apparently a number 26 bus on hackney road as well?
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Apparently the bus has been evacuated according to SKY
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
There is a lot of helicopter action here (near Shepherds Bush).
Also I didn't cycle today as I am supposed to be going for dinner in Limehouse tonight, and it is a long walk home. Especially as I broke my toe by being drunk yesterday. Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
both London ambulance and London underground say no casualties.
Posted by Esmeralda (Member # 527) on :
God, I hope this isn't kicking off again.
This statement seems bizarre to me
quote: "The man who was holding the rucksack looked extremely dismayed
He looked dismayed? Because his bomb had gone off? What's that about?
Hope everyone is safe.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Dismayed? I think that means because MI6 will be having a few words with him, especially if it was an attempted suicide Bomb.
Be safe everyone - lets just hope this is just over-reaction to someones thermos getting a bit excited.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I think he looked dismayed because the explosion was only enough to blow the lid off his rucksack. If you'd planned to enter the gates of paradise and all you got was a nipple burn, you'd probably be dismayed too.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Hopefully it's all just a big old over-reaction. But maybe not. BBC's now saying 'dummy explosions', whatever they are, which is preferable to 'nail bombs', which is what Sky was talking about.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Yep the BBC are saying detonators - small percussion explosives used to trigger larger explosives - like the things you screw into Hand grenades to make them live.
My guess? Some little shit was having a prank - the same little shit who looked dismayed as the 4th one he forgot went pop in his rucksack. Mandatory life for inciting terror, me thinks.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Interesting that the BBC seems to be ahead of Sky this time in factualised reporting - whilst Sky talk of 'unconfirmed explosions' the BBC already know its three and the type (detonators). Maybe the Emergency Services have learned from last time to get the factual stuff out to prevent panic.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
BBC now reports:
quote: An eyewitness at Oval station said there had been a small bang, and a man had then run off when the Tube reached the station.
CCTV will have him as the most popular face all over the TV tonight
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Waynster: Yep the BBC are saying detonators - small percussion explosives used to trigger larger explosives - like the things you screw into Hand grenades to make them live.
My guess? Some little shit was having a prank - the same little shit who looked dismayed as the 4th one he forgot went pop in his rucksack. Mandatory life for inciting terror, me thinks.
Yeah that was what I thought. Either that or a woefully inept terrorist cell that forgot to pack the actual explosives.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
If it is a prank, what a little **** - hope he falls down a few flights of stairs on his way to lock-up.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Must have been trained by this pillock
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
lol@benny 'dailymail' ball
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
That picture makes me laugh every time. The West (TM) should prouduce video propaganda of their own using the Benny Hill theme and a short animated film of this guy.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
Whatever it is we're on cocking lock-down in the facking office AGAIN. I'm due to finish in an hour too, hope it's rectified by then, I'm due at the chiropractors Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
You're on lockdown because of these minor incidents? Where do you work?
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
I'm loving the overall surly tone to this whole thing. Two weeks on and everyone's giving it all the big FFS. Even the BBC sounds pissed off.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
near Moorgate, The London Stock Exchange who own the building are liasing with the police who have advised to keep us inside the office for the time being.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
The 30 and the 26 are the only two buses I ever get! They take me from Homerton to civilisation. Muh. I GET IT, TERRORISTS.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Maybe someone burped all the windows out of the fixings amp. On their way to a date.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Wonder what all the stuff about strange smell's is - they keep making a big deal about it. Do you think it's the tele speak, some coded message, are they all in on it? Suddenly all your phones are going to receive a message, a photo of a man, the target, he did it, the strange smell is a trigger phrase - I've seen Manchurian Candidate, we're all state sponsored killers now....
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
You know, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing if there was a suicide bombing every two weeks. I reckon they'll run out of volunteers by the end of the summer. Most of the UK can hardly be bothered to vote; how many Brits can actually be fucked to die for a cause these days?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
x
A bit too Gordonesque.
[ 21.07.2005, 09:44: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Mushroom cloud over Dulwich!
Posted by Good Fairy (Member # 479) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: If you'd planned to enter the gates of paradise and all you got was a nipple burn, you'd probably be dismayed too.
LOL!
I've just heard feom a train driver that SouthWest Trains are at a "level 4" alert, if it goes to "Level 5, it means bombsquads at every station"
It will also mean cancellations as the late shift cant get into to work if they are using the underground
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
sten guns in knightsbridge!
Posted by SilverGinger5 (Member # 49) on :
I've been trying to get through to Omarion, but I've got no answer. Please, someone tell me he's OK?
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by SilverGinger5: I've been trying to get through to Omarion, but I've got no answer. Please, someone tell me he's OK?
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
so i see everyones handling this ok then? i'm imagining the situation over here. and how the world would come to an end, there would be terror troops on ever corner and people screaming "won't someone think of the children" before we're all locked up under martial law. and have our whole lives mapped out for us by a panel of 5 white male judges.....
Posted by squirrelandgman (Member # 201) on :
heh, there is a rumour that a Yardie saw the bloke running off and so opened fire on him.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Man arrested in Whitehall.
Not sure if it's related or if BBC News are now obliged to just tell of every incident in London in short sentences under random pictures.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Just in case... Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
BBC News Comedy 24 -
Reporter - a code amber has been called, what does that mean?
Guest - it means that there is one other alert, code red, above this state.
Information flowing like river.
Posted by SilverGinger5 (Member # 49) on :
Wow. This has already hit front page at B3ta.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
The man being led away from Downing St at gunpoint would appear to have more than a passing resemblance to Samuelnorton...
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
you know. this is making me very nervous.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
It's ok though guys because Lenny Kravitz' gig tonight is still going ahead.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
I like the asking news crews to turn off the cameras in case they get to shoot someone method the police used.
What's Blaire babbling about, Australian's and he's love sex relationship with their PM or something?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Quote - Blair: "Those responsible aim to scare us".
My bet's on Charles Clarke with some fireworks.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by squirrelandgman: heh, there is a rumour that a Yardie saw the bloke running off and so opened fire on him.
Mrs Mask heard that, too. We should have a whip-round for that guy.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
I am down in London today - have been drafting and issuing emergency comms to the public and staff for the past 2 and a half hours.
As a key information node I realise this puts me under maximum threat.
Got to pop - dude w/ a package wiating...
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Lenny Kravitz'
nice to know that the might of islamist terror networks cannot affect br's shitness with apostrophes.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Got to pop - dude w/ a package wiating...
Don't open it if he's brown!
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
But most parcels are brown.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: I like the asking news crews to turn off the cameras in case they get to shoot someone method the police used.
I think in situations like this we should collectively turn a blind eye if the pigs have to pop one in the nut of a terrorist.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by omikin:
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: Lenny Kravitz'
nice to know that the might of islamist terror networks cannot affect br's shitness with apostrophes.
In the War on Terror the first casualty is punctuation...
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Hello?
*faint echo* Hello.... hello... hello
Have you all been wiped out in a gradually spreading germ cloud? When I leave this building will I have to dodge dead bodies on the street?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It's worse than that herbs. I'm the only other survivor. You have me as company in your land of the dead style setting.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
I have been trapped alone in my Homerton mansion all day, writing text messages for teenagers, and reading old diaries and trying not to cry. I WANT TO GO TO THE PUB. In Dalston. I want all my Dalson homies to come to the pub. There aren't many of us though are there? Who will come to the pub in Dalston.
AMP.
Le end.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Looks like I'll be walking home again, just like I had to on the 7th.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Looks like I'll be walking home again, just like I had to on the 7th.
dAmN tHoSe tErRoRiSt sCuM!!!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
You think this terrorism is hard work. You should try administrating for a team of nurses.
Task: "Ok Mikee, I need these to be separated into different sections so that Person A can hand deliver them to each staff member personally" That afternoon Mikee: hey person A, I have all those documents for you. Would you like me to put them in seperate envelopes with their names on or one big envelope? (thinking that as they are hand delivered there would be no need to fold over each document and write the names on the outside) Person A: Which ever's easiest Mikee: *thinks* All in one envelope, easy peasy two minutes till person A leaves Person A: *flicking through envelopes* Oh, these will need to be in envelopes as I'm going to put them in peoples pigeon holes. But I have to go now Mikee: erm, ok, well then why don't I put them in envelopes and take them over to Hammersmith? Person A: No, you'll have trouble with getting into the ward and you won't know where to go... Mikee: Then I'll mail them to you first thing tommorow morning on the hopper Person A: No, Person B (who set up the task) won't want that, I'll just take them with me and do it myself. Mikee: Well OK, but they sent other stuff in the mail Person A: Like what? *sigh* Mikee: Like the applications, the irreplacable documents. Person A: I don't think she'll want these sent though *sigh* Mikee: The replaceable documents? long silence Person A: What was the deadline on this? Mikee: I didn't get one, but I presume today as Person B asked me to hand these over to you Person A: This is what we were talking about Mikee, you have to make sure you don't run over deadlines like this.
Then I went on to be a complete bendboy and make some apologies for basically doing as I was aksed.
Who's worried of explosives when you work with people who stunt you emotionally?
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
Hopper?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
After failing in Hollywood, Dennis Hopper now does all our deliveries from hospital to hospital.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
he's a good man.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
[ 21.07.2005, 16:14: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Hugo Palit at Warren Street station: "I was going into the station, and I heard a noise. Then I heard noises, like shouting and screaming, and suddenly I saw a guy coming out and people chasing him.
"He came out from the station, he was running and he was a little bit confused, looking right and left. I couldn't really catch him because I was carrying two heavy bags, and then he passed by me. There was another guy who was chasing him.
"We saw a policeman, so we waved, like, he was going that way. I don't know if they did catch him or not."
This sequence could only really work if it was speeded up, with the Benny Hill 'chase' music in the background and a couple of large-breasted policegirls bringing up the rear (arf!) of a long, snaking line of commuters pursuing the hapless terrorist.
[ 21.07.2005, 19:14: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
good old ben.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Well ffs. It's a pretty poor Lion Of Islam that departs from the planned scene of his martyrdom in the manner of fucking Hamburglar.
Anyone seeking emotional or intellectual sustenance during this difficult period should proceed directly to werenotafraid.com, where the a variety of beer-chugging fratboys and people's pets signal their defiance to the 'men of violence'.
My favourite is this rather unnerving effort:
[ 22.07.2005, 03:52: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I've got a theory... I reckon when Special Branch and MI6 were turning over all those drums in Leeds they found one hidden cache of rucksack bombs and either tampered with them or replaced the explosives so they'd be inactive. They were finding bits and pieces of explosives but no suspects. This way there are four useless bombs that could yield four useless bombers, if they all got nicked at the scene of the crime. Better still, if the bombers escaped the cops get to follow them all the way back to Al Qaeda central and they have an arrest-fest.
What do you think?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Mmmm. Sounds a bit conspiracyish - there's a good piece by Kevin Toolis in The Times (free registration required) that discusses the volatility of the home-made explosive that seems to have been used in each case. If yesterday's shower were using gear (acetone peroxide) from the same batch as a fortnight ago, it could simply have gone past its sell-by date.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Mmmm. Sounds a bit conspiracyish
Yeah, I know. But this investigation isn't gonna be led by regular plod, is it? It's gonna be the sneaky bastards. Laying traps.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Codenamed Cobra no less.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
How exactly does a codename work because I was thinking it was an AKA to disguise the actual name. The real name might be Operation CrumZ! or Operation Some Mothers do Jihad 'em. Operation Cobra sounds pretty cool but not cool enough. All the best operation names are taken
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Christ, I always remembered Operation Wolf having breathtakingly life-like graphics. My little 8 year old imagination must have been working overtime.
Posted by SilverGinger5 (Member # 49) on :
Apparently a suspected suicide bomber has just been shot dead on the tube in Stockwell. Nothing on news sites at the moment.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Ah. is on bbc website now.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Just heard police have unloaded 5 shots into a man on the floor, a suspected suicide bomber.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
That's some rough justice.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote: Mr Whitby, told BBC News: "I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."
Is it just me, or did anyone else find that this evoked Steve Coogan's eyewitness doing a slow motion re-enactment of a man getting gunned down, on The Day Today?
[ 22.07.2005, 06:07: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: departs from the planned scene of his martyrdom in the manner of fucking Hamburglar.
Lol. That's some funny shit.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
When it turns out he was just running onto the train to give someone their breakfast egg roll they left on the counter at 'Fung Woo's' the police are going to look mighty silly..
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I thought about that. This could be a pretty ill timed blunder. *twists fingers and closes eyes* Faith in the cops, faith in the cops.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I just read that part of the article to my colleagues and their responses were "serve him right". Why? Where is it written that it's OK to put five bullets into a man that from the tone of the article seemed to have been disarmed/immobilised and have people's first reaction be "Fuck YEAH!"
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: I like the asking news crews to turn off the cameras in case they get to shoot someone method the police used.
I think in situations like this we should collectively turn a blind eye if the pigs have to pop one in the nut of a terrorist.
Posted by SilverGinger5 (Member # 49) on :
I'm guessing he must have been threatening to detonate or something. I really don't think they killed him just for the hell of it, as obviously an alive suspect is much more useful than a dead one.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Quoting something that you wrote a couple of weeks ago doesn't make you right either then or now.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Quoting something that you wrote a couple of weeks ago doesn't make you right either then or now.
Grow up, crybaby.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
that was the armed forces numbnuts!!
[ 22.07.2005, 06:23: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I quote:
"I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him.
"I saw the gun being fired five times into the guy - he's dead"
Is your initial reaction that that sounds like reasonable force?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by SilverGinger5: I'm guessing he must have been threatening to detonate or something. I really don't think they killed him just for the hell of it, as obviously an alive suspect is much more useful than a dead one.
Yeah I was thinking the same. I would imagine they'd be gutted that they didn't take him alive before they were excited about getting one one on the scoreboard.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Also, eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable. It occurred to me that if you fired a gun in an underground network of tunnels it could well seem as though it were fired five times, even if it was only once or twice.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Is your initial reaction that that sounds like reasonable force?
My initial reaction would be 'what are the details behind the beggining of this event?' so hope that helps and hinders your argument equally.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: I quote:
"I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him.
"I saw the gun being fired five times into the guy - he's dead"
Is your initial reaction that that sounds like reasonable force?
If he could have detonated a bomb, yeah. I imagine the police were tailing him, they probably had a tip-off or sufficient 'intelligence' to target him as a threat. I imagine, from what information we have at our disposal, that they thought he was a credible threat. I doubt they were just taking potshots at brown people. I imagine they killed him because they thought if they didn't he might blow lots of people up. They dived on him, very bravely it sounds like, that might have smothered the explosion a little. Maybe they should have put him in cuffs and hoped he didn't have a concealed trigger, or a timer, or a failsafe, or a tripwire, or whoever the fuck knows what else. They shot him. Good.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
You are all of course right that no-one can really tell what was going on from the sketchy details in the article. The problem that I have is my disappointment in the immediate reaction of bloodthirst in the people that I mentioned it to. People like Black Mask. People who like to keep score:
Terrorists: 58 - The Forces of teh Good and teh Just: 1
It seems to me we should be asking questions and finding out more before we're a-whoopin' and a-hollerin'.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Let's face it, if you're going to shoot smeone at all, is it not best to make sure they're actually dead? Especially if (and this is obviously just speculation) they are wired with explosives that could be as easy to set off as simply pulling a cord?
I dont' think any of us know enough to work out whether it was reasonable force or not.
Just interesting that shooting someone once or twice = reasonable force whereas shooting them 5 times = excessive. You don't just shoot someone a little bit, dead is dead. It's not like they whiped their cocks out and wanked over the corpse.
Posted by George the Robot (Member # 681) on :
What's the point in speculating on this kind of shit based upon one eyewitness account. Yeah - it sounds like unreasonable force but you've got absolutely no idea what the guy was carrying, or what happened beforehand. Why not ask yourself why was this guy running away?
Thankfully the police in this country don't generally 'shoot first ask questions later', so have a bit of faith in these guys, at least until we know more.
[ 22.07.2005, 06:31: Message edited by: George the Robot ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
This news story worried me more yesterday than all the bombs in the free world.
NOT that people have sex with animals, but more the logistics of it..
What sort of harness would need to be involved, how the ? What the ?, Why the ?
Wouldn't you rig up a panic button or something, you must need help, it's not the sort of thing you could do on your own is it ?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: People like Black Mask. People who like to keep score:
Terrorists: 58 - The Forces of teh Good and teh Just: 1
You righteous fucking moron! It's not about a score. Idiot. It's about the threat of suicidal murderers being neutralised. He would've been more useful alive but he was killed, probably because he was about to cause mayhem. That's what I imagine to be the case, hence my response. Your immediate response was to start organising a fucking vigil for the poor man who was brutalised by our fascist police force. Righteous fucking moron.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
Wouldnt shooting someone who has explosives strapped to his body be rated as a Bad Plan?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I understand that it's probably best not to get excited. Whoopin' and hollerin' may be a bit like celebrating early. At this stage though it's clear that we are the enemy and that they will stop at nothing to see us (thats anyone who isn't them) dead. Hearing that the police have shot dead someone they suspect as going to blow a train up may be a sigh of relief for those threatened. It's not the best reaction, but it's clearly the one your workers share with some unity. As I imagine do others.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Just interesting that shooting someone once or twice = reasonable force whereas shooting them 5 times = excessive. You don't just shoot someone a little bit, dead is dead.
It's possible to shoot someone and simply incapacitate them. So, yes, it is possible to shoot someone a little bit. It's not as clean cut as dead is dead. I suppose the difference is that if the guy was shot once, it could be construed as simply wanting to bring him down. If they pounce on him and shoot him five times on the ground, that's what people construe as excessive. The difference isn't as nebulous as you're failing to make out.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: it's not the sort of thing you could do on your own is it ?
I didn't think so either. I had a read but this quote:
quote:Detectives are investigating the possibility an Enumclaw farm was the base for a ring
...is a bit ambiguous also.
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
I know everyone is sick to death of 'oh my god but I was so close to that' stories, but this is how my morning panned out:
- Victoria line northbound, about 9.15. Just before doors close, man leaps up, pushes through crowds and runs down platform, loooking behind him. Train pulls away. Passengers wide-eyed and noticeably uncomfortable.
- Train arrives at Victoria, sits on platform for 15 minutes. We are told that this is because of a 'passenger alarm' at Vauxhall.
- 'Passenger alarm' becomes 'security alert'. Victoria line suspended between Brixton and Victoria.
- Train pulls off, finally reaches Euston. Passengers informed that Northern line Charing Cross branch is suspended due to a 'passenger alarm' at Kennington.
- 'Passenger alarm' becomes 'security alert'.
- I finally make it into work, email friend about buying a bike.
Dang, you have won. i concede. *waves white flag*
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Mark Whitby, told BBC News: "I was sitting on the train reading my paper.
"I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down'!
"I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like a big, fuckoff automatic - and the guy was, like: *Naaaaaaaaoooooooooo* and they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him - like: *Hnnnnnnggghk - take that islamic biyatch!!* and unloaded five shots - ptow! ptow! ptow! ptow! ptow! - into him.
"I saw the gun being fired five times into the guy - ba-da-bing! - he's dead."
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by squeegy: Wouldnt shooting someone who has explosives strapped to his body be rated as a Bad Plan?
Depends on the explosives. A peat bomb for example is incendiary, so you'd just be firing into compost, basically.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I give up. I seem to be unable to express the point I am (or at least was) trying to make without causing ire and irritation, which wasn't my intention.
In one way I really, really hope that the scenarios that you've described are borne out as I will be able to stand proud and agree that the police did exactly the right thing. On the other hand it's fucking terrifying that they needed to.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: The difference isn't as nebulous as you're failing to make out.
No I think you're wrong. By all accounts the police had made the decision that this person posed enough of a threat that he needed to be killed, and they did that in the quickest method possible. I don't see why anyone's taking this romanticised view of the good guy shooting the bad guy once in the head, from across the road. Once you've made the decision that a person needs killing immediately, you do just what they did, you pull out your guns and you don't stop shoting until he's stopped moving. That's the long and short of it. It's only excessive if the person needn't have died, and clearly that's not a decision the police ever take lightly.
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
I see your point hippy. And I see mask's. We obviously don't know the circumstances yet.
It's just that piling a bunch of police officers onto a fleeing suspect and shooting him five times in the back in front of a crowd of shocked onlookers seems so...Italian.
[ 22.07.2005, 06:43: Message edited by: scrawny ]
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Depends on the explosives. A peat bomb for example is incendiary, so you'd just be firing into compost, basically.
Be that as it may, I would be mighty reluctant to open fire on someone unless I was 100% sure I wasnt going to blow myself up.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
You'd be surprised, most explosives wont detonate if you shoot them. Like the classic "shot the gas tank of the car" scenario, which doesn't actually work. You can shoot a can of petrol all day and it wont blow up.
Only very volatile substances such as nitro glicerine are likely to explode upon heavy impact, and this isn't the kind of explosive that terrorists are known to use - specifically because it's so unstable. In fact, the events yesterday, if rumours prove true, highlight just how difficult it is to make a large explosion, evn when you have high explosive and a detonator. Most explosive substances have to be detonated in a very specific way, and hitting them with bullets typically wont cause an explosion.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: hitting them with bullets typically wont cause an explosion.
Are you telling us that games designers have lied to us?
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
quote:Mark Whitby, told BBC News: "I was sitting on the train reading my paper.
"I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down'!
"I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like a big, fuckoff automatic - and the guy was, like: *Naaaaaaaaoooooooooo* and they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him - like: *Hnnnnnnggghk - take that islamic biyatch!!* and unloaded five shots - ptow! ptow! ptow! ptow! ptow! - into him.
"I saw the gun being fired five times into the guy - ba-da-bing! - he's dead."
In fairness, this reads a bit better
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by squeegy: Be that as it may, I would be mighty reluctant to open fire on someone unless I was 100% sure I wasnt going to blow myself up.
Sho' nuff, you could wait for the dude to blow you both up - that's one way to be sure.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I don't see why anyone's taking this romanticised view of the good guy shooting the bad guy once in the head, from across the road.
That's not what I meant; I was thinking more along the lines of shooting at somone just to stop them moving. That's what I mean by the fact it's not as clear cut as 'dead is dead'.
Yes, clearly the police decided they wanted him dead - I think that's exactly what shocks people. That's why they perceive a difference between 5 shots to a guy on the ground and one or two, while he's running away. In the latter case it's easy to believe they just want to bring him to the ground arrest him, question him in hospital etc etc. You said you can't shoot someone 'just a little bit', but - well - you can wound someone without making it fatal.
I mean, it's evident that the people in question felt they had to kill him - doubtless they'd prefer a live suspect - but I don't think it's hard to see why people see five shots to a guy who's already lying on the ground as shocking and potentially excessive.
[ 22.07.2005, 06:58: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: That's not what I meant; I was thinking more along the lines of shooting at somone just to stop them moving. That's what I mean by the fact it's not as clear cut as 'dead is dead'.
I don't think it's hard to see why people see five shots to a guy who's already lying on the ground as shocking and potentially excessive.
I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me. Of course it's entirely possible to immobilise someone with a gunshot to the leg or to the arm etc, although there are situations where that's not going to incapacitate the suspect to the point of making an area safe, such as if a person, as I said, is wired to blow, and shooting him in the leg isn't ging to stop him pushing a button or pulling a cord. In those situations, when the decision has been made to take that person out because of the immediate threat they pose to people around them, then yeah, it's completely reasonable to shoot them as many times as it takes to be satisfied that they're definitely dead.
I dont' doubt it's very shocking, especially for those watching, but I don't think shocking necessaraly means unreasonable. I think perhaps it's a bit of a reality check for all those people who thought that "you will fail" just meant a whole lot of standing around in silence.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
The Police took the correct action in my opinion. This guy, assuming he was a suicide bomber (and believe me the Police would not react like this unless they were sure) is in a state of mind where he wants to give up his own life to take the lives of others. If you shoot to immobilise, this guy will hedge his bets on what he has got and set off the explosive he is carrying, taking whoever he can with him.
The Police intelligence units would have a damn good idea this guy was carrying, and what he was carrying to know if it was indeed safe to put rounds into him and the explosive without risk of it detonating.
As someone mentioned as well on here, the explosives terrorists use tend to be home made from household chemicals (or at least those availble through a pharmacy), and most of these inert chemicals only become incediary when ignited by a specific chemical or electrical ignition or explosion - firing a hot piece of lead will not set off things like C4, which requires an electrical charge through a specific detonating device to set it off - bullets I believe will be as effective as firing them into play dough.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
My sister just rang me from her mobile, she's been turfed off the 18 bus at Harrow Road W10. Police have cordoned off the road and are clearing people out of Bravington Road, as well. No idea why.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
How old is your sister?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
6
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Tell her to look me up in 8 years time.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Eleven, I mean. I definitely meant eleven.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
I think I said this before, when there was a raging debate about the protester shot in Genoa a few years ago, but I don't believe that police ever shoot to incapacitate. If they take the decision to shoot someone they do so to kill - there's too much risk of them missing and hitting a bystander otherwise, or the target (who must be a 'threat to life' in order to be shot in the first place) still being dangerous.
Also, since the attacks two weeks ago I think the police have been given permission (by the Prime Minister) to shoot anyone they suspect might be a suicide bomber.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
It's a good job we males are naturally expert in all things security, firearms and combat-related, otherwise it'd look like we didn't know what the fuck we were talking about.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I thank genetics and the Discovery channel.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by My Name Is Joe: I think I said this before, when there was a raging debate about the protester shot in Genoa a few years ago, but I don't believe that police ever shoot to incapacitate. If they take the decision to shoot someone they do so to kill - there's too much risk of them missing and hitting a bystander otherwise, or the target (who must be a 'threat to life' in order to be shot in the first place) still being dangerous.
Yeah I was thinking that when I was out at lunch. Maybe I shouldn't have based my line of thinking on the end of Fargo when Marge Gunderson shoots the crook in the leg to stop him running away, or the bit in Speed where Jack Traven talks about shooting hostages in the leg.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
That's OK. It's Darwinism at work. If people think it's a good idea to hurdle underground barriers and leg it into the underground when being chased by armed police, they deserve to be taken out of the gene pool.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
I found this gloating 'I was right, the cops overreacted' attitude a bit shit. They thought he had explosives - it's irrelevant if it he turns out he didn't.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Did I say that? I didn't say that. Fuck off.
Posted by jnhoj (Member # 286) on :
Maybe it was one of those ones like they have in counterstrikes, the glock, and they put it on 3 round fire, but two others had it on the same gun and fired too. so five shots got fired by three people, once.
That's a nice killing!
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
quote:Originally posted in The Sun: Witness Mark Whitby, speaking to BBC News 24, reported the man was shot five times at close range after he had jumped on a train.
He said was sitting on the Tube train reading his paper as it was stationary with its doors open in Stockwell station.
He said: "An Asian guy ran on to the train. As he ran, he was hotly pursued by what I knew to be three plainclothes police officers."
He said the man tripped and was also pushed to the floor.
He said: "One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. Hes dead, five shots, hes dead."
He reported the man did not seem to be carrying a weapon or wearing a rucksack.
An insider told the Sun that the Police Armed Response Team responsible for the safety of London's underground system have been quarantined and are facing interviewing and possible disciplinary action after this morning's tragic incident.
However, an early medical investigation revealed 'a touch of the tar brush' about the suspect which more than justified the quick response from our brave boys in blue.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I know it seems like a luxury for me to say, but if I was frequenting a country that was being attacked by short ginger people, as a short ginner myself, I would be pigeon stepping about hands on head, sporting a huge daz-white banner looped through my belt. I would not be running away from armed police to catch a train.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Did I say that? I didn't say that. Fuck off.
No you didn't, but you did say:
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: In one way I really, really hope that the scenarios that you've described are borne out as I will be able to stand proud and agree that the police did exactly the right thing. On the other hand it's fucking terrifying that they needed to.
This would suggest that if a different scenario emerged the police wouldn't be in the right. So when you posted this:
you chose to highlight that no explosives had been found, rather than that the police suspected he might have a bomb - doesn't that mean you are pointing out that the police were wrong? Also, I can't help imagining that you had a smug little grin as you posted it.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I thought that the police suspected that he might have a bomb was a given, otherwise no need to even consider adopting shoot-to-kill, and that he didn't actually have one was the main point of the update. I wasn't gloating and I don't have a smug grin. Please don't impose your own imagined version of my reactions on me.
[ 22.07.2005, 10:34: Message edited by: H1ppychick ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Maybe it would be funny if we imagined bens suggested benny hill style chase music over the top, or does it just not work like that?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Maybe it would be funny if we imagined bens suggested benny hill style chase music over the top, or does it just not work like that?
Didn't those Benny Hill chases typically culminate in Benny repeatedly slapping that little bald Irish chap on the head?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
He must have deserved it, he was running away Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:you chose to highlight that no explosives had been found, rather than that the police suspected he might have a bomb - doesn't that mean you are pointing out that the police were wrong? Also, I can't help imagining that you had a smug little grin as you posted it.
Well thank goodness for a reasonable burden of proof. I couldn't help imagining that he had a [insert WMD as appropriate] m'lud .
But in all seriousness, police can and do make mistakes. We don't know yet whether this is the case in this case. Think of the infamous table leg/sawn off shotgun case that saw an innocent man shot in the street for carrying a piece of carpentry.
Hippychick has every right to ask a question about how this came about (as do the Muslim Council of Britain) without being swooped on by the ranks of TMO's armed assault experts.
As Ben quite succinctly pointed out, there's a lot of talking out of arses about police procedure going on here.
[ 22.07.2005, 10:44: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: He must have deserved it, he was running away
I was just thinking. If you're - you know - foreign, plain clothes policemen telling you to stop or they'll shoot must look a lot like a bunch of regular guys waving guns around and shouting in jibber-jabber.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Blow up, OJ.
Posted by mimolette (Member # 478) on :
All I'll say is that if I was "the state", the first thing I'd want to do is put the sh*ts up any prospective terrorists - like "what's the point of trying to detonate a bomb if it's going to fail AND I get a cap in my ass?".
The potential that this will "blow up" in the state's face is probably far outweighed by the psychological impact on any potential "martyrs".
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: He must have deserved it, he was running away
I was just thinking. If you're - you know - foreign, plain clothes policemen telling you to stop or they'll shoot must look a lot like a bunch of regular guys waving guns around and shouting in jibber-jabber.
I was talking about the little bald Irish chap, wasn't I? Them Irish deserve all they get. Can't trust em. They talk funny and wear unseasonal clothes.
(BTW I know you're Irish Gav/MNIJ, that's a JOKE.)
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
lolol @ Thorn.
Have just emerged from a 'disaster recovery'-themed meeting that covered how we protect the national published archive - the 'memory of the nation', no less - in the event of terrorist attack.
Should that terrible day arrive I have volunteered to take posession of the office gun and head straight down to the Treasures Gallery to guard Magna Carta from those jihadist n00bs.
Posted by My Name Is Joe (Member # 530) on :
I can take a joke hippy! No hard feelings.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
One of these bombers is not like the others, Three of these bombers are kinda the same. One of these bombers has a head like a swiss cheese, Tell me while we play our game..
[ 22.07.2005, 11:07: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Heh.
I've just received an email from my security, "reassuring" me that my safety and security at work is a top priority. And asking me to do three things.
Number 1: Please update your next of kin details.
Posted by SilverGinger5 (Member # 49) on :
Oops. Should try reading the whole thread.
[ 22.07.2005, 11:58: Message edited by: SilverGinger5 ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Eh. Was funnier when Thorn said it.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
Has Elvis stolen Bens password?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Running: know your limits.
Has anyone ever seen a plain clothes policeman? They usually dress like this: Shirt tucked into old jeans. Shiny Clarks shoes. If someone dresses like this and yells 'stop' then anybody who is anybody knows they are being pursued by either police detectives or Spandeau Ballet.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:News, darker and darker news, may be the only narrative people need, and the shapers of this narrative are authors in their own right. To a certain extent their world has become our world, a place of extreme anger and danger. Don DeLillo
[ 22.07.2005, 12:15: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Running: know your limits.
Has anyone ever seen a plain clothes policeman? They usually dress like this: Shirt tucked into old jeans. Shiny Clarks shoes.
That's fucking brilliant advice NWOD. Fucking nice one. This sounds like every description of an IRA terrorist I've ever heard.
God, I know it sounds harsh but I'm really beginning to hope NWoD goes to Hong Kong and gets mown down by a bunch of Chinese plain clothes policemen in the mistaken belief he's running away from a pack of crazed Triads and some guy goes on the news going "Sirry westerner! He should know aww pwain crothes poricemen in China wear row cut tops, yerrow jeans and bwack Cwarkes roafers."
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Look at you. Pretending to care more about this incident than Van Damme films and wanking.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
I don't know. We're only on episode two of Escape to the Legion and suddenly every man here thinks he's Simon fucking Weston.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Isn't it time Low Level made an appearance and set us all straight?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I've been loving EttehL loads and was particulalry gutted when the token gay man had to leave because he had a groin injury. Especially after all the talk of trying to rough it with the lads. Schollboy pranks ahoy.
Look Thorn, I know you get to stick it in a lot these days and have a decent happy homelife, but there's no need for your egotistical megalomaniac persona to be transferred onto up and coming posters.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Every time I see a Burqa'd Muslim I am reminded of Daleks. Hmm.
Anyway... I think Black Mask has stolen my password. Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
South African Mandy Williams, visiting London from Johannesburg, was with her friend Ryan Tuohy in his Stockwell home when they heard the blaze of sirens and realised the news reports of the incident were coming from just 100ft away.
Mandy said: "I feel unsettled but I also feel inspired. I am very interested in the arts and have spent days at the National Gallery.
"It is an incredible experience to one minute be seeing the most beautiful works of art and then walking outside and just experiencing terror. A lot of mixed emotions."
CAn anyone explain what the f**k she is going on about?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Actually, the incident does have a silver lining - on Barbelith last week there were people practically soiling themselves in anticipation of this being a tragic case of mistaken identity/outrageous instance of trigger-happy police fascism.
For those people I guess this'll be like Christmas, Easter and Blow Job Wednesday rolled into one.
[ 25.07.2005, 01:45: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Blood on your hands, Black Mask.
Indeed. In my defence (evenbiggerlol), that misjudged lol was in reference to the exchanges on here rather than to the capping of la cucaracha electronica.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
It's hard enough to get an electrician in London without the met shooting them in the face.
Bet they all put their prices up now. Any excuse.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Benny the Ball: South African Mandy Williams...
lol(krugerrands)
Yeah, I read that, too. Boers are so... spiritual.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
Hello everybody!
FWIW, SO19 will only shoot to kill, not to incapacitate. This is because the chances of accidentally killing someone when you're only trying to shoot them [Thron]a bit[/Thawn] is really quite high. Nothing to do with triggers, detonators etc, it's always policy.
And I know this, right, because I was talking to my old A+E boss on Friday, and she spoke to the lot who brought him in. Almost first-hand!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carter: Hello everybody!
FWIW, SO19 will only shoot to kill, not to incapacitate. This is because the chances of accidentally killing someone when you're only trying to shoot them [Thron]a bit[/Thawn] is really quite high. Nothing to do with triggers, detonators etc, it's always policy.
And I know this, right, because I was talking to my old A+E boss on Friday, and she spoke to the lot who brought him in. Almost first-hand!
Interestingly that directly contradicts the content of this article that claims previously the aim has been to shoot to "disable and overwhelm".
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Interestingly that directly contradicts the content of this article that claims previously the aim has been to shoot to "disable and overwhelm".
I think you'd have to be a bit deluded if you think it's possible to shoot to "disable and overwhelm" It's not a tricorder they're armed with, but a gun. It doesn't have a row of settings.
People have died from being shot with rubber bullets and similarly a girl was shot in the legs by Michael Ryan a few times and she kept walking up the street, because she was in shock.
You shoot a gun to kill someone I'm sure. Otherwise the police would be given orders to "chinese burn to severe discomfort"
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: I think you'd have to be a bit deluded if you think it's possible to shoot to "disable and overwhelm" It's not a tricorder they're armed with, but a gun. It doesn't have a row of settings.
OK - sure. I don't really know anything about it, myself. I was just quoting the official line, the comments in which appear to conflict with what the policeman Carter's referring to said. I was thinking more along the lines that the police don't even seem that consistent or clear on their policy.
In the meantime I'll ignore the the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers' terrorism committee and defer to your superior knowledge of firearms and police procedure. After all, you really seem to know a lot about this.
[ 25.07.2005, 06:35: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
"previously officers fired two shots at the body, to disable and overwhelm"
Fucking hell. They expect people to buy that? No-one's good enough to shoot someone twice in the chest or abdomen and guarantee, predict or even claim with a straight face that they won't kill them.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Ah, sarcastic, smug and acting obtuse. The lazy mans response.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
In You Only Live Twice at the weekend Tiger Tanaka showed Bond a rocket-gun that his ninjas used. I think the Met should get them.
Edit: I think Bond deserves a capital 'B', don't you?
[ 25.07.2005, 06:44: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Thorn I meant. You know, the guy who thinks bullets knock people over and leave them with spinning stars and tweeting birds above their head.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Thorn I meant. You know, the guy who thinks bullets knock people over and leave them with spinning stars and tweeting birds above their head.
That's not really what I'm saying. I'm just observing that the police seem to be unclear - maybe deliberately so - about what their policy on firearms *is*. There's another story on the BBC, here, which suggests that the police have reviewed their strategy recently to be able to counter the threat of suicide bombers. It appears that policy now is to go for the head, to kill. Described as "Different precautions and tactics", that immediately begs the question "different to what?" If as, you say, it's always been a case of shoot to kill, then what's changed?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
I was at a mate's house near Arsenal on Saturday night. Unsurprisingly, everyone was still banging on about bombings. During a brief pause between "Poor, poor man" and "What do these people want?" we heard a series of fuck off bangs and, out of the window, white flashes could be seen lighting up the sky.
They seemed like proper explosions and didn't appear consistent with fireworks. Everyone assumed there had been another bomb and we tuned into the news to wait for, well, news.
Half an hour later we heard a few smaller explosions, which, to be fair, sounded just like fireworks popping in the distance.
Obviously we all know by now that there weren't any new bombs on Saturday night, and we're all just paranoid mentals. All the same, I'm quite surprised that in the current climate people were letting off fireworks at 11pm.
Anyone else hear anything similar on Saturday night? Anyone else got any crazy paranoia stories? (I mean about current events, not like the time you were coming down from mushrooms and believed you were a lobster being pursued by a giant mechanical crustacean terminator singing Old Man River in German)
[ 25.07.2005, 07:12: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: That's not really what I'm saying. I'm just observing that the police seem to be unclear - maybe deliberately so - about what their policy on firearms *is*.
No you weren't. You were laying in the boot over speculation. You bastard.
eta: sorry, I forgot to actually answer
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: It appears that policy now is to go for the head, to kill. Described as "Different precautions and tactics", that immediately begs the question "different to what?" If as, you say, it's always been a case of shoot to kill, then what's changed?
I really have no idea what the policy is. That's why I've laced a lot of my posts on this thread with question marks. I'm making an educated guess as to what I think it might be. As far as I am aware - I have been brought up in a country where the police do not carry firearms as standard. I also know that the old hollywood 'one in the leg' has been known to send people into shock and then death. So layman knowledge = if english police are carrying guns, then someone *gasp* might die as a result. I know another fact that our firearms expertise is prided as second to none. All these pretty meaningless standalone nuggets of information are enough for me to say 'what did you think would happen?' and challenge what it is I'm being told. Look, all I know is that you can't judge how someone will react after being shot and so brandishing a weapon means you expect to take a life if needs be.
[ 25.07.2005, 07:22: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Obviously we all know by now that there weren't any new bombs on Saturday night, and we're all just paranoid mentals. All the same, I'm quite surprised that in the current climate people were letting off fireworks at 11pm.
Anyone else hear anything similar on Saturday night? Anyone else got any crazy paranoia stories?
I'm imagining the forum's males queueing up to 'slap some calm' into Jonesy ("Thanks, I needed that!") like that great visual jest in Airplane where, further back in the queue, people are donning knuckle dusters, menacingly fondling cycle chains and taking practice swings with baseball bats.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Jonzé. I saw/heard those very same fireworks. R leapt up to look out of the window, convinced armageddon had arrived at H&I tube station. I, being a cool cat, thought they were fireworks. But why they were being let off so late, and in the currrent climate, I simply can't imagine.
In other news, the phantom crapper's back on my stairs.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by herbs: I, being a cool cat, thought they were fireworks. But why they were being let off so late, and in the currrent climate, I simply can't imagine.
Sounds like a Brazillian wake.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
It was three dames doing the hysterical routine, actually. Meanwhile, I was being sarcastic and hard.
[ 25.07.2005, 08:07: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Aha! So, it looks like he got what was coming to him after all!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Maybe the whole Stockwell shooting thing was a veiled threat to all economic migrants? Think again, Johnny Foreigner. It's not all giros and free flats, you know. Posted by Pepper (Member # 353) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: I was at a mate's house near Arsenal on Saturday night. Unsurprisingly, everyone was still banging on about bombings. During a brief pause between "Poor, poor man" and "What do these people want?" we heard a series of fuck off bangs and, out of the window, white flashes could be seen lighting up the sky.
That was the homosexers in Finsbury Park. Big Gay Out.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
We thought it was a little too late to be the Gay Out fireworks.
ALSO:
"Explosions reported in North London, constable. Please confirm. Over."
"Bummers in Finsbury Park. Repeat, bummers in Finsbury Park. Over."
They need to be careful.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Those pesky Islamic Homosexualists.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
...the victim's cousin, Alex Pereira, who is based in London, said: "[The police] have to pay for [Friday's killing] in many ways, because if they do not, they are going to kill many people, they are going to kill thousands of people.
"They just kill the first person they see, that's what they did.
"They killed my cousin, they could kill anyone."
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Check 'is visa
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
You'd have thought that he would have worn a light summer jacket if he really believed the words he's saying.
Posted by London (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Anyone else hear anything similar on Saturday night?
Yeah - I was at my sister's flat, right opposite Finsbury Park. She'd been telling me about how she wanted to go to agricultural college and become a farmer and move out of London, and how London was too dangerous, and I was like meh nah London's alright innit did you know Kate's friend died in the bombs btw she was 26 -' KABOOM BAKOOM BADDADDAMAMAMBOMB BOOOM BAOOOM BAHMM
'gneeeargh CHECK THE BBC WEBSITE THEY'VE DONE IT AGAIN ARGH'
...but yeah, just some gay fireworks. Fucking loud, big gay fireworks. Goddamn 'moes.
[ 25.07.2005, 09:19: Message edited by: London ]
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
A road near work was taped off this morning! But there was only one plod on guard so I don't reckon it was anything interesting. Though there was a suspect package on Wormwood Scrubs over the weekend, which got explosorized. Hope it wasn't dog poo.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Doesn't look very deadly, does he?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
D'you think the press will give him a special terrorist name? Like, Carlos the Jackal?
What could it be..?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Muktar the Potato
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
[OT] Don't know what his nickname should be, but Jonesy's link has tangentially led me to think Dangermouse! While the world has been looking elsewhere, we've bred monsters. Predatory Giant Mice [/OT]
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: That's not really what I'm saying. I'm just observing that the police seem to be unclear - maybe deliberately so - about what their policy on firearms *is*. There's another story on the BBC, here, which suggests that the police have reviewed their strategy recently to be able to counter the threat of suicide bombers. It appears that policy now is to go for the head, to kill. Described as "Different precautions and tactics", that immediately begs the question "different to what?" If as, you say, it's always been a case of shoot to kill, then what's changed?
Coming back to this a bit late, but my understanding (which I didn't make very clear at all in my first post) is that the firearms policy has always been shoot to kill - in that if you come to a point at which you have to fire at someone, you must intend to kill them rather than wound. The head>body thing is new - again, when I was working in A+E I asked one of the firearms lot why not go for the head, to guarantee a kill. Answer - "It's a lot bloody easier to hit the torso". Including less chance of a miss hitting someone else, as well as giving Jonny Terrorist a couple of seconds more to tug his thingy.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
I don't suppose our pinko pansy lefty media would be too happy to know that, hence the "oh we only fire guns in celebration, or to announce a new People's Policeman winner" line peddled by that trustworthy looking chap in the big hat.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Isn't this just about the language used? 'Shoot To Kill' sounds a lot worse than 'Disable and Overwhelm'. Anytime a firearm is used against a person, the potential of fatal injury is huge, so whilst a policeman does not necessarily aim to kill, death is the most likely outcome.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Roy: Isn't this just about the language used? 'Shoot To Kill' sounds a lot worse than 'Disable and Overwhelm'. Anytime a firearm is used against a person, the potential of fatal injury is huge, so whilst a policeman does not necessarily aim to kill, death is the most likely outcome.
No, I don't think it is about a language issue. The chances of missing your target, and the adverse sequelae - hitting someone else, letting him run away/shoot you/flip the switch etc - are much greater if you're not "aiming to kill" someone; trying to hit a shoulder or a thigh, for example*. That's why until now the policy has been several shots into the centre of the body mass.
*and if you hit the femoral or axillary artery, he's likely to die anyway...
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
I meant more language used when dealing with the media, not when issuing instructions. I'm pretty sure that marksman are told to just take the person down as fast as possible, regardless if this means killing them or not.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
Oh yes absolutely, I agree, hence;
quote:I don't suppose our pinko pansy lefty media would be too happy to know that, hence the "oh we only fire guns in celebration, or to announce a new People's Policeman winner" line peddled by that trustworthy looking chap in the big hat.
Soz.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I've had a look a couple of times today and I'm genuinely puzzled by the direction (or lack of?) of this discussion. Statements like "I'm pretty sure that..." and "believe me, the police would do x, y and z" are pretty unreliable unless backed up with seven pints on bitter and a lot of nodding.
So at risk of being shouted at for just not -y'know-like:madface:_grgetting-it - here are some sources of reliable information on police firearms policy.
quote:Originally posted by OJ: So at risk of being shouted at for just not -y'know-like:madface:_grgetting-it - here are some sources of reliable information on police firearms policy.
quote:Research has indicated that only shots hitting the central nervous system (which is largely located in the central body mass) are likely to be effective in achieving rapid incapacitation. Shots which strike other parts of the body cannot be depended upon to achieve this...Police officers are therefore normally trained to fire at the largest part of the target they can see which in most cases will be the central body mass.
Pretty spot on then - and with no beer on board!
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Grr, misclicked and shot my load before writing the rest of the post. How appropriate....
Anyway, I've had a quick-ish scan of both of these and my point is that there is no specific rule about "Shoot to kill" or not.
Its guidance, which sets out a balance between the Human Rights (as laid out in ECHR, e.g. Article 2, Right to Life) and various over-riding concerns, such as threat to public safety, human life etc. It's left open to determination, by operating officers and ultimately by the courts, what force is "reasonable".
And surely that is the question here?
Para 6.1 of the ACPO code does refer to research which shows that only shots to the body mass are likely to be effective in incapacitating the target. But I think para 6.3 may be more illuminating in this discussion...
Scuse rambliness. Tired....
[ 25.07.2005, 13:26: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
The first one is a lot more detailed and relevant to the discussion - the HO one seems more media orientated. And it's prettier!
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
The first one is a lot more detailed and relevant to the discussion - the HO one seems more media orientated. And it's prettier!
Yup, Home Office report refs the ACPO report. I included the second because it has a Statutory Basis for adoption - but I was getting a bit ahead of myself in thinking that anyone would want to be jumping to discussing the statutory basis for adopting the guidance....
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: my point is that there is no specific rule about "Shoot to kill" or not.
No, it's not spelt out. It is stated that firearms officers are trained, as we both said, to put several rounds into the central body mass. My point is that you have to assume that that will be lethal force, and that's why the decision to open fire is taken with that in mind. I'm offering my interpretation as someone with a good knowledge of anatomy and physiology, and the reported comments of a firearms officer I spoke to, who acknowledged that firing on someone will probably kill them.
Posted by Carter (Member # 426) on :
Re the non-lethal weapons stuff. I hate to sound naive, but I'd hope that if they had something that worked in this situation then they'd use it.
TASER - electricity + detonators. Hmm.
Baton rounds - accuracy, range, not guaranteed to be non-lethal or, conversely, effective.
Someone on another board asked me about tranquilisers - these take a good few seconds to work, and that's if you can get it into a vein. If it's going intramuscularly, it'll take a relative age to work.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
How about a force field?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Or a massive boxing-glove on a spring?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Actually, the incident does have a silver lining - on Barbelith last week there were people practically soiling themselves in anticipation of this being a tragic case of mistaken identity/outrageous instance of trigger-happy police fascism.
For those people I guess this'll be like Christmas, Easter and Blow Job Wednesday rolled into one.
It's caused a fair ol' stooshie on Barbelith, hasn't it? Perhaps uncharacteristically, there seemed to be more posters there arguing against the "trigger-happy police fascism" line...
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh: It's caused a fair ol' stooshie on Barbelith, hasn't it? Perhaps uncharacteristically, there seemed to be more posters there arguing against the "trigger-happy police fascism" line...
Dunno, I started reading threads about this on Barbelith that just decend into "Shouldn't this be in headshop? I think we should move this thread!"
Theres a lot of that over there.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
A suspect Peruvian wearing a bulky coat and carrying a suspect package has been shot and killed at Paddington Station.
The bear was sitting "all alone on a suitcace, behind a pile of mailbags, close to the lost property office" and did not respond to the officers' commands.
Chief Constable Knacker said "the fact that the uspect was brown and wearing a bulky coat meant we could take no chances. We bitterly regret this tragedy but other bears may end up getting shot in these angerous times."
The unnamed bear is believed to have entered Britain illegally from Darkest Peru where he leaves behind an aged relative, Aunt Lucy, in a Home for Retired Bears. She is said to be "distraught".
Posted by Ganesh (Member # 685) on :
quote:Originally posted by squeegy: Dunno, I started reading threads about this on Barbelith that just decend into "Shouldn't this be in headshop? I think we should move this thread!"
Theres a lot of that over there.
Different styles, different structures, different kinds of discussion. The thread on the shooting had a fair amount of "Shouldn't this be in Switchboard?" (at least some of it from me), but seems to have stayed a) put, and b) on-topic. Ish.
One interesting point, as I say, for me, is the fact that Barbelith hasn't unequivocally gone down the "trigger-happy fascist bastards" line, and seems much more conflicted...
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
[ 28.07.2005, 09:37: Message edited by: omikin ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh: One interesting point, as I say, for me, is the fact that Barbelith hasn't unequivocally gone down the "trigger-happy fascist bastards" line, and seems much more conflicted...
Yeah, I was surprised by that, too.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Barbeloids will be wearing cardigans, soon.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Bargains galore !
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
at long last someone's listened to th cranberries.
Posted by Ganesh (Member # 685) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Barbeloids will be wearing cardigans, soon.
"Soon"?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Y'know, maybe someone somewhere has thought about this point already, but why would a suicide bomber be trying to run away?
Posted by Bandy (Member # 12) on :
Wasn't he running into the station?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
