Meksilon said:
I disagree. The man was innocent.
You're forgetting, in England police are not allowed to carry guns. If a gang in plain clothes pulls guns on you, it doesn't matter if they yell "police stop" or not, the absolute last thing you're going to think it is is police.
You are correct. I did forget that, but regardless if they were terrorists they would have just outright shot him. There is no valid excuse for him to run after a police officer identifies himself. You can't do it in the states, and you can't do it there.
The one other thing that I just learned tonight is that they apparently tackled him. If that's true I don't understand the shooting as much. If he was a suicide bomber you think they would have shot from a distance as he approached the mass transit system..
It doesn't matter what the police believe, it matters what they do. In this case they shot an innocent man dead, because he became frightened when they pulled guns on him.
Using your logic if I had a squirt gun that looked like a gun on an officer it should be his fault if he shoots and kills me. After all it was just a toy squirt gun, and it doesn't matter what he believed. It just matters what the end result was, and in that case I'd be dead and he'd be to blame. That logic is flawed, it absolutely matters what he believes. The same way you believe that it matters that he was scared, and as a result ran. State of mind always matters, and in this case they had good reason to believe he was another suicide bomber.
2a. Arrest the man peacefully at his home.
2b. Search the man before he reaches public transport.
2c. Search his home while he's out.
2d. Interview his friends and relatives.
a. He came from a house that was being watched due to links of terrorism. They probably didn't have his details at this point.
b. I'm sure they were watching to see where he was going. If they could follow a terrorist to another terrorist house they may have more intelligence to go off of. They had to make a call whether he was going to a destination, or if he was a suicide bomber.
c. Did they have time? What if he had the bomb on him? What home? There is far to much conjecture here.
d. Again did they have time? If they didn't act, and he was a suicide bomber would you be equally upset for them not acting? We're not in a utopia here. This was a tragedy, but let's be fair.
I don't understand it as much if they tackled him instead of an outright shot to the head. However, I won't criticize them for acting on actionable intelligence. The man is guilty of making foolish choices, and he should still be alive today. It's a tragedy that an innocent man died, but I think a lot of people are taking their criticism to far.