Man shot dead in Stockwell unconnected to terror inquiry

[QueenOfQuotes]

Just seen a ticker on the BBC website saying that

jimjams in answer to your humorously told but horrendous story, how much do you want to bet there will be a response of: well, that was one incident a long time ago, things have changed since then....

Fleece hardly classifies as heavy jacket...
Where exactly could this man be hiding the necessary amount for a bomb to explode? He wasn't armed...

We are privy to the intelligence: it has been stated, his address was found in one of the rucksacks that didn't explode.

Look, we all know how hard it is to make the right decision on the heat of time. But given the MET have already admitted he was unlinked, is in it clear that a mistake happen?

Now if it was a justifiable mistake or just an over paranoid agent it will take lenghty investigations, and much more info than any of us have.

actually I strongly suspect there isn't more to this - or they would have said so (i.e. rather than saying we have to act, bla de bla, they could have said "I cannot divulge all the details" )

I don't blame the policeofficers either, btw, but the guidelines.

Q: "gobbledigook you wrote

"Don't be so condescending - of course I've noticed there is no death penalty. However, if once of the suicide bombers was shot by police I wouldn't feel in the least bit sad having seen what the innocent citizens of London have gone through.

If someone murdered my mother, father, brother, husband, child I would feel no remorse at their death. Not many sane people would surely?"

So how would you feel if you were the mother of this Brazilian man? The police who shot him (think it was one man) are responsible for their ownactions and it is possible (although highly unlikely) that he could face a murder charge. That's another possibility at the moment (or whoever gave the say so from higher up)."

I was talking about having no remorse if one of the bombers from 7/7 was shot, and I stand by that. Of course this situation is different because he was innocent (we are told) and if so, then it's tragic and very sad and I have every sympathy for his family. I think I have said that before. I still think, based on the information I know about, that the officer had little option (particularly if they were acting on orders from above). It's easy in hindsight to see how it could have played a different way, but that's because we now know he didn't have a bomb. The action was taken on the suspicion that he did.

I'm not just wholeheartedly accepting what happened as 'ok' either - there are clearly questions to be answered, but atm I err on the side of 'there's probably a hell of a lot we won't get to find out about why this happened' rather than 'OMG, the police f*cked up'.

Sophable - I may be predictable (as are you, very much so) but please don't assume people's responses. You'll see in fact that I said nothing of the sort.

gdg, i didn't say you would say that did i??? i said that would be bound to be some people's response...

also, how, if an innocent man is dead, can it not be a cock up???

and in what ways am i so predictable pray tell?

The police have already admitted they f&cked up. What I found very, very frightening was Ian Blair's gung-ho 'there may well be other deaths - very sad but there you go, we aren't revising our guidelines' statement.

The police have admitted their reasons for shooting this man dead were: he came out of a block of flats. One of the flats was under surveillance. He was wearing a fleece. And he ran away when challenged by men in plain clothes pointing a gun at him.

They didn't have anything like enough information to suggest he was a suicide bomber. If that's the level of their 'intelligence' God help us all.

well thats one way of putting it [rolls eyes]

agree with edam god help us if that is what we are relying on

But as hunker keeps pointing out, we don't know much at all - it's a bit Rumsfeldish all round, really.

aha gg I see where we differ. I could be persuaded it was OK if there was a lot of intelligence we know nothing about- but like SP I doubt there is. Especially coming from my angle of the armed raid on our house and the "intelligence" that led up to it, and having heard a lot about the chain of events that led to Harry Stanley's killing. So my pov comes from the angle of assuming they cocked up big time- because they took an almighty gamble and were wrong- whereas your assumes that they couldn't have taken such a big gamble so there must be more to it. Not sure we'll ever find out who is right.

I think in the Harry Stanley killing a lot of the problems were with the chain of command rather than the actual pulling of the trigger- this could be the case here as well.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I agree Happymumof2 police are not that stupid and i bet there is more to this than meets the eye.

held him to the ground. shot him in the leg. there are any number of other options.

hmo2 and tl, i'm afraid there are several well documented cases of the police, well, i wouldn't put it as being 'that stupid' but yes making that big a mistake. trust me if there was more to it in the sense that there was more justification for them shooting him it would be all over the press. the police are acknowledging that it was a mistake. why can't you all?

So ok lets hold him to the ground and shoot him in the leg, what if he has a bomb? he then presses whatever and we have a massive explosion on our hands again and many many innocent lives lost AGAIN all because the police decided to take the risk and shoot him elsewhere but the head which gives him the chance to activate a bomb.

happymum of 2 they have shot quite a few- harry stanley is the most famous case but there was an interesting piece in the times today \link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1706244,00.html\here". note especially the last paragraphs:

"In 2003 Blair, then deputy commissioner, attempted to dismiss a report by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), the IPCC?s predecessor, which accused officers of being too quick to start shooting. The PCA examined a rise in police shootings and found that the London force was twice as likely as others to open fire on a suspect. Blair, then deputy commissioner, described the PCA?s findings as ?inappropriate and ill-advised?.

The PCA looked at 24 police shootings, including 11 fatalities, between 1998 and 2001 and concluded that many of those shot were mentally ill or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The report noted that 55 shots had been fired by police and no suspects fired back. "

I know the "intelligence" that led to the armed raid on our house. I was a plastered man in a taxi (so drunk he couldn't even walk straight.)

At the moment cock ups of this sort have huge potential ramifications. I think someone needs to examine the use of shoot to kill urgently.

try again

Do we all have to agree with you then? can we not have our own opinions on this ?

I don't think you know the ins and outs of this as much as we don't so we can all sit here and presume but we may never know.

Also police are only human EVERY human makes mistakes not saying that the mistake of KILLING an innocent man is right but what choice did they have??

Message withdrawn

if he had been a bomber them shooting him the leg wouldn't have stopped him from exploding the bomb.
The mistake was quite hideous and we need to investigate and try to make sure such an awful thing never happens again.
but shooting to wound wouldn't stop a terrorist .

but why did they think he had a bomb. because he came out of a building that they were surveilling and he had a fleece on? because in a blind panic he didn't stop when some men in plainclothes holding guns to him told him to. like edam says, if that's all it takes we're all scr*wed.

edam. had been thinking that ian blair was doing quite a good job (calm, authoritative, but reasonable sounding). especially liked him the day of the shooting when he assured us that there was a direct link between this guy and the terrorists but was at pains to say that it was very grave that someone had been shot and that loss of life was always regrettable. have totally revised my opinion based on his statement today. he could have handled it much much better.

hmof2- what should they have done? Well they couldd have considered on high whether shoot to kill is a sensible option when full facts are not known (as in this case). I hope they considered whether mistakes would recruit more suicide bombers.

Message withdrawn