Suicide bomber shot DEAD in London : )

PWNED!

(can't read your whole post, because I have you ignored, but it is probably full of bullshit. Sip some haterade and get over it)
 
[quote name='evilmax17']They'd better hope to find a bomb.[/QUOTE]

That's what I was thinking. Haven't heard anything yet. This might be a case of CYA (cover your ass) if that guy didn't have anything on him.
 
[quote name='Derwood43']What is he doing wearing a coat, running onto a train??[/QUOTE]
That's why they shot him?

Shit, better not be late for the train!
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']PWNED!

(can't read your whole post, because I have you ignored, but it is probably full of bullshit. Sip some haterade and get over it)[/QUOTE]

You have me ignored and you still post your stupid fuckING comments??

I don't know whether to laugh or wag my head in disbelief.

Here folks is your #1 most worthless poster on CAG. He ignores people but still replies to their posts!
 
One again, scrubs wrong:

A man has been shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station in south London, as officers hunt four bombing suspects.
Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said officers fired after the man was challenged and refused to obey police.

The incident was "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation", he said.

BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said the man shot dead was not thought to be one of four bomb suspects shown in CCTV images released by police.

Officers hope the CCTV footage will help them trace the four people they say tried to set off devices on Thursday at Oval, Warren Street, Shepherd's Bush stations and on a bus in Shoreditch in east London.

Police have yet to release details of the identity of the man shot dead at about 1000 BST in Stockwell.

Sir Ian told a press conference: "I need to make clear that any death is deeply regrettable but as I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

Our correspondent says the man was under surveillance as a result of evidence gathered from the scenes of the four attempted bombings.

Stockwell passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen a man of Asian appearance shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers".

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said.

Police have cordoned off a 200-metre area around Stockwell station, where teams of forensic officers are working.

Passengers were evacuated from the station, which is on the Northern Line and Victoria Line. Services on those lines have resumed butStockwell, Oval and Warren Street stations remain closed.

BBC Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said officers had challenged a known suspect they had been following.

"He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him.

"They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him. He died at the scene."

Police had warned they would shoot to kill if they believed somebody to be a threat, she added.

The Muslim Council of Britain said Muslims were concerned about a possible "shoot to kill" policy.

Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear.

"It's vital the police give a statement about what occurred and explain why the man was shot dead."

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

Londoner Dan Copeland was in the carriage in which the man was shot.

He told BBC News: "We were sitting for a few minutes on the platform, then we heard shouting from the concourse between the two platforms.

"Then the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.

"An officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, 'Everybody out!'

"People just froze in their seats cowering for a few seconds and then leapt up.

"As I turned out the door onto the platform, I heard four dull bangs.

"I ran past an armed officer who was standing on the platform and ran up the stairs."
Click to expand...
 
Great to see British officers with orders of "SHOOT TO KILL". Jump barricades? Run from the cops? Ignore warnings to stop, get down or halt?

Love it, love it, love it.

[quote name='Quackzilla']PWNED!

(can't read your whole post, because I have you ignored, but it is probably full of bullshit. Sip some haterade and get over it)[/QUOTE]

I absolutely love this. The most tolerant, open minded, sensitive and intellectual among us are the first to shut off posters, thought and statements they may disagree with.

I can't come up with more proof that the intolerant, stupid, insensitive and vacant posters come from the left.

Qackzilla, "LA LA LA LA LA! I CANNOT HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA! CANNOT HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA! YOU DON'T EXIST! LA LA LA LA LA!"
 
[quote name='doraemonkerpal']"they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

overzealous?

:cry:[/QUOTE]

Ok, somehow I missed that part. If that's true then the cop should definately see prison. You can say that it was a mistake, they were chasing a suspected bomber and wanted to stop him etc. But to have him pinned down before deciding to kill him, that's clearly illegal.
 
You realize of course that a suicide bomber can still detonate a bomb with someone on top of him?

Thumbs up to the British. I'm quite pleased someone is operating with orders of shoot to kill.

I'm sure alanzo that you're quite familiar with British law, the protections MI 5 and Scotland Yard have to fight terrorism and know this was illegal. They've been dealing with bombings for 30-40 years. Their concept of fair play in dealing with terrorism is radically different than our ACLU influenced pussified concepts.

If you want proof, ask the IRA.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You realize of course that a suicide bomber can still detonate a bomb with someone on top of him?

Thumbs up to the British. I'm quite pleased someone is operating with orders of shoot to kill.[/QUOTE]

If they thought the guy had a bomb they wouldn't have jumped on top of him.

Though I would like you to dig up something in british law where it states you can pin down a suspect (bomber or not) and shoot him 5 times.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You realize of course that a suicide bomber can still detonate a bomb with someone on top of him?[/QUOTE]

if he did have a bomb, why didn't he detonate it already? the suspect had ample time to detonate the bomb WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY before the cops shot him. :roll:
 
It's called heroism. I know, an alien concept to you, but people in law enforcement, counter terrorism and soldiers are all prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can save others.

I know you would have negotiated with him, shown him cultural sensitivity, talked him down and then of course been killed for giving him the time to detonate himself.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If they thought the guy had a bomb they wouldn't have jumped on top of him.

Though I would like you to dig up something in british law where it states you can pin down a suspect (bomber or not) and shoot him 5 times.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, who cares if he's dead. He doesn't deserve to live for running from the cops after what has happened in the last few weeks. I show no sympathy for him.
 
[quote name='Rich']Honestly, who cares if he's dead. He doesn't deserve to live for running from the cops after what has happened in the last few weeks. I show no sympathy for him.[/QUOTE]
Running from the cops should get an instant death penalty with no arrest and no trial?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's called heroism. I know, an alien concept to you, but people in law enforcement, counter terrorism and soldiers are all prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can save others.

I know you would have negotiated with him, shown him cultural sensitivity, talked him down and then of course been killed for giving him the time to detonate himself.[/QUOTE]

PAD, the guy got into the train where there were people. There was no better time to detonate a bomb then right there.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Running from the cops should get an instant death penalty with no arrest and no trial?[/QUOTE]

On a London subway the day after an attempted terrorist attack there, and 2 weeks after a successful terrorist attack there? Yes. Shoot first, ask questions later in this situation.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If they thought the guy had a bomb they wouldn't have jumped on top of him.

Though I would like you to dig up something in british law where it states you can pin down a suspect (bomber or not) and shoot him 5 times.[/QUOTE]

Do you really think that MI 5's, Scotland Yard's and British Counter Terrorism ROE's are going to be published on the net?

Yes or no.

You forget that in Britain the rule of thumb in their legal system is guilty until proven innocent. They operate in a much different legal sphere than our law enforcement.

[quote name='Quackzilla']Running from the cops should get an instant death penalty with no arrest and no trial?[/QUOTE]

Bingo. We're learning quickly around here.
 
[quote name='Rich']Honestly, who cares if he's dead. He doesn't deserve to live for running from the cops after what has happened in the last few weeks. I show no sympathy for him.[/QUOTE]

I saw a guy being chased through a boston subway a few months after 9/11 (it was somewhere around the time, as I remember talking to the guy next to me about it), guess he should been killed to.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's called heroism. I know, an alien concept to you, but people in law enforcement, counter terrorism and soldiers are all prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can save others.[/quote]

LOL, i don't know how you can make that statement by reading one or two lines that i wrote. it just goes to show how judgmental and dense that you are. i give the utmost respect to the authority. i think soldiers, firemen, etc are some of the bravest people who have ever lived. however, you don't know all of them personally so therefore, you shouldn't be making blanket statements like that. think of officer perez in the LAPD crash unit....

[quote name='PitssburghAfterDark']I know you would have negotiated with him, shown him cultural sensitivity, talked him down and then of course been killed for giving him the time to detonate himself.[/QUOTE]

try think a little further PAD... he could've detonated a bomb anytime before the cops showed up. if he was carrying a bomb, and he was an islamic extremist, he probably would've blown himself up before the cops showed up. if not before, he definitely would've pulled the trigger once the cops surrounded him. look at the israel/palestinian suicide bombers as an example.

:roll:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's called heroism. I know, an alien concept to you, but people in law enforcement, counter terrorism and soldiers are all prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can save others.[/QUOTE]

PAD, put the 'Swat' and 'Navy Seals' movies down, stop watching old 'Dragnet' reruns, and go out to buy a newspaper (and no, 'Soldier of Fortune' does not count as a newspaper)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Do you really think that MI 5's, Scotland Yard's and British Counter Terrorism ROE's are going to be published on the net?

Yes or no.

You forget that in Britain the rule of thumb in their legal system is guilty until proven innocent. They operate in a much different legal sphere than our law enforcement.[/QUOTE]

PAD, in the british legal system you are innocent until proven guilty, just like in the rest of the western world.

In British criminal trials the accused in presumed innocent until proven guilty. Trials are in open court and the accused is represented by a lawyer.
Click to expand...
http://www.britannia.com/gov/gov4.html

And if something isn't legal then it isn't legal, cops in britain can't do whatever they want. Again, post something to back up your statement.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I saw a guy being chased through a boston subway a few months after 9/11 (it was somewhere around the time, as I remember talking to the guy next to me about it), guess he should been killed to.[/QUOTE]

Assuming it wasn't for stealing someone's purse or something stupid like that where the pursuing authorities knew what they were chasing him for; then yeah, they prolly should have shot. But then everyone would bitch and moan.
 
Again the left sides with the criminal, the would be murderer and would be terrorist and the police are to blame.

When someone has broken into your house is raping your sister, mother or wife are you going to call civil libertarians or the cops. If your answer is the cops you know which side of the thin blue line you should be on.

I admit I was wrong about the guilty until proven innocent. However you cannot and do not know the ROE's in effect and what kind of legal protections the Brits are operating under pertaining to those ROE's.
 
[quote name='Rich']Assuming it wasn't for stealing someone's purse or something stupid like that where the pursuing authorities knew what they were chasing him for; then yeah, they prolly should have shot. But then everyone would bitch and moan.[/QUOTE]

what if the guy was just trying to catch the train and was in a hurry? try to think outside the box sometimes instead of just black and white!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Again the left sides with the criminal, the would be murderer and would be terrorist and the police are to blame.

When someone has broken into your house is raping your sister, mother or wife are you going to call civil libertarians or the cops. If your answer is the cops you know which side of the thin blue line you should be on.

I admit I was wrong about the guilty until proven innocent. However you cannot and do not know the ROE's in effect and what kind of legal protections the Brits are operating under pertaining to those ROE's.[/QUOTE]

Now I have two things I want you to show me, one where in british law can a policemen pin down a suspect and shoot him 5 times?

Second, where did it say anywhere that the guy was a "would be murderer and would be terrorist"? The guy had nothing on him.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You don't run from the police. Period. Halt means halt. You miss a train there will be another.[/QUOTE]

You ever been to a party that was broken up by the cops? Guess you think all those kids should be shot for running away.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You don't run from the police. Period. Halt means halt. You miss a train there will be another.[/QUOTE]

again, try being more empathetic and think outside of the box. what if in this case, the guy was deaf? wtf are you going to do then?! :roll:

it's pointless arguing with you b/c you're just making up all these scenarios and judging situations which you were not a part of.

ps. for your "somebody is raping my mom/sister" sitaution, i wouldn't call anybody. i'd just shoot he guy myself. that example does not apply to the current scenario. i could start making up a bunch of pointless examples too. what if the guy that was shot was your dad, and he didn't stop running from the cops b/c he couldn't understand english?! geez.... :lol:
 
Are you so thick that you don't understand what the allusion to their ROE's may be? What they're doing now may be perfectly legal. You don't know, I don't know and they certainly aren't going to post the limits and scope of those ROE's.

You've asked the question numerous times, I've answered numerous times. How thick headed and stupid are you not to realize I've said there's no way we can know?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Are you so thick that you don't understand what the allusion to their ROE's may be? What they're doing now may be perfectly legal. You don't know, I don't know and they certainly aren't going to post the limits and scope of those ROE's.

You've asked the question numerous times, I've answered numerous times. How thick headed and stupid are you not to realize I've said there's no way we can know?[/QUOTE]

What they can legally do to a suspect is accesable to everyone, mainly because those who go overboard and violate that can be arrested. This isn't about tactics used, but about what is legal in britain.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Are you so thick that you don't understand what the allusion to their ROE's may be? What they're doing now may be perfectly legal. You don't know, I don't know and they certainly aren't going to post the limits and scope of those ROE's. [/quote]

if you look at post #29, alonzo answered your question perfectly well.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You've asked the question numerous times, I've answered numerous times. How thick headed and stupid are you not to realize I've said there's no way we can know?[/QUOTE]

then why do you keep making up all these extreme and absurd examples? you're just trying to justify your own reasoning for shooting this guy that you've never even met or know.
 
The right-wingers would argue that our founding fathers were a bunch of liberals:

Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

James Madison: "[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."

Thomas Jefferson : The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Samuel Adams: "If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of god, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

James Madison: I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.


Lastly, I feel this is important as well: This nation can never be conquered from without. If it is ever to fall it will be from within. - President Abraham Lincoln
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I admit I was wrong about the guilty until proven innocent. However you cannot and do not know the ROE's in effect and what kind of legal protections the Brits are operating under pertaining to those ROE's.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the new sig. :lol:
 
Will police now shoot to kill? (BBC article, 3:30pm, 7/22/05)

Some quotes from this article, in which Muslim groups express their fears that members of their community may be gunned down with little warning, but also consider the situation with impressive reserve and objectivity:

"The fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him."

He added: "You don't shoot somebody five times if you think you might have made a mistake and may be able to arrest him."


"The fact is that when you're dealing with suicide bombers they only way you can stop them effectively - and protect yourself - is to try for a head-shot," he said.


"I have just had one phone call saying, 'what if I was carrying a rucksack?'.


*****
I've made this somewhat grim comparison before; I try to wonder what I would have done if I were a Vietnamese villager during the Vietnam War. How do you live your life as normally as you can while others in your community--who you don't know and can't identify--are mounting guerilla attacks on an occupying force, which then counters by mowing all of you down?

Although I don't know the full story behind the shooting, I am inclined to support those London officers. When the enemy resorts to suicide bombings, then there is little alternative to rapid application of lethal force in any circumstance where a suicide bomber might possibly be involved. I know that the extremists are hidden--even from their fellow countrymen and moderate Muslims--and that most Muslims couldn't rat them out, even if they wanted to. I also believe that embracing this rash application of lethal force will predictably victimize innocents in the Muslim community and quite possibly swell the ranks of the extremists as a backlash. However, I consider the alternative completely unacceptable: respecting the civil rights of the innocent by increasing the chances of others dying in an explosion.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Amazing you bring up the founding fathers of the United States when we're talking about Britian.

You know..... another country?[/QUOTE]
Gee, last time I looked Britian wasn't conquered by Germany in WW2. In that case our US legal system would be based on... you know... theirs. ;)

The law of the United States is derived from the common law of England, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_legal_system
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Amazing you bring up the founding fathers of the United States when we're talking about Britian.

You know..... another country?[/QUOTE]

I brought that up because Republican support for the murder of this person runs contrary to the beliefs and efforts of our founding fathers.
 
EZB they don't give a fuck all what our Founding Fathers stood for. People like PAD SPIT on those statements regardless of how valid they are. The ONLY Right winger in the US they could agree with back then is John Quincy Adams. I'm also sure our Tori PAD here loves Edmond Burke.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']The right-wingers would argue that our founding fathers were a bunch of liberals:[/QUOTE]

Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Doesn't apply. The people are not giving up liberty for safety. Someone believed to be carrying a deadly weapon in the comission of a crime was shot by police. Simple enough.

Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Yup, I agree. Has nothing to do with this situation.

James Madison: "[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."

As far as I know, protecting it's citizens from murder and terroist attacks are the jurisdiction of the federal government. Or would you rather it didn't do that?

Thomas Jefferson : The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Would you consider mass slaughter "injurious to others"? Because if you wouldn't, then you could probably use a neurological exam.

Samuel Adams: "If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of god, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

Which right? The one to wear backpacks and belts with wires sticking out, potentially filled with explosives and then run from the police, one day after an attempted mass-murder and two weeks after an actual one. In at the very least, an imitation of the crime?

James Madison: I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

Abridgement of freedom, huh? Once again, which freedom? Even freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Lastly, I feel this is important as well: This nation can never be conquered from without. If it is ever to fall it will be from within. - President Abraham Lincoln

Obviously applies to the US, not GB. Which brings me to my main point. We're debating this back and forth, but it doesn't effect us. Let the British take care of their own, and we'll police ourselves.
 
[quote name='doraemonkerpal']then why do you keep making up all these extreme and absurd examples?[/QUOTE]

Oh, like this man being a deaf man just running to catch the train?
 
[quote name='fanskad']Obviously applies to the US, not GB. Which brings me to my main point. We're debating this back and forth, but it doesn't effect us. Let the British take care of their own, and we'll police ourselves.[/QUOTE]

But that's the reason of the month why we're in Iraq. If you believe that, how can you support the fact that we attacked Iraq in the first place? Let them police their own.

Ooooh right - the terrorists (who really came from Afganistan and Saudi Arabia) and the nuclear weapons (ooooops)

Iraq aside, your arguement is bogus. Human rights abuses are human rights abuses, whether they happen in the US, the UK, or China.

However I do want more facts on this incident before I make a judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top