I think this society is heading in a very sad direction if the public have to be 'understanding and supportive' of police shooting down innocent people.
I would disagree. Alot of soldiers and police are regular people doing their jobs. They didn't start the War on Terror. Shooting someone innocent has no doubt had a large impact on their emotions.
I'm more disgusted at the politicians that seem to be hiding behind these regular people. They're the ones that created an environment inwhich mistakes can and will occur. They screwed up and now they seem to want a measure of that 'understanding and supportive(ness)'. Regular people have to learn to admit their mistakes. I think it's sad that governments can't seem to learn the same lessons.
If individual soldiers and their Commanding Officer,are to be put on trial for what seems to be a similar incident logic would suggest that policemen and their commanding officer/s be put on public trial and the same logic would suggest that the political leader/s rsponsible for puting them in this situation should also be judged by trial. Only in this way are we likely to get if the initial action was legal and acceptable when viewed in the cold light of detailed cross examination to establish among other things what can be defined as an acceptable level of instant decision made under stress. We may also find out if the "officer under stress" should have been in that situation with a loaded gun, or should these officers be trained to be capable of acting in control of their "stress adrenalin".
It now seems this tragedy eminates from the policeman being under the stress of thinking he was chasing a bomber and the poor victim thinking he was being chased because of a possibly illegal stamp in his passport allowing him to stay in this country.
They've got the fourth bomber! Caught in Rome, just flashed up on BBC News 24.
I agree with Q_Zhang in that politicians are ultimately responsible for creating this kind of environment, absolutely, but still think that we've come to a very sad (and bizarr) situation when asked to be supportive and understanding of police shooting down innocent people.
I think it's far too optimistic a thought to think that Blair et al would EVER take any responsibility for the nighmare of a society they are creating - they've got no connection whatsoever with the 'real' world, Blair is on his own mission of creating more conflicts, more fear in his new self styled 'American-president'-image. I think it's disgusting.
The murdering police who slaughtered that innocent young man are murders and should be arrested,locked up and tried for murder.
They followed him for miles and on bus's,why did the murdering scum not stop him before he got on a bus never mind going into the tube station.
They where unshaven,untidy and dressed!!!!!!in jeans and shirts and did not say police as if "anyone" would stop for a bunch of scum outside a tube station,which planet do this scum live on,I would have run,would you!!!
My Deepest Condolences go to this Young mans Family and friends and the least we can ask for is that these murderers get brought to justice and are punished by prison.
SCUM?? thats harsh, i personally think that if they had a possible incline into him maybe being a terrorist, and then when he jumped over a gate and ignored the police shouting at him as he ran for a train then i can understand why they shot him.
Would there be AS MUCH hype, which very sadly turned out to be a false shooting if it was in any other country that the police carried guns all the time? Look at America and Europe maybe, would there be as much chat about it if it was there??
I think Kingwindle could have a point, we are trying to rationalise a tragic, but, rare event in this country, however, he has to accept that far too many policemen in this country are armed all day every day on patrol, not just called out to deal with incidents.
The concern that most people have seems to revolve round the background as to why the policeman shot him when he was apparently already in their control.
All the subsequent revelations just worsen that initial errot of judgement that lead to a "highly stressed policeman" making that judgement. As we now are told there were up to 19 of them, was it necessary to shoot? Was this policeman not trained to control his adrenalin rush, if not why not?
As I said earlier, our troops in Iraq and other areas are under this sort of stress 24 hours a day, not knowing who is a potential threat with no "shoot first, ask questions later" defence and they are not getting grand statements made in their defence like the Head of London police is constatly doing.
Dont make excuses for murdering scum Kingwindle;
How did the this poor bloke "going to work" and being completly surprised by a bunch of unshaven, untidy dressed scum about to attack him know they where police.
He did as anyone else in London would do and ran for his life and was executed and slaughtered without warning when he slipped getting on a tube.
Why did they NOT stop the poor bloke when he was walking along the street or before he got on a BUS.
WHERE DID THESE SCUM THINK HE WAS GOING TO and Why wait until it was to late.
If he had of been a bomber he would have set the bomb off without trying to get away.
They brutally murdered this poor bloke and should be arrested and tried for murder,we dont pay for scum like that walking our streets.
Saw Chief Commissioner Ian Blair on Question Time the other night, thought he answered these queries really well, a guy with his head screwed on.
I don't accept that a Guardian article makes an issue less cloudy, or is 'evidence', as I don't accept that the Sun's 'got the b*stards' means that they really have. How can we believe what the press report when they have these agendas? The Guardian is clearly pro- civil liberties in this respect, which is a good thing, but which distorts its editorial and its reporting.
I think jackboy is making the easy 'us v the police' assumption here - I still don't believe that there is any evidence which suggests that the officers involved didn't believe that they were acting in the best interests of the public.
The guidelines for the public re armed police need to be better publicised.
Now we have the story that the policeman concerned in the actual shooting has been sent on a free holiday, why??? not to escape the media attention as they say, because we don't know who he is. Surely he should be here answering questions now, not on a holiday where he will no doubt re-think the detail of his answers.
Since the decision to shoot without warning was made by senior policemen and not parliament surely this is an illegal act ... or are we really in a police state where the police decide the law rather than uphold the law of the land as decided by parliament.
Did someone delegated this power to a group of chiefs of police to decide or did they come up with it all on their own?
This seems like they have made the same sort of decision that I would be jailed for making if I decide to shoot without question or warning someone that I decided was a threat to me and my family.
Now the enquiry should be extended to included identifying and charging the person resposible for this apparently illegal decision to shoot without warning.