Cantr II Discussion Forum

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550815,00.html

This link is regarding the shooting of the innocent person in the wake of the bombings in London.

Thought it would be interesting to read...

I've been following this story closely.

Two weeks after the bombings in London , there was another bombing attempt - which failed.
A few days after that - a man was shot in a tube (subway) station in London.

This man was innocent - but had been tailed by police as he was seen leaving a 'suspect' house.

The original police claims were that:
*He was running away when the police announced themselves
*He was wearing a large coat/belt
*He jumped the ticket barriers

He was shot seven times in the head by armed police officers (still a rare sight in London)


At the time - eyewitnesses disputed the police claims

It has now been shown that:
*He used a ticket like everyone else
*He was not aware of the police following him
*He made no attempt to run
*In fact, a security guard was holding him down before he was hit
*He was wearing a denim jacket and no belt
*He was not properly identified as a suspect - only that he left a 'suspect' house


As i have said in the other posts about the bombings - I do not blame the policemen who shot him (who now face murder trial) - they have been under increasing pressure and tension, and were probably very scared at the time. I have long maintained that it would not be long before someone innocent fell foul of the tensions and the new laws that allow 'shoot to kill'

What is dispicable is the blatant, and knowing, cover-up by the police services. The people who should be brought to trial are those who tried to claim that he was somehow acting suspiciously, that he was running. This man was shot at virtually point blank range - seven times - in the head - with very little reason to suspect him. The least that I would expect would be honesty from the police - people - even police - make mistakes. These lies are truly disgusting coming from a service designed to serve the public.

As i have said in the other posts about the bombings - I do not blame the policemen who shot him (who now face murder trial) - they have been under increasing pressure and tension, and were probably very scared at the time. I have long maintained that it would not be long before someone innocent fell foul of the tensions and the new laws that allow 'shoot to kill'

Would you have shown the same sympathy if

a) It was a friend/relative of yours that was killed.

b) It was a civilian that killed him instead of a police officer?

I agree with all the rest you said in your reply by the way...

I don't blame the policeman for not acting level-headed when under tension and pressure the same way I do not blame those in the British and US armies doing shit things - the same way I do not blame the Iraqi 'insurgents' for shooting at soldiers under the pressure of having their land invaded

people are only human

Them damned Brazilians, attacking the free world. Well, I say they did the right thing. Enough is enough! Let's show those islamist punks just how very free we are by declaring martial law immediatly throughout the Commonwealth. God save the Queen.

hallucinatingfarmer wrote:I don't blame the policeman for not acting level-headed when under tension and pressure the same way I do not blame those in the British and US armies doing shit things - the same way I do not blame the Iraqi 'insurgents' for shooting at soldiers under the pressure of having their land invaded

people are only human

Here here.

That's very true, Hallucinatingfarmer, but if we, as humans, do not solve these problems, no one is going too. We are the only people and beings who can control ourselves and set our destiny, so consequently, the responsibility falls on us.

True, in all likelyhood, I would have done the same as others were I in their place, but we still cannot remove the blame entirely.

I'm in no way wanting to remove the blame - just place the situation in the perspective from which I see it

Ah. Well, in that case, I agree with you entirely, with perhaps the exception of the policeman. Believe me, and I know, unless your freaking crazy, you don't fire guns like that, espicially not at people. Believe me.

I don't blame the policeman for not acting level-headed when under tension and pressure the same way I do not blame those in the British and US armies doing shit things - the same way I do not blame the Iraqi 'insurgents' for shooting at soldiers under the pressure of having their land invaded

people are only human

But do you blame a civilian for not acting level-headed if he thinks he has the chance to stop a terrorist attack? Because you do realize that all other people would have to stand trial for such a murder, don't you?

Damn straight. They'ed either be put on trial or strung up by vigilantes.

and so will this policeman be trialed for murder

I just don't want to see this policeman, who did act in the wrong way, be used as a distraction from those who brought about the changes that made a situation like this more likely

True enough.

Were it me calling the shots, I would use this case to try and make sure the police did not make such very public mistakes, to try and make them be carefull.

But like you said, to forget the need for decisiveness and strength in dealing with the situation would not be wise either.

But then it gets more complicated from here.