Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Shooting on the tube

Page: 1(2)3 4 5 6 7... 12

11:17 / 22.07.05

Gumbitch, I think it actually takes quite a lot to make these things go off -presumably why the bombs yesterday didn't work. It wouldn't be likely that suicide bombers would use something extremely volatile like nitroglycerine because chances are the bomb would go off before they were in a populous place. (I've just read this on TMO by the way, I wondered about that as well when I heard about the shooting...)

11:20 / 22.07.05

And saying that I don't think I'd be too happy about shooting someone's bombs. So to speak.

Hattie's Kitchen

11:24 / 22.07.05

From the BBC News website:

1300: The Muslim Council of Britain calls for the police to explain why the man at Stockwell Station - described as Asian in appearance - was shot dead.

A spokesman says Muslims are concerned police may have a "shoot to kill" policy in force.

Frankly, I don't see what else the police are supposed to do when chasing a man wearing a bomb belt through a tube station...

11:40 / 22.07.05

... well quite. Why are the Muslim Council even getting involved, without proof that this guy was Muslim?

Okay it looks like he was, but only insofar as he wanted to blow people up for Allah.

paranoidwriter waves hello

11:42 / 22.07.05

It wouldn't be likely that suicide bombers would use something extremely volatile like nitroglycerine because chances are the bomb would go off before they were in a populous place

An "expert" on TV said that the explosive used on 07/07/05 was one which is "easy to make" (which reminded me of The Anarchist's Cookbook) using commonly found ingredients. This expert hypothesised that if the batch of explosive was the same used two weeks ago, yesterday, and (possibly) today, then the fact that such home-made explosive tends to deteriorate, becoming harder and harder to detonate, this may explain their apparent "failure".

About the 5 shots thing: this strikes me as VERY heavy handed. Sure the guy may have been wired up and ready to blow, but FIVE shots? Aren't these guys trained to shoot under pressure and to aim to DISABLE their targets? The way the eye witness talks about how the shots were fired (one after the other in quick succession), I'd hazard a guess that the Copper was being very cynical (or is that "clinical") in how he/she fired his/her weapon. Think about it? If that was a common-law murder, the jury would probably be asked to count to five and question whether each shot was necessary. Indeed, I bet somewhere in the Halls of Officialdom the Copper in question is getting a bollocking and being told to thank their lucky stars that the victim WAS a suicide-bomber (as appears to be the case) and not an asylum seeker panicking and having a flashback upon seeing the angry faces, stern uniforms, and loaded guns marching towards him (?).

11:46 / 22.07.05

There is no such thing as "shoot to disable". If you shoot at somebody you are aiming to incapacitate them as quickly and surely as possible. This usually means killing them.

Hattie's Kitchen

11:47 / 22.07.05

Hmm, the danger is that the guy, if he was wearing a bomb belt, and even if he had been shot and disabled, could still have made an attempt to reach for wherever his detonator was - five quick shots to the head would ensure that wouldn't happen.

This is all pure speculation on my part, I hasten to add.

paranoidwriter waves hello

11:54 / 22.07.05

I thought they were all supposed to be using Bags not belts. Where did the bomb-belt stuff come from? Was that in the press?

And as for disabling someone: a bullet in each shoulder makes most movement all but impossible.

I mean, think about it: one two three four five! Where the f**k was the copper aiming for? Apparently he was standing directly above the "bomber"? (Despite the very harsh circumstances) Doesn't that sound heavy handed to you? These are trained, professional gun handlers, not scared members of the public.

11:58 / 22.07.05

If he didn't have a bomb on him before they shot him I'm sure they've found one on him now.

11:58 / 22.07.05

Trained gun handlers can make mistakes or react wrongly in the heat of the moment.

Ask the family of Harry Stanley

That said, still holding back on this and waiting for more info myself.

11:59 / 22.07.05

Probably still pretty scared when your lying on top of a guy with a bomb belt despite any dealing-with-guy-with-belt-bomb-underneath-you kind of training.

Hattie's Kitchen

11:59 / 22.07.05

Doesn't that sound heavy handed to you?

Under the circumstances, no, it doesn't.

lord henry strikes back

12:02 / 22.07.05

Has it now been confirmed that this guy had a bomb (belt based or whatever else)? I haven't heard or seen any reports that say so yet. Anyone?

12:05 / 22.07.05

Armed British police are generally instructed to shoot to kill rather than attempt the difficult task of shooting to disable. Bear in mind that a potential suicide bomber can detonate his explosives using a variety of triggers, so you'd have to know exactly how he set them off before you could accurately disable him.

12:07 / 22.07.05

[US accent] shoot to kill, boys [/US accent]

it's frightening isn't it? the way attitudes of police and public become so hardened so quickly.

makes sense... but it's still fucked up.

Humans, eh?

Hattie's Kitchen

12:09 / 22.07.05

From BBC News website:

BBC Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said officers had challenged a known suspect they had been following.

"He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him.

"They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him. He died at the scene."

Police had warned they would shoot to kill if they believed somebody to be a threat, she added.

BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said the suspect was being followed as a result of CCTV footage seen by officers investigating Thursday's explosions.

I like the "they shot him then tried to revive him" bit.

12:10 / 22.07.05

I've got really irritated with bombastic reporting over the last 24 hours

Yeah. I don't know about you but I'm abit sick of all the "plucky brits" stuff. I was very alarmed, worried and depressed when I found out about the bombs yesterday.

12:11 / 22.07.05

From same article that Hattie refers to: -

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man had been wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".
"I've seen these police officers shouting, 'Get down, get down!', and I've seen this guy who appears to have a bomb belt and wires coming out.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:12 / 22.07.05

re: a bullet in each shoulder - this would certainly inhibit movement, but need not be incapacitating - muscle damage doesn't prevent all movement. Pressing a button is a pretty small movement, after all. Realistically, a simple cost-benefit says kill.

lord henry strikes back

12:12 / 22.07.05

Jub, I think you're totally right. We all have to wait for the facts to come out but all that I have heard confirmed so far is that an asian man in a suspicious coat was shot five times, at point blank range, whilst being held down. And yet almost everyone in my office conciders this a good thing. To be honest that really worries me.

12:12 / 22.07.05

Armed British police are generally instructed to shoot to kill rather than attempt the difficult task of shooting to disable.

I was under the impression the opposite was true, which is why John Stalker got such a bollocking for following a shoot-to-kill policy.

paranoidwriter waves hello

12:14 / 22.07.05

Sorry, it appears I may have been misguided when I typed, Apparently he was standing directly above the "bomber"?

For clarity, let me quote The Guardian Online:

"I heard lots of shouts of 'get down, get down'. I looked to my right and I saw an Asian man run on the train. As he ran on he half tripped."

He said the man was being pursued by three plainclothes officers who ran on just a few feet behind him.

The witness said one officer brought out a pistol in his left hand and "unloaded five shots into him". He said the shooting happened "five yards" away from him.

Still, sounds like a massive cock-up to me and a lot of trigger-happy panic and/or Gung-Ho on the part of the police (and I'm not belittling their tough jobs).
And yes, I remember poor Harry Stanley. Think about it, what exactly are they trained for? I hear getting in the cross-fire between two Yardie gangs can be pretty stressful aswell. Know what I mean?

Probably still pretty scared when your lying on top of a guy with a bomb belt despite any dealing-with-guy-with-belt-bomb-underneath-you kind of training.

True. But if this is the case then we're all screwed. Doing hours and hours of training exercises under pressure must be done for a reason, no? Also, if the "bomber" had survived we could have interviewed him, etc.

Of course, we'll have to wait for the evidence (if we ever get it), but I'll bet the Police aren't looking at it as a success, and I'll bet there's some steamy exchanges going on in the SIS headquarters right now. (All speculation, of course)

paranoidwriter waves hello

12:16 / 22.07.05

re: a bullet in each shoulder - this would certainly inhibit movement, but need not be incapacitating - muscle damage doesn't prevent all movement. Pressing a button is a pretty small movement, after all. Realistically, a simple cost-benefit says kill.

Good point. But as my friend said about twenty minutes ago: "Why not one shot to the head? How many time can a pro miss?"

Hattie's Kitchen

12:19 / 22.07.05

Still, sounds like a massive cock-up to me and a lot of trigger-happy panic and/or Gung-Ho on the part of the police (and I'm not belittling their tough jobs)

But let's say the reports are right, this guy was ready to run on to a tube train and detonate whatever he was packed with. You have a split-second to stop him doing that - it's not likely that someone intent on committing suicide, and taking other people with him, is going to give himself up to the rozzers when cornered, is it?

12:19 / 22.07.05

I was under the impression the opposite was true, which is why John Stalker got such a bollocking for following a shoot-to-kill policy.

A "shoot-to-kill policy" is a policy of killing people rather than arresting them, as far as I understand it. It's not a terribly good term, implying as it does that there are other types of shooting.

12:20 / 22.07.05

you can still be alive after being shot in the head - I remember reading a suicide report where the person had shot themselves in the head three times.

12:21 / 22.07.05

"unloaded five shots into him". He said the shooting happened "five yards" away from him.
Fuck. If he was 5 yards away and fired 5 bullets into the guy's head, I take it all back. Bullseye sounds like he had the skill to blow off each wire on the bomb belt.

12:22 / 22.07.05

Oh wait. The witness was 5 yards away?

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:22 / 22.07.05

Well, if three people are aiming at once, that's three shots, isn't it? If you're aiming in a hurry and the other person is moving their head, it's not necessarily the case that one shot will necessarily kill - the head is a pretty small target, and unless you hit it reasonably square it is _possible_ that the target will still be alive. Five shots to the head seems a bit hardcore, but, again, if the aim is to make absolutely sure that the other party is not in a position to take an undefined action which will result in your own death and the deaths of everyone around you, probably more effective than one shot.

12:22 / 22.07.05

If he didn't have a bomb on him before they shot him I'm sure they've found one on him now.

Oh, ferfucksakes, this isn't Northern Ireland. I don't think they're at the "fitting up dead people" stage yet.

12:23 / 22.07.05

lmao, tell me you MEANT to post that three times

12:23 / 22.07.05

five yards from the witness that was i thought? i thought he'd been tackled to the ground and was piled-on before the ass-capping occurred.

12:24 / 22.07.05

"Why not one shot to the head? How many time can a pro miss?"

Why not 5? Frankly, if you're shooting someone in the head in order to make them dead as quickly and as surely as possible, a few shots sounds sensible. The decision to kill has been made, what's the benefit of only firing once?

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:24 / 22.07.05

You forget. Our true enemy is the Man, man.

12:25 / 22.07.05

If you were certain someone had a bomb, would you pile on top of him? Seems to be either odd, heroic or stupid to me.

Page: 1(2)3 4 5 6 7... 12