Shoot to Kill Policy-Right or Wrong?

Sky News are running a poll, and at the moment, 74% agree with the policy to shoot to kill when reasonable cause is to be derived from a suicide bomber. I personally agree with this too, given the recent events.

The questions that need to be answered are:
1). Why did this Brazilian chap flee the estate that was under surveillance in a panic?
2). Why did he so desperately want to make that particular train?
3).Why did he not surrender himself with his hands up when cornered?
4). Could the police have handled it better?
5). What other options did they have open to them?
6). If he did turn out to be a terrorist, and detonated a bomb after they had an opportunity to take him out, would people be so humane and understanding of their inability to prevent loss of life?

I'm sure there are many other questions that need answering too. I can see why they did it, but can understand peoples dismay also....it is a lose-lose scenario for all involved I think. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeSoap

I'm sure there are many other questions that need answering too.

---

Here's one - why let him leave the estate, get a bus, then a attempt to get on a train if they genuinely thought he was a suicide bomber?

Why not take him out in an area not full of civilians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuff Paddy

I find it odd that he wasn't intercepted outside his house or away from the public.

---

Apparently....and I'm only repeating what some eye witnesses reported on Sky News this morning, so don't anyone go jumping down my throat over this....he ran from a house, and did a really good job of dodging his way out of the estate.Perhaps the actions of a man who did not want to meet the police for a reason....we now know it was not because he was involved in any terrorist activity, but nonetheless, he really did not want to get caught by them, and may well have been hiding something. These actions aroused suspicion in the cops minds, and justifiably so, in my mind.

i totally agree with there policy but i can also understand why the guy ran , this area isnt really the best of area there has been a lot of drug dealing and gun voilence in the area , so maybe he noticed these guys waiting out side his house then following him to the train station , he doesnt know who they are ( undercover ) they start shouting at him to stop and pull guns so he panics and runs , its a normal reaction when people with guns are chasing you

There have been NO CREDIBLE reports of this man dodging, fleeing or running from his flat.
NONE.
He left his flat, caught a bus and then entered the Tube station. At no time during this journey is there any evidence that he knew he was being watched, or made ANY attempts to dodge, evade, or any other word you want to use, the Police.

Why he ran at the Tube station is anybody's guess, but the conduct of the Police is highly questionable here.
If they were so sure that he was a possible suicide bomber, why did they let him on to a bus with many passengers?

The Police must do what they feel is best in such a situation, and if they believe that someone is about to detonate a bomb, they most probably need to use lethal force, but the way they handled this incident, long before they even shot the man, shows a staggering level of incompetence.

its coming out now his visa had ran out , and he must have noticed guys hanging around the flat / following him and ran .

From what I understand, he was in the country illegally and his english was not the best. That in itself may answer a lot of questions.

Now that's what I call justice..... 2005.

Macy, I understand your sentiments, but before you've occupied all the moral high ground out there, just put yourself in the shoes of those cops. They had to obey orders, had to give pursuit to a person acting very strangely in an estate they had under surveillance, they had a judgement call to make, and when he didn't respond in the way a purely innocent person would, ie hands in the air, on your knees kinda stuff, that call was made so much harder. I don't for one minute think that this was a cold blooded killing like its being insinuated, but I do acknowledge that there were mistakes made.

If they took no action and he happened to detonate something that killed a lot of innocent civilians then I'm sure you'd be slating them for not doing their jobs correctly.

Try and be objective.

There is ZERO justification to what happened to this totally innocent man. If running away from the police constitutes an offence that leads to being shot 5 times in the head then we are fcuked as a society and may as well pack it in now.

This man was lying on the ground and the cop that shot him was sitting on him as he shot him. That's murder people, plain and simple. The Met took their new shoot-to-kill/aim for the head policy from the Israelis and that says it all. Taking advice from forces that murder 4-year-old girls for the same "running away" offence is crazy.

KOH

I wouldn't feel sorry for Police that have to make these decisions as thats their job - make decision on what appropriate action is. Its up to their superiors to issue the appropriate orders.

One things for certain - not going to be many people watching around London with rucksacks on these days especially if have non-white skin. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeSoap

Try and be objective.

---

I am being objective. There's a reason why we have a justice system, imperfect as it is. Here's an example why we have judges and jurys and don't let cops decide innocence or guilt or punishment.

There could've been a host of other non-terrorist reasons that he could've run, like fear of deportation, shop lifting, an 8th in his back pocket...

This demonstrates why i do not want to see the Gardai armed over here. I find it hard to hold anything against the cop who killed that man. It's terrible that this happened but don't blame the cops, blame the rules of the system they work in I say. They were given a shoot to kill instruction and the policeman followed orders. Incidentally, i believe the reason the man was shot in the head at close range was because he ran away. A long range shot was out of the question given the possibility he was carrying explosives and they only caught up with him at the Tube station. I'm not excusing it but if you're wondering why it happened then that seems to be the reason. Maybe they messed up a bit in not planning on him running away but I would be wary of accusing them of incompetence.

As mentioned above, we cannot allow men and woman who are no less prone to err as you or I assume the role of judge and jury in these instances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

There is ZERO justification to what happened to this totally innocent man. If running away from the police constitutes an offence that leads to being shot 5 times in the head then we are fcuked as a society and may as well pack it in now.

This man was lying on the ground and the cop that shot him was sitting on him as he shot him. That's murder people, plain and simple. The Met took their new shoot-to-kill/aim for the head policy from the Israelis and that says it all. Taking advice from forces that murder 4-year-old girls for the same "running away" offence is crazy.

KOH

---

zero justifacation how about 2 weeks atfer london got bombed ,and a day after an attempted bombing someguy , jumped the turnstyle into the tube raun with a backpack towards the train when cops told him to stop he kept running at the train ,what are the cops to think , are they suppossed to risk the lives of every one on that train just in case this guy isnt a bomber .

they had seconds to react , this guy was living in london so i reckon he new it got bombed and everyone was on edge and the city was being attacked daily , he should have know not to run through a tube station with a bag on his back for god sake .

how can you covince some one that is willing to blow themselfs up to stop and give themselves over to the cops instead !!. head shot is the way to do it

I thought he wasn't wearing a back-pack? And are we to assume now that only white people are allowed to jump the turnstiles in tube stations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Éanna

I thought he wasn't wearing a back-pack?

---

No pack pack but even if he had it would be way OTT. It's lucky for the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 that this new shoot-to-kill policy wasn't around in the seventies. Come to think of it it's lucky for the general Irish community in the UK.

There was a shoot-to-kill policy in the north but that's a whole other ball game. Friday's killing does show how far we've come in relation to the eroding of basic civil rights.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special...age.jsp?id=399

KOH

You know it is very difficult for the police in question here, they're damned if they do and damned if they dont. So the next time they are watching a building and a suspicious person comes out, eludes the police, runs from them and jumps on a train, they are faced with a difficult question. Do they try and take the guy out or do they guess that it is maybe the wrong person?

There will be a lot more questions if that person is an actual terrorist and blows up a train. Listen, the police were put into this position by these terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Éanna

I thought he wasn't wearing a back-pack? And are we to assume now that only white people are allowed to jump the turnstiles in tube stations?

---

I don't think anyone is allowed to jump the turnstiles.

suicide bombers dont have back packs, they typically have bilky looking jackets AFIK.

I feel sorry for the guy, but in the circumstances, he should really have known better :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Éanna

I thought he wasn't wearing a back-pack? And are we to assume now that only white people are allowed to jump the turnstiles in tube stations?

---

am he is white !!