new London attacks?

this freaked me somewhat when i read it on The Guardian site
slightly different wording on there but i guess it's the same guy they interviewed
this has got to be wrong
if they had him they had him, no need to do that
nobody better try and justify marshall fucking law in my country
i'm sure we WERE more civilised than that

 

Most explosives don't explode when shot by a firearms.
Semtex, C3, C4 and others plastic, don't explode when hit or burn for instance.

And, this BBC news couldn't be less informative. An Asian dude get shot 5 time on the subway...

 

Dunno if you missed the news but 55 people were killed in suicide attacks a fortnight ago, and yesterday bombers tried again. If they suspect that this guy is a suicide bomber, what are they supposed to do? Tickle him under the armpits with a feather?

When was that? When was the last time that Britain faced the danger of suicide bombers? Oh, that's right, a fortnight ago. Suicide bombers are a specific threat that require a specific response.

I mean do me a favour. We have an unarmed police force, and a number of highly trained armed officers who are deployed in specific circumstances, and in general don't go off taking pop-shots at innocent folks for shits & giggles.

If this guy was innocent ... then that's a different debate (though running away from armed police in the Tube in London in the current climate is a dead-cert nomination for a Darwin Award IMO).

 

Most may not, but the explosive that was used by the last round of suicide bombers, Acetone Peroxide, would.

"Acetone peroxide is highly heat, friction, and shock sensitive."

 

yes but its so unstable you can't effectively transport it, so it would be a very bad choice for a terrorist to use this since there are much better alternatives.

 

oh yes! that was exactly what i was suggesting
i'm not talking about bombings, i'm talking about using them for justification as you have just done
we don't know facts yet, whether he had finger in det or otherwise
otherwise - no justification in MY country
and yes, i've been trying to avoid the schmultzy/shock-horror/panic Fox style news that everyone has seemed to stoop to, as it makes me want to puke
as did seeing a "7/7" graphic constantly moving across my screen the other day - fucktards!

 

Justification for what?

 

I'm not really getting his point either so it's not just you, nutty.

 

Well call me naive, but i have faith that our very professional armed forces only shoot when there is a good reason. We're not talking about London's parking attendants here.

We have NO armed police on the streets usually, and our "special forces" know what they're doing.

Until we get the full story, i'm behind them.

 

If someone carries a explosives for a suicide attack, will it run away when some cops tell him to stop? Wouldn't he just blow himself up right away? If he ran away, wouldn't that mean that it's not carrying anything so dangerous or that what he's carrying is not quite ready to blow at that very moment? Wouldn't it be better to try to get ahold of him *alive* so if he's really a terrorist, he can reveal something important? Isn't killing a terrorist (if he was a terrorist, mind you) like that the best way to keep other terrorists coming on again and again? In a situation like these I think that you have to be cold-blooded and logic, not "shoot to kill if he dares move an eyebrow". I know it's very hard given the circumstances, but I do believe that's the way to get it right. The "shoot-to-kill" thing will likely turn into a paranoic habit soon enough, and paranoia is exactly what people should try to avoid right now.

 

Presumably, if he had the bomb, then the shooting would be justified.

If not, then it wouldn't and those cops should be punished for shooting him..

Of course, rational people would see the shooting as justified either way, but in the case of no bomb a tragic mistake.

 

If the guy was one of yesterday's losers, even without bomb on him, i could see the shooting justified. Not intelligent, but justified.

The guy was much more useful alive, especially if he had no bombs on him.

But i can see how the cops didn't want to run the risk, apparently it was unclear, with the big padded-looking coat he had.

 

Depending on the reports the police chased him down and either sat on him or pinned him down then shot him either 4 or 5 times. Sounds like the police are protectin' thar citizens

 

Reasonable suspicion of a bomb or bomb-detonation device = shoot to kill.

Other than that, taking him prisoner and interrogating him would have been much more beneficial to the investigation, but the "bomb belt" quote from one of the witnesses makes it sound like the police acted appropriately. The only thing that raises a question in my mind is why he would have ran instead of detonating the bomb, if he had one.

 

Probably more a case of lots of people trying to act as best they can in the current circumstances and according to their current orders. It's bad alright, but what would you expect otherwise? They're all on edge at the moment, and with very good reason. People are people, and mistakes happen.

I'm not saying this is one, but are you really going to lock them up for trying to handle a possibly very dangerous situation on the spot as best they could?

 

i'd better clear this up
when i said "justification" i meant gov'ts using the severity of incidents like these bombings to justify flaunting of normal procedures or laws we have
and don't jump on me for advocating a preferred red-tape scenario, i'm not
i just don't like the "the rules don't apply to us" attitude of this gov't, especially when they're so quick to rewrite the rulebooks for the rest of us at the slightest of whims

as for something that would likely be perceived to be a state endorsed public exectution by those of dissent in this particular case; my opinion is that it's more likely to tip the balance in moderates to lean more towards the extreme - i wouldn't be surprised to see more attacks

just my opinion

 

Why is it that on the rare occasion I give law enforcment the benefit of the doubt, they always prove me wrong?

 

i didn't follow this up, but found out only today from somebody at work

in case anyone else missed it
Police shot Brazilian eight times

sorry if there's a separate new thread, i haven't checked