« Press Intimidation. | Main | Man Killed On Tube May Have Worn Bomb Belt. »

July 22, 2005

Comments

Maggie

"Still, why not shoot to maim or stop? It does seem odd to shoot someone who has been caught."

Even a person who is down on the ground can set off a bomb.

Daniel

Yeah, I know. But it still seems a bit odd. Five shots? It sounds like they really wanted this guy dead, doesn't it? Don't get me wrong. I am not heaping criticism on the cops. I'm sure they did what they had to do. I just hope that there is a lot more to this story.

Maggie

With 500,000 cameras in London, I have a feeling this guy was "tagged" in the recent past and under surveillance.

And if you are "innocent", why don't you obey police instructions, but rather turn run and jump a turnstile?

Daniel

Maggie,
I'm getting the impression that you think I'm jumping on the cops here. I promise I am not. From what I have found, it looks like they had this guy in their sights and when he jump the barrier they had to act. And I'm thankful that they did. When I say that there's probably more to this story, I don't mean that the cops screwed up. I mean that there's more to the story. I won't speculate, because I just don't know. But I suspect that we will find out soon.

Brian H

This is a common response by civs to shooting incidents, resulting from too much exposure to fantasy films, in which the good guys can shoot flopping limbs or other non-fatal body targets and save the day without killing. Soldiers and police, however, are taught to shoot first for the center of the body mass, or second for the head. For good reason. Anything else leads to wounded-bear responses and deaths of officers and soldiers. In this case, shooting the body mass, when it was presumed to be wrapped in explosive belts, would be about as stupid as it gets. An detonators can be triggered by a yank of a wire or touch of a button -- this guy had to die, fast and sure. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

Brian H

**And detonators**

Daniel

Ahhhhh! I'm not offended! All I was saying is that the cops obviously believed that they needed to kill this guy, as you say, fast and sure. What I meant by "more to the story" and "wanting this guy dead" is why they were tailing him, why they challenged him and why the shot him. In other words, the police had every reason to believe that this guy was dangerous and about to do violence.

Now, looking back at my post, I see where I have given the wrong impression by calling the shooting "odd." Bad choice. But my thoughts along the line that I hope this guy had something has nothing to do with criticizing the cops. It comes from full support of them because I know how the radical left and the Islamist groups will howl if it is revealed that the guy had nothing on him, regardless of the risk he represented. Obviously, I dashed this off too quickly and should have re-read the thing before posting. I assure you, I completely understand why they shot him and completely support the action.

Tim Worstall

Turns out he was innocent. No connection at all.

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/07/wrong_guy.html

Daniel

Yes, I know. I have the story posted up a few from here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad