Man shot dead in Stockwell unconnected to terror inquiry

[QueenOfQuotes]

Just seen a ticker on the BBC website saying that

someone is protecting the real perpetrators. This is also alarming.

GDG I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want to live in a country where the police ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SHOOT TO KILL. Surely that's one of the things about the UK that makes us safer? Once we have armed police swarming the streets, we will have many more armed criminals swarming the streets. See America.

How can you be sure you have trained people not to feel fear? Not to have adrenalin in their blood? Highly intelligent people last week were talking about feeling fear of people, when there was no actual evidence of threat. We only have human beings to fight human beings....a horrible, horrible mistake, but had I been primed with a briefing that told me I was watching an address which had been found in one of the rucksac bombs from the previous day, and involved in a chase, seeing the public all around - I just done't know.

Perhaps our only other choice is to accept that we will NEVER arm the police - and accept the risks of that?

R, I don't think it was acceptable. I think it was a tradegy. I just think there were an awful lot of circumstances, not all of which we are privy to which made the situation seem a lot more dangerous than it in fact was. The police were, in their belief, at that time acting to protect themselves and any others.

Also any officer who discharges a fire arm in the line of duty is immediately suspended while an inquiry is made.

MP - I think that policy would have to be 'not shoot at all'. Doesn't it have to be 'shoot or not shoot' rather than 'shoot to kill' 'or 'shoot and hope to maim a bit but they might die of the wounds, or they might struggle around a bit pulling their own trigger or detonator'? Shooting isn't a surgical procedure that you can control!

And that's another thing Flossam... (not having a go at you, you must understand and sorry again about 'cretin' )

...people keep using words like 'tragedy' and 'terrible mistake' and 'unfortunate'...

err NO!

A man was assasinated, that is a CRIME, he has been MURDERED (rather like the 56 people two weeks ago), where is the difference?

If we stoop to the level of the bomber, we are no better than they are IMHO.

but there is a difference raspberry, he was shot in the [rather confused] aim of protecting other people, he was not killed with the intent of harming as many as possible. I agree the police cocked up and should be more careful, but they are just trying to do their job.

A question for people who, when the shooting in Stockwell was first announced, supported the police and said they must have had good reasons to kill this man: how do you feel now that the police have backtracked repeatedly on their orginal story?

The Met has changed its story several times but almost all points have now been demolished; the poor man wasn't a terror suspect or at all connected with terrorism; he wasn't coming from an address under suspicion (although they still can't make their minds up whether it was a block of flats or not), he wasn't in fact wearing a bulky coat but a fleece, they let him get on a bus even though they later claimed they thought he was a suicide bomber, etc. etc. etc.

Do you still feel the police acted reasonably and made the right decision? Or was it an over-reaction? Genuine question - not having a go, just interested to see if people's views have changed at all given the Met's backtracking on their orginal defence.

My view, FWIW, would be that something is very wrong with the police/chain of command that authorises shoot to kill on such thin evidence. But interested to see what others think.

Blu: Shooting five times in the back of the head is SHOOTING TO KILL.

agree with that edam.

I think my view is skewed because if it were my DP there facing this choice I would want him to make the same choice under the same circumstances and be sure to come home to me and my DS. As many people have said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Message withdrawn

hmo2, if they really believed he had a bomb on him, how come they let him get on a bus????

and how come he didn't detonate it before being pinned to the ground? Remember he wasn't shot from a distance - they pinned him down and THEN shot him, I still maintain in the time it took to chase him from the front of the station down to the train and pinned him down he could have detonated the bomb. (if he'd got one of course)

They say to shoot in the head because a shot anywhere else (if it doesn't detonate the bomb) could still allow them the split second to set it off........IMO the man had more than a split second to do it.

Message withdrawn

pin him down and not shoot him?

if only it had been a scorcher and he had been wearing a T shirt for goodness sake. Its all so surreal.

I did hear today that a shot in a limb can rebound and kill a bystander.

I have come up with a couple of theories myself, but, as it is all just supposition and one of them is so silly and ironic I think it would be taken in the wrong way so I won't post them.

Message withdrawn

I just want to ask 'cause i really dont know the answer to this im honestly not trying to be funny but if you shoot someone in the head once at close range wouldnt it kill them immediately?

Unfortunately ruty we will have to disagree, I believe there cannot be any justification for killing innocents, no matter what the motive or circumstances.

Are we not the same people who are 'outraged'

• that children are dying in Africa,
• or the death penalty in the USA is immoral,
• or Pinochet's regime 'disappearing' people was a crime,
• or France blew up the Rainbow Warrior, etc, etc, etc.... for random examples

Surely, we can't have one set of morals for some situations and different ones when it suits us? A murder is always a murder, howsoever committed.

dinosaur i feel the same way you do, except that even when i thought he was guilty, i understood the reasons why they would shoot him dead, but wondered if there would have been any way of stopping him without shooting him: not least as he would be far more use alive.