Man shot dead in Stockwell unconnected to terror inquiry

[QueenOfQuotes]

Just seen a ticker on the BBC website saying that

Marthamoo's post of 7.40pm yesterday says it all for me.

I think it's very, very sad and tragic that this innocent man has died in horrible circumstances.

I also don't see that the officer who shot him had any other option.

I'm also amazed really at how many of you would run from someone with saying 'Stop Police' and pointing a gun at you. Very bizarre. I'm pretty sure my reaction as an entirely innocent person would be to stand still and do exactly as I was asked. If they really are police then I'm doing entirely the right thing and am very unlikely to get shot, if they aren't police then they are probably going to shoot me whatever I decide to do.

I agree - you can't account for eveyone's reactions.

This man has turned out to be innocent and there is no arguing that I know, most police officers I know will tell you though that innocent people very, very rarely run.

According to the piece in the Times I linked to last night here - which was somewhat out of date then, let alone now -

However it also says that he was an "intimate accomplice of the cell". I don't know how far that invalidates the rest of the report - him choosing to run after hearing "stop - armed police" - but in a confused situation with lots of people shouting maybe he couldn't make out what they said.

He was from a farm.

Still want to know what they thought they knew about him. This is a strange thing for the police to do without any supporting evidence or intelligence, surely people can see this?

The supporting intelligence was the address, wasn't it? They wouldn't necessarily have names and faces to go with it.

JanH, we don't know what else they knew or thought they knew. That's the point I was trying to make until I was blue in the face last night!

see this: \llink{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711639.stm\BBC} for an explanation of him running from armed men. The Brazilian police can be trigger happy - they shoot street kids.

Running away would be a normal physiological response - adrenalin triggers 'flight or fight'.

oops try again bbc

Edam, he's lived here three years and unless he was very bad at keeping up with the news, he knew of the situation in London.

He had been living here legally for 3 years and had a good command of the English language according to his parents.

Somthing just does not add up.

Sorry, meant to add three years is more than enough time to realise that the Met do not act like that.

hunkermunker, I can see it!

And yes I can see how awful it is for that chaps family, but what if ther'd been right and it had gone off?

And you do have to ask why he was running? If I saw an armed policeman asking me to stop, I would, damned quickly.

It's a terrible shame though, but basically isn't he yet another victims of the terrorists?

And whilst adrenaline does trigger fight or flight, agreed, the police have to react somehow! can you imagine the headlines if they'd let him go, he had detonated and killed dozens?

I would like to know why one of the terrorists hadthis guys name and address in his bag??

i think that what gets to me the most about this thread is the following:

as far as i can see no one has cast blame on the officers that did the shooting.

people are questioning how it is that they can have been under orders to shoot to kill with so little evidence.

worst of all, some of you seem to think that his life is just the price you pay for the fact that we are under attacke by terrorists without realising that if his life has so little value, we have nothing left to defend from the terrorists.

in effect what i'm saying is that his life is more important (listen carefully here, not more precious or more valuable) in terms of the fact that he has been excecuted by the state under rule of law. we must differentiate between ourselves and the terrorists. surely that differentiation starts with citizens' right to feel protected against being shot and killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, panicking and wearing a fleece???

you're all arguing that the ends (protecting the mass from terrorists) justify the means (killing an innocent man). sorry i strongly disagree with that position as like i say it makes us no better than they are imo.

i know you will disagree with me, so i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

if anyone starts accusing this post of 'having a go' at the police, i will be really really pissed off. i'm 'having a go' at a climate that allows those in authority to feel that giving orders to shoot to kill anyone that acts remotely suspicious will be acceptable. i'm afraid some of you are part of that climate.

They didn't have his name - only an address. I'm sure a lot of houses in Tulse Hill (especially large ones)are 'house share' jobs.

We don't know at 'what point' the armed police came into it - we DO know he was being followed by plain clothes police - if I was in a 'rough' area and a group of men 'claimed' to be the police and pointed guns at me I think I'd run too..

I still don't understand, why if he HAD been a suscide bomber he didn't just detonate it as soon as the chase took place - why bother running if you've got a bomb strapped round you? Why not just detonate there and then?

Thank goodness people like Edam are talking some sense on this thread.

The whole thing about whether or not he should have stopped for the police is irrelevant as they were plain clothes so we don't even know whether in his mind he was running form the police, or from men in trainers jeans and brandishing guns (in Stockwell- which is important).

Saying its the terrorists fault is ridiculousl. It's like saying its a pub landlords fault if one of his cutomers drink drives and ploughs into a a family car killing everyone.

The police shot him (when according to eye witnesses he was on the ground held down by several of them). So it is their fault- whether that action can ever be justified is debatable- but it certainly wasn't the terrorists who held him down and shot him.

And why do they keep describing last Thursdays bombers as suicide bombers - as far as I can tell the majority of them left devices then legged it- only one had the device on him when it exploded- an he looked dismayed. And that's important as the argument justifying the killing of this man will be that they thought he was an escaped suicide bomber.....

x-posts sophable- but I blame the officers- they killed him- no-one else.

Message withdrawn

QoQ, I guess the reason for that would be that if he had been a bomber, his rationale would have been to get to somewhere that he could cause the most damage and loss of life - i.e. a crowded tube train - before detonating. A possibly empty street might not have fulfilled those 'requirements'.

But, since he wasn't, it's all rather academic.

mosschops yes they have said he had no connection.

Question for eveyone who thinks it was justified.

Would it have been justified if it had been your son/dad/brother/husband/boyfriend? Or is it ony justified if its someone elses.

BTW I may be arguing differently, or hold a slightly more- hmmm not sure about this point of view- if the people brandishing guns, had been uniformed officers. The fact that they weren't clearly visible as police surely makes it a lot dodgier and the man's reaction very understandable.

Yes.

Sophable, I agree with your post of 1.18pm

jimjams, according to this from the Times, all 3 of the Tube bombers were wearing their rucksacks when the detonators went off - only the bus bomb was left behind.

Also:

They were in radio contact with their HQ and the order to shoot to kill came from there at that point and not before. I would guess that the man who pulled the trigger is not feeling very good about it now either.