Man Shot At Stockwell Tube Station

[udon]

I'm in the middle of other work and only reading reports here and there and basing my judgements on what I have seen so far.

That's exactly what I mean.

I thought you were getting your info from a Murdoch rag or Sky news.

[bkkmadness]

I'm taking most info from the BBC, if you could let me know the parts where you have other information from what I have stated, then it would be appreciated Udon, I'm here to learn and discuss. If my information is wrong, then I will be the first to admit it as it benefits myself in the long run.

Edited July 24, 2005 by bkkmadness

[udon]

Mate, just read as much as you can, spend a min of an hour..... ie: do proper research, instead of getting snippets of info and then commenting on the (shooting)cops behaviour.

Like I said to Burr, use some empathy with the cops, this was a very volotile(sp) situation they were in.

[The_Eye_Of_Sauron]

Why does everyone have to do what Udon says? This isn't Security Council you know.

Bogger the facts....

Lets bomb Rio De Janeiro in retaliation !

[bkkmadness]

Mate, just read as much as you can, spend a min of an hour..... ie: do proper research, instead of getting snippets of info and then commenting on the (shooting)cops behaviour.

Like I said to Burr, use some empathy with the cops, this was a very volotile(sp) situation they were in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With all due respect Udon, if you think my information is wrong then let me know where, don't just tell me to go away, read some more and then come back here when you consider my viewpoint worthy.

Just quote the part where I am wrong, make a brief comment on it, and then at least I know where I am looking. At least I can know what areas you disagree with.

Thanks.

[udon]

Why does everyone have to do what Udon says? This isn't  Security Council you know.

Bogger the facts....

Lets bomb Rio De Janeiro in retaliation !

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:D

[The_Eye_Of_Sauron]

I bet the Argie who got shot didn't buy a tube ticket.

That is an offense you know.

[autonomous_unit]

Yes, I agree we won't know until an inquiry is complete (if ever).

This is more like a meeting of Young Conservatives than an chat Forum.

Given the Police already admitted they shot someone who wasn't even vaguely a terrorist, why don't you go tingtong and debate it now (ooh you devils!) rather than prudently 'waiting for an inquiry'.

Its not as if your voluminous punditry is read by anyone

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh, not too often I get called a conservative... as I said, I sometimes feel right-wing for a Californian, and I should have clarified that as a real or Northern Californian since those southerners can be pretty stiff.

Anyway, despite your apparently not reading my posts that you respond to, my goal isn't really to aggravate anyone or see how many posts I can generate. Perhaps I should break up my voluminous comments into one-sentence posts? At this rate, it will be another year or two before I hit this magical 500 and see what kooky punditry there is in bedlam.

[Sir Burr]

Mate, just read as much as you can, spend a min of an hour..... ie: do proper research, instead of getting snippets of info and then commenting on the (shooting)cops behaviour.

Like I said to Burr, use some empathy with the cops, this was a very volotile(sp) situation they were in.

Would you still empathize with the police if this happened to your brother, father, or, your best mate?

[britmaveric]

Mate, just read as much as you can, spend a min of an hour..... ie: do proper research, instead of getting snippets of info and then commenting on the (shooting)cops behaviour.

Like I said to Burr, use some empathy with the cops, this was a very volotile(sp) situation they were in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would you still empathize with the police if this happened to your brother, father, or, your best mate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would, but I know my reles and mates arent that stupid.

Edited July 24, 2005 by britmaveric

[udon]

Given the circumstances at the time, YES, The Brasilian was stupid for running away from the cops when challenged, remember, the guy spoke good English, so there was no misundrrstanding of the challenge.

Besides, none of my friends or relos would be that stupid!

Mate, just read as much as you can, spend a min of an hour..... ie: do proper research, instead of getting snippets of info and then commenting on the (shooting)cops behaviour.

Like I said to Burr, use some empathy with the cops, this was a very volotile(sp) situation they were in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would you still empathize with the police if this happened to your brother, father, or, your best mate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[bkkmadness]

If he was consider such a dangerous threat that he needed to be killed as soon as disabled, why was he allowed to run away from the police in the first place?

Why was there not more officers there to apprehend the man? They must've known where he was going for quite sometime, he got a bus which route headed to the train station.

They must've had prior knowledge of this potential suicide bombers arrival?

He was tailed from his home to the train station and got all the way to the train before he was stopped. That seems like a lack of security to me.

[bkkmadness]

Mate, just read as much as you can, spend a min of an hour..... ie: do proper research, instead of getting snippets of info and then commenting on the (shooting)cops behaviour.

Like I said to Burr, use some empathy with the cops, this was a very volotile(sp) situation they were in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With all due respect Udon, if you think my information is wrong then let me know where, don't just tell me to go away, read some more and then come back here when you consider my viewpoint worthy.

Just quote the part where I am wrong, make a brief comment on it, and then at least I know where I am looking. At least I can know what areas you disagree with.

Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any further news on this Udon? I did expect you to back up your claims that my info was wrong by now. As I said, not wanting to start an argument here but I would like to learn if I have somehow got hold of wrong information as you suggested.

Thanks

[Sir Burr]

Have just read the BBC report. It appears this man was followed since he left a block of flats that was under surveillance. I won't even ask why he wasn't stopped before he got to the tube station.

Apparently, a plain-clothes policeman pulled a gun and told him to stop. The guy ran, maybe the plain-clothes policeman didn't identify himself as a policeman, who knows. As I have said in a previous post, if he had been shot whilst running away, that I could understand, but from eye-witness accounts he stumbled onto a train, police officers jumped on him and pinned him down whilst another officer killed him. Why didn't they shoot him as he ran away? Why did they let him get all the way to a train first? And, why did they kill him after he was already pinned down? Surely if they thought he was a bomber he would have been invaluable as a source of information under interrogation. If they killed him to prevent him detonating a bomb, then why did they jump on him? None if it makes any sense.

[bkkmadness]

Have just read the BBC report. It appears this man was followed since he left a block of flats that was under surveillance. I won't even ask why he wasn't stopped before he got to the tube station.

Apparently, a plain-clothes policeman pulled a gun and told him to stop. The guy ran, maybe the plain-clothes policeman didn't identify himself as a policeman, who knows. As I have said in a previous post, if he had been shot whilst running away, that I could understand, but from eye-witness accounts he stumbled onto a train, police officers jumped on him and pinned him down whilst another officer killed him. Why didn't they shoot him as he ran away? Why did they let him get all the way to a train first? And, why did they kill him after he was already pinned down? Surely if they thought he was a bomber he would have been invaluable as a source of information under interrogation. If they killed him to prevent him detonating a bomb, then why did they jump on him? None if it makes any sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sir Burr, read my posts, I have been saying that for a while now. Incompetence by the security forces in our country I'm afraid.

Without knowing that exact area of London too well it has to be said they the guy must've have travelled for at least 20-30 minutes to get from his home to the train station. All under police surveilance. Why was he not apprehended in that large window of time. How did he manage to get all the way into the depths oif the tube station before being stopped. Why in fact did it become such a volatile situation when it needn't be?

Edited July 24, 2005 by bkkmadness

[udon]

I'll take just one point from you

He was tailed from his home to the train station and got all the way to the train before he was stopped. That seems like a lack of security to me.

The flock of bats was under surveilance..... man of foreign appearance comes out of said flock of bats wearing a winter style jacket, he is followed by the old bill, he is challenged at the station by the 3? cops, man in winter jacket (it's summer, yes?) cops know that the bombers are intent on blowing themselves up if cornered , stupid man vaults the ticket barrier and heads for the train, trips into the train doorway and cops land on top of him, cops rules of engagement are shoot to protect, they think he has a bomb belt and shoot him in the head 5 times. End of story.

'nuff said......

[Sir Burr]

The "why wasn't he stopped before he got to the tube station" is a different issue to the point I'm trying to get across.

My question is why was he executed when he was already subdued?

[bkkmadness]

I'll take just one point from you

He was tailed from his home to the train station and got all the way to the train before he was stopped. That seems like a lack of security to me.

The flock of bats was under surveilance..... man of foreign appearance comes out of said flock of bats wearing a winter style jacket, he is followed by the old bill, he is challenged at the station by the 3? cops, man in winter jacket (it's summer, yes?) cops know that the bombers are intent on blowing themselves up if cornered , stupid man vaults the ticket barrier and heads for the train, trips into the train doorway and cops land on top of him, cops rules of engagement are shoot to protect, they think he has a bomb belt and shoot him in the head 5 times. End of story.

'nuff said......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not nuff said at all. If they considered him to be a potential bomber (winter jacket/left flats that was already under surveillance for being supposedly connected to the bombings) which they obviously did why was he not stopped before he got to the tube station? Before he got on the bus even?

Why was there not more police at the station ready to apprehend the man? Why was there not police on the other side of the turnstiles and located further into the train station ready to stop him if the first team failed at the first stop and search (which they did)?

You may be reading more reports than me, but your certainly not thinking about them or questioning them as much Udon.

[udon]

I give up........ good night.

[Thomas_Merton]

The "why wasn't he stopped before he got to the tube station" is a different issue to the point I'm trying to get across.

My question is why was he executed when he was already subdued?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a war against criminal mass-murderers and in-human terrorists.

In a crisis situation, such as police preventative action against a suspected terrorist attacker who has already refused a police order, shooting the man is by no means an execution, but is simply the efficient elimination of a highly potential threat.

EDIT// To those of you who are of the computer games generation (of which I am not).

Just try playing one of your "shoot 'em" games, giving the opposition the same consideration you are demanding the British police should show to their suspects. See how long you "live".

The major difference, of course, with the real life situation, is that the British police and innocent members of the British public do really die when bombs go off.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[The_Eye_Of_Sauron]

the efficient elimination of a highly potential threat.

<oy Thomas - you edited this out now! It was a good bit too ! >

The schlemiel was trolling, he got moderated.

Mazzeltoff to Britain's Bobbies.

But Thomas is right about Computer Games too. This Stockwell mission is all just cartoon violence. It is not real and nobody should be twisting their knickers on it.

Edited July 24, 2005 by The_Eye_Of_Sauron

[Sir Burr]

Except he wasn't a threat.

By your reasoning, he should have been shot as he ran away, which as I have said before, would be understandable. He was already subdued when they executed him. He would have been far more valuable alive for interogation.

[bkkmadness]

I give up........ good night.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Night Night Udon.

With again, all due respect, next time to criticise my postings saying I am misinformed or anyones for that matter do bring something along to the discussion to back up your claims, I consider it discussion etiquette and the only way to move things forward.

I certainly will be the first to admit I'm not above critiicism, and I'm here as a humble seeker of the truth and questioning some facts, but unfounded criticism annoys me.

This is in the news clippings part of the forum, it is a serious discussion and should be discussed with the respect it deserves.

[Zarkow]

EDIT// To those of you who are of the computer games generation (of which I am not).

Just try playing one of your "shoot 'em" games, giving the opposition the same consideration you are demanding the British police should show to their suspects. See how long you "live".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You haven't played SWAT4 I hear.

On-topic: Sad situation for everyone involved.

[bkkmadness]

Except he wasn't a threat.

By your reasoning, he should have been shot as he ran away, which as I have said before, would be understandable. He was already subdued when they executed him. He would have been far more valuable alive for interogation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I read it I do agree with the shooting if they considered him a potential bomber.

I think Sir Burr the point that is mistaken by you is that he was not subdued. True, the police officers fell on top of him, and would have had him subdued to a certain degree but if there was a chance he could have let a bomb off then he had to be shot.

I do think however it is strange he was not shot before hand, as soon as he started running away for a start. They must of when approaching been ready for him to run away and been aware that deadly force would be neccesary to bring him down, why was a gun not on the guy from the start waiting for him to do the runner and take the deadly actioned deemed necessary to quell the threat.

To clarify for Udon and others I'm not questioning the security forces actions once he was on the train and on the floor, but the time up to that from him leaving home to the point of his reaching the station.

Thomas I direct this at you as I know you have a fair knowledge of these things and not many other people want to answer this question. I figure you might be the man for the job to help me clear this up so respectively ask......

Why do you think they did not apprehend this supposedly deadly threat before he reached the train station or even got onto a bus?

Do you not think the sitaution could have been better contained if he had been stopped beforehand?

Do you think the security forces that were in place was somewhat lacking as they must've had prior knowledge to his arrival at the train station and could have had a lot more people in place there waiting for him?

Cheers

Edited July 24, 2005 by bkkmadness

[Thomas_Merton]

Except he wasn't a threat.

By your reasoning, he should have been shot as he ran away, which as I have said before, would be understandable. He was already subdued when they executed him. He would have been far more valuable alive for interogation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With respect, Sir, but there is an enormous amount of difference - let us use the modern term "collateral damage" - between trying to shoot a running man through crowds of commuter travellers and from shooting him, as you wish to describe him, subdued.

That the split second decision was taken to eliminate the threat rather than await arrest and interrogation, can only underline how seriously the police judged the situation to be.

We can all right history with hindsight - you are rightly affronted at the death of one man, but I feel also, you ought to be thanking God and the swift action of the police, we are all not, yet again, regretting the deaths of dozens.

[Thomas_Merton]

Except he wasn't a threat.

By your reasoning, he should have been shot as he ran away, which as I have said before, would be understandable. He was already subdued when they executed him. He would have been far more valuable alive for interogation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I read it I do agree with the shooting if they considered him a potential bomber.

I think Sir Burr the point that is mistaken by you is that he was not subdued. True, the police officers fell on top of him, and would have had him subdued to a certain degree but if there was a chance he could have let a bomb off then he had to be shot.

I do think however it is strange he was not shot before hand, as soon as he started running away for a start. They must of when approaching been ready for him to run away and been aware that deadly force would be neccesary to bring him down, why was a gun not on the guy from the start waiting for him to do the runner and take the deadly actioned deemed necessary to quell the threat.

To clarify for Udon and others I'm not questioning the security forces actions once he was on the train and on the floor, but the time up to that from him leaving home to the point of his reaching the station.

Thomas I direct this at you as I know you have a fair knowledge of these things and not many other people want to answer this question. I figure you might be the man for the job to help me clear this up so respectively ask......

Why do you think they did not apprehend this supposedly deadly threat before he reached the train station or even got onto a bus?

Do you not think the sitaution could have been better contained if he had been stopped beforehand?

Do you think the security forces that were in place was somewhat lacking as they must've had prior knowledge to his arrival at the train station and could have had a lot more people in place there waiting for him?

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The officers in the beginning of their observations, I am assuming, were exercising that element of doubt and "presumption of innocence" afforded all suspects unless indicated otherwise. Plus tackling a potential bomber at anytime, unexpectedly, could have disastrous consequences. They were acting with the caution some observers demand they have should used in the final life critical moments of this operation.

An opportunity arose for the suspect to be stopped at a security check at the station, which he ran from.

This not only confirmed the officers’ suspicions, but also changed the nature of the operation from one of observation to one of prevention of loss of life from an on going attacker.

The choices for the officers were reduced to allowing the attack or eliminating the threat.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[Sir Burr]

TM

Not the "police" that thought him a serious threat. A single policeMAN that thought him a threat so great that he should be killed. Surely just jumping on the guy could have detonated the bomb if he had one. Eye-witnesses were mere feet away at the time. They describe him as on the ground with policemen on top of him when he was killed.

I am not knocking the police. All in all, they have done a marvelous job under the circumstances. It is only this occurence with the Brazilian man. The government and the Met have admitted that they screwed up.

Bkkmadness also raises some very valid and disturbing points as to why this man wasn't stopped before.

Hate euphemisms. Collateral damage = killing of innocents. Let's not forget that.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Sir Burr

[Thomas_Merton]

TM

Not the "police" that thought him a serious threat. A single policeMAN that thought him a threat so great that he should be killed. Surely just jumping on the guy could have detonated the bomb if he had one. Eye-witnesses were mere feet away at the time. They describe him as on the ground with policemen on top of him when he was killed.

I am not knocking the police. All in all, they have done a marvelous job under the circumstances. It is only this occurence with the Brazilian man. The government and the Met have admitted that they screwed up.

Bkkmadness also raises some very valid and disturbing points as to why this man wasn't stopped before.

Hate euphemisms. Collateral damage = killing of innocents. Let's not forget that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The armed British police have learnt from the many courses they have attended, given by those more experienced than they fortunately are in dealing with potential suicide bombers.

The leading experts in these matters are the Sri Lankan police force. From them come the clear instructions to eliminate a potential threat: shoot the bomber in the legs, head or spinal column (central nervous system). This action, in their experience, has prevented many bomb attacks.

[bkkmadness]

Thank you Thomas. A couple of things I want to question though.

Plus tackling a potential bomber at anytime, unexpectedly, could have disastrous consequences.

I think given they thought he was a potential bomber they could have stopped him any place other than a busy train station. There must've been ample time in his commuting whilst he was under observation to have chosen a better spot?

An opportunity arose for the suspect to be stopped at a security check at the station, which he ran from.

Do you think gievn the potential threat of this man, there should have been more manpower at the station to have tackled him. He shouldn't have been able to get as far as he did surely? They would have had time to get the manpower in place from just knowing that the bus he got on was leading to the train station which is the most obvious target.

The choices for the officers were reduced to allowing the attack or eliminating the threat.

Again, just to clarify I am not talking about the decisions made once the attacker was on the floor up to the shooting, but the decsions made up to that point.

Also Thomas, just another thing if you don't mind. There has been some reports of SAS involvement I believe and it would seem correct that potential terrorism activity would be under surveillance from not just the police but other security forces as well. Is there any confirmation apart from Scotland Yard that the shooting was done by police? I'm sure the first reports I read were about plain clothes men chasing him and shooting him?

This leads me to believe that more elite terrorist prevention forces were in play here. If other security forces were involved especially some organisations like the secretive SAS would you agree that their involvement would not be made publicly known to anyone via the media as a matter of national security, ie. not giving the terrorists information on our operations?

It seems obvious if this was the case that the Met would issue some responsibilty here, blaming the police to not blow the cover of the secret services. Have the policemeans names or pictures been released over in the UK yet? Is there any witness who says that uniformed police killed the man, or is it all references to plain clothes 'police' men?

Just trying to establish here the level of training by the men giving chase and also wondering if it was a 'special forces' operation would that be why there seemed to be a lack of manpower at the station?

Maybe the police were asked to step back to a certain degree whilst more elite forces dealt with the threat and this led to the man being able to run away and get as far as he did. Of course he could have set off a bomb anytime during this so a bungled operation?

Whats your thoughts please.

Edited July 24, 2005 by bkkmadness