Man just been shot on train at Stockwell

[Ron Avery]

The phrase "shoot to kill" is not just from the media, it is coming from ex and senior Police Officers.  Its seems from the media, even the Police cannot make up their minds if there is a shoot to kill policy

Lord Stevens (the former Met Police Chief) told the News of the World, the policy, which he described as a "shoot-to-kill-to-protect", was correct despite the chance "tragically of error".

Sir Ian Blair, the Scotland Yard commissioner, apologised to the family ....... Sir Ian defended the policy of "shoot to kill in order to protect", saying it was necessary to shoot suspects in the head if it was feared they might trigger devices on their body

Meanwhile, Ken Jones, Chief Constable of Sussex Police and chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers' terrorism committee, denied operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy.  So who do you believe????.

[Nick Trollope]

M - not the "M", surely...

As Ron so accurately describes it, there is a stated shoot to kill policy. Moreover, unless the Policeman who shot the innocent Brazilian acted alone (in which case perhaps there is a valid argument the return of the death penalty), then there is an obvious "execution" policy being applied by the Met.

 

[M]

Not the 'M' - just one of them!

 

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly on 'shoot to kill'. The phrase suggests that there is an alternative - 'shoot to wound / disable / warn'? My point is, that there isn't an alternative - if a police officer shoots someone, the intention isn't to kill them, but to stop them - it's just that the outcome is often fatal, given that police training is to shoot either for the centre of mass (chest) or the head. So the words '...to kill' in the phrase are misleading. Nor am I suggesting that police officers should be better trained - in the split second, they don't have the luxury of trying to hit the target in the leg in order to achieve the same effect, because it won't. People shot in the leg can shoot back, or trigger a bomb, or stick a knife in someone.

M.

[Mckenzie]

It is now being reported that the Brazilian shot on friday was working in london on a out of date student visa. This may be the reason he run when being stopped by the police.

 

[Davies]

It is now being reported that the Brazilian shot on friday was working in london on a out of date student visa. This may be the reason he run when being stopped by the police.

  You're quite right to post the above but was he stopped by the police?

 I am normally pro police but the source of this information re student visa was released (together with the theory) by Scotland Yard this morning and I fear that it is output from the spin factory, damage limitation. Interesting how they are so quick to publish this information yet so reticent on other details of what happened.

    I cannot say that no overstayer has ever fled from police but that status is so commonplace and the consequences so mild that it is extremely unlikely. There is often a mass exit from the rear door when police/Home Office raid a sweat shop but that's not the same thing.

     The episode was a tragic error, for the sake of the unfortunate Brazilian (who is a much a victim of the terrorist campaign as any of the other victims) let's hope the authorities just own up to their mistakes and not try to impugn his memory. I'm afraid not-so-distant history tells me that at the inquest we may well hear things like "he made a sudden move to put his hand inside his jacket" or some other nonsense.

   In casting veiled aspersions about the victim, Scotland Yard are doing no favours to to his memory, his family and friends or to the thousands of coppers who are doing a marvellous job under the most trying of circumstances

Another Dave

 

 

[Renaud]

I do not think that policemen in plain clothes should be armed. Were I shouted at by a man with a gun in casual clothing, I am not sure that I would wait for him to establish his credentials.

[Deimos]

I see that the police have now been given permission to shoot dead SUSPECTED suicide bombers without verbal warning. Reported in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1536770,00.html?gusrc=rss. There now appears confusion as to whether Mr Menenzes received any verbal warning before he was shot.

Last night in a speech in Malaysia, Ms Booth told an audience it would be "all too easy" to undermine Britain's "deeply held values" with an unduly hasty response to the attacks. The remarks could be interpreted as a shot across the government's bows as it drafts emergency anti-terrorism measures. (in case you didn't know Ms Booth AKA Cherrie Blair !!) http://politics.guardian.co.uk/cherie/story/0,12713,1537013,00.html?gusrc=rss

Ian

[Teamedup]

Now this wouldn't be the same Ms Booth that forgot her passport when flying out on her own business recently and had the plane held up and the Met Police force went to her home to pick it up for her.

 

My Dad is enraged about this. I mean enraged. And a ploy we are all obviously allowed to use when we have made such a faux pas, in democratic Britain, the police are obviously to be used as handmaidens.

[Davies]

I see that the police have now been given permission to shoot dead SUSPECTED suicide bombers without verbal warning. Reported in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1536770,00.html?gusrc=rss. There now appears confusion as to whether Mr Menenzes received any verbal warning before he was shot.

  Yes, it seems that it came from police sources who claimed that this procedure had been in operation for some weeks.

  If I was a cynic, I would say that this press release is to prepare the public for the next statement from the Yard which will be something like "Ah, well, thinking about it, we didn't actually give the challenge that we led you to believe that we did but anyway, as you now know, we didn't have to issue a challenge"

Another Dave

[SaligoBay]

Could someone out there tell me what on earth this thread is doing on a French forum. It has nothing to do with France at all.

The powers-that-be seem to think otherwise.  Or was the vigipirate scheme put into operation just for a bit of a laugh?    Are their machine-guns not real?   Why is Sarkozy talking about weeding out mad imams in France?

 

[Ron Avery]

[quote]Now this wouldn't be the same Ms Booth that forgot her passport when flying out on her own business recently and had the plane held up and the Met Police force went to her home to pick it up for her. ...[/quote]

"Now this wouldn't be the same Ms Booth that forgot her passport when flying out on her own business recently and had the plane held up and the Met Police force went to her home to pick it up for her".

So what, if you have the influence use it, Anyway, was the story true??? No other paper had this story except the Daily Mail, that well known fan of civil rights and leading supporter of the Government,:whistling.

Even Asylum Seeker News Daily AKA The Express did not think it newsworthy   Of course according to the Daily Mail Old Maggie never did anything like this..  of course........  now who went looking for her son,,,,,,,,???  Half the SAS and the British Army  NO

Sorry mods Totally off thread but so was the responded to post

[Deimos]

And today it is now reported that the police now say that Mr Menenzes did not wear a bulky jacket. Also, the police now admit that he did not jump a ticket barrier as claimed earlier. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537613,00.html?gusrc=rss)

Ian