Accidental Killing of the brazillian Lad

cock rocker in a civilised society you cant gun down innocent civilians.

This looks like a straight up execution:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

Thing is this brazialian bloke looked nowt like an asian so are any of us safe from a bullet in the head or 11???

The police fucked up - how can you sit there and defend them.

If he was indeed a suicide bomber he shouldn't of been allowed to board a bus. He could of killed innocent civilians like they did in the last attack.

After alloowing him to travel a bus and realising he hadn't blown up anyone - he should of been confronted before the tube.... Not allowed onto the tube then executed.

People liek you scare the shit out of me.

This was not excusable - an innocent man was killed because of poor policing and you muppets are portecting the police.

I think nobody can argue that the police fucked up, i wanna know WHO polices the police and are they allowed to get away with these mistakes, what if it was on eof your family how would you feel then???

Thanks, I've already read that, and commented on it, if you read further back.....

OF COURSE you can't have innocent people being gunned down in any society.

However, if a suicide bomber is approaching a target, and armed police are around, then the least worst option, as Ian Blair puts it, is to shoot them in the head, to instantly disable them - this has been shown time and again by the Israelie police, amongst others, incidently.

Therefore, this is the correct policy to have in place for dealing with the threat of suicide bombers - there is nothing knee-jerk about it.

The failure of intelligence that identified this man as a suicide bomber is inexcusable, and needs to be investigated.

The armed individuals on the ground, who were assured by the intelligence and armed command specialists that shooting him was necessary, followed the orders they must assume are well informed, and as such are not to blame for this fiasco. They cannot decline these orders as they may well not know all the information available, which I'm sure they were only too aware of. It's why a chain of command exists.

I agree with this BUT this guy was not a suicide bomber, nor did he act like one, nor did the police follow protocol so they shoul dbe punished like in any profession such a massive mistake would be punished

:bang:

I've had more interesting arguments with a cucumber.

Read your points above, and tell me at what point the armed police on scene are responsible.

Clearly, he should have been stopped earlier, but apparently the police did not have the ability to do it, in terms of manpower.

The responsibility for this lies higher up the chain of command, and needs to be investigated, as I've now said 3 times I think, though you seem insistent on wishing to prosecute the individual - the benefit of this, I'm not clear about.

I've never said one person should be held accountable (although ian blair should be responsoible for his lying devious ways)... But if you're holding a weapon you should use it responisbly.

Not fire 11 shots and miss with 3.

Not gunning down a civilian you know has traveled a bus.
Not gunning down a civilian you can see has no obvious signs of a bomb.
Not gunning down a civilian that hasnt been confronted.

The police force should eb held accountable.

You've pinned a man down on the floor - he is unable to move.

Do you look for a bomb, do you ask his name, do you tell everyone to get out of the carriage or do you shoot him 11 times?

The shoot to kill policy works in israel... but we dont live in israel and terrorist attacks are few and far between, we can't use foreign policies that aren't suited to our climate.

errrrm.....

Cant argue with that, If that is the case the men responsible NEED to be investigated

They do need to be investigated, they will be investigated I'm sure - but the responsibilty has to lie with the firearms and intelligence officers who ordered the shooting from the radios.

My point is that the individuals might not know details of the whle situation, and therefore HAVE to do as they're told by their seniors.

if your going to quote me, quote me in full.

A trigger happy copper operating under knee jerk policies.... It was a volatile environment post-21-7, police officers were scared as was the intelligence... Instead of acting rationally armed police fired 11 shots at an unconfronted civilian.... This was bad policing on everyones part.

A foreign policy that has now been proven to not suit the UK climate.

had they confronted the man at the station this wouldn't of happened, had they confronted the man at the house this wouldn't of happened, had they confronted the man on the bus this wouldn't of happened, had they confronted the man on the train this wouldn't of happened.

There were multiple oppertunities to stop this suicide bomber without using force.

Would you care to suggest a better one for dealing with suspected suicide bombers? The frequency of bombings doesn't matter, they still have to be dealt with in the same way. And this is the best way.

Ian Blair begged for an internal inquiry.

Had he had his way there would of been no real investigation and more ocvering up... you're a deluded boy.

Individuals are also influenced by previous events... I know if I was instructed to shoot to kill I'd find out as much background information as possible... had the subject been confronted, was he carrying any suspicious objects, what he dressed in a manner that could conceal suspicious objects, did he look muslim, had he acted suspicously... all logical questions you'd ask before taking someone life. All could of been met with 5 second answers.

no
no
no
no
no

ok if a suspect bomber is leaving a house and you watch him wait for a bus - you confront him here... before he has boarded his potential target.

You dont shoot him, you take him aside - at best he's going to take out one policeman.

You dont wait for him to board the fucking train!!!!

Had he been a suicide bomber there would of been a shit load of civilians.

"He's Here"

BOOOM

This was handled in an amateur way and is proof that shoot to kill policies dont work in the UK, we dont have armed police at every station and never will, we dont have a steady stream of suicide bombers attacking stations....

Why do we need shoot to kill policies?

Except the policies weren't 'knee jerk' because they were introduced several years ago in investigations in the wake of the WTC attacks.

'Proven'? After one attempt? The only thing that has been proven is that the man was misidentified. When you have no knowledge of dealing with a threat, you have to base your policies on those of others with expertise in these settings.

No there weren't.

To safely stop a suspected suicide bomber without force you need:

a) Several armed policeman, to fire if they don't obey your commands.
b) Plenty of space around, clear from civilians, so if they do detonate the bomb, the risk of casualties is reduced.

And they had neither. One unarmed man can't just go up to him and strap some cuffs on - or that would be the policy used by countries with more experience of this.

Purely so the soldiers involved don't end up being tried for doing their jobs.

"'When I was policing minister, I had the then Police Complaints Authority carry out an assessment of 20 police shootings in which I think the vast majority were of innocent or harmless people, none of which was under the current guidance,' he said." - Bill Morris.

Suicide bombings are a real and current threat, however we have neither the means or intelligence to carry out shoot-to-kill policies in the UK.

Unlike Israel we're not locked in war with a neighbour that reguarly launches suicide attacks, nor do we have the military presence of Israel... We simply dont have enough armed officers to effectivly enforce this procedure.

Had this bomber been a real threat he could of blown himself up in 3 highly populated areas a: the bus, b: the station, c: the train... If he were a real threat he shouldn't of been allowed access to any of these places - he should of been confronted before reaching them.

At best he would of taken out one unarmed police man - instead of taking out an entire train.

If we had more armed officers (those watching him for example) he could of been tackled as he left the house.

The policy doesn't suit our climate.

The executioners didn't make any commands they just shot him.... they are partly accountable.

Which is why he should of been tackled leaving the house, we dont have a strong enough armed presence to operate this policy... it has been proven to fail... had he been a bomber he had numerous opertunities to kill mass numbers, as it were he was a civilian... more proof the policy doesnt work.

The SAS would not have missed with 30% of shots fired