Michael Coumas wrote: ....but we do know that he was conducting himself illegally in the UK at the time. Perhaps he thought he was to be apprehended for that matter and ran. (Not a very serious matter but illegal nonetheless)
Even this is not clear atm with the home secratary making statements saying he believed the man was in the country legaly.
Michael Coumas wrote:
If an officer had a drawn weapon in public, as I believe he did, then it was probably because immediately prior to that he possibly thought he had a clear safe shot.
That may well be so, but it may also mean that what the victim saw was men dressed not in uniforms but plain clothes, shouting and waving a gun at him.
Michael Coumas wrote:
I drew my conclusion based on alleged facts as we know them, there was no running from a girlfriend’s previous partner & hopefully your papers will run the story tomorrow as we know it here in London.
The senario a put was a totlay made up hypothetical one. The point was that you seemed to be saying "he ran - he must have been guilty of something". My hypothetical senario was made to make the point that this is not necessarily the case, that there could have been reasons why he ran that had nothing to do with any guilt (and sheer panic is another possibility as I see it.). I will suggest another made up hypothetical senario. You (a hypothetical you - not you personaly) have a personal dispute with someone in the UK. You want to get back at this person. You go round to his house and tell them '"you better watch your back because sometime somewhere I am going to get you and get you bad". You then ring the police with an annonymous tip off that this person is planning a suicide bomb. Quite an effective way to cause this person trouble.
Michael Coumas wrote:
I must take up the point you make reference the absence of a bomb, erolz, I take you as a person of understanding. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, foresight is a gift, in situations such as that when public safety is perceived to be at risk you must make a split second decision.
Well I would reiterate that at this point I make no judgments about the officers that acted in this tradgey. I accept that as a society we ask these people to protect us and we give them the right to use force and deadly force and expect them to do so. If and when mistakes are made, as they surely will be, I accpet it is unreasonable to jump up and down and rant and rave and the like.
My 'problem' is with
a - the reponse of the Cheif of Met police. I do not believe operationaly the policy being persued is the correct one myself but can understand arguments that it is. I also think from a 'PR' (rather than operational) perspective his comments were a mistake
b - how can the intelligence that led the officers on the ground to believe the man had a suicide bomb on his person have been so incorrect? This to me is the core issue atm and hopefully more details as to on what information the police were operating on and how it was conveyed to those on the gorund will be given. The man, as far as I know, had no connection to terrorists. He was from Brazil - hardly know as a trainning ground for fundamentalist terrorists targeting Britain. To me it is important that these questions are asked by a public. I do not wish to villify the police in this matter but niether do I think we should take an attitude that 'we are under attack and should not question the actions of those trying to protect us'. At the end of the day if we allow terrorist to change the fundamental charater of our country then we give them a victory that they should not be allowed in my view.
Michael Coumas wrote:
The authorities will obviously do all they can to minimise a similar thing occurring, we do not need to state the obvious within informed intelligent debate. However the law of averages would dictate that something similar could very well happen again given the numbers of people in Britain’s Cities who for multifarious reasons would have reason to flee from the law.
Maybe it's just me but I would like the authorites to come out and say this - which they have not done as far as I am aware. If only for the (small) comfort that might bring the family and friends of this poor victim, though obviously I would prefer they actualy did something as well as just saying they would do so.