Man shot dead in Stockwell unconnected to terror inquiry

[QueenOfQuotes]

Just seen a ticker on the BBC website saying that

Flossam: take care, I know its crass, but you are still more likely to get struck by lightening, try not to worry too much.

My friend travels from Swindon to Paddington every day, not in first class anymore mind you, he agrees with me, you just have to carry on.

Guardian today says the poor man was late for work. Explains why he might have raced for the tube - like thousands of other Londoners...

Sorry QoQ we are talking about slightly different things. I was posting that if there were to be a real suicide bomber it would be pointless to pin him down and sit on him, since he would then detonate the bomb!

How are you suppsed to deal with the real thing other than by being armed?

edam, I keep thinking about him getting ready for work, and setting off thinking about ordinary things, as if it was a normal day...

QoQ - because if he was intent on causing harm, he would have wanted to capture as many people in the explosion as possible. Rather than just blow himself up, blow up himself plus a carriage full of people.

Irrelevant now because he didn't have a bomb but would have been a 'valid' reason for a bomber legging it.

No - we're talking about the same thing. They thought he was a suicide bomber, that's why they shot him...........after giving him plenty of time to detonate his bomb anyhow!

Message withdrawn

They want to kill as many people as possible. This isn't simple suicide, they want to take as many people with them as possible.

And how do you stop them if you don't have a gun? It is awful to contemplate but how do you do it otherwise?

But GGD - if the officers were THAT close to him that he didn't even have a 'split second' to detonate his bomb once running onto the train - why didn't they just shoot him in the head as they followed him?

I don't see how they could have been that close to him as they chased him (I'm sure I've read that he tripped as he boarded the train - thus allowing them to catch up perhaps?) that he wouldn't have had a chance to detonate a bomb before being pinned down.

HM2: no, I disagree, they had far longer than a split second to make a decision, if the reports in the paper are accurate.

Also, if they had arrested him and he had blown himself up, now that would have been a 'tragedy' and 'unfortunate', but what it would also have been is moral. You cannot justify protecting lives by taking others, whatever the circumstances, that's called war.

(And as Boy George said... War, war is stupid... )

Sorry, but this is all getting a bit heavy for me

Message withdrawn

Was it really moral to risk him killing a whole tube's worth of people?

HMo2 I travelled every day to work for 3 years on one of the tubes that was hit (in the cariage that was hit- - the train at Edgware road that was damaged by the bomb going off on the other line although I would have got off at Baysater or Notting Hill Gate rather than edgeware road- but always front carriage at that time of day). So it's pretty close. Police shotting innocent people dead doens't make me feel any safer (especially in this case it all seems to have gone pear shaped at the address stage- so much for intelligence about the bombers).

SP- there was apiece about the israeli's and suicide bombers in the Guradian (I think) last week- BEFORE it was known this man was innocent. The piece was saying that given the chance they prefer to detain rather than shoot to kill suicide bombers as they can then interogate about friend etc- I'll try and find a link to the article later (have 40 mins to write an impotant letter). Apparently the policy is to avoid shoot to kill.

There are very specific international standards on the intentional use of lethal force by law enforement officials and it is not unfeasible that what happened, though awful, was within those standards. They allow the intentional use of lethal force only when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. Police must identify themselves and give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, they should only use force or firearms if other means have been ineffective or have no promise of achieving the intended result. The bus thing is largely irrelevant - they had no cause, at that stage to arrest him, they had no reasonable grounds to believe that he presented an immediate threat to life. That changed when he failed to stop. Only a thorough independent investigation will fully clarify all the circumstances and be in a position to conclude whether or not the police acted lawfully. International standards stipulate that such investigations should take place in all such circumstances. I feel we cannot pre-judge. The only thing we can be sure about is that such an investigation is essential (a thorough and independent one, which, through TB's new public inquiries legislation is increasingly difficult in this country, but that's another story)

What truly horrified me and nearly made me cry in the newsagents was the Sun's headline: "one down, three to go" and the Express "shoot all bombers". I think the media have a duty to behave responsibly and I have rarely seen such deeply disturbing headlines

Yes, I believe so Floss, moral but definately undesirable and unpalettable. Trouble is we are frail human beings and don't live up to such high morals (myself included), so prefer the desirable.

Given the same circumstances I might have done the same myself, but, as no doubt with the copper who did it, I would probably struggle to live with it afterwards. Sorry situation all round

I think its really sad that an innocent man was killed, but I can understand how it happened. As many have pointed out already the police didn't have time to think about what if, they had to assume he was a suicide bomber. He came out of a house under surveillance, was wearing a big coat on a warm day (I don't recall it being that warm but still) he ran from the police when told to stop so I can see why the police did shoot him.

What I find difficult to understand is why they let him reach the tube in the first place. 2 bombs have gone off on buses, how did they not know he wanted to blow up the bus.

As for how do you stop them- well shoot to kill is possible OK in my book- if there is watertight intelligence that you know that someone is about to detonate. I'm not sure that its right if you maybe there's a slight chance that the guy is linked, but possibly there isn't. But getting a guy who was at the wrong address (or the address was right but was unlinked), was the wrong nationality etc etc is a big mistake somewhere. As I said earlier the person who is ultimately responsible for the cock up may well be a pen pusher higher up the chain of command rather than the person who pulled the trigger.

OK important letter..... I'm signing off

Just to back up JimJams point, personally I don't have too much of an issue with the executioner, IF he really did feel lives were in danger, not morally perfect, but who is. I have a problem with those who identified this man as a suicide bomber, they need to be brought to justice, but are unlikely to ever be known to the public.

Hatstand, I so agree with you about the Sun headline. Even if he had turned out to be an actual bomber, to jubilantly gloat over a death as if it was a football score is horrible. And before there was any news of evidence...

There is a big difference between 'understandable' and 'acceptable', and of course the police have to be accountable to the public, in policy, and in action.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

its tragic i had a feeling this would be the case as soon as i heard about it
poor guy wrong time wrong place and his life is ended - his family have said they will sue the police and they have every right they must be angry and devastated

HM2: Morally I disagree with you, but this is the real world, so I reluctantly accept your view.

However, if it comes out in the fullness of time that the assassin was 'trigger happy' or procedure wasn't followed (as already seems to be being suggested by some witnesses), then the officer in question should go to jail for murder, or manslaughter at the least. (That won't happen of course.)

Shoot to kill is not the answer though, it wasn't in NI, it isn't in Isreal and shouldn't be in London.

I hope all those people that witnessed this tragedy are being offered support. I cannot see how you can get over witnessing something like that.

They didn't, according to their own story, have much reason to suspect he was a bomber. They've had to retract every reason they've given. They let him get on a BUS for heaven's sake - both the attacks so far featured buses. If they truly thought he had a bomb, why on earth would they do that?

What's really scary is that the police are prepared to execute someone on such flimsy evidence. It really does leave everyone in danger from the police as much as from the terrorists.