'unfortunate'
Jul. 23rd, 2005 05:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrph"A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stmA Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police."
From the initial news report on the shooting, the eyewitness description:
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
Combine the two and you've got a very unfortunate PR incident for the police. And a tragedy for the poor bastard they shot and his family, of course.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-24 06:57 pm (UTC)A better comparison might be, say, shooting down seven passenger planes, on the basis that they weren't sure which ones were hijacked, but knew they were out there and had a rough idea where. Still damage limitation, but a little more questionable?
There will be an inquiry, anyway. And that'll look at the facts - all either of us has right now is speculation and contradictory reports from eyewitnesses. The only things that aren't, IMO, arguable is that there's a dead guy who had nothing to do with the terrorists and that this situation is not good for the police, whether or not they acted correctly.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-24 10:01 pm (UTC)I think is more more like knowing that hijackers are out there, and then shooting down a plane that seemed to be acting if it was being hijacked, such as not responding to requests to change course or land.
The only things that aren't, IMO, arguable is that there's a dead guy who had nothing to do with the terrorists and that this situation is not good for the police, whether or not they acted correctly.
It's bad for all of us. The suicidal nature of terrorists changes everything.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 06:42 am (UTC)Thats exactly what the parents and loved ones of the 4 guys who blew themselves up said.
Truth is, we dont know WHO they are, because they look like you and me and every other person on the street. Cute and fluffy hamsters have teeth...
The police have to ensure that they do everything in their power that they protect the majority fromt he minority and occasionally they get it wrong, but we are at 'war'[1] here against a minority group who dont care who they blow up, women, children, policemen, firefighters, lawyers, doctors...etc etc - which is something we see on a daily basis in places like Iraq, and recently (though not daily)in Egypt, in London, Madrid, and New York.
What I mean by shooting down planes is yes, you will have a loss of life (whether 4 or 7 planes - a few hundred people's deaths in comparison to the thousands that did die in the end. what a shame for the peopel on board, but it's damage control - whole parts of cities could be wiped out.
Besides, we've been very lucky with the bombs being plain explosives, but who is to say when that will change and they will use more deadly bombs?
And I agree about the facts...I wasn't speculating, except to why he might have run, some of which appears to have been dispelled by comments from his family on this morning's news.
It was unfortunate but he did run - his family say he had a good standard of english and would have understood what would have been said...according to another family member on BBC news this morning.
His family now want to sue.
I just think the whole thing stinks. Yes, it was a sad mistake, but the sad reality is that there are many people out there who dont mind blowing up ordinary people (people who very probably marched on the streets a few years ago about the very war that these terrorists are claiming is the cause.) and the police have to do what they do.
Perhaps the victims and the victims families should sue middle eastern countries for not keeping an eye on their radical preachers who have been churning out brainwashed fanatics...
Shit happens occasionally, people cock up and innocent people die, but to sue the police because they shot dead a man they thought was acting suspiciously the day after another attempt was made to kill and main hundreds on the public transport, I think it sucks.
The police were only doing their job and if they hadn't done their job and the guy turned out to be a bomber and had blown that train up, then the police would be getting a bollocking for not doing what they did.
Trouble is that these bad guys dont play buy the rules, forcing the police to play by a different set of rules.
Headshots count because there is a danger to other people if the person is carrying explosives. To incapacitate the guy, the headshot is the only way unfortunately and unfortunately it also means that there is no turning back if the guy they are chasing wont stop and they are forced to shoot to stop him - especially if they think he is a threat.
The only things that aren't, IMO, arguable is that there's a dead guy who had nothing to do with the terrorists and that this situation is not good for the police, whether or not they acted correctly.
Exactly my point - how do you fight a group who aren't afraid to die...which leads to a couple of people getting shot at close range in the head because they may be carrying a bomb on their chest.
1] I hate using that word, but I suppose it isn't that far from the truth
no subject
Date: 2005-08-17 12:16 pm (UTC)Just a quick point, not sure if this is true in the light of our media printing total rubbish. Back he didn't go down the escalator, he rode down to the platform in a lift along with one of the SO16 officers. Surely if you think he is a bomber, you would of
a) stopped him getting on the bus
b) shot him in the lift before he got on the train where he might have blown people up.
or am I just missing something?