Man shot dead in Stockwell unconnected to terror inquiry

[QueenOfQuotes]

Just seen a ticker on the BBC website saying that

Surely not, Snafu?!

We don't know that, hunker, you're right. It must have all happened incredibly quickly and in a state of mass confusion.

Exactly. Might I try to kill this thread again by saying that arguing what ifs is pretty pointless?

that is true. The reports have mentioned plain clothes, but there may have been uniformed officers doing the shouting.

If that's the case then it does make a difference, but there should still be a major procedure review. Like I say, I just find it really weird that they didn't try to stop him sooner

There must have been a reason for them not to stop him sooner - or they would've done.

As GDG's said, we won't know the full facts of this - certainly not ones that will compromise the current massive operation.

hm - what ifs are not pointless. The fact that the emergency services had spent a lot of time and energy thinking about what ifs saved a lot of lives the other day. The police need to do the same thing for this kind of situation.

Yes, what ifs about future situations are not pointless.

But what ifs about this situation when we don't know the full facts and people are getting irate about whether he would have understood stop police or not when we have no idea who shouted it, what was shouted, when it was shouted...that's pointless!

SP, I garee with you about stopping him sooner. I can't understand why he was allowed to get as far as the train. It almost seems that there were two choices - let him get as far as the train and then hope you can shoot him dead in front of a load of civilians, or run the risk of him being able to detonate his bomb. Both options seem...strange, to say the least.

no, we don't.

But somebody unconnected to the police needs to be made aware of the full facts most urgently to prevent this from happening again.

Again, I agree. But I doubt that we'll be asked

I was under the impression that they wanted to see where he was going - ie would he lead them to somebody else - and that's why they didn't stop him sooner.

Maybe he had twigged that he was being followed and that made him start to be jittery and that made them think he had something to be jittery about.

(sorry, hunker. can't leave it alone.)

Agree that when you're surveilling somebody, you don't just stop them as soon as they leave their house. Makes no sense then.

(It's like an itch, this thread, isn't it?!)

do you know what edam? i think that sun headline is disgusting even if he were guilty....the fact that he's not...i wonder whether the apology will even make it onto page 2.

I think papers should have to give equal column inches to their apologies. So if they print something untrue over seven pages, the apology has to take up that much room too - big letters

fantastic idea hunker.

It might make them think twice before they print something ludicrous!

Agree Sophable. It would be despicable even if he was guilty. The fact that he's innocent, and they knew damn well that that was a possibility... makes me ashamed to be a sodding journalist. Not that I've ever worked there. This is a paper staffed by very clever, highly talented people (whatever you think of The Sun generally, the people who work on it are both). There's no excuse for this...

It's the Belgrano all over again.

i know, i have no illusions about the calibre of tabloid journos...they are extremely capable, v bright, if anything sharper than their peers on the broadsheets, it's harder to write like that weirdly...

edam, i think probably that there are some people on this thread that would agree with the headline's sentiment if he were guilty though. and they are not evil people. and that is what scares the crap out of me at the moment, not the terrorists.

Will probably get shot down for this, but my honest opinion is, that if ANYONE points a gun at you and says stop police or whatever, you do it. If you are blatantly disobeying police orders, especially in the light of recent events in london, then there will be consequences.

You're right - I'd have no sympathy whatsoever for someone who had bombed a tube train killing and maiming innocent people (including a young woman I know who lost both of her legs and is horribly scarred as a result of being on the Edgware Rd tube) who got shot by a police officer. None whatsoever.

This man was innocent so of course I have every sympathy - it's very, very sad.

Message withdrawn

People have given several possible reasons for running away from gun toting men on this thread. They were plain clothes - all their victim saw, presumably, was some nutters pointing a gun at him. He was in Stockwell, a very dodgy area where violent crime connected to the drugs trade is always a possibility. He came from Brazil, where, in some areas, you would bloody run from the police.

Since when did we reintroduce the death penalty without trial?

because normally kind reasonable people are so hatefilled. and hate breeds hate.

in case you hadn't noticed we don't have the death penalty in this country. which is why i find your satisfation at the prospect of a terrorist being excecuted (if that is what it is) disturbing.

eye for eye, life for life is very old testament. it's like jesus never existed. if you believe in him that is.

xed posts edam