View Full Version : Shot man not connected to bombing
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.
A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.
The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.
Two other men have been arrested and are being questioned after bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus.
The statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.
"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.
"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."
The statement confirmed the man was followed by police from a block of flats that was under surveillance.
His death is being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Full story bbc.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm)
This is awful. Unfortunately, that is the price of the war against terror - innocent people will suffer. While many people will blame the police for this incident, they have to realise that they are only doing their job and this would never have happened were it not for the bombers in the first place.
This kind of news is always depressing. May he rest in peace.
UNDERTAKER, if one can't blame the police for killing the innocents, one can't actually blame the terrorists for killing the innocents neither, can one?...
Come now SMSL, that's just a bit silly now. There is NO comparison.
[ 23. July 2005, 18:40: Message edited by: Neteru ]
Hang on a second. Unconnected to THIS particular event, but special agents said he WAS part of an investigation into terrorist activities.
I'm just glad they got him now, instead of mopping up an attack he was said to be working on.
Also, IMO, (and I'm normally a fan of the Beeb) this is pretty irresponsible reporting from the BBC.
Until the police reveal full details on why the police chose to shoot this guy (and the subsequent investigation into his activities are made public) then no one (including the Beeb) should be speculating.
While this chap may have not been connected with the London bombings, police had sufficient evidence to suspect his involvement in possible terrorist activities.
Instead of following procedure, the man ran from police, into a crowded train and lay on the ground. Based on recent events, and taking into consideration the actions of this man, you cannot blame police for opening fire.
Had the man been armed, he could have detonated himself at any point.
[ 23. July 2005, 18:50: Message edited by: tlr online ]
I don't feel sorry for the guy. He didn't obey police orders, he kept running.
If he was truly innocent, he wouldn't have ran.
Originally posted by tlr online:
...no one (including the Beeb) should be speculating.It isn't speculation tlr.
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.I don't blame the police at all. If, given the circumstances, police tell you to stop, you bloody well stop.
It is sad that these things happen at all, but why on earth did he not stop when told to do so?
His behaviour was unusual and considering the circumstances I don't think the police is to blame. (the poor guy who shot him will probably feel bad enough about it as it is)
Yes, there is, Net. It's like a war. It's terrorism just the same, but terrorism of state, it's accepted. Doesn't mean they don't kill even more innocents than in this, but it's accepted. Because wars are started for a reason. But these acts also start for a reason. They don't go around killing themselves and people around them just because they are mean and they feel like killing. People just prefer to think they do it lightly. Again, I'm not trying to defend what they do, but I don't defend what they do because I'm against the principle of killing innocents, not because people call it terrorism instead of war, or crime prevention. Accepting terror when it comes from state and being against it when it comes from anywhere else isn't the road to go, if you ask me. Because the state depends on who's the man ruling it, while the principle of not killing the innocents should be above all men. Unfortunatelly, even who people will consider innocent or not will depend on who's ruling. And I think that's wrong.
I'm sorry for so many words on this, please don't think I'm defending or justifying whatever act of violence, but I just can't shake my head on some and clap my hands at the others, when the principle being broke is the same. Please, forgive me, Net, but this is the way I feel on violence.
"unconnected to the incidents.."
i.e. the bombings two weeks ago, and the failed bombings on Thursday.
My argument, however, is that this guy was connected to terrorist activities, just not the above mentioned bombings in London.
The media is putting a spin on this, by reporting that because he wasn't connected to the London bombings, he was innocent.
Innocent men do not run, and ignite already highly flammable situations. Innocent men especially do not run onto a train and hit the deck, a vehicle which has been used recently to cause maximum destruction.
SMSL. Terrorism is a bit like history... It's the winner that puts forth his version of events, his truths. Our leaders are quick to brand anything against the state as "terrorism", yet brush under the carpet their own misdemeanours, some of which may have contributed to the retaliatory efforts by those now labelled terrorists.
I'm not condoning terrorism. I just think it's tragic that folk need to use such evil to get across their message. But I do believe we live in a world of "cause and effect."
[ 23. July 2005, 20:03: Message edited by: tlr online ]
Oh I see what you mean tlr. Yes, you're quite right, he was being monitored for his behaviour anyway.
SMSL, I can generally appreciate your views. But I would still assert that your comparison is a gross distortion to say the least. Police defending the public is terrorism just the same? In fact, I do find that statement quite outrageous.
[ 23. July 2005, 20:05: Message edited by: Neteru ]
I would truly love to be proved wrong on this, but as I understand this, the guy who got shot was a suspect in an ongoing investigation into terrorist activities in the UK.
This really ****es me off. A statement from a FORMER police commander stirring the pot some more, so the BBC can lead with an even more "sensational" story.
John O'Connor, former commander of the Met Police, told the BBC the consequences of the shooting were likely to be "quite horrendous".
He said he expected officers to face criminal charges, and other officers could even refuse to carry weapons.
But Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said it was too early to judge what the effects would be.
She called for a "prompt, comprehensive and independent investigation".
WTF!! This is before our services have formally made a statement on the shooting!! Have we just stepped back in time?! The media is now judge and jury, armed (no pun intended) with only eye-whitness reports and NO additional information on any subsequent investigation which led police to trail this bloke in the first place.
Misinformation. Spin. Competition.
I'm frustrated because I know most folk will lap this up like a warm kitten necking a bowl of cool milk on a ripe summers day.
Please don't, Net, I wasn't meaning it like that. But they killed a guy for suspition of terrorism, what if he wasn't one? I'm not saying the police are terrorists, I'm saying they might have done something wrong and people have to look at it and see it as being wrong.
Like, suppose the bombings would come to Portugal. I'm against the Portuguese troops in Afganistan, so someone not liking me too much would say to the police I could be involved and I would start being under surveilance. One day, I'm spooked by them, run away and they shoot me. So, it was ok because, hey, I wasn't guilty after all, but, you know... nevermind, it's fighting against terror and stuff... No.
In the time of the old regime, one of my dad's uncles was arrested and tortured because he said some jokes in a cafe about politics. The police could have killed him. What they did was right only because they were the police?... All I'm saying is, when something's wrong, it's wrong, nomatter if it's the police, a civilian, or a rat doing it.
I have no intention of outrageing neither the Brittish police, nor any other entity, private or public, please Net, don't see it that way. I'm just saying that, if they have killed someone they shouldn't it's wrong and, despite all the revolt, people have to call it wrong. Or else, one loses the morality to call terrorism wrong, because the ones who do it are also revolted. You're saying it right, the police is supposed to defend the public. If they have killed an innocent, they did not defend the public, they caused terror to it. It's wrong. Note I'm saying if all the time, I don't know for sure on whether the guy was guilty or not. Please, http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/hug.gif
Originally posted by tlr online:
The media is now judge and jury, armed (no pun intended) with only eye-whitness reports and NO additional information on any subsequent investigation which led police to trail this bloke in the first place.
Misinformation. Spin. Competition.
I'm frustrated because I know most folk will lap this up like a warm kitten necking a bowl of cool milk on a ripe summers day. I totally agree with this. While I may be out of place in saying this, it is the exact same BS which happened to Michael Jackson throughout his entire court case. The case was tried in the media with spin, sensationalism, innuendo and lies replacing cold, hard and balanced facts. That is why alot of people were suprised by the innocent verdict - they only heard the prosecutions case covered by the media!!!
And just like you said, people lapped this up and didn't think twice about it.
While it may be wrong to compare MJ with the shooting of a man, I think both cases reflect what is wrong with the media today. I would hate to read the average tabloid newspapers coverage of this shooting - it would be 10x worse than the BBC believe me!
Sorry boys but according to a witness,i saw in greek tv[video taken from bbc],2 policemen stop him,netrualize him and then the third one execute him with 5 bullets,infront terified passengers!
If this is so policemen are just criminals and most of all idiots!
Why idiots?because if he was a suspect,and they easily arest him,then they have to "question" him collecting valiouble infos instead of a dead body! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-1.gif
ALSO POLICE SAID:
"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21 July 2005," police said in their statement"
I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION IN YOUR SUFFERING COUNTRY,I FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS AGAINST KILLERS...
this was action of panic,and if it is so,you have to worry more FOR THAT,instead of terrorist actions themselves!
this was action of panic! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/yikes.gif
MY heart is with you my british friends,i always try to hear news from tv,and i always now i am in agony everytime, if any of our uk members is injured! http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/hug.gif
P.S 1 i dont play the calm sober wise man!if i was you, maybe i will be much more upset,but for your own good,please....calm down!
P.S 2 THIS IS THE ONLINE ARTICLE ON GREEK TV[ERTONLINE]
please corect me if something is rong,i really true care about all of you my friends!]
""They Killed Him by Mistake! 23 Jul 2005 13:40:00 (Last updated: 23 Jul 2005 21:58:41)
By Anna Kourti
Police acknowledged on Saturday that the man they shot dead on Friday was not connected to bomb attacks on the British capital the previous day. "We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21 July 2005," police said in a statement. According to an announcement issued by Scotland Yard, the man was being trailed, since he had come out of a house that under surveillance. The police forces then shot dead the suspect, when he refused orders to halt. In the meantime, the Mile End underground station has reopened, after being closed earlier today by London police for an unspecified security alert. "The station has reopened," a spokesman for the city’s transport authority said, without disclosing any information about the evacuation. Stockwell station has also reopened, while earlier a second person was arrested in the same area, as part of the investigation into last Thursday’s failed attacks. Finally, as per a police announcement, Warren station also reopened this afternoon.
"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets," the police mentioned in their announcement. In the same announcement, they also admitted that the man killed on Friday by the police was not connected to bomb attacks on the British capital the previous day, calling the shooting tragic and regrettable.
"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21 July 2005," police said in their statement.
The police, who are hunting four men who tried to bomb London’s transport system on Thursday - two weeks after suicide bombers killed 52 commuters - shot dead the man who had been under surveillance and refused orders to halt.
The killing at point-blank range with five shots to the head in front of shocked passengers on a packed underground train triggered speculation that traditionally unarmed British police had radically changed their iron-fist-in-velvet-glove approach.
"The man emerged from a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police surveillance as part of the investigation into the incidents on Thursday 21 July. "He was then followed by surveillance officers to the underground station. His clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions," the statement said. It also added that the circumstances that led to the man’s death were being investigated.""
SMSL, I read and appreciate what you say. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif I'd just say choose your words more carefully then.
Kappa, Net, I appreciate it. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/hug.gif I'll try harder. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
I'm sorry to hear that but if the police tell you to do something you do it (and not run away)! :confused:
Tomb Raider 5194
Yes poor guy. :( :(
Well Net, you appear to be bang on target (no pun intended) with this one. From today's Beeb:
Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair has apologised to the family of the Brazilian man shot dead by police in south London on Friday. He said the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a "tragedy", but admitted more people could be shot as police hunt suspected suicide bombers.
Me on target? I'm not quite sure to what you're referring tlr. :confused:
I haven't caught up with any news over the last couple of days, so have just looked around bbc. Apparently he was indeed under surveillance, had been ordered to stop and had refused. I'm quite stunned that an apparently innocent man was being surveilled, and under the current circumstances refused to stop when ordered. It really does strike me as intensely stupid. I'd like to know more about why exactly he was being surveilled, but can't seem to find anything. And I doubt we will get to know.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.