Man shot dead in Stockwell unconnected to terror inquiry

[QueenOfQuotes]

Just seen a ticker on the BBC website saying that

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

investigation or prosecution? it would depend on the case and in this case I certainly do not think they should be prosecuted.

Eugenius, I think a lot of us are thinking 'there but for the Grace of God' but putting ourselves in the victim's position. Because if the police really have adopted a shoot to kill policy which can be activated on such shaky evidence it could be any of us next.

No-one posting here has called for draconian measures against the individual officer involved. People have called for an urgent inquiry and for the police to change their policies to avoid killing any more innocent (or even guilty) people. Police killings of this nature do nothing to help find or capture the guilty. They may actually help to recruit more terrorists. Killing is still killing whichever side the guy pulling the trigger is on.

But we're talking the MET as a whole, they've accepted responsibility - what if the enquiry blames a police officer (not nessecarily the one who shot him - he was more than likely only carry out instructions). Should he been immune from prosecution?

I think saying that police officers (in general - not just talking about this case) shouldhn't be prosecuted if they make a serious mistake is a very dangerous thing - I believe in a free democratic country like ours no-one should be immune.

quite right, qoq

(I thought you were going to stick to product reviews?)

SP - think I had the worse case of PMT I've ever had - quite scary really - DH thought I'd lost the plot - so goodness knows what it must have been like to you lot who only saw my 'written' words

He wasn't drunk. He wasn't autistic. He wasn't listening to a walkman.

Yet still he failed to stop.

He could have been lost in his own thoughts. But that didn't stop him bolting as soon as he heard the officers shout out

bit off thread but struck me quite starkly - Eugenius - they are also daughters, mothers, sisters and wives

no, but he did think the police might be after him over his immigration status as it turns out. Lots of people have something to hide. not many of them are suicide bombers.

edam - you could say 'there but for the Grace of God' referring to being unlucky enough to be caught up in the bombings too - these officers thought they were preventing more tragedy.

How many, genuinely would have run and vaulted a barrier with someone shouting 'stop, armed police in a crowded area in broad daylight? One he's telling you he's the police and two he's TELLING you he's armed!

I also beg to differ - this killing COULD have led to capture of the guilty, it COULD have prevented more slaughter - the intelligence was wrong, but the theory wasn't.

There must be loads of instances of wrong intelligence in war situations where lots of people have been killed as a result, our own men killed by friendly fire - it's tragic, it's sad, but unfortunately it's a fact of life - there will be more instances of wrong intelligence, there will be more officers in the future making the wrong decision, teachers will make mistakes, doctors will make wrong diagnoses - because nobody is perfect, we're all human. Of course there will be inquiries and we will learn from them but mistakes will continue to be made because they're part of our lives - we all make them everyday but fortunately they don't result in tragedies like this.

hatstand - gosh I feel bad about that - you're absolutely right - terrible faux pas [oh the shame]

"How many, genuinely would have run and vaulted a barrier with someone shouting 'stop, armed police in a crowded area in broad daylight?"

We don't know how soon he knew there were armed police, they have been outside all stations in London (from what I understand) since the attacks. however, we also know he was being trailed by plain clothed officers. We don't yet know whether it was the plain clothed police who told him to stop, or whether it was the armed police who told him to stop. We don't know at what point they shouted 'armed police stop' and even if they did, if you've ever been in a situation where there's guns and shouting, and people running, unless they had a megaphone (sp) they wouldn't have been that easily audible. I should imagine other people would probably have been screaming/shouting/making noise too.

well from reading other posts (I didn't know myself) it seems he had immigration issues so I suppose that's the answer?

anyway - I've said my piece and I stand by it.

I support the government, the police and anyone involved in trying to make our country a safer place to live in - do whatever has to be done.

haven't read the thread but the whole story is obviously profoundly sad and depressing. First thing I thought when I heard it was 'omg, I just hope they were right about this' and its just unfolded into the worst scenario possible.
I suspect it will come to court and legality will probably hinge on whether there were clear warnings given before the shooting. Loads of witnesses so presumably someone shoudl have heard the police shouting, if they did?
Of course I am not without sympathy for the officers involved but this has got to be examined properly and independently, and I suspect there will be a case to answer.

So he died trying to avoid being deported/investigated for out of date visa?

Well, if his visa had run out then he shouldn't have been here anyway & maybe if he had gone home to his country he wouldn't have died. (AND NO, before you attack me I am NOT saying he deserved it)

Why was he so afriad of getting caught & deported? Because he was under threat for no reason in his own country possibly?

Well, the day he was shot OUR police officers once again thought that OUR civilians in OUR country were under threat.

They acted & must live with the consqences.

Having an out of date visa doesn't make him a criminal - or at risk in his own country.

Part of my stay in Zimbabwe - I had an out of date visa.

And in Australia there are more Britains that have overstayed their visa (and are working) that there are of any other nationality!

I think one of the key questions is "what grounds did they have for suspecting him?". I know the house he was in was under surveillance but I think the investigation should look at what evidence they had for putting it under surveillance.

I have read that his address was in an address book found in the presonal effects of one the 7/7 suspects

"I have read that his address was in an address book found in the presonal effects of one the 7/7 suspects"

• as someone else said somewhere in the depths of the thread - even bombers need electricians

I think the evidence they had for putting it under surveillance was that the address was found on a bit of paper in one of the rucksacs that didn't explode.
They did later (or the next day) storm the same address and arrest someone.

Sounds like mistaken or unclear identity of what individual they were looking for....all the eye witneses said he was 'an asian - looking man': back to all those anxieties and concerns expressed in the discussion last week.

Oh agree!

But I think that is why the address was being watched. And the police would be daft not to have checked out all the addresses

so why didn't they just search the address rather than just having it under surveillance??

mmhmmhm, interesting hmb. Far be it for me to tell the police how to do their job but perhaps they should have searched the house in that case. Their actions suggest that they did not have a contingency plan for if he didn't stop when he was told to stop and to take into account the fact that he might be innocent.

I know that people will say that he should have stopped and I know that that was his fatal mistake, but you know, what if he had been deaf, or of limited understanding. A person like that would also probably have panicked.

was it his actual address that was under surveillance or just a block of flats? The latter seems pretty indirect to me.

problem is we are all speculating and don't really know the facts. I think whatever the reasons for surveillance (and it does seem clear that he as an individual was not under suspicion), the behaviour of the police before they shot him will also be under scrutiny. How clearly did he understand (if at all) that he was going to be shot if he didn't stop?