I think that it was reasonable to expect someone to be killed, and that person not to be a terrorist.
I think it is reasonable to assert that this policy had only one likely outcome, and that the desired outcome was extremely unlikely.
Those who formulated this policy were not just incompetant, because after all, they are anti-terrorism specialists - you do not put incompetants into such a role, they were negligent.
It is more than negligent, it was at the high end of recklessness.
They failed to take into account the likely risks, in fact it appears that these risks were not even considered.
When you are working on terrrorism cases, the most important thing may not, contrary to what may seem the most obvious, it may not be about stopping the particular incident, it may well be apprehending those resposible, and gaining intelligence to break up networks and prevent more serious incidents.
With a shoot to kill policy this was never a possible outcome.
The maximum sanctions are unlimited fines and manslaughter charges, think along the the sentence handed down to the cockle picker gangmasters and the highest jail term handed out there, which was 14 years. That case was aggravated by facilitating illegal entry and attempts to pervert the course of justice, but all the same, some folk seem to think that prosecution under Health and Safety law is toothless compared to the usual criminal law, and they are so wrong.
The reason they are wrong is that the prison terms handed out under Health and Safety law can be very long, because it is in fact a breach of criminal law.
People do get mislead because when you make claims for compensation in relation to Health and Safety matters, this is done through civil law, but in fact - this civil law claim can often be the second part of a prosecution, where criminality is first established, and then the level of damages is determined by the civil court.
Proving a breach of Health and Safety Law is far easier, and much more difficult to defend, the prosecution will state that certain things should have been done, and if they were not done then the accused is in breach of the law, in effect, the defendant in a Health and Safety trial has to prove that there was some outstanding reason why they did not carry out a particular course of action, in other words, the defendant has to prove they are innocent, rather than the prosecution proving they are guilty.
Here we have a failure of Risk Assessment, inadequate supervision, inadequate assignment of resources, inadequate planning and an almost invevitable outcome of death for an innocent person.
We have already seen the police attempting a pathetic cover up prior to the enquiry findings, by lying about what the victim was wearing, and lying about him running and lying about resisting arrest, and lying about reaching into a pocket, I fully expect our police to cover up, because they have done this in the past, with other shooting victims.
No one person will be held to account, because it will not be possible to pin one person down as making a decision, but its obvious one person did authorise that particualr force, because doing it by committee is just frigging ludicrous.
All that will happen is that systems failures wil be identified and a large compensation payout in th ehope of buying silence.