Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Man shot dead in Stockwell unconnected to terror inquiry

1078 replies

QueenOfQuotes · 23/07/2005 17:06

Just seen a ticker on the BBC website saying that

OP posts:
HappyMumof2 · 24/07/2005 18:25

Message withdrawn

Heathcliffscathy · 24/07/2005 18:25

hmo2, sorry but i think that is naive. if the police had any justification for killing this man, they would be saying so. they might not be giving out details agreed, but they would not be saying that he had no links to the investigation and that his shooting was a mistake.

Jimjams · 24/07/2005 18:26

Tiger Lilly- they had plenty of choices. The could have apprehended him earlier, they could have let him go, they could have jumped on his when he fell to the floor (although I can see why an individual officer may not want to do that if he thought the man was carrying a bomb) they could have shot him as soon as he left the building (whether he actually left the bomvbers flat or another flat in the same building I don't think we know yet) if he was such a danger.

Heathcliffscathy · 24/07/2005 18:26

so shoot to kill anyone that is male, young, vaguely asian looking and doesn't stop if you point a gun at him and tell him to??????? really?

Jimjams · 24/07/2005 18:29

HMo2 of course the 2 are related- drunken man in taxi= armed police in our home.

Drunken man in pub makes telephone call to police = man killed for carrying a table leg

Man leaves building where a certain flat is under surveillance wearing a fleece and is killed.

If there was more to link this moan I'm fairly certain the police would be saying there was more (even if not what it was) they have said he was not linked to the terrorists, they have said he was innocent, so I don't quite see what other intelligence they could have had.

Flossam · 24/07/2005 18:30

Can I just butt in here - that it is possible (although not likely) to be killed from just a shot in the leg . Although, as others have said he would have had plenty of time to detonate any bombs this being the case. I'm trying to stay away from these threads, was kind of hoping this would have died by tonight.

Jimjams · 24/07/2005 18:30

The police have said they have very little intelligence about the bombers- that's why both atacks came out of the blue.

HappyMumof2 · 24/07/2005 18:35

Message withdrawn

Jimjams · 24/07/2005 18:36

but happymum did he leave the flat under surveillance, or the block under surveillance? I'm not sure anyone is clear on that.

Fran1 · 24/07/2005 18:38

This is spooky, i'm sure i read all this yesterday!!

Fran1 · 24/07/2005 18:53

Have i done it? have i killed the thread

Caligula · 24/07/2005 18:56

Well done Fran!

HappyMumof2 · 24/07/2005 18:57

Message withdrawn

HappyMumof2 · 24/07/2005 18:57

Message withdrawn

Fran1 · 24/07/2005 19:00

lol

marthamoo · 24/07/2005 19:30

I still stick by my post yesterday. God yes, it's absolutely tragic that this man was killed when he was not a suicide bomber. Yes, there must be an enquiry at all levels to find out what went wrong and ensure, as far as is possible, that such a terrible mistake does not happen again.

But we expect the Police to make quick decisions. Life or death decisions. We will never know why he ran - it's quite possible, as many people have suggested, that he didn't believe/realise they were armed Police, and was fleeing in terror. But the Police can't spend time deliberating on the ground about well, maybe he doesn't speak English, do you think he knows we're police, maybe we should get changed into uniform, what if he's deaf, what if he's not a terrorist but has some other criminal reason to run - they have to make a decision and they have to make it immediately.

My head is hurting at all the what ifs flying around but the top and bottom of it is the Police did not know why he didn't stop and had to assume the worst.

I hope the enquiry will produce more answers - particularly why they didn't stop him long before he got to the Tube, and why they let him get on a bus (if he did get on a bus, I read contradictory posts on that).

I don't know what the answers are. Lots of questions though

Eugenius · 24/07/2005 19:59

moo - nail on head!

ruty · 25/07/2005 10:25

why did they follow him all the way to the tube? Weee they waiting for him to act suspiciouslt i.e. get on a train? They should have apprehended him earlier. Cock up.

Lua · 25/07/2005 11:01

Is getting in the train a suspicious activity now?

Gobbledigook · 25/07/2005 11:02

Fab post again Moo

Nightynight · 25/07/2005 11:45

I can handle the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting killed by a terrorist.

I find it much harder to deal with the fact that the state may deliberately kill a member of my family without evidence, or charges, or trial, just because they happen to fit someone's stereotyped idea of what a terrorist should look like.

I am horrified by the chief of the met police coming out and saying that more innocent poeple may be killed by his officers. They wont be randomly chosen innocent people will they. They will be young, dark haired men. This official announcement means that we have got the death penalty in the UK after all, but only if you look like the stereotype of a terrorist.

HappyMumof2 · 25/07/2005 11:53

Message withdrawn

alicatsg · 25/07/2005 11:55

Think the problem is that they can't alert suspected suicide bombers in the same way - because they have nothing to lose in their minds by releasing/pressing the detonator. To stop wider deaths the police are going to be forced to make swift decisions and as someone said on another thread the protocol is to shoot suspects where they can't be wearing bombs so that the police don't trigger it.

Its awful that this has happened but then we're asking for an awful lot from the Police right now. I wouldn't have their job for anything at the moment.

(apologies if I'm repeating - no time to re-read the whole thread)

edodgy · 25/07/2005 12:00

My problem with this situation is why the police didnt aprehend the man sooner and why did the house under survaillance only get raided after the man had been shot and not before? Surely this would have been a way to stop them in their tracks if they had been terrorists. The fact that the main aim of the poilice is supposed to be public safety and they let this man get on a bus before asking him to stop was not very wise. Also these policemen were plain clothes so it is understandable why the man legged it even if they said they were police how would he know they were telling the truth? IMO the best course of action would have been for the plain clothes to call for uniformed back up at a point when they were following suspect so they're could be no question of him being aware that they were police.

QueenOfQuotes · 25/07/2005 12:03

I still maintain if he'd have been a suicide bomber why did he bother trying to run why not just blow himself up while being chased???

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread