Replies

Well I’m not a lawyer, but I believe the rules of engagement are that the police can shoot someone if they believe that person is a danger to the police or the public. Three weeks ago, this would mean they would not shoot at someone running away from them. The arrival of suicide bombers has changed that, because it’s so much harder to tell if they are a danger to the public.

The rules are engagement make perfect sense (IMO), but mistakes will happen. As I say, I’m quite sure US rules would match the ones we now have in place, were suicide bombers to arrive in the US.

It means nothing, but I consulted with a friend who is second-in-command of the police force of the small town in which I live (in the US).

He called it a "righteous shoot" even though the results were tragic, and said he would have done the same were he faced with the same situation. Facing the threat of terrorism means having to make that awful decision between one person's life and that of dozens of people. Shooting to wound isn't an option on a suicide bomber for reasons amply explained elsewhere.

The people this poor man's family should be focusing their anger towards are the bombers, who put SO19 or whatever branch of the Met Police who were involved, in this terrible situation.

"I don't think this would pass muster under the US rules of engagement. Maybe there is something wrong with their rules of engagement."

Your right, it probably wouldn't pass the muster for US rules of engagement, doesn't mean the rules for the Brits are wrong.

Our cops probably would have taken a few seconds to decide if they would get sued or not and IF the guy had been wearing a bomb belt a lot of folks could have died.

Besides, lets say that this guy had been a terrorists and the cops had wrestled him to the ground and he detonated the bomb killing himself, the five police officers and a few people on that subway car. Some people on this thread would have called them stupid and incompetent and others, the cop haters,would have cheered him on.

Maybe it's just because I'm a lawyer, but I'd be curious to know what their rules of engagement are, and whether they violated them. I don't think this would pass muster under the US rules of engagement. Maybe there is just something wrong with their rules of engagement.

Stated like a true lawyer. Sometimes reality intrudes on the best formulated rules and procedures. During the past two weeks, Middle Eastern appearing suicide bombers had either blown up or attemped to blow up 6 Underground stations and two buses, including 4 attempts that very day. You are following a suspect coming from the same block of flats that housed the other alleged terrorists. He is wearing a padded coat and runs away into the Underground ignoring calls to stop.

The police must make a split second decision involving not only their own lives, but those of innocent bystanders. Forget ROE. Use common sense. Consider these scenarios.

(1) The police apprehend the suspect without killing him and discover that he had no bomb. The police are praised for their restraint and no one is killed or injured. (2) The police apprehend the suspect, but he successfully denotes his bomb killing the police and many bystanders. The police are praised as heroes--dead heroes. (3) The police apprehend the suspect and kill him before he can detonate his bomb. No one except the suspect is killed or injured. The police are praised for their courage and judgment.

Considering the risks and the circumstances, I want the police to act. They did act appropriately and should not be criticized for making a reasonable decision. They believed that their lives along with others were in danger and acted accordingly.