Police shoot and kill suicide bomber in London

[assassin_696]

 

 

at what time does a person not have any rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When they set out to brutally murder innocent law abiding citizens, thus forsaking the innocents right to life.

 

 

 

Who is to decide what he "set out to do"? Should anyone suspected to be a terrorist be shot? When you hand out punnishments without a trial you risk just as many innocent lives as the terrorists do, you just justify it with "Homeland security". Orwell would spin in his grave. There is a massive difference between being forced to shot someone in defense of self/others and dismissing an individuals right to live due to a suspicion. The first is a necesary evil and the second is disgusting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not implying in anyway that we should randomly shoot people who we suspect of terrorism, but none of us here were the policemen invlolved, so none of us know the full circumstances. Policemen in England are increasingly being tied down by massive amounts of "political red tape", and so for plain clothed policemen to shoot someone during a chase the situation must have been absolutely critical. Therefore i am ASSUMING that the person they were chasing was some kind of terrorist, or someone that intended to cause death and destruction. IF he was, and the likelihood is that he was otherwise the policemen wouldn't have shot him, then IMO he had forsaken all his civil liberties and human rights in attempting to cause death. Lethal force in this country is very rarely used, (particularly since firearms are not mandatory issue) so it is unlikely that it was some accidental shooting. Also when you run away from armed police officers carrying a suspicious rucksack onto a crowded tube what do you think his intention was? I would presume bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And when i said "set out" i think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the people that have been arrested deserve to die, because they are held under suspicion. Personally i am against the death penalty. If they have been arrested and are locked up they pose less of a threat, so what is the point in killing them? But when someone goes out with the deliberate and undeniable (in their mind) intention of killing innocent people then they should be stopped with lethal force IF NECESSARY. But only if necessary, and IMO today's shooting was necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course that is not to say that i think that if he could have been neutralised in a non violent manner then that would obviously have been the much better option, however since none of know the full circumstances then i don't think any of us can honestly say what was necessary. It seemed to me like he posed a threat, and he no longer does, and yes it is sad that it had to end in violence but if it saved innocent lives then it WAS necessary.

[Pyro]

 

 

 

at what time does a person not have any rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When they set out to brutally murder innocent law abiding citizens, thus forsaking the innocents right to life.

 

 

 

Who is to decide what he "set out to do"? Should anyone suspected to be a terrorist be shot? When you hand out punnishments without a trial you risk just as many innocent lives as the terrorists do, you just justify it with "Homeland security". Orwell would spin in his grave. There is a massive difference between being forced to shot someone in defense of self/others and dismissing an individuals right to live due to a suspicion. The first is a necesary evil and the second is disgusting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not implying in anyway that we should randomly shoot people who we suspect of terrorism, but none of us here were the policemen invlolved, so none of us know the full circumstances. Policemen in England are increasingly being tied down by massive amounts of "political red tape", and so for plain clothed policemen to shoot someone during a chase the situation must have been absolutely critical. Therefore i am ASSUMING that the person they were chasing was some kind of terrorist, or someone that intended to cause death and destruction. IF he was, and the likelihood is that he was otherwise the policemen wouldn't have shot him, then IMO he had forsaken all his civil liberties and human rights in attempting to cause death. Lethal force in this country is very rarely used, (particularly since firearms are not mandatory issue) so it is unlikely that it was some accidental shooting. Also when you run away from armed police officers carrying a suspicious rucksack onto a crowded tube what do you think his intention was? I would presume bad.

It is quite possible that we know very little of what actually happened, and it is quite possible that he should have been shot. I even said that myself a few pages back in this post. However, that is quite difference from saying that a suspected terrorist has no rights, which is why I replied as I did. No one must ever be considered a convicted criminal without a trial, even less be killed for it. That is no less terrorism than bombing a bus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree with you that shooting is sometimes necesary, but I do not agree that any unconvicted person loses his/her rights.

[assassin_696]

 

 

 

 

at what time does a person not have any rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When they set out to brutally murder innocent law abiding citizens, thus forsaking the innocents right to life.

 

 

 

Who is to decide what he "set out to do"? Should anyone suspected to be a terrorist be shot? When you hand out punnishments without a trial you risk just as many innocent lives as the terrorists do, you just justify it with "Homeland security". Orwell would spin in his grave. There is a massive difference between being forced to shot someone in defense of self/others and dismissing an individuals right to live due to a suspicion. The first is a necesary evil and the second is disgusting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not implying in anyway that we should randomly shoot people who we suspect of terrorism, but none of us here were the policemen invlolved, so none of us know the full circumstances. Policemen in England are increasingly being tied down by massive amounts of "political red tape", and so for plain clothed policemen to shoot someone during a chase the situation must have been absolutely critical. Therefore i am ASSUMING that the person they were chasing was some kind of terrorist, or someone that intended to cause death and destruction. IF he was, and the likelihood is that he was otherwise the policemen wouldn't have shot him, then IMO he had forsaken all his civil liberties and human rights in attempting to cause death. Lethal force in this country is very rarely used, (particularly since firearms are not mandatory issue) so it is unlikely that it was some accidental shooting. Also when you run away from armed police officers carrying a suspicious rucksack onto a crowded tube what do you think his intention was? I would presume bad.

It is quite possible that we know very little of what actually happened, and it is quite possible that he should have been shot. I even said that myself a few pages back in this post. However, that is quite difference from saying that a suspected terrorist has no rights, which is why I replied as I did. No one must ever be considered a convicted criminal without a trial, even less be killed for it. That is no less terrorism than bombing a bus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree with you that shooting is sometimes necesary, but I do not agree that any unconvicted person loses his/her rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm completely with you on the whole "an unconvicted person does not deserve to lose his rights", but i do think that if someone intends to kill other innocent people then they should be stopped with lethal force if necessary, but only if necessary. Sorry about the confusion in the first post of these quotes.

[cjlhdevil]

 

 

 

 

 

Good point. That said, why not shoot him from afar, and not waste time in grappling with him; time in which he could have detonated "the bomb". Guns aren't exactly your typical hand to hand weapons, are they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because it's a busy tube station, you can't risk hitting an innocent with a bullet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose... but then, even if it IS so busy, all of those people near the bomber are BOUND to be be killed by the bomb he might set off at any moment--surely it's a greater allowing him to have a nice leisurely press of the detonator button than to risk maybe harming some passers by.

Yeah I see what you mean, also it's rumoured he jumped onto the train so maybe they had to get on incase they missed and it left then he could blow himself up? I dunno it's a hard one and there seem to be so many different versions, one person on sky said 9 officers jumped on all with shotguns while bbc said 3 one with auto handgun.

[assassin_696]

Am i allowded to speculate? If so maybe it was the SAS that chased the guy down, those guys don't mess around and are trained to shoot to kill if necessary. Oh yeah and i believe it's standard procedure that if someone is carrying some kind of detonatable explosove then you shoot them several times to stop any potential twitching that might occur after only a few shots.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Luckily for me (unluckily for you lot) I've never been shot. Surely, though, being shot would cause one to jerk? Obviously, a little tiny bullet hasn't got much momentum, but it's enough. Also, how would shooting someone again stop their body from jerking after death? Those jerks are... well... I forget the explanation for them, but I'm sure you can all look it up. Left over signals from the brain, that sort of thing. How is putting another bullet into a dead body going to stop it jerking, unless by some chance they hit a nerve (which might itself cause jerking anyway).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a minor point, and not important really--shoot me for being a pedant, and you can test out my claims.

[rocketman089]

Luckily for me (unluckily for you lot)Obviously, a little tiny bullet hasn't got much momentum,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just look up bullet wound on google images, you'll see that a bullets' momentum is anything but miniscule and undamaging.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, about shooting the convict 5 times, I personally think it was out of anger/revenge/fear that the officer shot him multiple times, not to prevent postmortum twitching that could have set off the bomb..

[Evilperson]

I just find it funny how how2pk says that mercifulls view(which i agree with) was "emotional". I would call it common sense. Man with bomb = Bad. As Handy the gun says "If you squeeze me, I make bad people go away".

[potato]

if the cops managed to arrest him alive they could have took really important informations from this terrorist about al quaida or watever organisations...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw why are all terrorist religions islamists??

[Lionheart_0]

Well i dont know about what your all saying, but its up to the regulations. I dont know about British cops, but here in Canada, if a cop takes the gun out of holster when uneeded, they are fired automaticly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the bomber didnt do anything did he? Sure he had a bomb and could of used it, but he didnt. Therefor this means that the cops used unesicary force to restrain him (definitly restrained now...). I doubt attempted murder is punishable with death, but perhaps by life in prison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just to tell you all, no matter what, every living human being has right, even if they do something bad. Everyone has a right to live, even murderers

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Hang on just a moment, I know how damaging bullets are, but that's not to do with their momentum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-edit edit: Most of you will want to look away now, as I've gone on for a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I assume you all know that momentum is Mass * Velocity. Well, bullets are tiny little things (at least, the ones in question probably are). It took me ages, but I found out the muzzle velocity of a pistol; I don't know which--doesn't really matter, though, as it won't make that much difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was 269 metres per second (I had to convert it from fps--it sounded a LOT more impressive in fps, by the way). Now, a bullet from that sort of gun is quite small (/goes and looks up the mass of the average bullet). OK, apparently bullet mass is measured in grains (one grain is 0.065 grammes, so 0.000065kg). I looked up some bullet masses, and for some manner of 9mm bullet sold on nationalbullet.com, it was 115 grains, = 0.0074519 kilograms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, so 269ms^-1 * 0.0074519kg = 2.0045611kgms^-1. ... so about 2 kilogram metres per second. TINY! This is a miniscule velocity, OK?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet another edit: OK, so it's not "Tiny"--it's in no way big, though. Imagine swaying your arm (if your arm ways 2kg) through the air; it has about as much momentum as your arm when you do that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you quoted, you missed off the end bit "Obviously, a little tiny bullet hasn't got much momentum, but it's enough."; I know it's very dangerous and damaging--if it weren't then people wouldn't use guns :). It's NOT the momentum that does the damage, though--it's the fact that you have a lump of metal pass through your vital parts very fast and come out the other side (sometimes) leaving a gaping great hole.

[assassin_696]

Luckily for me (unluckily for you lot) I've never been shot. Surely, though, being shot would cause one to jerk? Obviously, a little tiny bullet hasn't got much momentum, but it's enough. Also, how would shooting someone again stop their body from jerking after death? Those jerks are... well... I forget the explanation for them, but I'm sure you can all look it up. Left over signals from the brain, that sort of thing. How is putting another bullet into a dead body going to stop it jerking, unless by some chance they hit a nerve (which might itself cause jerking anyway).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a minor point, and not important really--shoot me for being a pedant, and you can test out my claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Umm...it's kinda complicated but it works on the same principle as the double tap, a technique perfected by the SAS. When one bullet is fired into the body it carries a lot of momentum, but isn't always completely immobilising. Two bullets fired in quick succession...HIT HIT, mean that the target is usually completely immobilised due the quick succession of the bullets hitting the body. Even after this, depending on the location of the hit, the body may have small spasms as signals from the brain shoot down the body. These spasms may or may not have caused, say the finger on the button to twitch. If the guy who shot him, fired 5 bullets into the head area, in rapid succession, death would have been so quick that these spasms would have been minimalised. But i am speculating, and only basing it on my extremely limited military and biological knowledge. Some people have also said he was shot 10 times, and some 2, so who knows. I would have thought 2 sounded more professional, but meh.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What s/he said

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah--yes, that's a good explanation. I still disagree about the momentum thing (See post above), but yes, that would be a good reason to shoot them more than once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:I spelled "disagree" wrong.

[assassin_696]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What s/he said

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah--yes, that's a good explanation. I still disagree about the momentum thing (See post above), but yes, that would be a good reason to shoot them more than once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:I spelled "disagree" wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a he 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And i read your edited post. I can see your point clearly, and i'm not totally sure what i'm on about personally, looking at it again i can see it's less about momentum and more to do with being hit twice in quick succession (like being hit hard with a hammer, twice very fast i think, obviously worse). I'm sure about the double tap method though, being an avid Andy Macnab and Tom Clancy reader. :D

[Dyronamics]

Jeez guys stop going on about it.... about 4 pages are full of the same things....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right or not a suicide bomber was killed by policemen carrying out their duty to protect innocent people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone repeating what's already been said now is just dragging out the argument to get the last word in.....

[cjlhdevil]

Well i dont know about what your all saying, but its up to the regulations. I dont know about British cops, but here in Canada, if a cop takes the gun out of holster when uneeded, they are fired automaticly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the bomber didnt do anything did he? Sure he had a bomb and could of used it, but he didnt. Therefor this means that the cops used unesicary force to restrain him (definitly restrained now...). I doubt attempted murder is punishable with death, but perhaps by life in prison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just to tell you all, no matter what, every living human being has right, even if they do something bad. Everyone has a right to live, even murderers

You're kidding right? No really "sure he had a bomb but he didn't use it" hahaha you're a joke and a half you are.

[How2PK]

 

Also, the bomber didnt do anything did he? Sure he had a bomb and could of used it, but he didnt.

You're kidding right? No really "sure he had a bomb but he didn't use it" hahaha you're a joke and a half you are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also think Lionheart is going a bit too far now. I think every person wearing a bomb (in the middle of a subway station, since this is the place it happened) should be caught, and if the cops can't catch him/her in the persuit, they should take him down.

[cjlhdevil]

 

 

Also, the bomber didnt do anything did he? Sure he had a bomb and could of used it, but he didnt.

You're kidding right? No really "sure he had a bomb but he didn't use it" hahaha you're a joke and a half you are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also think Lionheart is going a bit too far now. I think every person wearing a bomb (in the middle of a subway station, since this is the place it happened) should be caught, and if the cops can't catch him/her in the persuit, they should take him down.

Oh thank god I thought we were gonna get into another arguement >.< Too late for that, at least we agree on something :P *hands daan his beer*

[Nadril]

how2pk, i agree that they shouldn't have shot it, if they could but...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just imagine your self in the scenerio. few coppers walking around, all the sudden they see a guy running with a bomb straped to his chest. they chase after him, and they get close enough to where perhaps they could take him out without killing him, but what if on the odd chance they don't full imobilize him. he pushes the button... end of story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know shooting others is wrong, but they had no choice. It was him or perhaps a bunch of civilians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anyways, glad they could take care of it :D

[How2PK]

Oh thank god I thought we were gonna get into another arguement >.< Too late for that, at least we agree on something :P *hands daan his beer*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah, you take it, thanks mate. I just fixed myself up with a cold one. :wink: Nothing better than a cold beer and cig after a long evening of work. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eit] Messed up the quotes.

[my_pet_worm]

Police have the right to shot anyone who is/will endager civilians. in my view, anyone going to suicide bomb should be shot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and think about i, if he was going to suicide bomb, he woulda died anyway. this just resulted in 1 death instead of many more

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if he was caught and sent to jail, he would of been released, and 50% of people who leave jail reoffend. so they would just let out a walking bomb

[rocketman089]

and while ur at it can u take off ur turbin? its making me nervis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And while you're at it, can you stop with the racist stereotypical remarks? It's making my sick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to Pete_The_Vicous, I hope you know that I didn't intentionally exclude "but it's enough", I just figured what I quoted would suffice to say what I wanted to say. Anyway, sorry about that, I didn't quite get what you were trying say then (it's all cleared up now).

[Lionheart_0]

 

Well i dont know about what your all saying, but its up to the regulations. I dont know about British cops, but here in Canada, if a cop takes the gun out of holster when uneeded, they are fired automaticly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the bomber didnt do anything did he? Sure he had a bomb and could of used it, but he didnt. Therefor this means that the cops used unesicary force to restrain him (definitly restrained now...). I doubt attempted murder is punishable with death, but perhaps by life in prison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just to tell you all, no matter what, every living human being has right, even if they do something bad. Everyone has a right to live, even murderers

You're kidding right? No really "sure he had a bomb but he didn't use it" hahaha you're a joke and a half you are.

 

 

 

No actuly im being very serious. He didnt do anything. Really. Do people that get convicted of attepted murder get shot? No, but they do get to jail for along time. And it dosent matter if he tried to take the life of 1 or a thousand people, he still didnt commit the murder.

[How2PK]

Bmw, don't take the effort to reply to these people. :P They just don't understand anything of it. :wink:

[monkey_933]

 

 

detonators are stored in pockets/hands. push button, boom.

 

 

 

well done to the police for getting tough on them. we're finally beginning to show we're not afraid to fight back instead of living in fear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surely he would've pressed it earlier then. And if the police can't de-arm the man in the time they pull him down, jump on him etc. they are bad coppers, their first and last resort was violence resulting in death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Omg -. try walking in a coppers shoes for a week before you guys judge. The policemen had to make a difficult choise : innocent lives vs a suicidebomber. Im getting tired of all the people who protects the criminals before the innocents...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That guy lost all his civil rights the second he strapped a bomb on him IMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How2pk, what you are saying is you would rather put thousands of innocent peoples life at risk, and 90% that guy could have set that bomb off. He probally was seeing if the police were bluffing or not, we need to take action. Its a hella hard decision but when you take out 1 terrorist to save thousands, thats a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its known as "take one for the team". If the police waited any longer that guy could have pushed a detonator any second, and there lifes + others would be gone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police are taking action and showing that were not bluffing anymore, now we mean the real deal. Dont put innocent peoples lifes at risk or we will take your life, thats how i see it IMO.