If a suspected terrorist is running from the police and is believed to be carrying explosives, any necesary force should be used. This includes lethal force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not a matter of being emotional, it is simply a matter of putting the wellbeing of civilians in front of the wellbeing of a suspected terrorist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd be the first to argue that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but some times it is not that simple. By not shooting him the police would have risked their own lives and they lives of others. Would that be right? Not in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you run from armed policemen you know the risk you are taking. You are hiding something, and you are occasionally extremely dangerous. I fail to see why the policemen should have acted in any way differently.

what the bomber did was, in a sense, treason - working against the country. And may i add, treason is the only crime still punishable by death in british law.

 

 

 

i find it pretty damn sick that you're sticking up for the bomber, maybe if you were in our position you wouldn't criticize as much. The police did a good job of neutralizing a threat and i'd rather one scummy little basterd die than a train full of innocent working people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hold up, hold up there. Don't try and make me look like a "damn sick" person. I never stuck up for him, I'm seeing it in an objective way. These things are too big to be influened by all your emotion. Like I said before, think about how the world would be if everybody would act with their emotion, instead of acting and judging things objective. I also never said the terrorist did a good thing. I just don't aprove the way the police handled this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stupid censor, I wasn't trying to say what it said. Obviously this was an edit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a suspected terrorist is running from the police and is believed to be carrying explosives, any necesary force should be used. This includes lethal force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He wasn't running anymore, they already caught him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I might add this to show some 'goodwill'. If they were on xx amount of distance, I wouldn't be bothered if they would've shot the man. Because it would've been hard/imposible to get him before he could've detonized. But now they had an option, so I don't think it's correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meh, I'll drop this. It's everybody against me, the only one who actually got what I meant was Matt. People insult me calling my opinion "damn sick", calling me a "fool" and "pathetic". I really don't see a point in continuing this.

Why did he deserve to live Daan? Why do scum like that, that set out to destroy people I know and cast where I live in fear? Yes they caught him but all he has to do is press a button in his pocket and he blows him and 100's of others up. Things arn't as simple as stop and arrest the criminal.

Why did he deserve to live Daan? Why do scum like that, that set out to destroy people I know and cast where I live in fear? Yes they caught him but all he has to do is press a button in his pocket and he blows him and 100's of others up. Things arn't as simple as stop and arrest the criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He doesn't deserve to live, nobody has to deserve the right to live. You just have a right to live and nobody can take that away from you IMO. But who knows what kind of information you could've got out of this man? And also, I'm trying to point out that it isn't good if everybody starts taking 'justice' in their own hands.

Why did he deserve to live Daan? Why do scum like that, that set out to destroy people I know and cast where I live in fear? Yes they caught him but all he has to do is press a button in his pocket and he blows him and 100's of others up. Things arn't as simple as stop and arrest the criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daan is right in a way though. If he was down on the ground and the officers were trained correctly they would have been able to easily restrain the suspect. Restraining his arms and legs would have had the exact same result as shooting him, but if they couldn't restrain him in time and he did press a button... The rest is history.

Yeah my utter respect for the policemen there. They made a split second decision that could have saved many innocent lives without thinking about all the resulting "paperwork" and "following the handbook" etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good on them, there's no way that that guy deserved to live if he was going to try and murder innocents.

 

Why did he deserve to live Daan? Why do scum like that, that set out to destroy people I know and cast where I live in fear? Yes they caught him but all he has to do is press a button in his pocket and he blows him and 100's of others up. Things arn't as simple as stop and arrest the criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He doesn't deserve to live, nobody has to deserve the right to live. You just have a right to live and nobody can take that away from you IMO. But who knows what kind of information you could've got out of this man? And also, I'm trying to point out that it isn't good if everybody starts taking 'justice' in their own hands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but you weren't *in* the situation. You can't say that the police didn't make the right choice because honestly, in their position of authority, almost any disputable choice they make, will be considered right in the eyes of the people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see your point of viewing life as valuable, but given the situation, alot more lives would've been lost had he not been shot (again, you weren't in the situation, so you actually *can't* say he couldn't have detonated).

 

 

 

If a suspected terrorist is running from the police and is believed to be carrying explosives, any necesary force should be used. This includes lethal force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He wasn't running anymore, they already caught him.

 

 

 

If that is the case, then he should indeed not have been shot. However, I'm a bit sceptical about that at the moment, regardless of what witnesses might be saying.

 

Why did he deserve to live Daan? Why do scum like that, that set out to destroy people I know and cast where I live in fear? Yes they caught him but all he has to do is press a button in his pocket and he blows him and 100's of others up. Things arn't as simple as stop and arrest the criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daan is right in a way though. If he was down on the ground and the officers were trained correctly they would have been able to easily restrain the suspect. Restraining his arms and legs would have had the exact same result as shooting him, but if they couldn't restrain him in time and he did press a button... The rest is history.

What is the point in taking a 1/1000000 risk that he will reach the button, rather than killing a terrorist? None I see

 

 

Why did he deserve to live Daan? Why do scum like that, that set out to destroy people I know and cast where I live in fear? Yes they caught him but all he has to do is press a button in his pocket and he blows him and 100's of others up. Things arn't as simple as stop and arrest the criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daan is right in a way though. If he was down on the ground and the officers were trained correctly they would have been able to easily restrain the suspect. Restraining his arms and legs would have had the exact same result as shooting him, but if they couldn't restrain him in time and he did press a button... The rest is history.

What is the point in taking a 1/1000000 risk that he will reach the button, rather than killing a terrorist? None I see

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad you're not going to become a policeman. :P I know what you're like Jonny, you love a fight so I'm not going to entertain you. This is my last post in this thread. :D

 

 

 

I see your point of view. But its incredibly rare that British police to something like this so I am 100% sure that there is a valid reason and had it not happened the casualties would have spread to far more than the terrorist himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, five times he'd probably have been dead after the first (if they're good shots, I mean, otherwise at least after the second or third shot), so anything else is just desecration of a corpse, albeit a corpse that deserves all the desecration it gets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...After hearing that man give his interview, I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere was exaggerating, too. Regardless, I obviously don't know enough about it to make any judgements of the policemen, but yes, I'm sure they did the right thing--I think it's likely sensationalism that's driving this story now, so I'd just be careful what you believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I agree with How2PK that people have human rights, etc. (very strongly so, as it happens), I also recognise that it's just not practical (or possible) sometimes, to protect people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I used one too many "just" in the second last paragraph there.

I'm sorry, but you weren't *in* the situation. You can't say that the police didn't make the right choice because honestly, in their position of authority, almost any disputable choice they make, will be considered right in the eyes of the people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But then again. You and others weren't *in* the situation either, so you can't really say the policemen did make the right choice, right? So if we talk like this the discussion can't even be started. I stick with my point that it is wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see your point of viewing life as valuable, but given the situation, alot more lives would've been lost had he not been shot (again, you weren't in the situation, so you actually *can't* say he couldn't have detonated).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they had the time to gather up and jump on him, to give him five bullets. Then they would've got the time to restrain him with three man too. I mean, it wouldn't be too hard to press the button if the button of the detonator is in your hand. Even if you are jumped on. Maybe he even dropped the detonator in his fall.

From the sounds of it no-one except the police officers involved knew the entire story, so no-one knows just what the bomb actually was, could of been chemical, biological, whatever. Also there are multiple ways of detonating a bomb other than just "pressing a button".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think we can all be thankful though that the "terrorist" no longer poses a direct threat to us. It's also an important step in showing them that we will not stand for their actions and defend our country and people with lethal force.

 

 

 

 

I see your point of view. But its incredibly rare that British police to something like this so I am 100% sure that there is a valid reason and had it not happened the casualties would have spread to far more than the terrorist himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, five times he'd probably have been dead after the first (if they're good shots, I mean, otherwise at least after the second or third shot), so anything else is just desecration of a corpse, albeit a corpse that deserves all the desecration it gets. I've seen a documentory and armed police are to ensure that they kill, people have been shot in the head before and lived, they shoot 5 times to make sure he's dead not to actually kill him with each one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...After hearing that man give his interview, I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere was exaggerating, too. Regardless, I obviously don't know enough about it to make any judgements of the policemen, but yes, I'm sure they did the right thing--I think it's likely sensationalism that's driving this story now, so I'd just be careful what you believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes some people have said 8 shots some 2, some say 3 officers chased him others report upto 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I agree with How2PK that people have human rights, etc. (very strongly so, as it happens), I also recognise that it's just not practical (or possible) sometimes, to protect people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion a terroist does not deserve human rights at all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I used one too many "just" in the second last paragraph there.

Normally armed police will shot as a last resort, and only shoot to disable the target. However under the new guidelines, if they suspect the target to be a terrorist, they are to shoot and kill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like was said above, it was on a busy tube station and they can't risk the lifes of innocent people, via bomb or police fire. The police officers had to make a split second decision, and I respect them for doing that, thus saving lives of innocent people. :)

I was so shocked when i heard this, because it's so rare for a British policeman to use a gun, let alone shoot someone to death. It makes you think that there must have been something seriously a-miss for this to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While How2PK is being objective dont take what he says personally, he has some valid points, at what time does a person not have any rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can imagine what the policeman were told, if you have sufficient evidence to beleive someone has a bomb, use as much force as neccessary to make sure they dont detonate it. I think thats what they did, and I am happy with the decision they made.

For further reference the police officers were granted a shoot to kill order.

For further reference the police officers were granted a shoot to kill order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But in what way? If they're unable to catch the 'terrorist? Or if they caught the 'terrorist' and then fill him up with lead?

I was so shocked when i heard this, because it's so rare for a British policeman to use a gun, let alone shoot someone to death. It makes you think that there must have been something seriously a-miss for this to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While How2PK is being objective dont take what he says personally, he has some valid points, at what time does a person not have any rights?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can imagine what the policeman were told, if you have sufficient evidence to beleive someone has a bomb, use as much force as neccessary to make sure they dont detonate it. I think thats what they did, and I am happy with the decision they made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When they intend to brutally murder innocent law abiding citizens, thus forsaking the innocents right to life. But only if lethal force is necessary.

The split second the terrorist decided to strap that bomb to him is the split second In my opinion that he loses all rights, if the cops didn't kill him h would only die taking the lives of those who were innocent.

 

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.

Frankly you can never be sure when someone is dead. There were 5 shots, and apparently there is some confusion as to whether that killed him immediately either as an air ambulance was called in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, we do not know for how long the police were chasing him so it was not an impulse decision to shoot. Also, the police gave him a warning that if he did not stop they would shoot him. At this point, the man made a decision knowing what the consequences would be. It was not a random shooting by the police. They chased, they warned and then they shot as they believed him to be a threat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simply restraining the man may not have prevented the bomb being detonated. Truth is, no one ever knows how a bomb will be detonated. There could be multiple detonators on his person. Removing his jacket could make him blow. Hell, untying his shoes could set it off. Simply keeping his hands free doesn't mean it won't go off. Even in handcuffs people have reasonable mobility, mobility enough to set something off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, until all the facts are known... which will probably never happen, one can't really judge but one can talk about morals... which in this case, were held. At least in my opinion.

There's going to be a problem the day someone rigs up one to blow up when the heart stops beating...

 

 

 

 

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.

Ahh, the good old system. How2Pk is correct from a legal stand point, imo, but from a "common sense/emotional" stand point, hes completely wrong. The Police should have restrained the man, from the sounds of it at least, but who really cares? If I were one of them, I wouldn't hesitate either to shoot the moron, for lack of a better, appropriate word. Good job to the cops for not following the system, and doing what was truely correct, sending a message to all of these terrorists causing havoc amongst innocent civilians. Thank god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bmw