BB FANS
http://www.bbfans.co.uk/

NEWS...BOMBER SHOT
http://www.bbfans.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=20784		 Page 4 of 6
Author:  pikeylass [ 24 Jul 05, 0:07 ]
Post subject: 
Well...........can only think what if I was the cop...hand on trigger ...under circumstances......
No..It's not right..but what might the alternative been??
Author:  HappyDaiz [ 24 Jul 05, 15:01 ]
Post subject: 
Yes it's a tragedy, but imagine if this had been a suicide bomber. All those of you who are going on like the marksman literally murdered this bloke would be harping on about how thick the police are that they didn't shoot when they had the chance. It's not like the police have had to deal with this kind of crap before so obviously they are going to make mistakes, even if this was the norm then I imagine mistakes would be made as everyone makes mistakes.
Author:  zx50 [ 24 Jul 05, 15:36 ]
Post subject: 
If i was the copper, i would have went for the leg or something. Just somewhere that would have stunned him, or maybe just knocked him to the ground. Why shoot him straight in the head, 5 times as well. Honestly, "some" of these police think they are a law unto themselves. Once would have been enough, maybe twice, but five. By rights though, they should have shot him in the leg or something, surely he would have fell. If i was in my town, and there was somebody running, i would clearly expect the police to maybe shoot the person in the leg or arm. Going for the head is only necessary when they are clearly doing something extremely dangerous, like going to set off a bomb or something. I would be absolutely shocked and disgusted, if i saw someone being "killed" just because they ran, and if they had been shot in the head, this would shock me even more. I know policemen aren't machines, and they get it wrong once in a blue moon, but five times in the head.
Author:  pikeylass [ 24 Jul 05, 15:56 ]
Post subject: 
Thing is (and I'm not agreeing it was the right thing to do) but if they thought he could detonate a bomb at any minute and was a danger to the public then there was little alternative than shoot to kill.We've not had to deal with suicide bombers in this country before and its a new scenario.Generally police are trained to stun a suspect but if the policeman was under the impression this was a ruthless bomber willing to kill and be killed then the interests of public safety are paramount.Don't forget that the policeman is a hman having now to live with the knowledge he killed an innocent man.No-one needs that on thier conscience.
Unless you've ever been in the same situation as that policeman(lets face it he was prbably sh*t scared that a bomb could go off any moment)then its quite unfair to condemn his actions as an individual.
Author:  zx50 [ 24 Jul 05, 16:30 ]
Post subject: 
Well, i suppose as far as the police department goes, a quick and sincere "sounding" aplogy, and then hopefully in a short period of time, it will be forgotten about :roll: I just can't understand why they had to shoot 5 times. And wouldn't the best way to have caught this man, would be to have walked towards him, instead of alarming him by shouting to him. Well anyway, it's all done now. I just hope there's nobody else walking about wearing thick coats or whatever. Calling out to someone alerts them and they run off, whereas letting them beleive that they aren't being approached while being approached, gives them more of a chance of catching them. This is what i think anyway.
Author:  steve_o [ 24 Jul 05, 16:43 ]
Post subject: 
To be honest if there were no terrorists, we wouldn't need a shot to kill policy. The worlds entering another evil period, I'm afraid, not seen since 1945. By that I mean the War on Terror, is the Third World War. Who know's where it will all end :-?
Author:  Maxwell's the don [ 24 Jul 05, 16:52 ]
Post subject: 
zx50 wrote:
If i was the copper, i would have went for the leg or something. Just somewhere that would have stunned him, or maybe just knocked him to the ground. Why shoot him straight in the head, 5 times as well. Honestly, "some" of these police think they are a law unto themselves.
The police have been told, shoot to kill if they think someone is going to use a device.

If they shot him in the leg, while it would knock him down, he could easily detonate the device still, it just isnt worth the risk.
Author:  zx50 [ 24 Jul 05, 21:06 ]
Post subject: 
About the killing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711619.stm

And the video:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm
Author:  Mozza [ 24 Jul 05, 21:24 ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Thing is (and I'm not agreeing it was the right thing to do) but if they thought he could detonate a bomb at any minute and was a danger to the public then there was little alternative than shoot to kill.We've not had to deal with suicide bombers in this country before and its a new scenario.Generally police are trained to stun a suspect but if the policeman was under the impression this was a ruthless bomber willing to kill and be killed then the interests of public safety are paramount.Don't forget that the policeman is a hman having now to live with the knowledge he killed an innocent man.No-one needs that on thier conscience.
Unless you've ever been in the same situation as that policeman(lets face it he was prbably sh*t scared that a bomb could go off any moment)then its quite unfair to condemn his actions as an individual.


Absolutely spot on Pikeylass! Couldn't agree more.

Yes, it's unfortunate but he was left with no choice but to shoot to kill. What could the alternative have been?
Author:  ADRIAN_L [ 25 Jul 05, 16:56 ]
Post subject: 
it's not a shoot to kill policy- it's a shoot to protect policy.

If the bloke hadn't of been breaking the law, he wouldn't have got shot.
He was an illegal...shouldn't have been here.
Author:  pikeylass [ 25 Jul 05, 17:03 ]
Post subject: 
I think thats a bit harsh Adrian..I DO feel very uneasy that an innocent man was shot...but I can't really see how the police could have taken the risk under the present climate :-?
Author:  Mozza [ 25 Jul 05, 17:13 ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
it's not a shoot to kill policy- it's a shoot to protect policy.


Brilliantly summed up!
Author:  zx50 [ 25 Jul 05, 17:27 ]
Post subject: 
Reading the article on the BBC website, it says that the reason he ran from the police, is because his visa had expired. This is why he ran, because he thought they were after him because of this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713753.stm

I will admit, because of these suicide bombers, there are probably going to be people being shot, just because they think the police want them over something very less serious.
Author:  zx50 [ 25 Jul 05, 17:30 ]
Post subject: 
ADRIAN_L wrote:
it's not a shoot to kill policy- it's a shoot to protect policy.

If the bloke hadn't of been breaking the law, he wouldn't have got shot.
He was an illegal...shouldn't have been here.


What would your post have said, if this had been an english man who had been shot??
Author:  CameronBB4 [ 25 Jul 05, 17:34 ]
Post subject: 
In reply to zx50's previous post, not the one immediately above.

That may be the case, but wouldn't most people in the city know that the authorities are edgy at this time with all that's been happening, and be aware that there is high tension surrounding behaviour that could appear suspicious?

Fear can tend to irrationalise situations though, and if the poor guy was concerned about his visa, then that would have been more to the front of his mind than the potential for police to think he was a bomber.

In any case, it's extremely unfortunate and pretty devastating to those concerned.
Page 4 of 6 All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/