I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

[tralalala]

Aye about that... wouldn't trust 'em that much after bulleting someone 7 times (!!!) in the head..... I'd think 1 would be enough.... maybe even a shot to the legs at first....

[JPaul]

Aye about that... wouldn't trust 'em that much after bulleting someone 7 times (!!!) in the head..... I'd think 1 would be enough.... maybe even a shot to the legs at first....

What are you talking about.

Shoot a suspected suicide bomber in the leg, what the feck for.

Are you stupid as well as bigoted. A shoot to kill policy does not naturally suggest the leg as a target. Unless it's you, where the 7 shots would be in the arse.

[Rat Faced]

Aye about that... wouldn't trust 'em that much after bulleting someone 7 times (!!!) in the head..... I'd think 1 would be enough.... maybe even a shot to the legs at first....

Ours are not as inept as your own coppers....

It was 8 times from about 4 ft away, just to make sure...

....after they'd already allowed him to travel on the bus 1st...


Its still out whether he was wearing a heavy coat and jumped a barrier 1st... and for some strange reason, the police wont release the video..


However they have been blasted by the coroner and the police complaints authority for releasing "partial" information only, which is designed to show a good light, prior to the investigation..... so thats alright then.

[JPaul]

Once the decision to kill someone has been taken the number of shots to the head is actually irrelevant.

It may be emotive to say that they shot him 8 times from 4 feet away. However it does not really make any difference.

The point is whether, under the circumstances, they were justified in their "shoot to kill" policy.

[Rat Faced]

No, they are not.

Just as i disagree with the other thread re: The Death Penalty.

[JPaul]

No, they are not.

Just as i disagree with the other thread re: The Death Penalty.

Cool, so we stick with that as the discussion then.

Rather than whether or not it was right to "take him out with 8 head shots at point blank range".

(Not intended as parodying you btw.)

[Rat Faced]

Well, as the 1st shot killed him... the argument would be:

"Is it right for the police to mutilate a Corpse"


Which is a different topic

[JPaul]

Well, as the 1st shot killed him... the argument would be:

"Is it right for the police to mutilate a Corpse"


Which is a different topic

:git:

[RioDeLeo]

.... they still got to their targets and would have killed more if not for faulty bombs.

Interestingly, the would be bomber caught in Rome has said the explosives weren't meant to go off, just to cause panic. He also said they had no connection with the previous bombers. This would tie in with the fact that all four bombs failed to explode, somewhat unlikely.

According to the reports, Hussain claimed the men did not talk about al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. 'We had no contacts with the organisation of bin Laden. We knew it existed - we accessed its programmes through the internet - but nothing directly,' he is reported to have claimed, adding that the bombings of 7 July took them by surprise: 'We never had any contact with the Pakistanis.'

Source:

Second source:

He also claimed the attacks were in response to the War in Iraq.

[JPaul]

Interestingly, the would be bomber caught in Rome has said the explosives weren't meant to go off, just to cause panic. He also said they had no connection with the previous bombers. This would tie in with the fact that all four bombs failed to explode, somewhat unlikely.

He would say that tho', wouldn't he. That would make for a lesser offence one would have thought. Perhaps they even had a script to that effect. Particularly with regard to distancing themselves from mass murderers.

Two terrorist attacks, involving 4 people, in London, on the underground / bus system, within a week, not linked, somewhat unlikely.

Maybe they failed to go of because home made explosives (if that's what they were) degrade fairly rapidly. I think RF posted that.

Why would the Police, or anyone else, believe the word of a terrorist (which he is, even if his ridiculous claims are true).

Actually it's quite good, because in making these claims he has admitted to being the "bomber", so all that is left to decide on is his intent. Personally I don't give a feck, life in prison either way.