View Full Version : Man shot by armed police at Stockwell tube station- mosque surrounded
An Asian man's been shot trying to board a train at Stockwell station. 3 or 4 armed Police caught the man as he stumbled onto the train, pushed him to the ground and shot him dead.
Apparently he was wearing a large jacket and a baseball cap, very scared looking, well-built Asian.
Also, Police have surrounded a Mosque in Whitechapel Road, East London. They've told residents to stay indoors.
:| oh dear this could turn out rather nasty
An eyewitness on the tube said the cops pushed the man to the ground before nailing him 5 times with a handgun. The police were plain clothes officers too so they were probably expecting somthing to go down.
theuncharmed
22-07-2005, 13:21
sounds bad - if they shot him once they already detained him then they definetly would of thought something real bad was going down :(
Apparently when shot he had jumped the ticket barriers and was running for the train, while wearing a heavy jacket. Potential suicide bomber or just a new campaign against fare dodging by London Underground?
There isn't much you can do with probable suicide bombers except shoot them unless they're cooperative and keep their hands in the open - giving them a warning, etc. just gives them the chance to detonate their explosives. After all, it isn't like threatening to kill them is going to scare them is it?
Probably just late for the train :rolleyes:
Apparently when shot he had jumped the ticket barriers and was running for the train, while wearing a heavy jacket. Potential suicide bomber or just a new campaign against fare dodging by London Underground?
There isn't much you can do with probable suicide bombers except shoot them unless they're cooperative and keep their hands in the open - giving them a warning, etc. just gives them the chance to detonate their explosives. After all, it isn't like threatening to kill them is going to scare them is it?
I've just read you have to go for the head shot, else you might detinate the explosive.
Scary times
kessellrun
22-07-2005, 18:16
Breaking News:
Apparently the person shot is not connected to the four wanted for questioning about the bombs yesterday. Their CCTV images have just been released as well.
This is just what the mad mullahs want.... inncocent people being shot.
Don't get me wrong - I beleive the bigger picture says take one person out rather than 56 - and let's be fair - if someone waving a gun at you tells to to stop, you'd better goddam stop!
Breaking News:
Apparently the person shot is not connected to the four wanted for questioning about the bombs yesterday. Their CCTV images have just been released as well.
This is just what the mad mullahs want.... inncocent people being shot.
Don't get me wrong - I beleive the bigger picture says take one person out rather than 56 - and let's be fair - if someone waving a gun at you tells to to stop, you'd better goddam stop!
We don't know he's not innocent do we? Just because he was not connected with yesterday does not mean its not another attacker?
Oblivion
22-07-2005, 21:56
Apparently he was shot five times at close range because the rounds the special services use would have been of low capacity in order not to injure surrounding innocent people, so therefore to kill him and make sure he is dead they probably did it at point blank range and a few times for good measure. The fact he was lying on the ground and they "bundled" on top of him probably meant that it would have been very close range anyway.
But when confronted with a presumed suicide bomber running towards a crowded train then what else can you do to stop him :confused:
In the US cops shoot people all the time and for far less... just think about that, cause in this country we are just not used to it, go to US and its common for police to have shot someone or even the other way round.
theuncharmed
22-07-2005, 22:36
Apparently he was shot five times at close range because the rounds the special services use would have been of low capacity in order not to injure surrounding innocent people, so therefore to kill him and make sure he is dead they probably did it at point blank range and a few times for good measure. The fact he was lying on the ground and they "bundled" on top of him probably meant that it would have been very close range anyway.
But when confronted with a presumed suicide bomber running towards a crowded train then what else can you do to stop him :confused:
In the US cops shoot people all the time and for far less... just think about that, cause in this country we are just not used to it, go to US and its common for police to have shot someone or even the other way round.
My dad went to America and was pulled over - silly idiot went all british and pulled onto the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic he slammed on the brakes and stopped, police got out and shot his rear window in and put a shotgun in his face ???
back to topic, they are now saying it was probably special forces that did the killing, police arent trained to detain and shoot like that, not even SO19 or special branch do that - www.bbc.co.uk
back to topic, they are now saying it was probably special forces that did the killing, police arent trained to detain and shoot like that, not even SO19 or special branch do that - www.bbc.co.uk
SO-11 are trained to do this sort of thing [dealing with suicide bombers], or so I've heard.
theuncharmed
23-07-2005, 00:07
The dead guy was apparntly running from a house nearby and officers went after him - presumably before a raid so whoever gave chase would of been apart of the planned raid. i do know that the police will not call on the SAS or the SBS until they have tried their own tactics. Special forces are usually a means to an end rather than a process for negotiation. (friend is in the SBS).
I hope we can get some real answers over the next few days - does amaze me how they've pieced together so much info over a few weeks.
F A B Scott
23-07-2005, 15:33
You probably all know now but the fare-dodger who was shot 5 times came from a house they had under surveilance [due to intelligence] after the last 4 dummy bombers disappeared.....so they had followed him first and when he went to go in the tube station they tried to pull him but he legged it.
He must have known they had guns ...everyone else did...so technically speaking, he caused his own suicide.
As I always say: oh dear; what a pity; never mind. :rolleyes:
matkubicki
23-07-2005, 20:28
The MET have now said that shooting him was a mistake and that he was not at all related to the bombings. So great news for the British justice system there.
Apprently the MET have been asking the Israeli police for advice on dealing with suicide bombers (god knows why as they've hardly been successful!). So i guess this is the result of their fantastic advice, kill first ask later. Dead people always make the best police informers i imagine.
Makes me sick :mad:
dead people never commit any other crime and do not cause a burden on the court or prison system....
matkubicki
23-07-2005, 20:50
dead people never commit any other crime and do not cause a burden on the court or prison system....
lol, lets kill us all then hey, no more crime and never another person to educate, treat in hospital or anything, perfect system
forgive me however if i can see i few flaws in your proposed plan to remove people who have commited no crime in order to stop crime, I'm almost embarrassed for you
well, running from police is not the act of an innocent person.
if there was the chance of instant justice for serious crimes such as armed robbery, rape, terrorism etc then wouldn't the deterrent be strong enough to reduce the instances of such crimes?
certainly if a copper told me to 'stop or he would shoot' then i would be like a friggin' statue. I was the last time the arv stopped me when i was carrying my guns in the boot of the car and they saw them.... and i was very obedient the last time a member of public called them about an 'armed man in camoflage gear in a field at the side of the road carrying a rifle'.
i really don't like the idea of getting rapid lead poisioning so i tend to listen to the coppers instructions very carefully.
matkubicki
23-07-2005, 21:36
A genuine lol about your experience with armed police :)
Well i can see i'm not going to win here, i'm just of the belief that every person is intitled to a trial and sentencing and i would rather stay away from the US style system. Where armed robbey is quite likely to result in you being shot (either by the police or some other twonk with a gun) and it doesnt seem to have been much of a deterrent. Killing someone leaves no room for errors (such as this one) and no room for questions, corrections etc. Various people have been found innocent after being executed in the US, i dont believe its the right way to do things even after a trial, let alone before.
master baits
23-07-2005, 21:53
Its actually quite easy to get off with a crime like murder , well to be pedantic "to be found innocent" at a retrial years later.Evidence is not held forever , neither is a witness credible after a prolonged period of time....and less so if they are dead.
There has been more guilty that have got off in this country than innocent found guilty in the last 30 years of murder.
But back to the discussion in hand , I always knew that there would be kill shots fired regarding this , ffs do you think a suicide bomber listens to "lay on the ground or we will open fire" ....they are INTENT ON DYING AFTER ALL.
WORRYINGLY THOUGH ...This country IS heading for an armed police force , its becoming america and more so every day.LIKE AMERICA Its afraid of its hidden armies within its own borders.....and above all theres a very peeved undercurrent within the minorites that will flare up in race hate.....and fuelled in both directions adding to its ranks decent people that could be our neighbours , friends and family as has been proven recently.
If our current govt decides on the arming of police in this country (totally) then this is the catalyst it needs , and support from the tories will I assure you follow.IF the police have a right then to weapons then the rise of illegal guns in this country , and the use therof , will skyrocket.Then the decent folk in society will need them as the norm.
theuncharmed
23-07-2005, 23:41
The MET have now said that shooting him was a mistake and that he was not at all related to the bombings. So great news for the British justice system there.
Apprently the MET have been asking the Israeli police for advice on dealing with suicide bombers (god knows why as they've hardly been successful!). So i guess this is the result of their fantastic advice, kill first ask later. Dead people always make the best police informers i imagine.
Makes me sick
What were they meant to do - the guy was running from the scene of one of their raids and he was asked to stop twice. and it wasn't like it was only one officer - there were 5 plain clothes officers and almost 20 uniformed...whats with that.
Apprently the MET have been asking the Israeli police for advice on dealing with suicide bombers (god knows why as they've hardly been successful!). So i guess this is the result of their fantastic advice, kill first ask later. Dead people always make the best police informers i imagine.
How exactly would you suggest stopping someone you believe to be a suicide bomber? If they aren't willing to cooperate (i.e. stand very still with their hands in the open so you can try and disarm whatever bomb they may be carrying) the only way to stop them is to kill them in such a way that their body is instantly paralysed. The only way to do that with a firearm is a large number of bullets in the brain.
Do you think the policeman wanted to shoot someone? He's probably at home right now in a pretty terrible state, and has to live for the rest of his life in the knowledge that he killed an innocent man. It's a horrible situation to be in :(
Do you think the policeman wanted to shoot someone? He's probably at home right now in a pretty terrible state, and has to live for the rest of his life in the knowledge that he killed an innocent man. It's a horrible situation to be in :(
I'm with ya there. What else were they meant to do...
if he actually had been a suicide bomber they'd all be heroes now.
I really really hope these guys dont get desciplined or sacked..
If i was an armed police man right now, and i tried to stop and search someone, and they decided to run and jump over the fence and run for a train. (knowing what has just happened) i would shoot him, becouse you never know if they have a bomb or they dont. you cant take the chance.
If i was an armed cop i would have done exactly the same thing.
In the level of alert on the tube system you have got to be bloody stupid to disobey armed police when asked to stop, then jump the ticket barriers then try and make it onto an train.
Just asking for it imo.
Lets hope the cop does not get tried for murder, knowing our current legal system, and whats happening with some of our soldiers, he more than likely will.
Exactly.. There is running from the police, and then there is running from the police, into a tube station and onto a packed train.. What an idiot
If these guys do get arrested or whatever, the next time it happens even hesitation on the part of the police for fear of prosecution could lead to disaster
DarkEntity
24-07-2005, 12:33
I've just read you have to go for the head shot, else you might detinate the explosive.
Scary times
from what i remember explosives dont go off if shot, they require and electric charge....the only one i think might would be ones which have a reaction to the heat or something on the bullet.
i gotta say though at the minute, if it had been me id have shot to kill also...one thing my dad was always told when he was in swat training in the forces was ignore people telling u shoot to injour, u shoot to kill that way he/she cant shoot back.
also if a police man/men with HK MP5/Browning Highpowers said "HALT", "STOP", "STOP OR I SHOOT" i know for sure i aint running and making like a crook, im a fecking statue firmly bolted to ground with arms and legs a kimbo!
I feel soory for the guys familly, I just saw them on the telly. But ffs, what was the guy thinking!
The eye witness video that was on the BBC web site said he had a puffy type fleese on - looked odd with the weather. And he was "dark skinned"
Then he runs from the police. Onto a tube.
So, if we look at this logically we have a dark skinned gentleman, with an odd puffy jacket, running from the police, onto a tube where we've had two bombs go off and two detinated......I'd have shot him also.
I think the police should issue a statement saying that in the current climate, if you're told to stop, stop or be prepared for the worse.
We cant afford to nanny around at the moment.
Why the guy ran away is open to speculation and is pretty academic now. There will be several heads at the Met rolling over this because the British public are very anti-gun and it would set a worrying precedent if the authorities just went "Meh". Whether or not sackings are justified, we'll (hopefully) know more after the inquiry.
As for blame, I blame the terrorists setting bombs off on our transport system. If it wasn't for them, there'd be none of this. They must be really proud of themselves. :mad:
Why the guy ran away is open to speculation and is pretty academic now. There will be several heads at the Met rolling over this because the British public are very anti-gun and it would set a worrying precedent if the authorities just went "Meh". Whether or not sackings are justified, we'll (hopefully) know more after the inquiry.
In an ideal world there shouldn't be any heads rolling over this. Everybody in here is agreed it was the only thing to do in the circumstances.
As for blame, I blame the terrorists setting bombs off on our transport system. If it wasn't for them, there'd be none of this. They must be really proud of themselves. :mad:
They probably are, yes. It is the entire point of their campaign to cause confusion, disruption etc.
F A B Scott
24-07-2005, 17:08
BTW,the unfortunate person who was shot was technically a criminal as he resisted arrest, which is against the law. Admittedly, it could be classed as slightly drastic to shoot him dead but if one goes around impersonating suicide bombers one should expect the same treatment that real [or dummy] bombers will get. ;)
BTW,the unfortunate person who was shot was technically a criminal as he resisted arrest, which is against the law. Admittedly, it could be classed as slightly drastic to shoot him dead but if one goes around impersonating suicide bombers one should expect the same treatment that real [or dummy] bombers will get. ;)
Yep. Did you know if you sell pain killers as if they were "E" you'd get the same treatment as a drug dealer.....well you did when I was younger, that might have changed now.
F A B Scott
24-07-2005, 17:44
Right, I remember years ago at Reading festival a couple of tossers were selling tiny slices of macaroni as LSD. When the dealers were captured the police thought they had hit the jackpot with millions of £ worth of acid. Needless to say the culprits still received hefty sentences.
The moral of the story being; if you cant do the time don't do the crime. [or; don't run away from the old bill at a tube station] ;)
shifty.ricky
24-07-2005, 18:59
The MET have now said that shooting him was a mistake and that he was not at all related to the bombings. So great news for the British justice system there.
Apprently the MET have been asking the Israeli police for advice on dealing with suicide bombers (god knows why as they've hardly been successful!). So i guess this is the result of their fantastic advice, kill first ask later. Dead people always make the best police informers i imagine.
Makes me sick :mad:
A suicide bomber is not scared of dying. So they are very hard to stop. The ONLY way is to drop the w***** on his ass.
The police were right to shoot the person, end of.
The police are ruled by much the same rules as any member of the armed forces. We are given cards which state that you may use armed force if you believe there is a risk of death or serious injury to you or another person.
Therefore if they believed that he was a threat to the people in that station then they are legally allowed to shoot.
In any case its better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
A genuine lol about your experience with armed police :)
Well i can see i'm not going to win here, i'm just of the belief that every person is intitled to a trial and sentencing and i would rather stay away from the US style system. Where armed robbey is quite likely to result in you being shot (either by the police or some other twonk with a gun) and it doesnt seem to have been much of a deterrent. Killing someone leaves no room for errors (such as this one) and no room for questions, corrections etc. Various people have been found innocent after being executed in the US, i dont believe its the right way to do things even after a trial, let alone before.
This has nothing with a US style system. The capital is on high alert so these are special circumstances. Shooting a suspected suicide bomber has nothing to do with arming the rest of the civvy police. Just becuase they shot a 'terrorist' doesnt mean that the local CSO is going to be sporting an AK by next thursday.
F A B Scott
24-07-2005, 19:13
A suicide bomber is not scared of dying. So they are very hard to stop. The ONLY way is to drop the w***** on his ass.
The police were right to shoot the person, end of.......... Just becuase they shot a 'terrorist' doesnt mean that the local CSO is going to be sporting an AK by next thursday.lol shifty.ricky,
the latest byword is "shoot to kill to protect".
Too right, I say. ;)
from what i remember explosives dont go off if shot, they require and electric charge....the only one i think might would be ones which have a reaction to the heat or something on the bullet.
It all depends on what the explosive used is. Some are so inert you can set fire to them and use them to cook your dinner with no ill effects, others will explode if you give them a funny look. I've seen video of one particular explosive compound (may have been mercury based) exploding after someone dropped a sheet of paper on it - the pressure of the impact was enough to set it off. Depending on the explosive used, shooting it may be enough.
In any case, that isn't the reason - shooting someone in the head is the only way to instantly incapacitate them as if shot in the body they may have a second or two to press the switch.
I just heard on the radio that if the office who capped the guy did anything wrong, he will be prosecuted. I really hope he is okay and that he was told by someone higher up to "shoot to kill".
They also said that the phrase "shoot to kill" is from training in northern ireland, where the army had a course called "shoot to kill" which just tought them to be a more acurate shot. It was not meant to teach them to kill....interesting.
F A B Scott
24-07-2005, 20:17
Also heard that they are taught to shoot 5 times with these low velocity guns to make sure the subject is dead. :cool:
A clever theory i heard was that he was shot by each of the armed men so to share any (possible) blame if the stupid system ended up getting them prosecuted
...even cleverer would be if three of the four had only got blanks in their gun, so you would have to proove which one fired the actual bullet that killed him.
Of course, it's more likely it's a case of keep emptying bullets in to the bloke until he stops twitching so that there's no way he can use his last milliseconds to press any red buttons thast may be strapped to his person.
F A B Scott
25-07-2005, 15:44
ITV did a poll on who agreed with the shoot to kill policy and it resulted in 87% in favour. Wonder who the other 13% are? :rolleyes:
shifty.ricky
25-07-2005, 23:35
By the time you read the this sentance you'd have had to made the decision of whether to fire.
Now who thinks they made a "bad" decision considering it was 1 life versus 10.
DarkEntity
25-07-2005, 23:40
Id have shot him, its one of those split second things, rational transaction, 1 life for possibly another 26 deaths...
just unfortunate he looked too like a terrorist even though he wasnt
Doesn't change the fact that he was wearing a heavy jacket and legged it when challenged. If I heard the words "Armed police, halt!" I'd be making like a statue with my arms held above my head.
Cheers,
Stephen
Oblivion
26-07-2005, 01:32
If police hadn't of shot him and he'd turned out to be a suicide bomber and blown himself up killing 50 or so people then we would still be having a go at the police, its a no win situation really.
master baits
26-07-2005, 02:28
I dont see the need to apologise to the family of the guy or some brazilian politician theat really didnt look too happy on camera , one though thing I have heard in court before is "the architect of their own demise".....Theres NEVER a conviction for these things unless theres a scapegoat needed.Lets just hope he was here LEGALLY or that could open another barrel alltogether.
The simple matter of the guy running away from ARMED police when challenged has created the guys own death , it will be ruled death by misadventure.
As long as he's shown on camera running , and that the public supports the facts that they have been told being true , then its a lawfull killing....but then again so was bloody sunday.
Mooseman4k
27-07-2005, 20:33
How Brazil has the cheek to insult the British police when they have paramilitaries roaming the streets at night killing homeless street children is beyond me. Still, anything to jump on a bandwagon eh? :(
SnowmanUK
29-07-2005, 11:26
They say his VISA expired 2 years ago.
Its unfortunate, but I have to say that SURELY he had some idea of what happened on the 7th, running away from armed police, into a tube station was a VERY VERY dumb idea but he was no doubt scared out of his wits.
I think the police were right to shoot him, after challenging him a number of times. They just couldnt risk it to be honest.
brumster
29-07-2005, 11:40
That sums it up for me, too. It's a really unfortunate turn of events, don't get me wrong, and I feel for his family.
But if you have one iota of common sense, you do not run away from armed undercover police, into a tube station, with a backpack and a big coat on, hurdle the gates and attempt to get on a train. Particularly two weeks after some men with backpacks went onto various tube lines and detonated devices killing tens of people. I mean, come on, it's not the sensible thing is it?
Now of course I'm assuming that the police forewarned him at least twice before taking action, something along the lines of "Armed police, stop or we will shoot". If not, then that's wrong and the police should be pinned up a wall for it. But on the basis they did, I have full support for them.
agreed^^
If someone says "stop or we'll kill you"..... you STOP!
He could understand English...
SnowmanUK
29-07-2005, 14:08
I'd say if some random TERRORIST or dodgy geezer said "stop, or we'll shoot", and the situation was right, I'd cheese it. Now if its the police, thats a different story. As long as they identified themselves, then they did the right thing (as said above).
PJ Matthews
30-07-2005, 18:15
How is family could go "he had no reason to run, he was entirely innocent" is beyond me. If you run from an armed policeman who identifies himself as so what the **** do you expect? For them to wave you on your way?
If however you think you've been sussed that the stamp in your passport giving you permanent UK residence is false then you may well believe you have a reason to run, cost him his life.
Illegal immigrants here, illegal immigrants there. It all seems to revolve around them now days doesn't it?
PJ Matthews
30-07-2005, 18:18
Now of course I'm assuming that the police forewarned him at least twice before taking action, something along the lines of "Armed police, stop or we will shoot". If not, then that's wrong and the police should be pinned up a wall for it. But on the basis they did, I have full support for them.
Its the same for our armed forces. All you have to do is shout "stop or I'll shoot" twice, you don't have to identify yourself as Police or Armed Forces (although the camo and being stood at a check point is often a give away). There is the possibility they didn't indentify themselves at all, it leads to alotta **** if you get it wrong but if you don't theres no problem. I just hope they did shout the warning or the officer responsible WILL be imprisoned.
I'm not 100% sure they did challenge him, since they may have been concerned if challenged that he might have detonated the bomb he was carrying. However, he must have known the police were there and chasing him, so I presume he must have been challenged on that basis.
Either way, given the events of the last few weeks, he was mad to run and try to get onto an underground train.
Cheers,
Stephen
F A B Scott
30-07-2005, 20:15
...Either way, given the events of the last few weeks, he was mad to run and try to get onto an underground train.It's irrelevant whether they vocally challenged him or not. As he was not allowing himself to be arrested in any way, he was technically resisting arrest and hence breaking the law. Of course you shouln't be shot dead for being stupid, but if you're stupid enough to do as the deceased did, what should you expect? As the above quote points out....that was the most stupid action to take whoever is chasing you.
Tragic, but I can't help feeling he brought it upon himself.
PJ Matthews
30-07-2005, 21:17
It's irrelevant whether they vocally challenged him or not.
Thats rubbish, of course it is. If he is not vocally challenged or told to stop (i.e stop or I'll shoot) then he may not be shot due to human rights issues. If he plants a bomb which explodes and survives he may also not be shot as he is no longer a threat (the bomb has exploded). These are the sort of restraints our Police and Armed Forces work under.
F A B Scott
30-07-2005, 22:37
Maybe you could say that it was wrong to shoot but until they find a better way or even any other way, they have no choice.
And if they see a suspected suicide bomber about to set off his bombs they've got my and 9O% of the country's backing. It might go down to about 8O% if it is revealed no verbal warning was given; but I doubt it. Especially amongst the people who actually use the tube.
Resisting arrest is a crime or it was last time I checked.
Obviously they can't shoot him if he's surrendered or the bombs already gone off but that appears to be a non-issue in this case.
PJ Matthews
31-07-2005, 09:46
Resisting arrest is a crime or it was last time I checked.
But thats just the thing, if he wasn't challenged or ordered to stop then he wasn't resisting arrest if you see what I mean. Its a very complicated investigation from there on in.
F A B Scott
31-07-2005, 15:00
I asked a lawyer associate about the law on this and he told me; The criminal law act,1967, provides that "a person" may use such force as is reasonable in the cicumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders.[or suspected offenders] He also pointed out that this gives no clear guidance on what we are allowed to do, especially on what offences are so serious that extreme force is justified to prevent them.
There aren't many offences more serious than blowing up a train full of people, which is presumably what the police thought the Brazillian guy was about to do. And hence they performed a completely justifiable act, going by the information released so far.
PJ Matthews
31-07-2005, 15:43
I'm going on whats been proven in court over the last 10 years. Further to this ANY trial will centre around the guidelines which the Police Officers are given and how they followed them or didn't.
PJ Matthews
31-07-2005, 15:46
I asked a lawyer associate about the law on this and he told me
Its amazing what google can bring up.
F A B Scott
31-07-2005, 20:08
Its amazing what google can bring up.
Yeah I did try to check what he said, on google.....nothing amazing to me about that. :eek:
And books were around long before google was ever thought of and I have plenty of them.
shifty.ricky
03-08-2005, 13:59
Thats rubbish, of course it is. If he is not vocally challenged or told to stop (i.e stop or I'll shoot) then he may not be shot due to human rights issues. If he plants a bomb which explodes and survives he may also not be shot as he is no longer a threat (the bomb has exploded). These are the sort of restraints our Police and Armed Forces work under.
You dont have to give a warning if
a) You or others in your area are under attack
or
b) to give a warning may increase the risk of death / serious injury to those other than the attackers.
That comes almost word for word from the card alpha which is the guidance for the armed forces to use firearms. I suspect the police are guided by much the same sort of principles as these are peace time guides not war-time guidlines (to a degree). So it looks like they may have shot him without a warning, second point is true though about the bomb having already gone off, you cant shoot them.
guy ran from armed police. guy wins darwin award. end of story.
PJ Matthews
03-08-2005, 14:18
But my point is that depsite guidelines that are issued they can still be brought forward for prosectution as has happened in the past.
F A B Scott
03-08-2005, 15:24
But my point is that depsite guidelines that are issued they can still be brought forward for prosectution as has happened in the past.I'm not disputing this but out of interest can you give an example of this happening "in the past"?
PJ Matthews
03-08-2005, 16:22
The most famous and recent cases would be involving an army garrison guard post in North Ireland. A car failed to stop when challenged, the guard issued two stop or I'll shoot statements and proceeded to shoot killing one (or two - can't remember) occupants in the car. He was later prosecuted by the courts and sentenced but the decision was later over turned.
This has also happened with the Police but the Army incident is the most recent I can think of (he was only cleared a few years ago).
Two bobbies in the met are still suspended following shooting a guy who pointed a chair leg at them wrapped in a bin bag. They believed it to be a shotgun, told him to put it down and he pointed it straight at them. they blew his sorry ass to ****, and rather than being congratulated for their heroism they're suspended and looking at charges.
It does happen, constantly. It's about time somebody high up in the governement introduced some common sense to these peoceedings tbh.
Anyone who wants more of an insight should read either The Glory Boys or The Good Guys Wear Black by Steven Collins. The author was a team leader in SO19, the Met's firearms unit and he talks about cases where colleagues were suspended over shooting criminals.
Cheers,
Stephen
PJ Matthews
03-08-2005, 19:12
Thanks for that Stephen - on mah way to Amazon.
Mooseman4k
08-08-2005, 20:51
Take it with a pinch of salt. He's the Chris Ryan of SO19.
PJ Matthews
08-08-2005, 21:15
Thats good to know.
pumbertot
09-08-2005, 01:18
my opinion is good for the police.the message needs to be sent that you can NOT f*** with the police and get away with it. make the bomb makers(not bombers as they happily blow themselves up)realise that if challenged running away=game over.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.