It seems the video from the CCTV surveillance cams put the lie to everythingScotland Yard told us. 
:mad: :mad: :mad:
So the jacket on that man could have been like a flak jacket!
Am I missing something? I read that article, and thought it said there was no video from the relevant cameras.
Well, the next time some asshole asks me to just have a little faith in the police, I’ll be sure to fall right in line and say, "well I’m sure he did something " to deserve being shot. Frankly, even what the Police initially described seemed like a cock-up to me, but now we know that it’s much, much worse.
But trust them, they’re trained professionals.
I meant to paste the Wednsday article, not the one from Sunday. 
Yes, the eyewitness who made the initial claim came out a couple of weeks ago and said that he believed that he had been mistaken and that the man that he saw was one of the armed response team.
It’s not just what they told us that is disturbing, but the things that they allowed to continue to be repeated despite knowing them to be untrue (eg. the ‘heavy coat’, the jumping of the barrier etc).
Based upon the new facts: that the suspect was not in a bulky coat, had not jumped a turnstile, and was not running into a subway system, I withdraw any defense whatsoever I had for the police.
They did not merely fuck up.
They went into the situation gung-ho to fuck up.
I’ve resisted the urge to post to this thread, up until now when more information is making its way into public domain - one way or another.
The reason I have not posted is that I truly belive that the police have been wrong all the way from the beginning, even if the person had actually been a suicide bomber, and I knew what sort of pile on would result.
This is the big problem.
The policy does not take into account the number of false positives, that is, the number of likely people who will fit the profile but have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
On any day in London there will be several tens of thousands of people who will fit the profile in a cusrory manner, and the probability is that of those, there will be several thousand who would be so readily taken as a risk that the only way to discern their intent would be to detain and interview, alomg with other investigations.
So, out of maybe five to ten thousand people, there is the possibility of an unkown number of terrorists, one, five , even none.
The reaction of individuals when confronted aggressively is completely unpredicatable, there may be petty criminals trying to escape arrest, those simply terrified and will run, or any other number of responses possible from passers-by.
To have a policy which has such emphasis on shooting to kill in a situation where the chances of trying to detain the wrong person is inevitable, is always going to end up in this scenario.
The police policy makers do not seem to have taken this into account at all, and the outcome of innocent death was certain.
It now seems that the story fed out to the media by police spokespersons was dubious, and for anyone to condemn the leaking of information from reports not yet fully investigated and published does not take into account that the police spokespersons have done exactly the same thing, by making information known that had clearly not been verified by any investigative body.
Too many people are saying in this thread
“What if the person had been a suicide bomber?”
Sorry but you are so completely wrong, the chances of false positive identifications is very nearly 100%, and having a shoot to kill policy under such circumstances is, to say the least, not very wise.
It is also emerging that the police at first tried to stop the Independent Police Complaints Commission from investigating the incident. The excuse was that the police investigation about the terrorists should take precedence of the shooting investigation. It appears that they were still saying this even though they had realised that they had shot someone who wasn’t a terrorist suspect. Because of this five days were lost before the IPCC could start, which could mean that some evidence may not be available any more. More here :- BBC Story
This story sounds more and more sinister with every turn.
Did I hear incorrectly last night, or was it reported on ITV news that a soldier was filming the flat? Why do the police need a soldier to do surveillance when they have their own specialist teams?
Turns out the family were relating what the police had told them. After they reported this to the press the police made no comment, despite knowing that the family’s claims were the truth.
Big fuck up from start to finish.
If you read the wiki page on this, which gives a good summary, there were military specialists helping out - I’m assuming the cops are rather stretched in terms of demands for surveillance at the moment.
What I find interesting about the latest information coming out is that there seems to have been two completely separate operations going on - one reasonably competent covert surveillance operation (there looks to have been several cops within grabbing distance of him for the duration of his journey), and one efficient but incompetent SO19 firearms squad. When the latter got a command to ‘stop’ him boarding a train but he had already done so, the shit hit the fan.
While it’s still not clear just exactly what happened with the ‘challenge’, the surveillance team (presumably unarmed) swarmed the guy and pinned him, while the SO19 team preferred to blow his head off according to their previously agreed operating procedures, despite the danger to their colleagues and bystanders.
I’m curious about what other info will come out, but so far it looks like the Met totally failed in designing rules of engagement that are flexible enough to allow for the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in this sort of thing, and have also screwed up their command procedures as well. Then on top of that, rather than just confessing ‘we fucked up’ they try to spin their way out of trouble :rolleyes:
Even if it turns out everyone directly involved in the incident did exactly what they were supposed to do and followed orders to the letter, there’s enough fuck-up on display for some of the people involved in setting policy to get the boot.
Not exactly a shining moment for New Scotland Yard.
or if you prefer a UK paper.
Or, The Times.