Cantr II Discussion Forum

The man that was shot and killed by the officer in london has been shown to be innocent. My sympathies are with the officer however as he was only doing his job.

did the oficer tell him to stop?

Five police officers chased him onto a train and shot him point blank... i'm abstaining, but swaying towards yes.. i dont think the officers were right, but they shouldent be blamed...

(I voted yes without thinking.. please remove one vote from yes, mentally )

Yeah, from what I heard the man was running away from three officers and was wearing suspicious clothing and was acting suspicious as well. They told him to stop but he wouldnt.

Oh thats right, it was three officers and he was shot five times... well, i'm too tired and err... "Drunk" to comment on this sensibly right now.. i'll come back to it when i wake up...

if they told him to stop, then he sould have stoped, and it probably looked as if he was running away frome them, so they had to take action.

no, there inocent, unles i am missing important information.

I know the rules of engagement and from what I've seen reported, they were following precedure. If they check his figureprints they might find him connected to some other crime. Innocent men don't run.

Yes he was.

Killing someone who runs away? Come on folks, this ain't Cantr.

In view of the current situation in London... it's fairly simple.

Don't run away from the police!

Nick wrote:Killing someone who runs away? Come on folks, this ain't Cantr.

You are right, it isnt Cantr...So when some group of idiots decide to kill a bunch of people, they die. And they dont get the chance to "respawn" as a new person. Therefore the officer was correct in doing what he did, and now unfortunatly he has to live with the fact that he was wrong...but I hope that he, and others, will make that same choice when it comes down to it.

The police officers were plain clothed - If people holding guns in normal clothes started to chase me - I'd run...

Did he hear them say stop?

And anyways - he had fallen to the ground when they shot him
five times
in the head

That is NOT standard 'rules of engagement'
New, as yet unpublished, guidelines for engagement when dealing with suspected bombers have been released - these include shooting for the head, not the chest, and without warning. This, to me, is over reaction. And bad reaction. The bombers must be laughing at what they've created - a havoc in which those who are there to protect people shot those they are supposed to protect. I've always said to people, from the start, that the first person to get the wrong end of these new legislations they bring in to 'combat terrorism' will be an innocent.

Decreasing our freedoms, with new 'anti terror' legislation - and making everyone a possible suspect, making it possible for someone to be shot like that - that is just the kind of mess terrorists want us to get into.

The result is sad as I said on a different post but here's what I would caution.

The people on this forum likely do not have all the facts. This is because 1. The press doesn't have all the facts, 2. There will be spin doctors on both sides altering the actual story, 3. The police will be investigating so will not yet know exactly what happened, 4. What happened is dependent on the angle by the person involved.

So, I would say the best course of action is realize it was sad and unfortunate, but not to point fingers either way until the story is told completely. There's nothing worse than hurting an innocent man, which is what just happened, but could well happen again if police or victim is blamed.

I've found that it is hard to second guess anyone who has more information than I do. I wasn't there and didn't see the events unfold so it is hard for me to say what should or should not have been done until the evidence is gathered as completely as possible.

hallucinatingfarmer wrote:New, as yet unpublished, guidelines for engagement when dealing with suspected bombers have been released - these include shooting for the head, not the chest, and without warning. This, to me, is over reaction. And bad reaction. The bombers must be laughing at what they've created - a havoc in which those who are there to protect people shot those they are supposed to protect. I've always said to people, from the start, that the first person to get the wrong end of these new legislations they bring in to 'combat terrorism' will be an innocent.

Exactly.

Perssonally, I think it went down like it did because the police not only had the stress from the bombs recently on their shoulders to go with a fleeing subject, but they were handing weapons that they probably didn't have much experiance with (as opposed to cops in the US) and that added a third very stressful factor into the mix. Especially with 5 shots being fired at an unarmed suspect, that's just panic reaction.

But what's done is done, I think it was all just one big mistake and noone specific is to blame, after all, they did have shoot on sight orders for any terrorist suspect.

From what I know is that the officers who inital began chasing the man were plains clothe police officers and uniformed officers got involved as well. The officers claimed the man was looking suspcious, had a bag with him, and looked middle eastern (in fact he was Latin American of Brazilian descent). When told to stop, the man couldn't understand the officers because he doesn't speak or know English. The officers then chased him unto a train where they shot for fear he was a suicide bomber. Those are the facts I have heard so far.