Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
Ah! So you think the airport police knew in advance that they were going to an empty plane do you ?
And you think that empty planes with fuel tanks full of fumes don't make a hell of a big bang do you ?
So come on then tell me how you think the police gained this foresight about the intentions of these people, enough foresight according to you to know that these people didn't pose a threat to people trapped in a tin can ?
Perhaps. Maybe the police didn't even arrive on the scene until after the banner had been hung, making the situation easy to size up and not that of a violent nature. I don't see any police in any of the pictures the Greenpeace activists took (which shows the ground directly below and a large distance outward) so I would think that to be true for now.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Even if not, I would think it reasonable to assume that the police had been informed as to whether the plane had passengers on-board or not.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
As far as I am aware, nobody has ever tried to blow up a plane on the ground. :idunno:
... while standing atop it with reflective safety vests to boot.
Remember, "Safety First" when blowing up an airplane.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
You can't just shoot people because you don't like the look of them, or they may have taken a wrong turn. The Stockwell Tube incident proved that.
If they had shot them there would be all sorts of calls about police brutality, overreaction, bad intelligence, and there would have been calls for resignations, etc.
We don't really know the full facts yet, but I'm pretty sure that the police were more aware of what's going on than you seem to believe. I can only hope that as soon as they made it to the tarmac they were under surveillance, and options about how to handle them were being weighed up.
It was probably quickly apparent that the only danger they posed was to themselves.
As far as I am aware, nobody has ever tried to blow up a plane on the ground. :idunno:
The armed police are usually there to stop terrorists boarding planes about to take off, or causing mayhem in the terminal buildings themselves.
Sorry!!
It's nothing to do with how they looked. It's about where they were. They were in a place where they (for all anyone knew) could have killed a couple of hundred people.
Oh and you need to go look at some history, blowing up planes on the ground is something that has been done since 1941, it's a standard military practice, and if you extend it to terrorism it would be most effective if you could blow up a plane full of people, and if you think the only plane these people could get to airside at Heathrow was an empty one from Manchester you are mistaken.
I'd imagine that a suicide bomber could probably blow up a wing fuel tank of a arriving plane quite easily, lets face it arriving planes have tanks that are full of fumes, so a big bang under the wing would make for a fantastic fireball.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
... while standing atop it with reflective safety vests to boot.
Remember, "Safety First" when blowing up an airplane.
Right and so the point of having armed police at airports is what precisely, they can't even stop people reaching targets ?
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
Ah! So you think the airport police knew in advance that they were going to an empty plane do you ?
And you think that empty planes with fuel tanks full of fumes don't make a hell of a big bang do you ?
So come on then tell me how you think the police gained this foresight about the intentions of these people, enough foresight according to you to know that these people didn't pose a threat to people trapped in a tin can ?
Perhaps. Maybe the police didn't even arrive on the scene until after the banner had been hung, making the situation easy to size up and not that of a violent nature. I don't see any police in any of the pictures the Greenpeace activists took (which shows the ground directly below and a large distance outward) so I would think that to be true for now.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Even if not, I would think it reasonable to assume that the police had been informed as to whether the plane had passengers on-board or not.
Like I said where were the police ? How did these people ever get near a plane without being shot ?
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
As they didn't disrupt any flights I don't mind much that they weren't shot. If, however, they had delayed one of my flights and thus caused me to have to answer further complaint letters I would have shot them myself.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
Like I said where were the police ? How did these people ever get near a plane without being shot ?
Oh c'mon...I don't think anyone is debating that there was a gap in security.
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe the group of 4 had tickets to a flight which was boarding on the tarmac and broke off to put up a sign. The whole thing may have taken just a few quick minutes and may have been all over by the time the police showed up.
You need to get the facts first.
Point being, perhaps shooting the four was never even an option if the act was complete upon the arrival of the police.
No matter what unfolded, I'd bet that the proper officials are looking into how the event occurred and what can be done to stop a possible harmful situation in the future.
You're making a mountains out of a molehill though...
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manicgeek
They were in a place where they could have killed a couple of hundred people.
A Rod Stewart concert perhaps?
:huh:
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
Oh c'mon...I don't think anyone is debating that there was a gap in security.
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe the group of 4 had tickets to a flight which was boarding on the tarmac and broke off to put up a sign. The whole thing may have taken just a few quick minutes and may have been all over by the time the police showed up.
You need to get the facts first.
Point being, perhaps shooting the four was never even an option if the act was complete upon the arrival of the police.
No matter what unfolded, I'd bet that the proper officials are looking into how the event occurred and what can be done to stop a possible harmful situation in the future.
You're making a mountains out of a molehill though...
Then you should be grateful that it's only a molehill, it could so easily have been a mountain of dead bodies, a mountain that would have happened because of the inability of the armed police who are supposed to be deployed to prevent such a possibility from happening.... mind you they're good at shooting blokes carrying table legs and they're good at following innocent people for 45 minutes before shooting them dead at point blank range... it's just a problem they have with dealing with real threats.
Lets all be grateful that those wonderful greenpeace people have demonstrated another attack vector to the terrorists shall we.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manicgeek
Then you should be grateful that it's only a molehill, it could so easily have been a mountain of dead bodies, a mountain that would have happened because of the inability of the armed police who are supposed to be deployed to prevent such a possibility from happening.... mind you they're good at shooting blokes carrying table legs and they're good at following innocent people for 45 minutes before shooting them dead at point blank range... it's just a problem they have with dealing with real threats.
...except that it wasn't a real threat :frusty:
