Innocent shooting

[JPaul]

RF,

Can you tell us where you got this version from. I would be interested to see the source.

Cheers

[Rat Faced]

Channel 4 news got hold of documents, witness statements plus photos from a source with the Police Complaints people... the Home Office and Police both refused to make a statement..

ie: It was Leaked

This was on the news at 7 O'Clock this evening.

Theres a summary here, however there was a 15 minute in-depth report on the TV.

One of the officers watching the block of flats was having a piss, erm i mean "relieving himself" when the guy left the flat.

[manker]

From Channel4 News:

http://www.channel4.com/news/content...jsp?id=1677571

Slightly different to your post, RF.

Here they say that the firearms officers got what they described as 'positive identification' before they shot him - also says that he did run.

[Rat Faced]

This is why i prefer the in-depth reports on TV

I'm sure, as it took up so much coverage (it was the lead story) on the 7 O'Clock news.. it'll be repeated later tonight on both ITV and Channel 4.

As it was ITN that got the leak, the BBC may be a little slower on this one...

The guy getting interviewed (forget who it was, but assume he was from the Police Complaints Authority) said that he "speeded up, but wasnt running" ... i got the impression that he was doing that half jog we all do when hoping not to miss the train pulling into the station, but not wanting to look a prick.

[manker]

i got the impression that he was doing that half jog we all do when hoping not to miss the train pulling into the station, but not wanting to look a prick.

I know the one

===

All the same, you took pains to point out that at the time he left his residence the police could not get positive ID on him yet you made no mention of them getting positive identification of him before they did shoot him (presumably some time in between him leaving his home and getting on the tube).

Not really an unbiased account that you posted for us. As I say, I really don't like what happened and posted to that effect before this slant on the story came out but when the story includes that small piece of information, it makes the armed policeman's position more tenable.

Seems to be an intelligence problem - giving the footsoldiers the wrong information.

[JPaul]

RF

You are an ex-squaddie, you know the way it works.

The footsoldiers must be willing to follow orders as they are given, knowing that they will not have all of the information available. They need to trust their superiors, otherwise they are the wrong person for the job.

I remain of the opinion that this was a tragic accident, at a time when tension was high and the Police were in a no win situation.

[DanB]

I couldn't give a fuck, they are acting in their best intrests to protect me

[sparsely]

all I have to say, England, is...
























Welcome to Texas!

[Rat Faced]

i got the impression that he was doing that half jog we all do when hoping not to miss the train pulling into the station, but not wanting to look a prick.

I know the one

===

All the same, you took pains to point out that at the time he left his residence the police could not get positive ID on him yet you made no mention of them getting positive identification of him before they did shoot him (presumably some time in between him leaving his home and getting on the tube).

Not really an unbiased account that you posted for us. As I say, I really don't like what happened and posted to that effect before this slant on the story came out but when the story includes that small piece of information, it makes the armed policeman's position more tenable.

Seems to be an intelligence problem - giving the footsoldiers the wrong information.

I see what you mean..

To clarify..

The Police Officers all had pictures of the suspects, in addition the armed police were informed that all the intelligence would be "Direct"..

ie: If required, a positive ID would already have been made, from one of the direct observers.

None of the direct observers positively IDed him. Indeed the original ones watching the flat specifically stated there was doubt as to his identity.

Someone in an office ignored this and gave the orders..

Someone held the guys arms while someone else shot him in the head from 12 inches away 7 times, missing 3 times and therefore endangering others on the train.


The fact that there was a mistake is bad enough, however how anyone can be complacent over the outright lies that came from the Met to try and cover it all up is beyond me.


Danb, i hope you feel that way if the next time its you or someone you know.

As has been pointed out, he hardly looked like someone from the Middle East, a number of people have commented upon how "white" he looked.


JP, I would agree with you except:

a/ They all had photo's of the suspects and not one of them questioned the fact he wasnt one of them.. except for the guys who were watching the flat (the main observers) who were ignored. Squaddies dont blindly follow orders in the British Army, they are trained to use their initiative. Remember more than a few were returned from Iraq because they refused to follow what they considered illegal orders and were not charged.

b/ It was quite plain he was wearing light clothing, it was also quite unlikely that he could have been carrying a bomb under a light Jacket.

c/ They were ordered to stop him going into the Tube network, and he should have been stopped prior to entering the Tube Station. Instead they followed him onto a Tube Train, despite the fact he could have been stopped at any point.. This increased the danger to the public if he was a terrorist and reduced their options.

d/ They did not identify themselves as Police Officers, nor did they give a warning. Squaddies would have done both of these, as to have done otherwise is illegal.. Remember Squaddies have been jailed for firing at cars driving AT them in Northern Ireland, because they gave no warning first. ie: When directly threatened.

e/ If someone was holding his arms, and others were within 12 inches of him.. why was he shot 7 times in the head? There was 5 policemen around him, and he was held. A squaddie would not have fired unless they had to, due to the risk of those around him. The fact that they missed 3 times at that distance, shows the risk involved.

f/ They were so quick off the mark with the cover-up, that someone must have known they'd fucked up almost immediatly... otherwise why lie?

[DanB]

Danb, i hope you feel that way if the next time its you or someone you know.

As it happens I do did know someone that was killed in the 7/7 tube bombs