As a member of a family whose still in England and whose cousin is a Bobby with the City of London the one square mile section of London actually called The City of London and where one of the bombings happened not less than 100 yards from her station.
I would ask of her that she run to the individual only after firing shots as approaching anybody acting in a suspicious manner dressed in a manner easily concealable for weapons or bombs and taking into account the horrific bombings that happened that she be justified in her actions as to think twice may cost the lives of another 50 plus people or worse.
The maybe aspect of this is a huge burden to carry, but for those who seek to prevent it any means should be used as the outcome of choosing not to would possibly lead to and more likely lead to the deaths and destruction of many more people. Given the past bombings and war or terror and given the time of year the man who was shot be it while down on the ground or running was wearing articles of clothing inappropriate for time of year.
You don’t see LA gang members wearing trench coats in 115 degree weather they just carry their stuff in plain sight or in their "ride", nor do you see a foreign person who has exited a house under suspicion wearing a bulky coat with less regard than approaching a hooptie in the hood filled with gang members.
They aren’t Boy Scouts in the car and that wasn’t just a man in a coat running, it was a man running in a coat towards the underground and was at the wrong place at the wrong time and left the wrong house and did the wrong thing.
Ignoring the polices efforts at verbal suggestions to stop or halt only escalated matters.
The question to ask would be if he had not been stopped and had been a bomber and carried out his plan the officers involved would have be hung just as high as if they had indeed done what happened. Double edged sword here either way you swing it your gonna hit some S-it.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
I have no respect for the government of this country and i have no respect for the police in this country, i consider myself a descent law abiding person and,even though i disagree with a some of our laws, they are laws and must be enforced. The fact that this man was killed while being restrained is totally unacceptable and under the law of this country, those responsible can not be allowed to get away with it, regardless of how many people have been killed. Maybe if he had been wacked by a police sniper it would be easier to deal with and less unacceptable.
"Suicide by police" is a term that should only be used if a firearm is raised against a police officer and i hope that it will not become routine to be shot in public if you run away from chasing men shouting "Oi you stop" i believe a police warning was not shouted.
It is a sad fact that a lot of the high profile shootings by police in this country have been some what unlawfull, many of those being been killed under dubious circumstances, have had their cases quickly hushed up and pushed aside in order to quickly divert the public gaze away from some of the police force's incompetence.
I think that this is one of those circumstances that must be investigated according to the laws of the land, simply because these laws are in place, must be enforced and should not be twisted and convoluted just suit the situation in hand.
"I mean't to shoot the pike but the duck got in the way"
PS. when i was pistol shooting, i shot with, trained with and competed against police firearms officers in this country as a civilian shooter and many gave of an image as gung ho, gun toting, elitist's who because of their contempt for all things firearms related, in my opinion, should have never been allowed anywhere near a firearm. country
your freedom allows you to wear whatever you want, when and where you want, regardless or the season or weather as long as no one is offended.
It would be a very sad day indeed if a member of the public was arrested as a terror suspect, just because he was of asian origin and he had decided to leave his home wearing his favourite black parker, with a rucksack over his shoulder on a warm sunny day [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
lets not start eroding a persons freedom and liberty under
the false pretences of protecting ourselves from a percieved threat manifesting itself as a man wearing his favourite coat carrying his Gym gear to the sports centre.
"I mean't to shoot the pike but the duck got in the way"
What had the same actions been carried out by joe public, assuming the right to have hand guns. 3 well meaning citizens think someomne is a bomber (but get it wrong), so chase him, hold him down and shoot him in the head several times. Do you think they would be on a murder charge or not? I do, with mittigating circumstances it may be manslaughter. People are and should be responbile for their own actions including the police.
It may be strange but I think the law should be applied the same to one and all.
I did say I think people should be responsible for there own actions, it is hard to say if the mans action of running got him killed, he was shot after he was caught. Again some people have a tendancy for flight and some for fight under strees.
Yes my freedom does but with a certain responsibility on my part. I wouldnt go to a football game (English football) and with a shirt that said English football is for panises and not expect my ***** to get stomped.
Nor would I go to a NAACP meeting with a picture of James Earl Ray on it and expect nothing less than the afformentioned outcome.
Perceived threats, lets take a look at that, California just passed legislation that requires all who own a 50 caliber rifles register it, 50 cal it was a perceived threat that was dealt with in extremes and the rights were stripped from law abiding citizens.
They perceived it could be used to shoot down planes therefore it was placed under extreme conditions just the same as the guy running with a trench coat on, he was perceived to be a threat and handled as such.
Now the question here being should we race profile? Heck no you wont get that past anyone as they were all Germans in the planes that day not Muslim terrorists and they were all Italians who blew up the tubes and double decker bus so we now target only a quota of Arabs at airports and ports in the US and for you guys I suspect the same will happen. Already rumor has it that increased beetings of middle eastern people in the UK are being targeted simply because of that fact. I dont blame them.
I dont agree with you and thats my freedom.
Perceived or not the need of the many outweighs the need of the one.
I respect your opinion and i agreee with what you say about certain responsibility on my behalf and yes, now that i know that i might be picked as a suspected suicide bomber if a wear my trench coat on a warm day, i wont wear it but thats just it, I DONT EXPECT to be picked as a suspected suicide bomber.
Many a time have my wife and myself remarked at the asian and black people wearing big thick overcoats on warm sunny days, maybe they cant get used to our climate but it would a trajedy, if after being shoot, that one of these overcoat wearing people muttered in his dying breath "but i was cold".
Also most of these people are not arabs who are in fact a different race but there is a similarity in the fact that middle easterns are mianly of the same race they are divided by religion and tribalism,Palestinians, Jordanians, Israelis, Syrians etc. The problem people are those from around the Indian Sub-Continent, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Bangladeshis etc, alot of which hold British passports.
Although racially the same they are nearly all Muslims of different factions who hate each other unless they are united through Islam against whoever their percieved enemy might be.
Our fellow member Brit lives in the north of England where they have largest of these Pakistani and Bangladeshi muslim communities and is sick of all the trouble they cause and the racism they spread against the "white infidels", when they are challenged about this trouble they repeatedly deal
the racist card which scares the $hit out of our government, so they come down on the side of the trouble making muslims.
There are a lot of revenge beatings going on and i agree that alot of these people deserve everything they get, because people are fed up with the things they get away with and feel they have to do something about because of the spineless government that is petrified of being branded "Racist".
I know that you were using the 50cal issue as an example of percieved threat but i have a different angle on the subject which bears no resemblence to the above discussion but shows how our governments hold us in comtempt over firearms issues. The registration of 50cals will not do anything at all to reduce the percieved risk of them being used to shoot down aircraft as much as the handgun ban in the UK will reduce street crime, but the California authorities utter a true statement when they say they "can" be used to shoot down aircraft. Our government said, when challanged about the rise of handgun crime, "the ban was applied to remove an available poole of pistols, from which crimanals may obtain firearms to be used in crime". This is again a true statement but both you and i know it is just a screen to bring in legislation tightening up on firearms ownership.
"I meant to shoot the pike but the duck got in the way"
It will be apparent to all of us that debate here will not change each other’s views on these matters!
The pic made me, and many of my colleagues, laugh. Perhaps I shouldn’t have posted it! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]?
Before I ‘draw stumps’ on this issue, I’d like to make a couple of parting shots at one or 2 issues:
Most of the misunderstandings here find root in the outright failure by dissenters to comprehend the true nature of the threat.
The desire to apply the same rules to a suicide bomber as you would expect to be applied to a ‘brawl outside a chipshop in Brighton’ is simply naïve.
…..It is difficult for those who have never met or dealt with genuinely ‘evil’ people to conceptualise that there are people out there who are completely different to themselves; not slightly different –as in the differences that we’re debating here- but completely different….a different ‘brain wiring diagram'.
…the very first P-check I ever ran as a sprog in NI came back ‘trace INLA’ …remember INLA? That nice bunch who broke away from the ‘soft’ IRA…. that was the first time that I knowingly looked into the eyes of an ‘evil’ man …but, retrospectively, that chap was a boy-scout compared to the threat we now have. An extremely unpleasant example of the culture about which we’re talking: North of Basrah, a local 500 strong tribe kidnapped the 4 year old daughter of a local leader as a money making exercise. The leader asked the security forces for help. The tribe therefore returned the 4 year old girl's spine. ……that is evil that I still cannot comprehend……...I cannot in my heart feel that such people qualify for ‘chipshop rules’.
With the concept of ‘evil’ established -and from that, the understanding that not all people share the values or thought processes of you, your colleagues or acquaintances, let’s move on:
[ QUOTE ]
"Suicide by police" is a term that should only be used if a firearm is raised against a police officer and i hope that it will not become routine to be shot in public if you run away from chasing men shouting "Oi you stop" i believe a police warning was not shouted. - Centre Punch
[/ QUOTE ]
This shows something of a failure to understand the true nature of suicide bombers / bombing:
Even pre-suicide bombers, under UK law there has never been a legal requirement to shout warnings. Warnings are only issued when it is safe and practical to do so. Shouting a warning to a suspected suicide bomber is akin to shouting ‘detonate now’.
Of my recent sojourn to sunny climes, 2 weeks were spent at what –in Anti Iraqi Forces terms- was the highest pay-off target that they could have taken-on in S Iraq over that period; nevertheless, because of the nature of what we were doing we had to let locals in. Tell me how you would spot a suicide bomber?
Does he look nervous? (and is it because he’s about to detonate or because he’s an innocent being eyeballed by a load of blokes with guns)
Does he sweat? (it’s 50 deg C)
Does he smile? (is he smiling to be friendly or because paradise is moments away?).
Does he approach too fast? ….or too slow? etc….
…..surely you’re not also suggesting that on top of all those thought processes, we also have to wait for him to raise a gun ?! …why would he even have one?
Wait, I think I’ve spotted one, I’ll just ask him to open his bag…….boom.
[ QUOTE ]
In that case why was he not apprehended as soon as he came out of the house, instead he was allowed to travel on a bus then an underground train and was on his way to boarding his second train when he was murdered. –Centre Punch
[/ QUOTE ]
……a modicum of operational experience would have lead you to identify that this must have been a surveillance/ intelligence gathering op. Had the int /intel indicated a need for ‘neutralise now’, the target house would have been raided/assaulted immediately. In simple terms, he was being followed to see what he lead to.
I would summise that only when his MO changed to a perceived attack profile was the ‘neutralise’ decision made. I hope I outlined earlier the reason that ‘neutralise’ for a strongly suspected suicide bomber can only mean one thing….and that decision has to be made RIGHT-NOW-OR-YOU’RE-DEAD.
[ QUOTE ]
subjects are expendable citizens are not -ds
[/ QUOTE ]
…and the UN World Army has black attack helicopters etc…. look in your passport –if you haven’t burnt it! – you are a British Citizen !!
[ QUOTE ]
What had the same actions been carried out by joe public, assuming the right to have hand guns. 3 well meaning citizens think someone is a bomber (but get it wrong), so chase him, hold him down and shoot him in the head several times. Do you think they would be on a murder charge or not? I do, with mitigating circumstances it may be manslaughter. People are and should be responbile for their own actions including the police. –ds
[/ QUOTE ]
That’s exactly why a Coroner’s Court will have to determine the cause of death. ‘Unlawful Killing’ is one of several possible verdicts….so is ‘justifiable homicide’. There is nothing enshrined in UK Law or the European Human Rights Legislation that undermines an individuals right to self defence. Even the SAS at the Iranian Embassy siege went through this process……a finding of ’justifiable homicide’ meant that they did not stand trial. A genuine and proportionate self defence (or the defence of the lives of others) by members of the public –or Police (who are, after all, civilians) would fall under the same ruling ….in the case of a suicide bomber that would include the use of lethal force.
…..well, that’s quite enough typing from me! No offence intended so please don’t take any [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]….visualise this as chatting in a pub over a couple of pints…..although I think I may have been guilty of banging a finger on my beer mat a few times during that discourse [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]!
……..you might have guessed I’m having rather a quiet Friday afternoon!