Can we trust the police?

[craig51]

"yer right fella but when i go through an airport and i hear" hit the deck"

im already chewing ashfalt"

Yup, and I am sure he would have was that order given, however according to all the witnesses at the trial, no such command was given!!!

You cant comply with a police officer if no command is given!!!!!

 

[mark vincent]

"yer right fella but when i go through an airport and i hear" hit the deck"

im already chewing ashfalt"

Yup, and I am sure he would have was that order given, however according to all the witnesses at the trial, no such command was given!!!

You cant comply with a police officer if no command is given!!!!!

They probably shot him without warning because they believed him to be a suicide bomber if they gave him a warning he could have detonated his bomb within a split second, he could have had his finger on remote control button or anything how where the police supposed know.

 

[craig51]

" where the police supposed know."

Evidence I would assume.

But for the police not to give him a chance is shocking. If they were so sure, why let him enter a confined, public space in the first place!!!!!!!Thats crazy talk.

3 monthd ago I was 100% in favour of the police, becuase I ws led to believe by the MET, that he

1/ Was wearing a very large jacket uncommon for the temperture
2/ He jumped over the styles
3/ He ran from police down the escalator
4/ He was a rapist

All of which are now found out to be untrue. .

1/ He was wearing a denom jacket
2/ He walked into the station, got a ticket, picked up a metro and went through the styles
3/He walked down the escalator.
4/ He wasnt, not even accused.

Based on the above, if 2 officers tell me the gave warnings, with one of them not 100% sure, and 3 witnessess saying they did not, i have to believe the witnesses.

The whole thing was a sham from the moment they miss-id him leaving a block of flats.

Someone, dont know who, failed to do their job, and should be punished. personaly Clarissa who was in charge of gold command should be the one, or at least the guys who id him as he defo had 'mongolian eyes'. Anyone looking at any pcture of JCD couldnt say he had mongolian eyes!!!!!!!

 

[blondini]

They probably shot him without warning because they believed him to be a suicide bomber if they gave him a warning he could have detonated his bomb within a split second, he could have had his finger on remote control button or anything how where the police supposed know.

The flaw with that is the police have given evidence that a warning was given.

 

[Trazor]

Well my view on this is.....

If the police KNEW for a fact that he was a suicide bomber, on his way to cause carnage,
they would have shot him, at distance, well before he got to a crowded place ie. the tube.
Nothing else makes any sense.

I believe they viewed him as a terrorist, and shot him on the train, to make a statement,
and in the climate at the time, it would have been viewed as acceptable.

Show me any other instance, where a suicide bomber is confronted and shot at point blank range.

Unfortunately they got it badly wrong.

 

[JohnD]

Gibraltar.

"The SAS team was incorrectly informed that the IRA had already placed their bomb and were ready to detonate it. The three were stopped as they walked near the Shell filling station in Winston Churchill Avenue, the busy main road leading to the Airport and the Spanish frontier. McCann was then shot as the SAS claimed he made an 'aggressive move' towards a bag he was carrying. They stated he was intending to trigger a car bomb using a remote control device. After McCann was killed, it was claimed that Farrell made a move towards her handbag and was shot on similar grounds. SAS members again claimed that Savage moved his hand to his pocket and the SAS killed him also.

McCann was shot five times, Farrell eight times, and Savage between 16 and 18 times. All three were subsequently found to be unarmed, and without any kind of remote trigger."

However in this case they were admitted to be IRA terrorists who were on a mission to plant a car bomb with the intention of killing a large number of people, they were not innocent electricians going about their lawful business.

 

[Trazor]

Gibraltar.

"The SAS team was incorrectly informed that the IRA had already placed their bomb and were ready to detonate it. The three were stopped as they walked near the Shell filling station in Winston Churchill Avenue, the busy main road leading to the Airport and the Spanish frontier. McCann was then shot as the SAS claimed he made an 'aggressive move' towards a bag he was carrying. They stated he was intending to trigger a car bomb using a remote control device. After McCann was killed, it was claimed that Farrell made a move towards her handbag and was shot on similar grounds. SAS members again claimed that Savage moved his hand to his pocket and the SAS killed him also.

McCann was shot five times, Farrell eight times, and Savage between 16 and 18 times. All three were subsequently found to be unarmed, and without any kind of remote trigger."

Ermm.... they were not Suicide bombers, your use of the phrase "remote control device" should have woken you to that.

 

[JohnD]

I didn't say they had intended to be suicide bombers.

But do you not see any parallel?

 

[Trazor]

I didn't say they had intended to be suicide bombers.

But do you not see any parallel?

The only parallel I see, is that both incidents were designed to make a statement of intent, ie. mess with us and you get shot.

Quite rightly so in one instance, utterly and devastatingly wrong with the other.

As regards suicide bombers, standard practise would be to halt them, under threat of being shot.
Then get them to remove clothing, until they are down to underwear, all done at a reasonably safe distance.

Would any sane person tackle a SUICIDE bomber face to face, just doesn't make sense.

 

[Atilla]

I didn't say they had intended to be suicide bombers.

But do you not see any parallel?

Nope.
Differrent times, different battles. And it wasn't useless plod that brought the situation to a 'conclusion'.

As to the opening question. Should we trust the police.
Emphatic No!!
Especially them T0ssers in Gloucester.

 

[hairyben]

I didn't say they had intended to be suicide bombers.

But do you not see any parallel?

Nope. There are of course basic simularities, but not in how it affects us.

They were known to the SAS as people up to no good. It might have been a "bad" call, but the information on those concerned made them suspect.

Whats different here is that the geezer had no connection at all to terrorism. Logically therefore, it could happen to any one of us.

have the met decided what actually happened yet, or is it still one jackanory after another?

 

[kevplumb]

"yer right fella but when i go through an airport and i hear" hit the deck"

im already chewing ashfalt"

Yup, and I am sure he would have was that order given, however according to all the witnesses at the trial, no such command was given!!!

You cant comply with a police officer if no command is given!!!!!

fair comment

 

[Deluks]

the geezer had no connection at all to terrorism. Logically therefore, it could happen to any one of us.

Is why there should be utter public condemnation of the actions of the police.



Getting run over crossing the road, being burgled, or finding out you've got HIV; for the people that suffer these and many other misfortunes, their train of thought is often " I thought it only happened to other people"

It doesn't just happen to other people, it happens to normal blokes, leaving their home in the morning to commute to work, just the same as they do any other day. Normal blokes just like YOU.

The police were just trying to protect us???

JCM was one of us, therefore the police have utterly failed in their duty to protect us.

 

[mark vincent]

I didn't say they had intended to be suicide bombers.

But do you not see any parallel?

The only parallel I see, is that both incidents were designed to make a statement of intent, ie. mess with us and you get shot.

Quite rightly so in one instance, utterly and devastatingly wrong with the other.

As regards suicide bombers, standard practise would be to halt them, under threat of being shot.
Then get them to remove clothing, until they are down to underwear, all done at a reasonably safe distance.

Would any sane person tackle a SUICIDE bomber face to face, just doesn't make sense.

Are you saying the police knew he was just an illegal immigrant, but they shot him anyway to make a statement of intent? didn't they believe him to be an Islamic terrorist, they made a mistake by allowing him to enter the train they should have stopped him in an open space with no-one around and then gave him a warning, when he entered the train it was to late to do anything else but shoot him because the risk of him detonating a bomb in the crowded train was to great. In the circumstances what else could they do, as i have said it only takes a split second to detonate a bomb, he was supposed to be a SUICIDE bomber after all.

 

[mark vincent]

I didn't say they had intended to be suicide bombers.

But do you not see any parallel?

Nope. There are of course basic simularities, but not in how it affects us.

They were known to the SAS as people up to no good. It might have been a "bad" call, but the information on those concerned made them suspect.

Whats different here is that the geezer had no connection at all to terrorism. Logically therefore, it could happen to any one of us.

have the met decided what actually happened yet, or is it still one jackanory after another?

The fact that the bloke who was shot had nothing to do with terrorism is beside the point, because the police Believed him to be a potential suicide bomber that is why they shot him.