Replies

THE FACT REMAINS THAT IF THIS IDIOT HAD STOPPED AND OBEYED A DIRECT POLICE ORDER HE WOULD BE ALIVE.

There is no right to run from the police.

I don't think the US cop would have pulled the trigger under these circumstances. And yes, the statement above is true, but in the US, a cop can't shoot someone simply because they disobey an order by the cop to stop. You've got to have more than that. I think this guy would still be alive if the British cops had been more experienced at making these decisions. If your cops are precluded by law from carrying guns, then you just don't get that experience.

I question the notion that our armed police are that much less experienced than the average US cop. Armed police in the UK are specialists; carrying and using guns is their job.

Having said that, I’m not sure whether these were plain-clothed armed policeman, or undercover detectives just trained to use firearms (not the same as armed response policemen).

I question (but don't outright dispute) the notion that our armed police are that much less experienced than the average US cop. Armed police in the UK are specialists; carrying and using guns is their job.

Having said that, I’m not sure whether these were plain-clothed armed policeman, or undercover detectives just trained to use firearms (not the same as armed response policemen).

>I don't think the US cop would have pulled the trigger under these circumstances.<

Then the US Cop would be stupid.These guys were charged with guarding the subway from suicide bombers.They were not involved in chasing down a purse snatcher.Under your plan our soldiers in Iraq are not following correct procedure when they shoot at cars that accelerate toward a checkpoint.

The problem is not poorly trained cops it is a citizenry in London that believes they simply need to out run the cop for 2 blocks because he is not armed.

There are two things you are doing which are skewing your conclusion and making it inaccurate.

You continue to insist that this situation is related to British gun laws, and you refuse to factor in that this was in a subway that had been bombed by terrorists.

The man was running away, dressed suspiciously where bombings had just occurred. If this had been NYC or DC under the same circumstances, the man would be dead.

It was HIS fault, sadly..........not the fault of British restrictions on firearms.

the officers who opened fire were experienced firearms officers - from SO19, the Mets firearms unit - not regular police officers dragged into a role they were unfamiliar with.

british police firearms officers only attend armed incidents, thats all they do day in day out. they don't look for lost children, they don't attend traffic accidents and they don't arrest shoplifters.

in that way i would suggest that they are more experienced at such actions than US 'regular' cops, as a regular cop might draw his firearm once in a blue moon while the british specialist officer might do so every two days.

the rules of engagement state that you may open fire if you believe that yourself or another person is in danger, the direction of travel is irrelevant. the officers shot the man not because he was running away from them, but because he was running towards the train.

the method of disablement they used - mulitple shots to the head at very close range - is the method devised seperately by israeli and sri lankan police/army as the most effective at subduing suspect suicide bombers to the degree required to prevent them from detonating a bomb.