They wanted to make sure that he didn't get a chance to detonate a device if he had one on him. Multiple head shots would ensure that, provided of course he didn't have a dead man switch. But I'm sure they've thought about that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1448355/posts?page=75#75
Follow the link for some good background. Most of this incident was covered on threads yesterday.
Maybe you should ask an Israeli soldier-- I don't think they'd have any problem explaining why shooting a guy running away from security with a heavy coat on in the summer is the only course of action.
Dead men don't detonate suicide belts.
**I am all for blowing the terrorist to Hell, but I have not heard an explanation of why they pumped 5 rounds into this kids brain. ***
On another thread it was pointed out that he was shot in the head because a shot to the body might set off any explosives he might be carrying.
He was shot many times to make sure he was DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, so, if only wounded, he might still get to his detonator button.
I and live with that!
Yes they did and therefore they killed him. Bad judgment by the bad guy. Good judgment by the London police.
That must have been the case. The Metropolitan police are well trained and don't use violent means unless neccessary. The news reports I read told of this suspect being under surveillance, suspected of being a bomber, wearing a heavy coat in hot weather, and headed for the Underground.
He had already boarded a crowded train. The police were no doubt under specific orders to shoot to kill in that circumstance. This isn't your average cop shootout circus.
I believe I read something on this post about a "remote trigger," which is very possible as well as very likely. If they'd tried to capture him, and if he'd had one, he could've set off an explosion anyway.
They didn't take that chance, and I for one applaud them for it. The bottom line is still that especially during wartime, when a policeman tells you to stop, you will stop, one way or the other.