If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Thats ridiculous, you have no idea what the police knew about the guy or what they knew about the house they followed him from.
He was wearing a bulky jacket "with wires coming out" apparently. link They shot him because they thought he might have a bomb. Thats how it is justified.
In English? :thumb:
I guess that all depends on what the "trigger" is for the device you think he's carrying.
I understand that touching wires is enough.
How much movement do you think would be required for that to happen?
Look, read through the thread and you will see why concerns, but that doesn't mean that I cannot see that life just isn't that simple.
I don't think people are suggesting that the police neccessarily acted wrongly, we're just hoping it does turn out to be someone who was planning to kill or injure, and not just some innocent bystander. As far as the police were concerned, it was their job to protect people on the london underground, they suspected someone and pursued them, and when necessary took extreme measures to protect people's lives.
Even so, I for one am hoping it was not a tragic mix up.
I am, they shot a man that they had already wrestled to the ground.
Police have the right to shoot to kill now - all they have to say is they believed it was a bomber.
It was bad enough when they shot dead a bloke with a table leg, but when they shoot dead a man with an imaginery bomb, and say they were right to do so, then it really is time to mind.
First they came for the ..............
I demonstrate:
Headline Reads: "Suspect shot dead 'had no bomb'" (oh my, gasp! public's attention gained...)
(but hang on a minute...)
(ah, directly linked to the cell, well then good on ya coppers!)
[hand in the back goes up: "ummm, which cell would that be precisely, didn't two separate groups make claims on never once authenticated websites??]
(shut up conspiracy theorist! how dare you ask such a rational question and ruin a good PR piece!...)
[guy in the back slumps down embarrassed...]
(oh, but didn't you just state as a matter of fact that he was directly connected to the (unnamed and uncertain to even exist) "cell"?)
[hand in the back goes up more tenuously this time: "sorry, but if police [i]believed[/i] this residence to be the operational centre of the (unnamed and uncertain to even exist) "cell", why wasn't the premises simply raided and searched for evidence and those known to own or rent the premises rounded up for questioning?"]
(I told you shut up and stop questioning us, we do the questioning if any is needed, got it?!)
[man slumps down again...]
[man in the back can't contain himself: "ummm, two questions... is Mr. Larkin of particular expertise in the case or his insights amongst all those present of exceptionally superior value (or his profession relevant for that matter) to those of others who say it was 5 shots fired into him point blank whilst being "held down"? and "if the shooters were in plain clothes, brandishing and firing guns in a tube station after merely shouting 'get down get down' how could Mr. Larkin (or any other commuter present) know them for officers until well after the fact when Mr. Larkin's apparently superior testimony could be presented to the press?"]
(right you, third and final warning!!!)
[throwing caution to the wind the man in the back attempts one last time: "umm, so he was intimately linked to the attempted bombers as evidenced by supposed materials left behind on a mission meant to blow up more tube trains... why would they happen to have an address stashed with a bomb they intended to detonate taking everything with it? Does 'thought to have been found' mean it might not have been found but merely 'thought up as a usable excuse' for those who would never question the authorities? Doesn't that sound rather a farcicle tale of convenience for authorities who can't be certain whether or not they did find the address of this [i]intimately linked[/i] person who posed no threat after all?"]
(that's it! you must be a terrorist sympathiser! police spokesman leaps on our guy, pins him to the floor and unloads 5 rounds into his skull. Any questions?)
We don't know that - all the witness say is that they tripped him. If he was still struggling and was starting to reach inside his coat the police would have to make an instant judgement - if they get it wrong one way an innocent man is dead and if they get it wrong another they're dead together with a sizeable bunch of commuters.
If he had 'potentially' had a detonator then I think they were justified.
Turns out he had no bomb or explosive material on him, so now we must ask the question, was he still guilty of being a terrorist, just one who had apparently left his bomb at home, or was he just a scared young man. There were all sorts of reasons he could have ran - if he had just commited a petty crime like theft or something. :chin: I don't know.
Oh, also Egypt has been attacked now: At least 62 people killed at an Egyptian resort
no the witness said that they had piled on top of him.
keep in mind I am just going off of what has been said so far. If it turns out that he had tripped and was getting up and reaching inside his jacket I might have a different opinion in the matter.
Have to love condi's quoted terminology: "will confront and defeat this scourge that knows no boundary and respects no creed".
Hmmm.... Referring to the US military aparatus are ya condi? :chin:
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
So unless we're refering to another witness this statement
isn't true.
Also common sense says that if your comrades are piled on top of someone you don't fire shots into them, as the chances are you're going to hit one of colleagues.
It's for us to consider the circumstances and decide whether it was an appropriate course of action.
No - I might accept he was shot at close range. I don't have enough information to say whether that was murder or justified. And for him to be executed implies a trial - which he certainly didn't get.
How about 'neutralised'?
Hey, another fair point. But are you willing to give a person a fair trial whist on the underground system whist putting members of the community at risk?
he was told to stop by armed Police and his jacket was bulkey. They slotted him in the head to save triggering any expolosive device that he may have had on his body, that as you would know, would cause innocent casualties and fatalities.
There is NO reason not to stop for the Police when asked to do so by armed Police whist travelling on the transport system. Whether you have outstanding warrent or holding an ounce of skunk. They would't waste their time on you doing a CRO check or getting your dabs done, it's not their role and what they're deployed for.
I think that was justified and so far I think this latest incident was justified aswell.
The police have to make a decision there on the spot and the only person to blame for putting the police in that position was the dead man himself.
As a member of the community and a user of the public transport system here in London, if the man wouldn't comply with armed Police request's to stand still whist being searched etc, then sorry, the man had a death wish and deserved to be trialed and executed.
With regards to the shooting of Harry from Hackeny R.I.P, the person who phoned the Police in the first place should be hunted down for giving false information to the Police, saying that he was carrying a 'piece'. The last i heard, he took up a boxers stance when asked to stand still by the Police, so they thought he was ready to let one off. (what you really gonna do? let a side by side splatter you?)
Cruel but harsh, You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
I don't think it makes much difference.
isnt the sensible thing to do, is to not run into a tube station after what has happened these past few weeks
though i laugh at the eyewitness who said the guy had wires poking out of him and everything, bit of bullshit considering the guy wasnt linked to any attacks
It certainly does to the innocent man currenly residing in the city morgue with five extra holes in his head. And to his loved ones.
I don't think it does at all.
He was shot dead with the claim that this was justice. When it is proven that he was acting illegally, with intention to harm others then I will offer a little more support than I have.
Remember, innocent until proven guilty?
Not that I want to link the two, but US services arrested people and interned them at Gitmo. The UK offers them a "double-tap". Which do you think we should be more concerned about?
But on the light of this latest information I am quite happy to revert back to the term 'execution'. Because the police clearly did not know for certain this bloke was involved... they apparently decided that anyone who fails to stop can be safely exterminated in the name of public safety.
A very fucking sorry state of affairs. :no:
one to ponder.