General Chat

I did think being shot 8 times was a bit OTT, or were they such bad shots!! I also heard on the news that his visa may not have been out of date. ann Glos

Dictionary definition of execution: Carrying out capital punishment (no mention of shooting up against the wall) ann Glos

As I understood it from the weekend reports, 5 shots were in the head, and I assume that the armed police are instructed to shoot suspects in the head, then all 8 (yes 8) bullets must have been aimed at the chap's head. I have actually seen the results of one bullet in the head (gruesome), and I can only imagine what the effects of 8 (or even 5) would have. His mother would not recognise him, nor I suspect, would she want to see him. As I understand it bullets to the body might have triggered an explosion, so logically it would seem to me that if 5 shots were in his head (quite sufficient to have done the deed), then the 3 extra shots were unnecessary to kill the chap. Jacqui

If you choose to feel victimized that is your responsibility. You made a ridiculous statement and have to accept that it will be commented on. Of course there are grey areas but some of us are able to see things from a practical point of view rather than an idealistic one.

I would ask you Wendy, do you not think that 8 bullets in one guy was 'over-kill'? and I dont need to be reminded about the death and destructions caused by the bombers and their cohorts - I'm just asking you a question. Wouldn't 1 have been enough? Jacqui

Jacqui - I was responding to Felicity not to your point about 8 rounds being used.

Yes Wendy I understand that, but I feel that perhaps Felicity thought that the situation perhaps reminded her of an execution, rather than apprenhending a suspect (albeit an extreme method but one that was perhaps considered necessary). So, do you consider 8 bullets, 7 too many? An interested Jacqui (with no wish to inflame anyone)

8 almost makes 5 seem reasonable doesn't it?

Not when 1 would have had the same effect? Jacqui

I'm not feeling victimized, Wendy, just stating facts as I see them. There is no one 'practical' answer, much as we'd all like there to be.

Jacqui - have you ever fired a gun?

Jaqui, someone on another thread, now deleted, explained why 1 bullet wasn't necessarily enough. Someone else made a comment about 'summary execution' a few days ago and nearly got hounded off the boards, so I was expecting a backlash. The fact remains that the the 'facts' that everybody's comments are based on - including mine - seem to change by the minute, which is really the basis of every point I've tried to make.

No Wendy, I have never fired a gun (apart from fun fair type of thing) but I have seen the result of 1 bullet to the head, and as I would have expected the people who were whealding the guns to be top crack marksmen (and not Beat Bobbies who had been issued with fire arms 1 hour before), then I would also have thought that one (or possibly two shots in the heat of the moment) would have been sufficient for the deed. 8 shots was far too much and I feel will take some explanation in the days to come. Felicity, I appreciate your reply. I have also read about one bullet not being enough, but feel that on this occasion then 5 or eight (as it turns out) could be construed as a summary 'execution'. Sorry if my view offends, it's not meant to. I just abhor violence of any description and whilst I do understand (I think) that the adrenalin would have been flowing at the time the incident took place, I cannot help but think that a little restraint would have been in order. Whether the shooting was necessary or not, and I am truly not sure at this stage as I only have the 'facts' as presented on the News the same as anyone else, it was the level of the 'kill' that I found appalling. Jacqui

If it is possible to put the two sides of the argument to one side for a moment ie was it right or otherwise to shoot this man: the one thing that has appalled me about this thread is the sort of gloating triumphalism that seems to come from it. The sense of: He was an illegal immigrant so thats not too bad. Not one who has bled the state mind you but has done 'cash in hand jobs'!! How much better if this could have been about the difficulties faced by both police and people who may be afraid of them with out all the hard, in your face stuff, that has been written.

its natural for feelings to run high,at such a traumatic time in our lives,but i think we should step back,and calm down. i travel to work daily on a train,and then the underground,and i can see the unease on peoples faces,the sight of armed police on the platforms,i find reassuring,knowing they are there for my protection. bryan.

Jeanie - I really haven't read this thread the same way as you have at all. There has been no triumphalism at all - just people simply stating that the dead man was shot because he ran and now we know he ran because his visa was out of date. I have yet to read one comment saying he deserved it.

'Let's be honest and sweep sentiment out of the window, if this chap had returned to Brazil, where he should have been, he wouldn't have been shot.' 'If he had gone home when he should have, he would more than likely still be alive, So, infact he contributed to his own death.' Both quotes from this board and both infer that the killing was at least partially the man's own fault, ie he deserved it. Don't really see how you can read it any other way or disagree with Jeanie. Wendy we DON't know that he ran because his visa was out of date - that is pure supposition.

Re.in your face comments. All taken from page one. 'Yeah ritte!!' 'Easy touch' 'Yep- just confirmed he was working illegally' The whole tirade re family sueing. 'Live with it' The whole tone of this has been aggressive. These sorts of comments continue through the other pages. Which is a shame because it is a subject worthy of debate.

Goodness me Jeanie.

After reading everyone's contribution on this thread I agree with Gwynne, Nell, Felicity, Jeanie A and Ann in Glos all put their points across very well and as usual did not feel the need to be rude, some of the other comments on this thread have been awful, rude and uncalled for, 'Live With It' being a comment to Nell that was totally uncalled for, i.m.o. To be rude to people who do not share your point of view does nothing for a good discussion, flippant remarks makes for even a less of a decent discussion and I hate seeing threads ruined because of this. My opinion for what its worth is I don't think the Police had a choice by the time he headed for the Tube. Although like Gwynne I don't understand how he was allowed on a BUS!!! if they thought he was a suicide bomber? that makes no sense, but maybe that will come out in the next little while. Dealing with a human bomb must be the most difficult of all things for the Met, I do not believe the British Police take shooting people lightly as some other Forces may do in other Countries, but this is a shock to people as we are not used to hearing such things happening here, we would more likely hear these events from somewhere such as Iraq, Palestine, many thousand of miles from us, infact it becomes so common place to hear of it from those places that people don't actually hear it anymore. I trust the British Police far more than I would any other, we should consider ourselves lucky we live in a Democratic Society, a Society where we are allowed to ask questions and our Police answer those questions and prove to the World they are not trigger happy cops, who will sweep this under the carpet. To remain a Democratic Society the questions need to be asked and they also need to be answered. Pat x