Police shoot, kill man who stabbed two to death in London Bridge terrorist attack

First topic message reminder :

London Bridge has been sealed off after police responded to reports of gunshots in central London.

A BBC journalist said he was walking across the bridge when he saw what he thought was a fight between several men trying to restrain an man on the other side of the road.

He then said armed police responded and fired shots.

Scotland Yard said: "We are currently dealing with an incident at London Bridge.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/29/london-bridge-reports-gunshots-central-london/


*Edited by Ben to reflect the latest news in the headline*

nicko wrote:Quill, "they took precautions" , what precautions ?

I understand the police moved the crowd back, and aimed away from the explosives. On the other hand, weren't they using shotguns?

No, they don't use Shotguns in situations were there are crowds of people around, their weapons are Heckler and Koch semi-auto Carbines !

nicko wrote:No, they don't use Shotguns in situations were there are crowds  of people around, their weapons are Heckler and Koch semi-auto Carbines !

I don't know where I heard that, so you are probably better informed. By the time UK news gets over here it is so digested, spit up, and redigested that its headline quality at best.

Still, I don't see why shooting the guy did anything to alleviate the threat. If he had an explosive device around his waist (fortunately, he didn't), he could as easily have had a release trigger, or a timer, or a remote switch that would trigger the device independent of whether he was dead or alive. Or, is someone going to tell me that the police politely asked him?

I still have to say: it looked like revenge killing to me.

"Revenge Killing" he murdered two people, not revenge , Karma !

nicko wrote:  "Revenge Killing"  he murdered two people, not revenge , Karma !

Well, that in itself is restating the revenge motive. The only reason for killing him would be if something good were to come of it. Go thru the options:

If you were truly fearing a bomb, you would want the guy alive to answer questions...what kind of bomb, how triggered, how to disarm? If the bomb goes off, you are signing the death warrant of everyone in the vicinity.

Killing him is the last thing you would do. Only if they knew the bomb was a fake would they feel safe snuffing him. No reason to keep him alive in that case; but then there's no reason to kill him, either. Just revenge.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:No, they don't use Shotguns in situations were there are crowds  of people around, their weapons are Heckler and Koch semi-auto Carbines !

I don't know where I heard that, so you are probably better informed.  By the time UK news gets over here it is so digested, spit up, and redigested that its headline quality at best.

Still, I don't see why shooting the guy did anything to alleviate the threat.  If he had an explosive device around his waist (fortunately, he didn't), he could as easily have had a release trigger, or a timer, or a remote switch that would trigger the device independent of whether he was dead or alive.  Or, is someone going to tell me that the police politely asked him?

I still have to say: it looked like revenge killing to me.

Quill, an armed police officer really does not have the time to complete a risk assessment form when he is confronted by a guy who has already killed innocent people and who is wearing what looks suspiciously like a an explosive vest that could kill even more bystanders.

These guys are probably the most highly trained and psychologically sound of all British police officers, and their priority will always be, first and foremost, the protection of the lives of members of the public above even their own.

They will aim to kill. First bullet. Instantaneously. That is why they are the elite.

They will now, as is routine, be investigated by the Police Complaints Authority, and if it did turn out to be a matter of a "revenge killing" both their career and, possibly their freedom, would be on the line.

For what it's worth, I salute them - as well as the bravery of those civilians who played a part in the ending of the life of this miserable piece of excrement.

Our Left wing prime ministerial contender will probably mourn their passing and place a wreath on his grave in due course.....

Thats what they should do with terrorists...of all pursuasions....shoot em dead on the spot. Due process is neither needed nor desirable.

Victorismyhero wrote:Thats what they should do with terrorists...of all pursuasions....shoot em dead on the spot. Due process is neither needed nor desirable.

And if they are armed, or even suspected of being armed, there is simply no time for an armed police officer even to consider either due process or desirability.

In fact that consideration simply does not enter into it.

Fred M. wrote:Quill, an armed police officer really does not have the time to complete a risk assessment form when he is confronted by a guy who has already killed innocent people and who is wearing what looks suspiciously like a an explosive vest that could kill even more bystanders.

These guys are probably the most highly trained and psychologically sound of all British police officers, and their priority will always be, first and foremost, the protection of the lives of members of the public above even their own.

Over here, we train them to precognize every possible situation, including (especially) bomb threats and use of deadly force.  I taught at the Arizona police academy at the University of Arizona, and all I can say is, if your guys need more time to suss things out that late in the game, I guess our training is better.  Our guys already know what to do, upon what contingencies, before they get into the field.

To say that that perp had to be killed because he had an explosive belt is absurd, and counter to training.  (Read the posts above for the illogic of just firing away like machine gun Kelly.) You need the guy alive to answer strategic questions.  What kind of bomb is it? What kind of trigger does the device have?  How is it disarmed?  You need the guy alive because only he can answer those questions.

Other than the need to keep him alive, there was no police-related reason to shoot the guy dead.  Killing him doesn't disarm the bomb.  The immediate concern is to clear the area, and if the bomb is alive he will take care of his own demise.  If not, why kill him?  At the very least, he could inform your intelligence people as to any network, plans, etc.

What a total load of bullshit, you taught at a Police Academy, ? Another load of crap, you don't know anything about it , What exactly did you teach at this place ? It couldn't be about "armed response" could it ?

nicko wrote:What a total load of bullshit, you taught at a Police Academy, ? Another load of crap,  you don't know anything about it , What exactly did you teach at this place ? It couldn't be about "armed response" could it ?

Walter Mitty strikes again.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Another example of the enemy within...

If you want indiscriminate killing by cops on the streets of London, yes I am an enemy of authoritarian regimes.  Perhaps the reason why UK police are unaccustomed and have no protocols for deadly kinds of incidents, is they don't get a lot of practice.

In America, deadly violence by civilians is a daily occurrence.  We have dissected such situations to a much greater extent.  The result is, one would never indulge such indiscriminate shooting by police in America.  Our police are better trained than those cops, with the result that they reason their way through such situations, using restraint and calm.  Those London cops just lost their cool and blasted away at anything that moved.

It reminds me of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes by Metropolitan Police, where we saw early signs of lack of police training and restraint.

" Our Police are better trained", changed your tune haven't you ? You have always been on about how out of control they are, remember ?

nicko wrote: " Our Police are better trained",   changed your tune haven't you ? You have always been on about how out of control they are,   remember ?

No.  I don't see any substantiation of this position.

Basically, what I am saying is, because of gun controls that our 2nd Amendment prohibits, our policemen have had to face much greater challenges with guns and explosives.  Because of these challenges, more exigencies and thus thinking goes into their training, and as a result American police officers are probably better trained than British police officers.

But that doesn't mean that American polices officers don't stray off course.  And when they do, Americans, who are more sophisticated in matters involving excessive force, set off their own alarms about police misconduct--me among them!  So you've got to distinguish between what is training in standards, and what is malfeasance in implementation of standards of the individual officer.

For sure, we've got police misbehavior, particularly in the south.  Your guys are probably better intended, but less prepared.  What I saw in that clip on London Bridge was confused officers, blowing the guys head off because they didn't know what better to do.  

They probably have never been in a firefight.  They're like...um, well they gave me this gun.  Guess I'll blow the perp's head head into a canoe.  Little thought, no preparation.

Our Police are better trained than your Police,
and my Dad's bigger than your Dad, so there

nicko wrote:Our Police are better trained than your Police,
and my Dad's bigger than your Dad, so there

Here is the main thread.