PDA

View Full Version : Further Explosions on London Underground



smoke
21-07-05, 14:36
Feel a duty to report:

TUBE EXPLOSION REPORTED

There have been unconfirmed reports of an apparently minor explosion on the London Underground.

There are no reports of casualties.


A series of incidents have been reported near Warren Street, Oval and Shepherd's Bush stations on the London Underground.

The stations have been evacuated.

Train passenger Ivan McCracken told Sky News he spoke to an Italian man who witnessed an explosion.

"He told me he had seen a man carrying a rucksack which suddenly exploded. It was a minor explosion but enough to blow open his rucksack. Everyone rushed from the carriage. People evacuated very quickly. There was no panic.

"I didn't see anyone injured but there was shock and fright.

"There was a smell of smoke."

"The man who was holding the rucksack looked extremely dismayed.

Police have cordoned off the streets around Warren Street station. They said a suspect package had been reported on a Victoria Line train.

Sky reporter Mark White said authorities are "pushing everybody as far back from the station as they can".

It is two weeks to the day since bombers attacked three Tube trains and a bus in central London.

Another eyewitness, Sosiane Mohellavi, said "Everyone panicked and people were screaming.

"We had to pull the alarm. I am still shaking."

Developing story, so very speculative.
http://www.sky.com/skynews

lonesoullost3
21-07-05, 16:07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm

I can't believe this has happened again, when will London have time to recuperate?

smoke
21-07-05, 17:08
a more up to date version of the story.


NEW LONDON TERROR ALERT

Bombers have again targeted London's transport system - with up to four explosions reported.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the bombs appeared to be small, and that the situation was coming under control.


Passengers reported one blast at Warren Street station off Tottenham Court Road in central London.

There has also been an incident on a bus in Hackney, East London.

Stations at Warren Street, Oval and Shepherd's Bush have been closed.

Scotland Yard have confirmed there is an incident involving armed police officers at University College Hospital in Bloomsbury close to Warren Street station.

A man was also arrested at gunpoint by armed police at the gates of Downing Street.

Police also evacuated pedestrians from Whitehall and Parliament Street, immediately outside Downing Street, and closed the roads to traffic.




The bus in Hackney



An internal memo to staff at the hospital has warned them to be on the lookout for a black male, possibly of Asian origin, about 6ft 2ins tall, wearing a blue top with wires protruding from the rear of the top.

Police officers in chemical protection suits have been seen appearing to enter Warren Street, where British Transport Police say one person has been injured.

A initial chemical search at Oval station has proved negative.

Tony Blair said that although the incidents had to be treated as seriously, there had been no reports of casualties.

"We know why these things are done - they are done to scare people," he told a news conference.

He said police were working to return London to normal as quickly as possible.

Services on the Victoria, Northern and Hammersmith & City and Bakerloo Lines have been disrupted.




Stations affected



Emergency services started receiving calls just after 12.30pm.

Warren Street tube passenger Ivan McCracken told Sky News he spoke to an Italian man who witnessed an explosion just after the train arrived at the platform.

"He told me he had seen a man carrying a rucksack which suddenly exploded. It was a minor explosion but enough to blow open his rucksack. Everyone rushed from the carriage. People evacuated very quickly. There was no panic."

One witness told Sky News that passengers tried to prevent a man with a rucksack running away but they failed.

At Oval station there were reports of a man dumping a rucksack in a carriage then fleeing as the doors closed.

Scotland Yard said emergency services responded to an "incident" on a Number 26 bus in Hackney Road, on a junction near Colombia Road, east London.

Bus operator Stagecoach said the driver heard a bang at around 1.30pm.

The bus had left Waterloo and was in Shoreditch when the incident happened.

It is two weeks to the day since bombers attacked three Tube trains and a bus in central London.



it doesn't appear to be as serious as the events of 7/7...with only a handful of casualties and no fatalities. they also have spoken of 'dummy explosions' (no explosives just a detonator).

Duo
21-07-05, 17:24
This is becoming quite serious. I wonder if this will prompt other such incidents to occur now that some fanatics may be feeling a bit more enthusiastic

Miss_apollo7
21-07-05, 18:28
According to the BBC, two people are detained....Let's hope they catch the crooks..

Duo
21-07-05, 18:33
Some are saying that they are just cheap amateur imitation like attacks from street thugs

let's hope so..........

Miss_apollo7
21-07-05, 18:37
Some are saying that they are just cheap amateur imitation like attacks from street thugs

let's hope so..........

I was thinking the exact same thing when I first heard about it...

Mycernius
21-07-05, 18:54
I really don't know what they are trying to achieve, except p****** the public off about Muslims. Aren't they aware that their own people will become targets of the far right if they keep doing this. Not only will they suffer, but so will other Indians that live in Britain. It is a mindset that I cannot understand.

smoke
21-07-05, 19:59
I really don't know what they are trying to achieve, except p****** the public off about Muslims. Aren't they aware that their own people will become targets of the far right if they keep doing this. Not only will they suffer, but so will other Indians that live in Britain. It is a mindset that I cannot understand.
Well said...

unfortunately, these thoughts do not crossed the brainwashed minds of these sicks individuals.
I live in an area with a large asian (not in the oriental sense) population and have over heard coversations about the tensions in other asian communities across London.
I just hope that retaliation doesn't happen against communities across the country as public confrontation and unease is exactly what these people hope to achieve.

smoke
21-07-05, 20:03
I was thinking the exact same thing when I first heard about it...
my first thought was copycat attacks...3 tube trains and a bus...sounds to horribly familiar!
I think it has become apparent that these weren't thugs are anything like that. It's thought that, quite simply, it was a failed attack and the bombs didn't detonate.
I'm just incredibly thankfull that no further lives were lost.

This acts as an all to sicking reminder to two weeks ago, to the day.

Pararousia
22-07-05, 04:35
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=57735

"Why in God’s name is a country letting known Islamist cells thrive, instead of just rolling them up?"

Columns - July 15, 2005

Charles Krauthammer:
Europe incubated an enemy within
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

LAST Nov. 2, Theo van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker and descendant of the painter, was cycling through Amsterdam. He was accosted by Mohammed Bouyeri, who shot him six times as Van Gogh pleaded, “We can still talk about it! Don’t do it!” Bouyeri then cut his throat with a kitchen knife, severing his head all the way to his spine. Bouyeri was not done. He then took a five-page Islamist manifesto and with his knife impaled it on van Gogh’s chest.

On trial now in Holland, Bouyeri is unrepentant. In court, he turned to van Gogh’s grieving mother, and with infinite cruelty said to her, “I do not feel your pain.”

He feels instead glory. Van Gogh had made a short film about the oppression of Muslim women. Bouyeri was acting “purely in the name of my religion,” championing his faith by butchering a filmmaker critical of it. Bouyeri is no newly arrived immigrant. Nor is he, like the 9/11 hijackers, a cosmopolitan terrorist sent abroad to kill. He is native born and bred in Holland. As were three of the four London bombers, who were second-generation Pakistani Brits.

The most remarkable discovery is that Europe’s second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants are more radicalized than the first. One reasonably non-political and non-radical Muslim activist, raised in the suburbs of Paris, explained himself (to The Wall Street Journal) as having “immigrated to France at the local maternity ward.”

The fact that native-born Muslim Europeans are committing terror acts within their own countries shows that this Islamist malignancy long predates Iraq, long predates Afghanistan and long predates 9/11. WhatEurope had incubated is an enemy within, a threat that for decades Europe simply refused to face.

Early news reports of the London bombings mentioned that police found no suspects among known Islamist cells in Britain. Come again? Why in God’s name is a country letting known Islamist cells thrive, instead of just rolling them up?

British Islamists had spoken of a “covenant of security” under which Britain would be spared Islamic terror so long as it allowed radical clerics free rein. Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, for example, a Syrian-born, exiled Saudi cleric granted asylum 19 years ago, openly preaches jihad against Britain. He is sought by the press for comment all the time. And, a lovely touch, he actually lives on the British dole — even though he rejects the idea of British citizenship, saying, “I don’t want to become a citizen of hell.”

One of the reasons Westerners were so unprepared for this wave of Islamist terrorism, not just militarily but psychologically, is sheer disbelief. It shockingly contradicts Western notions of progress. The savagery of Bouyeri’s act, mirroring the ritual human slaughter by Zarqawi or Daniel Pearl’s beheaders, is a return to a primitiveness that we in the West had assumed a progressive history had left behind.

Our first response was, therefore, to simply sweep this contradiction under the rug. Put the first World Trade Center bombers on trial and think it will solve the problem. Even today, there are many Americans and even more Europeans who believe that after 9/11, the United States should just have done Afghanistan — depose the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda’s sanctuary — and gone no further, thinking that would solve the problem.

But the problem is far deeper. It is essentially a civil war within a rival civilization in which the most primitive elements are seeking to gain the upper hand. 9/11 forced us to intervene massively in this civil war, which is why we are in Iraq. There, as in Afghanistan, we have enlisted millions of Muslims on the anti-Islamist side.

But what about the vast majority of European Muslims, the 99 percent who are peace-loving and not engaged in terror? They must also join the fight. They must actively denounce not just — what is obvious — the terror attacks, but their source: Islamist ideology and its practitioners who serve as their source.

Where are the fatwas issued against Osama bin Laden? Where are the denunciations of the very idea of suicide bombing? Europeans must demand this of all their Muslim leaders. They must also dismantle and destroy all “known” Islamist cells before trains and buses are blown up.

A modest beginning might be removing the likes of Sheik Omar — and Bouyeri — from the teat of the clueless infidel taxpayer. “He (Bouyeri) had the time to plan this,” van Gogh’s mother told the court, “because for three years, he was on unemployment benefits.” Decadence is defined not by a civilization’s art or music, but ultimately by its willingness to simply defend itself.

Charles Krauthammer’s e-mail address is [email protected]

XxSirenxX
22-07-05, 08:24
i just hope that was the last of them...

im flying into london this sunday... :worried:

CC1
22-07-05, 08:40
I seriously doubt that it was professionals. There is no way that they could try to set off that many bombs and all of them fail to go off! This has to be a job done by amatuers! Building a bomb of that type is so incredibly easy...it's the carrying it to the location and putting it in place that is the difficult part!

Frank D. White
22-07-05, 12:16
British police shot and killed a "South Asian Man" who ran from them on the subway. Pretty rare to here guns are used in England by the police to kill someone. Guess it shows people are nervous about anyone looking suspicious.

Frank

:okashii:

smoke
22-07-05, 14:02
I seriously doubt that it was professionals. There is no way that they could try to set off that many bombs and all of them fail to go off! This has to be a job done by amatuers! Building a bomb of that type is so incredibly easy...it's the carrying it to the location and putting it in place that is the difficult part!

It is believed that the bombs used in yesterday's failed attacks were made at the same time as the bombs used two weeks ago. A bomb expert was saying on the radio that home made explosives have a 'shelf life' (for want of a better term) and that they may have failed to detonate because they may of 'expired'.

Latest news (following on from Frank's post)

'SUICIDE BOMBER' SHOT

Police have killed a suspected suicide bomber at a Tube station in south London.


Armed officers opened fire on the suspect after he hurdled a ticket barrier and raced along a platform at Stockwell station.

Police screamed at passengers to evacuate and are thought to have shot the suspect as he stumbled on to a train.

Alarmed onlookers said they saw up to 10 plain-clothed officers chasing an Asian-looking man before opening fire.

Witness Mark Whitby was on the train as he saw a big man wearing a large coat and "looking absolutely petrified" lurch through the doors.

Admitting to being "totally distraught", he went on: "He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor.

"The policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand, he held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him."

Unconfirmed reports suggest the man was involved in Thursday's assault on the capital.




Stockwell Tube alert



If the suspect is proved to be a suicide bomber, it would mark the fifth attempted terrorist attack on London in less than a day.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We can confirm that just after 10am armed officers shot a male at Stockwell Underground station.

"A man was challenged by officers and subsequently shot. London Ambulance Service attended the scene. He was pronounced dead at the scene."

Police are believed to be under orders to shoot to kill if they believe someone is about to detonate a bomb.

Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said: "The officer or officers involved in this clearly felt this suspect was about to detonate a bomb."

Three eyewitnesses were taken to a nearby veterinary surgery by police before being taken away for interview.

Tube services on the Northern Line have been suspended at the request of police but the Victoria is running again.

An earlier bomb threat targeting a mosque in east London has been given the all-clear by police.



As it says above, officers have been given the right to 'shoot to kill'.

Ma Cherie
22-07-05, 18:14
British police shot and killed a "South Asian Man" who ran from them on the subway. Pretty rare to here guns are used in England by the police to kill someone. Guess it shows people are nervous about anyone looking suspicious.

Frank

:okashii:


Yeah, you're right. But what I don't understand why is Tony Blair blaming the attacks on Pakistan? I've been reading some aritcles on this and it doesn't really seem that there's a whole lot of information linking British Pakistanis and muslims to the attacks. If anyone can find any articles on possible suspects that would be much appreciated. :p

Mycernius
22-07-05, 18:17
As it says above, officers have been given the right to 'shoot to kill'.
I heard on radio 4 today that they are being told to shoot them in the head and not the body, in case they are carrying explosives and a bullet might set them off. I suppose it is the way to go withh suicide bombers. Take them out ASAP. An injured man could still detonate himself. I just wonder how much trouble the police might get in. Remember the shootings on Gibraltar? Police shot and killed several IRA members. That caused a bit of a storm at the time.

smoke
22-07-05, 20:04
Yeah, you're right. But what I don't understand why is Tony Blair blaming the attacks on Pakistan? I've been reading some aritcles on this and it doesn't really seem that there's a whole lot of information linking British Pakistanis and muslims to the attacks. If anyone can find any articles on possible suspects that would be much appreciated. :p
I don't think the attacks are being blamed on pakistan.
It is believed (with some evidence i'm sure) that the 7/7 bombers visited before returning to england and commiting these horrific acts. According to the families of the bombers they weren't fanatics before they left and they think they were 'brainwashed' whilst in pakistan...that's where the link to pakistan lies.


THEIR TRIPS ABROAD

:: Tanweer, Khan and Hussain travelled to Karachi in southern Pakistan last year. Pakistani officials said Hussain arrived a year ago aboard a Saudi airliner. Tanweer and Khan arrived in Karachi in November aboard a Turkish Airlines flight. Intelligence officials are trying to build up a picture of what the three men did while they were there.

:: Tanweer is thought to have attended a madrassa, or religious school, in Lahore. It has also been claimed that in February, Tanweer met a leader of the outlawed radical group Jaish-e-Muhammad, which is said to have links to al Qaeda.

:: Hussain, reportedly a tearaway as a younger teenager, is said to have become devoutly religious about 18 months ago following his trip to Pakistan.

:: Khan is believed to have visited Pakistan on numerous occasions. An al Qaeda aide has reportedly said he recognises Khan from a "terror summit" held in the tribal areas of Pakistan last year.

:: Reports have claimed that Lindsay visited Afghanistan four years ago and returned to Britain as a hardline Muslim.

smoke
22-07-05, 20:07
I heard on radio 4 today that they are being told to shoot them in the head and not the body, in case they are carrying explosives and a bullet might set them off. I suppose it is the way to go withh suicide bombers. Take them out ASAP. An injured man could still detonate himself. I just wonder how much trouble the police might get in. Remember the shootings on Gibraltar? Police shot and killed several IRA members. That caused a bit of a storm at the time.
I hope that there won't be a public uprising by the muslim community. However if the shot 'terrorists' prove to be innocent then i'm afraid that may be the outcome.
If however they were terrorists, i hope that the police won't be blamed for 'uneccesary violence'.
What would people rather have, a dead terrorist or hundreds of dead innocents?

bossel
03-08-05, 01:55
What would people rather have, a dead terrorist or hundreds of dead innocents?
I'd rather have no dead innocents at all. The shot guy was definitely no terrorist & the lack of criticism in regard to police behaviour shows that the terrorists are having success in their attempts to change Western society.

Here is at least some criticism (albeit a bit biased, from a Libertarian):
Jean Charles de Menezes, RIP (http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2005/tle330-20050731-02.html)

Quote:
"Tony Blair and Jack Straw have, of course, expressed their deepest regrets, but have defended the actions of the intrepid police. The suspect must be executed immediately without detention or trial, and the bullets must be delivered to the head because body shots might set off that the bomb that had to be hidden under that coat, you see. [...] By acting swiftly and decisively they potentially saved dozens of innocent lives!

Well, pardon me, but that's a load. A suicide bomb belt has a detonator cord that must be pulled, or a button that must be pushed. If the police are at point blank range, they can see the suspects hands. If those hands are outside the coat, they can be pinned. Unless the suspect's hands are inside the coat, no presumption of intent to detonate a bomb should be made. Furthermore, in every instance in memory, a suicide bomber who was discovered simply detonated the bomb immediately, or chickened out and surrendered.

But why, why did Jean Charles run? Well, I do have a theory about that:

BECAUSE HE WAS BEING CHASED BY A BAND OF SCREAMING, PLAINCLOTHES POLICE F*CKUPS [automatic censorship changes the original text here, how I love this :okashii: ] WAVING GUNS, THAT'S WHY! AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ONLY TERRORISTS, CRIMINALS OR UNIFORMED POLICEMAN CARRY GUNS IN GUN-CONTROLLED LONDON! "

noyhauser
03-08-05, 02:36
First off Bossell I don't think that you can easily tell whether he was carrying a bomb or not. Hamas, LTTE and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers have made incredibly effective bombs that are very easy to conceal with buttons that could be concealed under a belt. So he may well have been carrying a weapon.

Secondly he wasn't just chased by painclothed policemen. Each metropolitan tube Station are just crawling with Transport and Metropolitan police officers, especially the large ones. So I doubt that all twenty officers were plain clothed. I have sympathy for the family, but to be honest I think that it was his failure to stop that
was the cause of his death. Yes the Police made a mistake when they thought he was a suspect because he lived in the same flat as other suspected terrorists, but
he should have stopped. Its that clear. The lack of a public outrage is because most people agree with that in the UK. Had he been gunned down innocently walking the street the outrage I think would have been far more visible. but because he ran, then INTO a train, most people think its a shame but his fault.

Lastly, I don't believe this has had the effects that you believe. The UK has lived with shoot to kill for quite some time. It was a clear policy during the height of IRA terrorism. Secondly, put into the same situation not knowing what we do now, I would hazard to guess that most police officers even before 9/11 would have done the same.

bossel
04-08-05, 07:45
First off Bossell I don't think that you can easily tell whether he was carrying a bomb or not.
First off, for the biggest part, it wasn't me talking, but (unlike others who probably would simply refer you to the original writer, ah, how nice I am) I try to provide a response as far as I can agree with the author, or at least can see his point.

I don't think, he said something like "you can easily tell whether he was carrying a bomb."

I can't remember any instance when the British police hunted down an individual & killed by multiple shots to the head. But I suppose, you can give some examples? This is Wild West manner which I would expect (in extraordinary circumstances) from some US police but not from the British.


Hamas, LTTE and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers have made incredibly effective bombs that are very easy to conceal with buttons that could be concealed under a belt. So he may well have been carrying a weapon.
I don't think, that was his point either.


Secondly he wasn't just chased by painclothed policemen. Each metropolitan tube Station are just crawling with Transport and Metropolitan police officers, especially the large ones. So I doubt that all twenty officers were plain clothed.
20? The BBC speaks of "3 undercover officers" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4720979.stm). Anyway, if he panicked for being pursued, I doubt that he would have looked around very much whether it was only the 3 hunting him or whether 17 uniformed officers had joined the chase.


I have sympathy for the family, but to be honest I think that it was his failure to stop that was the cause of his death.
Ah yes, obviously, 7 shots to the head are a valid response if someone doesn't stop. Anyway, 7 (seven!) shots? Seems like overkill to me.


Its that clear.
Not really.


The lack of a public outrage is because most people agree with that in the UK. Had he been gunned down innocently walking the street the outrage I think would have been far more visible. but because he ran, then INTO a train, most people think its a shame but his fault.
Or it's because of government propaganda about terrorism?


Lastly, I don't believe this has had the effects that you believe. The UK has lived with shoot to kill for quite some time. It was a clear policy during the height of IRA terrorism.
Nope, it wasn't. There were a few instances of shoot-to-kill tactics (by the SAS), but no official policy. "Kratos" was only introduced 6 months after 9/11.

As the BBC states: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm)
"If Operation Kratos is being used, it would be the first time a shoot-to-kill policy was officially allowed on British streets."


Secondly, put into the same situation not knowing what we do now, I would hazard to guess that most police officers even before 9/11 would have done the same.
Probably not, since there was a clear policy before. From the above link:
"These state that [the police]:
# Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).
# Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.
# Should reassess the situation after each shot."

After the 1st shot to the head a reassessment probably would have led to the conclusion that another 6 rounds to make it a big lump of blood & brain were unnecessary.

noyhauser
04-08-05, 15:14
First off Shoot to kill IS an old debate. Its pretty clear that it was used in Northern Ireland for over a decade (many individuals have said so, even if the Government has denied it) and was heavily debated at the time in Wesminster. Note that I made sure I said UK, NOT Britain, because it was in use in Northern Ireland, and was not limited to the SAS soldiers but was a policy for some time of the Ulster Constabulary.

For the 20 police officers (A bit of a stretch and I should have checked it to be sure), I thought I heard this when I was watching the telly (I live in london)... I may have been wrong... so my apologies if I am.


I can't remember any instance when the British police hunted down an individual & killed by multiple shots to the head. But I suppose, you can give some examples? This is Wild West manner which I would expect (in extraordinary circumstances) from some US police but not from the British.

Maybe not to the head, but during the Iranian Embassy Siege of 1980 the Public was treated to the sight of an SAS soldier trying to drag a sixth terrorist back into the embassy to shoot him. In counter terrorism operations, excessive use of force is the norm, and this situation was viewed by officers as just that. In Northern Ireland, many examples exist of Police probably overstepping their bounds. But this isn't just a British Phenomenon. The GSG-9 in Germany killed several terrorists in 1977, and the creation of the DGSE in France and its use against Algerian terrorism during the 80s and the 1990s. Moreover this situation for the police is considered far more dangerous than the IRA troubles in the past. IRA bombers in 80s and 90s did not carry out suicide attacks, and even telephoned in warnings. Bombings were more for symbolic purposes rather than the killing and maiming of large individuals. In Madrid, when the bombers of the Trains were cornered they blew themselves up killing a spanish police officer as well. So I'm not suprised that shoot to kill has been clearly implemented.


After the 1st shot to the head a reassessment probably would have led to the conclusion that another 6 rounds to make it a big lump of blood & brain were unnecessary.

First off there weren't 7 shots to the head, there were five (accorrding to witnesses) and I've heard that it was only three to the head, and five shots in total (two from a distance). Even If it was the latter scenario, then I would consider that responsible use of force. Also I caution you to make such a statement before the inquest has concluded because it is ongoing and the facts of the case are not clear. And even if it was excessive, given the situation where the police officers had every reason to believe that he was a bomber (he emerged from a suspected bomber flat, was wearing a heavy overcoat on a warm day AND proceeded to run away when being asked to stop) I'm sure they were running on adrenaline at the time and only had the worst case scenario in mind. Had they not of, and he was a suicide bomber, the consequences would have probably been worse in their minds. There was no way for them to tell he wasn't a suicide bomber EXCEPT by asking him to stop, which he did not comply with. He represented to them a serious risk to public saftey. You're right, that the police made a mistake in the first place but that could have been easily rectified had he of stopped, which HE is LEGALLY required to do, but he didn't stop. Had he of stopped, we would have never heard of this whole incident and Mr Menzes would be alive today.



Probably not, since there was a clear policy before.

You;re right, but read the policy carefully its not as clear as you think; "(unless this risks serious harm)" "Should aim" and "Should reassess." If a serious threat to public safety is posed by the indidiviual like him carrying a gun in public or a bomb, its essentially shoot to kill at that point. The Reassessment is when the individual is dead or completely incapacitated... IE what happened to Mr. Menzes.

noyhauser
04-08-05, 15:17
Or it's because of government propaganda about terrorism?

No because of my completely unscientific poll of asking my friends what they thought and what I've heard from people around London, as well as reading the editorial lines from several papers about the subject. Generally people here are a bit shocked and saddend, but I would hardly call it an outrage.

bossel
04-08-05, 17:12
Note that I made sure I said UK, NOT Britain, because it was in use in Northern Ireland, and was not limited to the SAS soldiers but was a policy for some time of the Ulster Constabulary.
I understand UK very well, & IMO if you only meant Northern Ireland, you should have said so. UK is the whole thingy. Anyway, AFAIK no clear policy there, either.


Maybe not to the head, but during the Iranian Embassy Siege of 1980 the Public was treated to the sight of an SAS soldier trying to drag a sixth terrorist back into the embassy to shoot him. In counter terrorism operations, excessive use of force is the norm, and this situation was viewed by officers as just that. In Northern Ireland, many examples exist of Police probably overstepping their bounds. But this isn't just a British Phenomenon. The GSG-9 in Germany killed several terrorists in 1977, and the creation of the DGSE in France and its use against Algerian terrorism during the 80s and the 1990s.
IIRC, all these cases involved clearly identified terrorists, not simply suspects. I see a huge difference here.


First off there weren't 7 shots to the head, there were five (accorrding to witnesses) and I've heard that it was only three to the head, and five shots in total (two from a distance). Even If it was the latter scenario, then I would consider that responsible use of force.
I rely mainly on the BBC, according to their news it was 7 rounds to the head & 1 to the shoulder.


And even if it was excessive, given the situation where the police officers had every reason to believe that he was a bomber (he emerged from a suspected bomber flat, was wearing a heavy overcoat on a warm day AND proceeded to run away when being asked to stop) I'm sure they were running on adrenaline at the time and only had the worst case scenario in mind.
Police (esp. special forces) should be trained to deal with such a situation & keep their emotions under control. If they can't they are probably not up to the job.


Had they not of, and he was a suicide bomber, the consequences would have probably been worse in their minds. There was no way for them to tell he wasn't a suicide bomber EXCEPT by asking him to stop, which he did not comply with.
Since there were 3 of them, wouldn't it have been an option that 2 of them walk to his sides & then suddenly hold his arms? If he were a suicide bomber this would make more sense than shouting from some yards off "Don't move!" & then let him run away. It seems, the police officers were more concerned about their own safety than that of the public.
But, as you said, in that regard we should perhaps wait on the results of the official inquiry (although I don't have a great trust in official inquiries into police violence)



You;re right, but read the policy carefully its not as clear as you think; "(unless this risks serious harm)" "Should aim" and "Should reassess." If a serious threat to public safety is posed by the indidiviual like him carrying a gun in public or a bomb, its essentially shoot to kill at that point.
Nope, just because you carry a gun (or even a bomb) would not constitute a serious enough threat to the public. Only if the intention to harm is clear, it would constitute a reason to "incapacitate" (which does not necessarily mean "kill").


The Reassessment is when the individual is dead or completely incapacitated...
I don't think you've read it carefully. It says "Should reassess the situation after each shot."

Index
07-08-05, 08:56
Since there were 3 of them, wouldn't it have been an option that 2 of them walk to his sides & then suddenly hold his arms?

From what I read they knocked him over and held held him down, then shot him.