Further London Explosions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further London Explosions
BBC News
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
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
Gentleman Aviator
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
Just heard an eyewitness account on the lunchtime news; sounds as if suitably "Gibraltarian" ROE were in force too
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
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. 
Greetings From Hell's Dark Heart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Emerald City
Age: 70
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, my favorite line was this one:
NHS must have really gone down-hill since I moved away 
Three eyewitnesses were taken to a nearby veterinary surgery by police before being taken away for interview.
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....
Presenter: So you saw what happened?
Witness: Yes [explains what he saw] ... shot him five times.
Presenter: Were those warning shots?
Witness: Er....
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.
Before you Huffy Muffs say something....a bomb can be construed as being a deadly weapon.
It is always a bad move to get into a gun fight without having a gun.
Before you Huffy Muffs say something....a bomb can be construed as being a deadly weapon.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
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.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Aren't police MP5s single shot? (Assuming it was an MP5)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
PPatRoN
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: England
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First reports are often wrong. Eye witnesses are often wrong. The press is hardly ever right.
With that out of the way...
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.
With that out of the way...
Aren't police MP5s single shot? (Assuming it was an MP5)
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.
