It is now - not so before 9/11
I hate living in a police state. I hate for others to have to too. Far as I’m concerned we should have woke up when they started sneaking around, trying to catch minor traffic violations, that something was going awry. It’s like the frog who drowned in the cream. If he’d kept kicking he might have gotten a lump of butter to save himself on, but he chose to wait till it was too late.
What’s you answer Walden?
Is this the same shooting that they are now saying was a mistake? 
Yes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm but they’re not saying it was a “mistake”.
But the rationale behind the shooting is explained here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4708373.stm
Of course there’ll be a full enquiry into the shooting, and hopefully that’ll uncover reasons why the man didn’t stop when ordered to do so by armed police officers. Generally speaking, if armed coppers shout “Armed Police, stand still!” you stand still, you don’t leg it down a busy street full of coppers, into a crowded tube station full of coppers, and onto a train full of people…
Whatever the outcome of the enquiry, the message this incident gives is a simple one: Met. Officers aren’t taking any chances.
I don’t know if there is much of this in England, where police are usually unarmed, but there is a thing over here, and especially in the US, called “death by cop”. It is actually a recognized form of suicide, where the police are provoked into killing someone who wants to die. From the several news stories it would seem this character definitely had a deathwish.
djm
No, ‘death by cop’ is not a phenomenon that has crossed the pond yet. There have been a number of cases where nutters have been shot by armed police; one wielding a sword who refused to ‘stand still’ and advanced on the armed officers. Others have been shot because objects they held or ‘pointed at’ armed police looked sufficiently like firearms to cause the officer to open fire.
Armed crime is rapidly on the increase here, and although there were ‘only’ 73 fatal shootings recorded last year (I believe), the number of woundings and other firearms related crimes is up dramatically. In spite of the near total ban on lawful firearms ownership imposed after Dunblane. Of course, that ban only affected law-abiding sportsmen and women, and had no impact on criminal ownership and use of guns.
London is having to come to terms with seeing armed officers more and more frequently, and where once it was rare, it’s now becoming all too commonplace. This is why it’s possible for the (on the face of it laughable) spotty-faced teenager to hold up banks and building societies (“savings and loans”?) with nothing more than a banana in a paper bag…staff wisely do not take any chances and nor should they. Nor should said ‘armed robber’ be too surprised if he stops a round or two waving the same banana-in-a-bag at armed officers called to the scene.
In the tube case, there will be two enquiries; the first will be the police enquiry to examine whether the officers involved in the shooting behaved in accordance with procedures and circumstances. The second will be the public Coroner’s enquiry to determine whether or not the dead man was ‘lawfully killed’.
It is good to know that Dale’s entourage, staff wisely, keeps our leader safe!
While I can understand the pattern of thought that underlies the whole thing, I find it quite unsettling when policemen discharge five bullets into someone’s head at close range when they already have him down.
Probably been taking lessons from the S.A.S.
http://www.emigrant.ie/article.asp?iCategoryID=200&iArticleID=13817
from a BBC site,
"An inquest in September concluded the three had been lawfully killed. However, the result was overturned at Strasbourg in 1995 when Britain was found to have used excessive force and breached the European Convention on Human Rights. "
It will be interesting to see what kind of Spin is put on this one.
Slan,
D.
If the cops shout “on the ground” and you happen to be a tourist without much understanding of the language … I guess your in big trouble.
I was thinking along those lines myself.
Slan,
D.
Indeed. Although it has to be said at this stage we don’t know how many of the rounds actually hit the bloke. But even so, I was quite disturbed by the initial reports and still am.
Mignal… believe it or not officers undergo training which includes many scenarios including the one you described (suspect who doesn’t understand English) and others (including suspects who are deaf or hard of hearing). I wouldn’t expect a tourist (or hearing-impaired individual) to behave in the way this individual did.
Yes but if you were a policeman and had a gun and you believed the guy could set off semtex by simply connecting two contacts on two of his fingers, what would you do. I would emtpy my gun into his head!
I would hope that something more substantial than a “belief” would be required before shooting somebody in the Head.
Slan,
D.
If the man had no connections to terrorists or any other kind of criminal activity and he was shot dead by police, what other word would you care to use besides “mistake”? Are you saying that because he ran (for whatever reason we may never know) that his killing was justified? I am not saying that the man was innocent. I do not know whether or not he was guilty of any crime. But if it turns out that he wasn’t, it is a little late to undo the verdict. Perhaps he did not understand what the officer said. Perhaps because of the bombings people are nervous and their first instinct is to run. I am not soft on terrorists or any kind of criminal. Hang em all if they are guilty. But if “shoot first and ask questions later” is the policy, the questions may never be answered. 
Why don’t we wait for the facts to come in before we start trying to hang the police?
I would futher submit that if you’ve never had to make a shoot/don’t shoot decision, you especially have no business speculating about these officers’ conduct based on the limited information available at this point.
If this is directed at me, I am NOT trying to hang the police. And I have as much business speculating about this as anyone else does. Or do you think that you and those who agree with you are the only ones who have a right to speculate?
i would have to agree with you!
Gonzo didn’t give his opinion, what he would agree with, he just pointed out that maybe facts would be useful in this situation. I would agree. You can speculate all you want I suppose, but why when the facts will probably come out in due course?