General Chat

Interesting thread. Not sure about the 'how would you feel if your relative had been blown up' is a valid defence of shooting a suspect. Might as well as 'how would you feel if your - possibly innocent - relative was shot 5 times in the head?' Policemen and security personnel cannot make emotional decisions based on how anyone would feel. They have to follow whatever the orders of the day are - if its shoot a suspect if he runs away, then that it what they do. But on the news they said it was 'highly unusual' for a man to be shot in front of commuters. As someone who has spent decades commuting, I would say it is unique. It is very sad that today we live in a different society - I remember 2 years ago flying from Luton airport and being amazed to see guards openly wearing guns. I hoped to hell they had been trained well - I find it very scary that weapons like this are on our streets, even though the prospect of terrorist activity is also scary. nell

Looking at the post's on this thread it is understandable why some people are concerned, 5 shots to the head!!!!! wait a minute, not all head shots are instantaneously lethal, but more guaranteable than a body shot and the officer's probably had a split second to decide, and did all 5 shot's hit? if the suspect was still moving they may have assumed he was trying to trigger a device even tho they had, I've heard, tackled him. Any truly innocent person when accosted by armed police would stop immediately. Anyway theres the old adage, 'Its easy to be wise with hindsight' Len

It seems that he was a truly innocent Brazilian electrician who had lived in this country for three years. If I read many of the arguments on this thread correctly then the fact that an innocent young man lost his life in truly horrific circumstances is acceptable because nearly 60 innocent people died two weeks ago . I don't believe it is acceptable and I believe this police action is a victory for the terrorists. Are we beginning to panic and if so are more innocent people going to suffer as a result? Frances

I for one stand corrected. I was convinced that in order to do what they did the police must have been pretty damned sure that the poor guy was an immediate threat. My sincere condolences to the family of the man. I also am concerned that all the eye witnesses interviewed on TV said that the guy was asian or Pakistani.

It sickens me that an innocent person in London is now not only at risk from the Terrorists, but also from the Police. I challenge the Authorities to show what possible EVIDENCE they had that the Brazilian was involved in Terrorism. It begs the questions 1) How many people are going to die because they did not hear the order to stop. 2) How are we to identify the Security Forces when they look like any other gun carrying thugs?

The man lived in the same building frequented by one of the terrorists. It was a multi-occupancy building, i.e. full of bedsits or flats. You'd have thought if the police were keeping it under surveillance they'd have realised that it was lived in by separate, unrelated individuals. It's like arresting everyone coming out of a tower block because someone on the 7th floor nicked a car. I can understand why there is a 'shoot to kill' directive and I'm sure the police wouldn't have acted the way they did just for kicks. It's just a shame that the first time they do, they make such an almighty mess of it. If this man had been a white woman, I doubt the shots would have been fired. Presumption of guilt was based partly on the fact that this man looked like he might be Asian.

Why oh why did he run? He understood/spoke English well, seemingly wasn't a crook .. so why? We simply have to place our trust in the security forces in this situation. They still need our support. I feel desperately sorry for the man's relatives in Brazil and his friends and family here - and sympathise also with the policeman who had (potentially) seconds to make a life-or-death decision on behalf of those around him. Jane

Hi Jane, I've also wondered why he ran. As I understand it the police with guns were not in uniform, perhaps he didn't realise that they were police. I'll wait for the full facts to emerge before passing judgement but I am very sad for his family and friends. Gwynne

The police were wearing jeans and t-shirts. If a group of men dressed such leapt out at you waving guns and screaming - and no matter how good someone's English, they may not hear/understand in the panic and confusion - would you automatically assume they were police? No.

This man is another victim of the terrorist bombing - if we had not had the bombing then this situation would not have arisen. There was another thread on this topic which I can no longer find - has it been wiped as well as Enoch Powell (which I did not see). Ann

For crying out loud - if the police had not shot him and he then detinated a bomb or attacked the police or grabbed a hostage - THE POOR BLOODY POLICE would still be in the wrong - what ever way you look at it someone would be moaning at there actions - l for one agree with what they did - alot more innocent people could have been killed. jude

I read a comment on the BBC website from someone in Berkeley USA to the effect that this kind of shooting is unlikely to happen in the USA, the man would have been detained. (I'm not sure what country the commentator really lives in given the number of police shootings I see on the news.) It was reminiscent of the recent USA journalist's comment that a bombing like London's couldn't happen here because of Homeland Security. There was some aghast comments in England about that. Then I read on my local newspaper's website yesterday, (I live not far from Seattle, WA), that a car was stolen by two young men. The car was stopped by police and the driver apprehended. However, the passenger slid into the driver's seat and sped off, to be chased and shot and killed by police a short time later. It was a tiny piece in the newspaper that ahsn't attracted much attention. These items appear several times a week at least. My point here is that terrorist suspect or otherwise, there appears to be a policy of shoot to kill if you don't do what the police tell you. Would it not help to look at the overall picture here? People are again seeking someone to blame, but we are forever looking at the symptoms not the cause. We ALL have a part to play in the present situation. WE have created the society that we live in. Let's step back a bit - We are rapidly creating police states where shots are fired first and questions asked later. That may well be necessary in the current climate; I make no judgements on that but - The terrorists behave the way they do because of things they think our governments have done. We elected those governments. We are trying to impose our culture on other countries as much as we think they are trying to impose themselves on us. Isn't THAT really the issue rather than totting up how many innocent victims get killed on either side and trying to justify the killing?

Terrorists behave the way they do because they are anti-social individuals bent on destroying free society. It matters not a rat's bottom what our governments do or don't do. These idiots attack their own countries as well as ours simply because they can. They turn on their own gang given half a chance as well. They are usually social misfits that cannot find a place in normal society and so band together to form an uneasy alliance to destroy the very thing they cannot be a part of. They won't appreciate being 'understood' either.

I agree with you Wendy, but think that the 'social misfit' argument is only part of the issue. Several people I know have said that it is their belief that America has the right, indeed the responsiblity, to teach the rest of the world the 'correct' way to live, no matter how many lives it costs. (Direct quote, not my interpretation of what they said.) I find that as scary as any 'social misfit' action, killing or what-have-you. The western view of 'freedom' isn't the only one. Christian crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition might have been viewed as 'terrorism' in their times if such a word had been coined then.