongoing work. Many of its projects are under constant review."

One effect of the attacks is that public buildings will have to adapt their security checks. Metal detector machines are likely to be moved outside buildings to minimise the carnage if a bomb is detonated and the number of entrances minimised.

But Ms Wilding has confessed that the potential targets are numerous and diverse, including large sports stadiums and shopping centres. That leaves police with having to rely on intelligence work as they try to track down home-grown suicide bombers.

Many are likely to be only very loosely affiliated to terrorists and to be living outwardly respectable, conventional lives.
------------------------------------


It was classified, but I 've just seen ITN refer to it on the 1830 news by its police Op codeword, so guess it will come out more into the open now. Hell of a call for the police officer - I hope his superiors have the bottle to defend the implementation of their policy.

Jackonicko
22nd Jul 2005, 18:24
Armed police officers arriving on the scene will be operating a shoot-to-kill policy, aiming for the terrorist's head. They will not shoot at the chest, as is the practice in Britain, for fear that would detonate explosives strapped around the bomber.

Do they know something we do not?

The Gorilla
22nd Jul 2005, 18:36
Speed

From what I have seen so far the victim is not connected in any way with yesterdays incidents and was unarmed. That has come from Police sources.

Funny how we never had such responses during the IRA years!! Shoot to kill policies were never allowed! Now we have armed Police able to shoot any one under the new rules of engagement, marvellous comrades!!
:}

Speedpig
22nd Jul 2005, 19:14
Don't remember the IRA having suicide bombers though.
I feel we are dealing with an entirely different threat here, requiring entirely different counter measures.

trailfinder
22nd Jul 2005, 19:29
Well, what would you do - guy you think is a potential suidice bomber, fails to stop when challenged, runs away into a crowded tube carriage (where 6 people have in the last 2 weeks attempted/managed to detonate devices) and you have at best a few seconds to make a decision? And the guidance/policy is to shoot him in the head if you believe he is a bomber?

Like I said a heck of a call for anyone to make; even if the guy turns out to not be carrying anything, I would not like to second guess the three cops in the situation. Though I agree, police officers tackling and shooting a suspect whilst he is on the ground is grisly and disturbing.

Could a QRA pilot find himself in a similar (though even worse) position someday?

adr
22nd Jul 2005, 19:35
Could a QRA pilot find himself in a similar (though even worse) position someday? :(

Thanks for that bit of perspective, trailfinder. Possibly even quite topical, too, given what's just happened in Berlin.

adr

GeeRam
22nd Jul 2005, 19:43
I've no idea whether the UK police MP5s are select-fire or semi-auto only.

Met. Police issue MP5's are semi-auto only.

Met. Police issue Glock 17's are standard mil/commercial issue.

Letsby Avenue
22nd Jul 2005, 20:01
Does the 'shoot in the head' policy only apply to our chums of somewhat arab extraction or can they now shoot Mr or Mrs 'white middle class' as well?:}

It's Life Jim 208
22nd Jul 2005, 20:32
Thank God we have Police Officers who are willing to do what is necessary on our behalf.... Thank You guys.

I'd suggest that the MET get as many explosives dogs trained as quickly as possible and position them randomly at the entrances to Tube stations, moving them around on an irregular basis to different stations. That might make the bombers think twice if they think they might get caught before they get on the trains.

It should also be made known that any successful bomber will never have a final resting place, once his/her remains have been identified and isolated, whatever is left will be fed to pigs. Then we'll see how keen they are to die for the cause.

I am worried that now London is becoming a harder target, the murderers will move to other cities in the UK with fewer police resources!

Jim 208

STANDTO
22nd Jul 2005, 20:56
Ah, the moment I have been waiting for on PPrune - when I actually can talk from a position of professional practice, rather than just general interest in a subject.

As we say on here when some poor fellow blunts in - can we leave the speculation and conjecture until the full facts become known?

The officer that took the decision to do what he - or she - did ( and it was a decision, based on training and judgement) is probably still at work. They are having an incredibly long day, based on taking a judgement call which will potentially change the face of policing in the British Isles forever.

The situation they will find themselves in won't be far off that of Jack Ryan in Patriot Games. I know I would never sleep quite the same in my bed, especially if my identity became widely known.

They have taken a massively brave decision. They obviously feared an imminent attack from the instructions they gave to bystanders. However gung-ho or thick as p*g**** you might think bobbies are, the truth is, we don't let people carry a gun unless we are absolutely sure they are up to it.

Some of the comments on here would tend to make armed police officers wonder why they bother. If they decide not to - because it is purely voluntary - then prepare for anarchy, or a military state.

CV? 10 years of a fifteen year career as an AFO. currently a tactical adviser, and currently qualified on Glock, MP5, G36, Taser, and baton gun.

STANDTO

SASless
22nd Jul 2005, 21:57
Standto,

Hit a few of the JB threads....you will see you have plenty of strong support....a few came forth with the usual line of tripe....but were predictable in that....and were quickly reminded of just what you have said by others before your post.

The amazing progress shown by the Police and other Goverment agencies in pursuing this investigation is amazing and warrants praise from all around.

Being a police officer is never an easy task....but more so now days. Draw fast, aim slow....shoot straight!

Eight years of police service here.....and a kindred spirit!

:ok:

oldfella
22nd Jul 2005, 23:05
Watched lots of news today. Read lots of news online after reading this thread.

Facts seem to be the "victim" was under reasonable suspicion of being connected to the bombing threat. He didn't stop when challenged. He ran to a train. He was shot.

Everything else on the thread seems to be speculation.

On a slight change, let's not have the media do the bad guy's int for them. There's already speculation in the media as to why the bombs didn't go off. When the authorities find the answer let's hope the media don't chase after it. "Wire a wasn't connected to wire b" says the media - "Good" says the bad guy, "I'll get that right next time"

SASless
22nd Jul 2005, 23:44
Oh...I don't know....well if I was the lead investigator....and I wanted the "public" to be very well informed....ah....uh...well you see if they had mixed a bit more of this...a bit less of that...and wired lead A to diode B...and then......trust me on this!;)

Two's in
23rd Jul 2005, 02:29
What's all the banter about, I thought the victim's condition had been described by a police spokesman as either "stable" or "satisfactory"...

Don't bother with the rant - twenty odd years of keeping Pat and Mick amused has permanently disqualified me from the fluffy bunny club.

Pilgrim101
23rd Jul 2005, 06:34
If we have to suffer these "Islamic" inadequates let's hope they keep playing with Acetone Peroxide. Interestingly enough, it's already accounted for a significant number of Palestinian bombers in "own goal" spectaculars.

If proven to be the preferred choice, or all that the Moslem terror groups in Leeds, Bradford or Tipton for example can get their hands on, all the better.

It is unstable, degrades with time albeit highly explosive as we have regrettably seen to our cost, but it tends to scare the bejesus out of those handling it (As evidenced by the fact that the "suicide" bombers are now chucking rucksacks onto trains and scarpering ?)

As for the "5 rounds" to the head, sub judice now of course although the speculation from the usual suspects will only give the terrorist the benefit of the doubt, never the policeman on the front line with milliseconds to act. I guess you have to be there at the time.

Sounds like a righteous shoot to me though and serves notice on the terrorists that the good guys have the initiative as long as the public are alert, the intel is good and the murderers are on the defensive now for the time being.

Mad_Mark
23rd Jul 2005, 07:29
Does the 'shoot in the head' policy only apply to our chums of somewhat arab extraction or can they now shoot Mr or Mrs 'white middle class' as well?

I am sure that if Mr or Mrs 'white middle class' were under suspission of a possible suicide bomb attack, ran away from the police and acted in a manner that could be construed as threatening the lives of the public, then yes, I am sure they would be dealt with in exactly the same way.

However, the threat is currently from the Islamic extreemists and they, on the whole, are "our chums of somewhat arab extraction" as you so elloquently put it. It is no wonder that people are more suspicious of Asians carrying rucksacks on public transport than Mr or Mrs 'white middle class'. It is not racist, just natural fear and suspision.

MadMark!!! :mad:

Speedpig
23rd Jul 2005, 09:04
"Muslim lobby groups said they were shocked by the killing and urged a full inquiry".

Just like we were shocked by 56 innocent deaths by murderers

Why does this guy get referred to as a "victim"? He was a suspect of a heinous crime and as such is clearly not a victim but a probable perpetrator. We have been saved from hearing about his victims and lets hope his chums follow his route to nirvana.

teeteringhead
23rd Jul 2005, 10:54
Two points occur to me:

"Shoot-to-Kill-Policy" never been anything else. No such thing these days as "warning shots" or disabling shots. If you have to shoot (very big IF) then you shoot to kill.

Head Shot or Not Normally a body shot - apart from anything else it's a bigger target. But (very big BUT) death is not as instantaneous as a head shot. Might not be time for the full John Wayne life-story-and-look-after-the-kids dit, but enough time to press a button in yer pocket. And that's before you consider whether a "lucky" shot might set off the det.

No time for button=instant death=brain death=head shot.

QED

Once again - well done to SO19 or whoever.

BEagle
23rd Jul 2005, 11:53
The huggy-fluffy cr@p spouted by some about the person shot in the Tube is totally irrelevant. Since he ran off from officers before vaulting the barriers and ending up in the train, no-one in the train could possibly have heard the original challenge.

The message is, if you are a ne'er do well or behave like one, then you will die. And quite rightly so. But if you're innocent and do what you are told to when challenged, you won't.....

Well done to the 'police' involved!

:ok:

The Gorilla
23rd Jul 2005, 12:06
Beags

Unless of course, you happen to be deaf or one of Maggies little diamonds - care in the community!!

Pilgrim101
23rd Jul 2005, 12:07
"Police"

You think so too, do you Beags ? ;) If any old lady had her purse nicked on the way out of the station then it was definitely "them" !! :E

Letsby Avenue
23rd Jul 2005, 13:35
Quite agree...;)

safe single
23rd Jul 2005, 16:10
It has just been announced that the guy that was shot was nothing to do with the bombings on Thursday, despite being under surveillance. Investigations are ongoing. I hope that those involved are given the full support and backing of their superiors during the enquiry.
No matter what, the 'ne'er do wells' will think twice before misbehaving on the tubes again... Well done SO19!

:ok:

Letsby Avenue
23rd Jul 2005, 16:48
Not well done at all methinks.... The proverbial is about to hit the fan - govenments have fallen over less.

If this guy was as innocent as Mr Baha Musa in Iraq then this is just as much a war crime as the alledged offences against our soldiers in Iraq and since Col Mendonca has also been charged then it is only right that the Police Commisioner Blair be charged as well....

This is not a police state (yet) and one simply cannot slaughter the civilian population and hide behind the excuse "He was given a warning" it's almost as lousy an excuse as "I was only following orders" subsequently proved to be...

Maple 01
23rd Jul 2005, 17:01
this is just as much a war crime as the alledged offences against our soldiers in Iraq

Wrong, fail to stop when challanged means whatever happens after that is your fault no ifs but or ands

The Gorilla
23rd Jul 2005, 17:28
Maple 01

I think that Private Clegg might beg to differ on that one!!

SASless
23rd Jul 2005, 17:49
I will contribute to the Defense Fund for the Cops if it comes to that.

War Crime...that comment does not warrant a rational response for a host of commonsense reasons which someone plainly misses.

It is purely a civilian matter...done by civilian law enforcement for very understandable reasons. It would take the proverbial Village Non-Elder to consider this anything but "one of those things that happen" despite the very best of effort to prevent them.

:mad:

STANDTO
23rd Jul 2005, 17:49
This is an almighty bl**dy mess to be sure. Although he didn't die, Steven Waldorf has something very similar happen to him. the result then was a huge tightening of authority levels and training. However, because of the proliferation in gun crime, that tightening has been uncontainable in the last ten years and a much more pragmatic approach necessary.

What has to change is the publics attitude towards the police. If a police officer says, in today's climate, "Stand Still!" the best option is to do so.

God rest the poor sould who bought the farm, and let common sense prevail in the following enquiry

BEagle
23rd Jul 2005, 18:48
So why did he run?

Don't stop when lawfully challenged by armed police officers = expect to die.

Learn the lesson......

Particularly now.

timex
23rd Jul 2005, 19:15
This is not a police state (yet) and one simply cannot slaughter the civilian population and hide behind the excuse "He was given a warning" it's almost as lousy an excuse as "I was only following orders" subsequently proved to be...

No one is saying we are a Police state, but the guy who died was warned, ran (towards a train) luckily fell and was killed. The "police" officer who shot him had milliseconds to decide.

What would any of us done? What if he hadn't fallen and made it onto the train, just in time to vapourise it and the pursuit team?

cazatou
23rd Jul 2005, 19:17
Beagle,

For once I have to disagree with you.

The man concerned was not of UK extraction - hence the Police observation of him. It is entirely possible that he did not understand any warning given to him - AS ENGLISH WAS NOT HIS NATIVE LANGUAGE.

Just think of all those places around the World that you have visited where you would have had a similar problem with a warning given in the "local patois".

BEagle
23rd Jul 2005, 19:24
Nope - to run off in such a manner is hardly the action of someone with nothing to hide....

ZH875
23rd Jul 2005, 19:25
It is entirely possible that he did not understand any warning given to him - Maybe if the Police had AK47's instead of their usual weapons he would have understood an AK47 waved in his direction means STOP, not jump a barrier, and try board a train. Does an AK47 speak a different lanuage to a glock or H&K.

If I was of foreign extraction, and I knew that suicide bombers were blowing up tube trains, that is the LAST direction I would run away in.

The death of an innocent person is regrettable, but as Mr Spock would concur, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Maybe this is a good warning to would be fanatics, f**k up and you still die, but no virgins in heaven for you.

cazatou
23rd Jul 2005, 19:43
The person concerned may well have been an Illegal Immigrant; but that is not a Capital Offence. If so, he could well have been unaware of the atrocities that had been committed (due to a language barrier) and assumed that he had been discovered and would be deported. He ran.

Certainly the reporting of the Incident has altered significantly. Yesterday, the news programmes were stating that the man was "under observation"(as part of the investigation into the attempted atrocities) when this Incident happened. Today there is no mention of him being "under observation" - just that he failed to stop when challenged.

BEagle
23rd Jul 2005, 20:00
The next thing you'll be saying is that he might have been from Mars....

No-one in London could possibly have been unaware of the terrorist activity which happened in the same borough less than 24 hours earlier......

Maple 01
23rd Jul 2005, 20:06
I think that Private Clegg might beg to differ on that one!!

You mean Sgt Clegg?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/4678029.stm

ROE in N Ireland for the army on a VCP and ROE for SO19 against a possible suicide bombers are different, just in case you didn't know......:rolleyes:

airborne_artist
23rd Jul 2005, 20:11
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm) now reporting that the person shot at Stockwell is thought to be Brazillian.

From the report: "John O'Connor, former commander of the Met Police, told the BBC the consequences of the shooting were likely to be "quite horrendous".

He said he expected officers to face criminal charges, and other officers could even refuse to carry weapons. " "

Maple 01 - SO19 is now CO19

Navaleye
23rd Jul 2005, 20:41
The officer concerned deserves a medal. If they were illegals, then we need to start chucking them out by the plane load. BEagle has hit the nail on the head. The gloves are off. Speaking as a Londoner, I want the Met to shoot first and ask questions later WHENEVER the safety of the public at large is threatened by these traitors.

nutcracker43
23rd Jul 2005, 20:46
Wonderful!

Retired Met officers making pronouncements on the BBC when the full facts are not known. He more than most should have known better... inflamed passions could be, and no doubt will be, increased by statements such as these.

A tragedy for all: the family of the slain man and for the police concerned.

Who amongst us would not have made a similar decision given the same circumstances?

Letsby Avenue
23rd Jul 2005, 20:48
I am only playing Devil's Advocate.... It wasn't a war crime because although this is a war on terror errrr we're not at war:}

As soon as the statistics say that we are more likely to get wasted by a 'gun totin cop' over 'Tommy Terrorist' then I'm afraid that they have won...and we will be a police state like it or not.

cazatou has hit the nail on the head - This was an unlawful killing and ranks alongside the 'chair leg' incident, the details of which escape me now but needless to say the two oficers are up for murder!

I suspect that Tony Blair's policy of hanging out to dry anyone who's spur of the moment actions might reflect badly on him are coming to a head - I suspect that soon our security forces will stop playing his little game... and then, to quote Sir R. Mottram "We're all fu***d

Navaleye - when you say shoot first and ask questions afterwards, I take it that doesn't apply to Mrs Navaleye?

nutcracker43
23rd Jul 2005, 20:57
Letsby Avenue and all those who feel we are on the way to a police state.

May we just look at the definition of a police state: it is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

This is the sort of thing Islamists want. I think we have long way to go before a police state so could we possibly avoid such emotive statements.

BEagle
23rd Jul 2005, 21:02
Rubbish, Letsby - nothing like the 1999 Hackney shooting of Harry Stanley with his chair leg in a plastic bag which police officers thought was a sawn-off shotgun being aimed at them.....

The Stockwell shooting was less than 24 hours after an attempted terrorist outrage of which everyone in London was fully aware.

If you run when told to stop and stand still by armed officers in such circumstances, you can expect to die.

Which part of that is unclear?

Letsby Avenue
23rd Jul 2005, 21:12
Nutcracker - i think you have summed up Labour Lite policy in one.

I find Blair and his government quite sinister in the way that they go about their business. It makes me cringe everytime we handover yet another civil liberty, without a murmur of dissent even though 80% of the country didn't vote for him.:(

Beagle - still unlawful though..

nutcracker43
23rd Jul 2005, 21:18
Letsby avenue.

I'm not certain about the civil liberties of which you speak? Perhaps you would care to list and describe them.

A grateful nutcracker

Letsby Avenue
23rd Jul 2005, 22:03
I actually typed a huge reply and then 'all of a sudden' couldn't be bothered - go to the Liberty site and read it for yourself.

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism.shtml

Bit of luck our Tone decided to freeload his hols somewhere other than Sharm Al-Sheikh this year what.... Obviously a coincidence, I mean they wouldn't be out to get our whiter than white Tony now - would they?

Couldn't help notice that our slightly dim but nevertheless erstwhile Charles Clark has decided that this is a perfect opportunity for a holiday - well done Charles... we are certainly safer without you...!

The Gorilla
23rd Jul 2005, 22:07
Maple

Sgt Clegg still served a number of years in prison and as the judge said at his trial "I make the law not the MOD" Just because SO19's rules of engagement permit the execution of innocents does not make it lawful. I would not blame muslims for arming themselves given the current shoot to kill policy. Funny how these new RoE's are unpublished in a democracy.

I expect those officers concerned to be tried for murder and if found guilty sentenced to life in prison. Of course I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen in Bliars Britain of today.



:(

Maple 01
23rd Jul 2005, 22:21
ROEs are run past a legal team, Clegg’s actions were deemed at the time to be outside the then current ROE, slightly different I'd suggest to CO19s (thanks) actions

According to the BBC

He was cleared of the charges following a retrial in 1999.

So I trump your judge with an Appeal Judge! Miscarriage of justice – I assume you’ll be calling for his dismissal?


Sorry, rest of your post makes no sense to me - you seem to be giving the impression that the UK is a police state - I've seen one or two up close - Britain ain't one.

oldfella
23rd Jul 2005, 22:36
"Anti Terrorism measures have done little to ensure Britain is safe and secure from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the civil liberties of those living in the UK. etc etc etc"

It was a state of civil liberty that allowed the suicide bombers to travel and study terrorist techniques, to manufacture, deliver and detonate their bombs. That caused 50+ innocents to lose their lives. Who was looking after their civil liberties?

Life in London, and possibly throughout Britain changed with the bombings in London, we just don't know by how much yet.

Save me from the Bleeding Hearts Brigade. In doing so you just might save me from those who wish me harm.

Archimedes
23rd Jul 2005, 22:39
Interesting that the judge said that - judges do *not* make the law, surely (that's parliament's job)?, I always thought that Lord Denning said that they interpet it. (For instance, if judges made the law, the mandatory life sentence for murder would not exist).

According to the Torygraph today:

The police, unlike the Army, do not have ''rules of engagement'' that dictate how they should use force. Ultimate responsibility in law for pulling the trigger lies with the individual officer. In broad terms, reflecting human rights legislation, the force used by police must be proportionate to the threat.

Link here (but requires [free] registration) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/nshot223.xml) .

I'm sure that Standto, if he wishes, can comment on the accuracy of that. It would appear, though, that the ROE aren't hidden, per se , but in that rather grey area whereby a decision made in an instant is subjected to much second, third and fourth guessing. In any event, the facts that we have at the moment are pretty confused bar the fact that a man was shot dead.

MightyGem
24th Jul 2005, 07:04
As a Brazilian he is probably not a Muslim, which is one good thing I suppose.

The Gorilla
24th Jul 2005, 08:40
Whatever you guys say on here, the Police or the SAS or whoever it was murdered an innocent man in cold blood. The repercussions of this going to be enormous. I personally don’t believe it was the Police because this had all the hallmarks of a typical military we are above the law captain c*ck-up!!!

But hey who in the jingoistic military cares? An excellent job well done no doubt. Home in time for tea and medals..

Pathetic


:mad:

BEagle
24th Jul 2005, 09:01
Well, Gorilla, before making such a stupid comment, perhaps you should tell us what you would have done in the circumstances?

I have total faith in those armed police officers involved.

STANDTO
24th Jul 2005, 09:14
If you want to read about police firearms, the first half of the ACPO manual of guidance on the police use of firearms is on the ACPO website. The only bits that are subject to PII, and therefore not published, are those specifically relating to tactics. The rest, including ROE, are there for all to see.

Hope this answers a few questions. Ultimately though, the ultimate decision rests with the officer holding the gun. Strategic parameters are set at gold level, tactics, with the support of a tactical adviser, are set at silver, and the execution (unfortunate word) is carries out at bronze. At all levels, decisions are made on available intelligence at the time. If we take it that Gold strategy was to seek suicide bombers and stop atrocities, then silver had intelligence that house X contained persons believed to be bombers, and bronze officers on surveillance watched someone leave that house who went towards a railway station, and when challenged legged it on to a train, I think it is pretty easy to see how an officer could have a firmly held belief that another atrocity was about to take place.

Poor B*gger is about to spend the next twelve months in the washing machine. It is , a huge mess. I must say, I don't think this will be a SF operation either. This is doubtless a Met job.

The Gorilla
24th Jul 2005, 09:38
Beagle

Arrested him, he was unarmed!

And oh yes there were three of them!!

Having piled into him and restrained him they did not need to murder him. And of course the truth hurts which is why my comments are stupid I suppose.


:mad:

BEagle
24th Jul 2005, 09:57
Ah - the joys of 20:20 hindsight. A quality which wet liberals would appear to have in abundance.

The suspicion was clearly that the deceased had a concealed suicide bomb on his person; that was increased considerably when he failed to stand still when challenged and bolted for the Underground, acting in a manner which looked for all intents and purposes like the last desperate act of a suicide bomber about to kill himself and dozens of others.

In such circumstances an 'arrest' would clearly be impossible without exposing the armed officers and general public to potentially lethal risk.

Need for Speed!
24th Jul 2005, 10:01
If we take it that Gold strategy was to seek suicide bombers and stop atrocities, then silver had intelligence that house X contained persons believed to be bombers, and bronze officers on surveillance watched someone leave that house who went towards a railway station, and when challenged legged it on to a train, I think it is pretty easy to see how an officer could have a firmly held belief that another atrocity was about to take place.

Couldn’t agree more, STANDTO.

For those of you who are saying he may not have heard or understood challenges, therefore cold blooded murder etc etc – that is (a) subjective and (b) boll*cks.

Here are the FACT's - Wearing a ‘large’ coat, he ran away from armed officers the day after the second terrorist attack on the city in two weeks, jumped the ticket barriers at a tube station and headed straight for a train.

This, coupled with STANDTO’s comments shows that the actions of the officers involved were, IMHO, more than reasonable.

I am from London originally, my sister travels through Stockwell and Oval everyday to and from work. The officers made a split second decision, based on the FACT’s stated above, to protect the safety of her and every other Londoner, they deserve all the support we can give them.

Rant over.

NFS

pr00ne
24th Jul 2005, 10:05
Unfortunately this is a tragedy for the individual concerned and his friends and family and an absolute disaster for the Police and those individuals concerned.

I really can understand the points of view being touted by both sides in this argument, the Police officers involved clearly thought they had a suspect who was both dressed as to arouse suspicion, had just left a house that was under surveillance and who did not stop when challenged and then fled TOWARDS a Tube train. It does not take a rocket scientist or a conspiracy theorist to see what the Police offices involved must have thought!

On the other hand, this guy was a Brazilian who had spent time in some of the dodgy slum areas of Sau Paulo where kidnap and murder are rife. Once again it does not take a huge leap of faith to understand what he must have thought when confronted by shouting and gesticulating men in normal clothes who were waving a hand gun at him and yelling at him in a foreign language, you can also understand why he would have fled in a blind panic.

There is no way however to understand what ever made him flee toward a tube train, and then board it?

There are NO winners here, absolutely none.

cazatou
24th Jul 2005, 10:18
Suddenly accosted by at least three man in civilian attire he may well have considered that he was about to be mugged - and ran.

Certainly the "eye witness" from the train who appeared on the news reports was adament that he heard no warnings directed to the suspect, who was on the ground, before the police opened fire.

There will, I trust, be an inquiry and an Inquest: however there was no Inquest into the death of Dr Kelly.

Tigs2
24th Jul 2005, 10:44
Gorilla
what an apt name. A beast on the lower edge of the evolutionary chain, with a very limited intelligence and an inability to reason anything.
Only good at sitting in the woods and scratching their arses.

So Captain Fantastic (Gorilla), you think do you that you could pursue a suspect suicide bomber only 24 hours since previous bombings. Someone who refuses to stop when challenged, who then runs into an underground station onto a train, wearing a bulky coat, and there are pax on the train. You have seconds to act before this individual activates the suspect bomb. Your tactics are pin down arms apart and kill with a head shot (it prevents inadvertant detonation in the event of a chest shot). You are scared, youve now got 1 second as he falls on the floor. Sadly for the police, you gorilla are not there wearing your Captain Fantastic suit with your x-ray vision to see through his coat, and your amazing mind reading powers to understand why he keeps running. You knew he wasnt armed, Gorilla you have taken a step out of the woods, you are a genius, an exception to the rest of us mortals in the human race.

The tradgedy that comes out of this horrible but understandable mistake, is that we will crucify the police and in future they will not shoot, they will doubt themselves, they will not follow procedure and the next terrorist that sits on a train will activate their weapons. Imagine it Gorilla, sat on a tube with some terrorist who runs on chased by policemen. The terrorist sits next to you, you know this is going to be bad. The police say 'stop hands up', he ignores, he puts his hands inside the coat, the police say 'excuse me i say again please put your hands up, we are british and arnt really going to shoot you'. You are now thinking please shoot this mad ba****d, i want to see my family again. The police say, 'are you carrying a weapon underneath your coat', he says 'no - shukran' the police say 'ok thank you sir, sorry to bother you' and step off the train. Next thing Boom! What would your last thoughts be, perhaps'why didnt the police shoot him? But they the police werent sure enough to avoid a court case, imprisonment and loss of pension after the event. so best not to bother. If only they had your Captain Fantastic suit with x-ray vision and mind reading powers.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Angry you might be, but personal insults are not allowed, so you can have a couple of days off to think how to stay within the rules.

The Gorilla
24th Jul 2005, 11:04
This is to be my last post on this board. It seems that reasoned arguments and discussion only turn into swearing and personal insults. Which is a shame as once this board had its usefulness.

Tigs 2 swearing is against the rules but I do agree with some of what you say (except the personal stuff!) But we cannot sacrifice who we are as a race just because we are apparently in unique times.

I leave you with these thoughts..

Why did we not pursue such a rigid shoot to kill policy in the unique times of the PIRA? How many PIRA killers could we have killed with a marksman at all those funerals in NI? PIRA has killed thousands more than a few homegrown bombers. What are the odds on four bombs not going off at once and don't for one minute try and tell me the four guys on CCTV from 21/7 are British born. Brazilians in my experience do not look like Al Quaeda Muslims!

Regards to all who know me

TG

:ok:

SASless
24th Jul 2005, 11:53
Here I sit...not even having had my first cuppa of coffee...and I see Gorilla leaving because he cannot accept the fact others...several others do not accept his view of things and even find it preposterous.

Gorilla...the reason they are saying what they are to you....is because you are decidedly wrong on this one. Lord knows your detractors and I have had our own disagreements at times but this time I stand solidly with them in offering an opposing view to yours.

The Cops involved in this are Heroes in my book. That does not make the tragedy any the less for the man that was killed. To say the things you have about the police in this incident is simply offensive to rational people.

If you desire to leave....it is like they say in Atlanta..."Delta is Ready When You Are!" Adios Muchacho!

BEagle
24th Jul 2005, 11:56
Perhaps if the PIRA had also used suicide bombers with concealed bomb vests, they could have expected to receive similar treatment to that conducted by the armed police officers.

Oh -and goodbye.

southside
25th Jul 2005, 11:03
It turns out that the Brazillian chap was an Illegal - Hence the reason he was running.

Dave Martin
25th Jul 2005, 11:07
Can you post a link to this information? I have found no mention of it, but that might explain his running, although still somewhat unlikely.

Kolibear
25th Jul 2005, 11:09
Radio 2 news is saying that he had a student visa which had expired.

southside
25th Jul 2005, 11:11
BBC NEWS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713651.stm)

Dave Martin
25th Jul 2005, 11:21
Mmmm, wonder how out of date. I know you can legally stay over the limit on those with applications in progress, but looks like he might have been in the wrong there.

Still strikes me as odd that he would run from police if the issue was just an expired visa.