Man shot dead in Stockwell unconnected to terror inquiry

[QueenOfQuotes]

Just seen a ticker on the BBC website saying that

agree with edodgy.

Just seen on the BBC "ticker" that apparently he had an out of date visa..........is that why he ran?

Good point Q of Q.

how many mistakes are they allowed to make though hmo2.

From what I've read the error that set into effect the train of events that led to this killing was the man leaving his own flat. So either he happened to live in the same building as a suspect, or his address was innocently linked to the terrorists. (I suppose even bombers need electricians).

This was compounded because he fitted a sterotype of a bomber (dark haired, young male). As mentioned ny nightynight. Last week someone from the police was talking to Jeremy Vine about introducing random stop and search in London, He said it was very important that it was properly random. So whatver system was introduced it was absolutely necessary that a little olf lady of 80 was as likely to be searched as a young asian man of 20. If it wasn't set up in this way then it would introduce problems of certain groups feeling victimised and would potentially recruit more people to becoming suicide bombers. Surely it's even more important therefore that you don't start shooting innocent young men of a certain "type". Otherwise you risk all hell breaking loose.

When accidents happen in a work place it is common for someone to be held responsible. Recently a young man was killed in an industrial accident locally and his boss was sent to prison for his role in it (insufficient training provided). If police are going to gun down people, and tell us that it is possible they will be making mistakes then they need to be accountable for their actions. Otherwise as someone has already said we may as well live in a police state. You can't just kill people by mistake and not be held accountable - in this case it may not be the person who pulled the trigger who made the biggest error of judgement, but a public inquiry is needed (not a Harry Stanley style cover up).

I've read the thread now. Its pretty horrible reading so am bowing out gracefully and going to join a nice, calming Gina Ford or bottle vs. breast thread instead.

Here's my message to the head of the Metropolitan police:

I'm ready to take the risk of being a victim of a suicide bombing. I know that your officers are doing their best to fight crime. But dont kill any more people in my name.

If Im killed by a suicide bomber because one of your officers didnt shoot him/her before they detonated the bomb, then I forgive you and your officers. But dont shoot any more suspects in my name.

A man, under survailance (sp) runs away after being alerted to the fact that he was being chased by police. He runs into the nearest tube station & boards a tube train with a mass of people on it. The police have a split second (the time it takes to press a detonator) to make a choice. This choice = us v him. Do we shoot or risk asking a question, in which time he could have pulled a trigger and blown us & a train full of innocent people up.

In the Mail today, his family said he has sympathy with the victims, he had lived here a while & spoke english. So he knew the situation, but still he decided to run from the police, making himself look even more suspect.

IMO a suicide bomber wants to achieve their goal, no matter what the costs, I think we have all seen that is true. I don't think the police would have assumed he would detonate the bomb early to avoid getting caught, he would have waited until he had reached his target, otherwise he wouldn't have died a "martyr".

I think it is a very difficult situation. The police's main concern is the safety of the public & whilest I feel very sad that an innocent has died I have to ask what would we be saying if he had had a bomb & the police said "explain yourself" & in that time he pressed the detonator & the train went up? We would be saying "why did they ask him" "why didn't they just shoot".

The police can't win in either situation.

They are humans making a life or death decision in less than seconds.

I know that I couldn't do their job.

The choice is not us vs him. The choice is

small chance that he may be a criminal and kill innocent people. Big chance that he is innocent.

Certainty that he will be dead after the police have finished shooting him.

Big chance that the state has committed a criminal act in killing an innocent man. Small chance that they may have saved innocent people's lives.

Some chance also that said innocent people might not have wanted the police to take that particular chance and shoot the man.

back to work and worry now.

Edodgy, we don't know that there weren't uniformed officers there. There were loads of them there when camera phone videoing of the evactuation by a member of the public was shown. That would have happened within moments of the shooting IMO, they wouldn't want to have people hanging around down there. As people have said, the stations I have been past recently there are always uniformed police officers standing watch. It seems he may have felt he had a valid reason to run from the police (as QoQ seems to think might be possible), if this is true then as sad as it is, it is another aspect of the tradegy that the police could not have accounted for.

To add more,

A person leaves the building that was under survailance (sp), he was alerted that he was being followed by police & they wanted him to stop. He didn't stop, his only response was to run faster & flee the slight of armed officers.

Instead he ran.................

Where did he run too?

A tube station................

6 bombs (3 failed, 3 suceeded) have been detonated on tube trains within the last two weeks. Killing 56 & injuring 700.

In that situation,the heavy burden of knowing possibly hundreds of lives depended on their decision...........

What choice did they honestly have??

IMHO if the survailance (sp) teams had entered a building & it was full of bombs & suicide bombers then they have just invited the bomber to press the trigger.

Flossam that's fair enough if that was the case but im just finding it hard to understand why with the intelligence they claim to have did they let the man actually get on board the no.2 bus in the first place surely this was breaching public safety?

it's just been on the news that his visa had expired, which is possibly why he ran. so uniforms wouldn't have made a difference.

I agree 100% with nightynight and would add (again) that when the police kill innocent people, they create more anti-police, anti-whatever feelings and indirectly potentially create more suicide bombers.

melissasmummy - I believe he was already in the tube station when they shouted at him to stop (that´s why they shouted, in fact).

Message withdrawn

I don't know edodgy, has that actually been confirmed yet? Also, as to why the house was not raided, I think we should try and also bare this in Madrid . These are such difficult times.

Hmo2, don't go there!

I am very interested to hear that israelis don't shoot suicide bombers and that they interogate them. How do they manage that?

Message withdrawn

This may have been said already, I have not read all of the posts. Why oh why did the police let him leave his home, get on a bus and run into a tube station before stopping him? If they had stopped him when he left the house he might still be alive, and if they really thought he had a bomb why would you allow him to get on a bus?! It is very very sad.

HMo2 - I don't live in London, but I don't see how that's relevant. Are you saying that the police shooting people on pretty flimsy evidence makes you feel safe? It wouldn't make me feel safe.

And I'll say it again: shooting suspects to kill increases the risk of suicide bombs overall, it doesn't decrease it.

The police DID NOT have uniforms - they put on baseball caps that said 'police' before they shot him. He probably didn't notice that.

His visa had also expired - it's possible that if he DID realise they were police, then he thought he was going to be arrested for that, and panicked.

It's a tragedy that in places like Stockwell where the police NEED to have good community relations if they want any chance of having the community act as their eyes and ears, that this kind of tragedy is a massive set back for everyone.

windermere - it has been said, but should probably be said again.

answer, probably is because they thought he would lead them to someone else. Or possibly that bus passengers don't count as much as tube passengers.

I seem to remember there was a 'shoot to kill' policy in Northern Ireland that went horribly wrong. Don't we ever learn?

I'm glad I live in a police state where you can get shot for going about your lawful business because some highly trained cretin cannot identify the right man.... ...NOT!

What happened to 'presumed innocent'?