Man shot by police in London not connected to bombings

RE: Indeed...

Sum of my mates experinced this the other week, while they were cummin home from common around 3am they found sum ladders and decided to pinch the clock hands from town hall in hoyland. a fair few bevies had been consumed by this time. anyway, they are half way up the ladders when 2 bobby cars drive past n see them, they get out and tell them to get down. the lads sed out of the four cops 2 wanted to bang em in cells n other 2 had a laugh wi em understanding they were pissing about while drunk. just shows they can be cnuts if they want to be.

 

RE: You're dead right, we don't know

So how come you're stating what appear to be 'facts' in the other thread? That's rather a hypocritical statement.

 

RE: It sounds daft indeed...

Then we can't have a 'shoot to kill' policy at all Gary.

In which case, how exactly do the police react to a situation like this?

What would YOU have done?

 

RE: You're dead right, we don't know

I'm stating "facts" to combat your "facts". You're arguing through possible false facts, and I'm pointing out there are other false "facts" which can be argued from a totally opposite viewpoint.

 

RE: You're dead right, we don't know

Right okay, I think we should wait for the final report and verdict to come through and then judge it.

 

RE: It sounds daft indeed...

As the marksman, I may well have shot him if the circumstances we are told are correct. However, I feel our intelligence through this whole debacle is way off the mark, and it is this that should be analysed and tightened up. I have no objection to a shoopt to kill policy - in fact, had this been a bomber, the police would have been heroes. I simply feel cockups like this will do more harm than good, giving more impetus to the terrorists than the police. Let's put it this way, if you were a marksman now, and a similar situation arose, would you be as eager to shoot the guy?

 

RE: You're dead right, we don't know

I agree.

 

RE: It sounds daft indeed...

If we're to beat these ********, and the official policy is 'shoot to kill' then yes, I would - I'd be neglecting my duty and putting multiple innocent lives at risk otherwise.

The guy I feel for in all this is the marksman - you have to assume he genuinely believes he's aiming at a terrorist and, as you rightly say, if that proves to be the case then he's a hero having saved possibly hundreds of innocent lives.

It turns out that the target is not a terrorist, so instead of becoming a hero the marksman is now a villain.

What exactly did he do that turned him from hero to villain?

 

It certainly does explain him hurdling barriers. If I had some burly men chasing me and I didn't realise they were the police I'd hurdle mount bleeding Everest to get away from them!

 

RE: It sounds daft indeed...

He was never hero or a villain.
No one here knows what really happened, but if it's true that the guy had surrendered and was lying on the ground when they shot him in the head five times (!!!), then that's just stupid overreacting, and I don't feel any sympathy for the marksman.
According to the reports, they had been following him for a while before he started running away... so why didn't they catch him earlier? They already made a big mistake when they let him escape to the underground. Doesn't sound very professional to me.

 

RE: It sounds daft indeed...

My worry is we're not going to beat them.