|
It appears a man has been shot in London. Plenty of twitter videos, looks like the public restrainted and disarmed a man. The police pulled them off him and shot him. Possibly had a suicide vest on.
|
"The Met Police has urged people to use "common sense and restraint" when circulating pictures and videos of the London Bridge incident. "
Yeah, good luck with that.
|
Youngest was travelling home from Uni today and left London Bridge Station to go to Borough market and have a bite to eat and a pint before heading on the last leg home.
He reports the place was in total lockdown for a while with emergency services all over the place.
|
|
Magnificent response from altruistic members of the public in restraining the assailant . A pity he couldn't have been Tasered for the benefit of useful information that might have been got out of him. Probably the suspected suicide vest was thought to rule this out.
|
>> Magnificent response from altruistic members of the public in restraining the assailant . A pity
>> he couldn't have been Tasered for the benefit of useful information that might have been
>> got out of him. Probably the suspected suicide vest was thought to rule this out.
Suspicion of a suicide belt or bomb is almost certain to result in a shot. Same with last London Bridge incident.
Wasn't it also probability of a bomb that lead to shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 30 Nov 19 at 12:05
|
|
I don't see how there is any other (realistic) option in such circumstances.
|
Could the charge from a taper set explosives off?
I guess the officers would shoot to kill a person with a blade in these circumstances even if the culprit was walking towards them and not stopping when ordered, though fear of what he would do with the knife or what he had under a coat or jacket.
Only sensible option really.
|
Many questions to be asked about why the culprit was released early from prison following conviction for terrorist offences; he was wearing an electronic tag, apparently. What monitoring, if any, was there?
Looks as if someone's dropped the ball.
|
>> Looks as if someone's dropped the ball.
Sent to prison under the Torys, released under the Torys!
Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime - at a time when there are fewer court cases / convictions because they don’t want the cost of prisoners/ prison.
A cynic might suggest that the release was timed to cause such problems at the time of an election - didn’t other similar incidents take place around election campaigns?
|
A cynic might suggest that the release was timed to cause such problems at the
>> time of an election - didn’t other similar incidents take place around election campaigns?
>>
A cycnic? A tinfoil hatter more like.
|
>> A cynic might suggest that the release was timed to cause such problems at the
>> time of an election - didn’t other similar incidents take place around election campaigns?
>>
Surely you're not being serious?
|
"A cynic might suggest that the release was timed to cause such problems at the time of an election..."
That's a hell of a big suggestion. It assumes that the release was made knowing that the culprit was going to commit another terrorist offence in a given timeframe (i.e. at a crucial point in the election campaign).
No-one believes that, do they?
Cock-up, not conspiracy.
|
>> A cynic might suggest that the release was timed to cause such problems at the
>> time of an election - didn’t other similar incidents take place around election campaigns?
I'm cynical but not THAT cynical.
|
>> Many questions to be asked about why the culprit was released early from prison following
>> conviction for terrorist offences; he was wearing an electronic tag, apparently. What monitoring, if any,
>> was there?
>>
>> Looks as if someone's dropped the ball.
He was released, presumably tagged and curfewed, after half of his sentence of 16 years+. No doubt there will be an inquiry into extent of his monitoring.
If he was conspiring with others then you might expect, or at least hope, monitoring would detect a cause for concern.
OTOH if he kept himself 'clean', gave the impression of being a serious student* and went off on a solo attack then he might not have 'pinged' any radar.
+He was part of a set of linked groups from different parts of the country. Members were accused of conspiring to commit terror acts ranging from bombing the London Stock Exchange and other premises to setting up 'Madrassas' in Pakistan. They pleaded guilty after some extensive 'plea bargaining'. Khan was originally sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection with a minimum of eight years. On appeal that was changed to a determinate sentence of 16 years with some additional provisions. As is case for most prisoners he'd be on licence after half his sentence hence release late last year.
Court of Appeal reasons are here:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/468.html
*He had reportedly been attending some sort of seminar at Fishmongers Hall and commenced his attack on those premises. I'm drawing an inference from that, rightly or wrongly, that he was a registered delegate with some level of bona fides.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 30 Nov 19 at 15:04
|
>> Could the charge from a taper set explosives off?
>>
>>
I think that's not the main concern, more tazers don't always have the desired effect. Whereas 2 rounds to the head...
|
>> >> Could the charge from a taper set explosives off?
>> >>
>> >>
>> I think that's not the main concern, more tazers don't always have the desired effect.
>> Whereas 2 rounds to the head...
Body. Police always aim for the largest target for the greatest chance of a successful hit first time out.
|
>> Body. Police always aim for the largest target for the greatest chance of a successful
>> hit first time out.
Head works better in that sentence though, just a bit of literary licence.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 30 Nov 19 at 20:56
|
>>
>> Body. Police always aim for the largest target for the greatest chance of a successful
>> hit first time out.
Only they didn't in the case of J-C de Menezes who was shot seven times in the head.
Only the day before, police shooters had been given a new procedure in case shots to the chest triggered explosives. Don't know whether that still applies or not.
|
>>Police always aim for the largest target for the greatest chance of a successful hit first time out.
True except for suspected suicide bombers - multiple head shots.
Just ask Jean Charles de Menezes.
|
>> Could the charge from a taper set explosives off?
There was an incident (Luton IIRC) where a wanted person was tazered, unfortunately BIBs didn't know he'd poured petrol over himself.
Petrol-tazer-spark...........................................
|
|
Am sure I read an article last night saying the shots would be to the head to instantly nullify chances of triggering the vest.
|
|
I think there was stuff that saw light in Menezes case that mandated a head shot, if that's not possible challenge from safe distance. Risk of body shot or tazer detonating some types of explosive.
|
>> I think there was stuff that saw light in Menezes case that mandated a head
>> shot, if that's not possible challenge from safe distance. Risk of body shot or tazer
>> detonating some types of explosive.
>>
I could see a tazer doing that but a round of ammunition? I wonder if it's ever happened?
|
>> I could see a tazer doing that but a round of ammunition? I wonder if
>> it's ever happened?
There's some stuff here:
web.archive.org/web/20110716030504/http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2005/051027/13/
|
|
Interesting, i wonder if it's ever happened in the real world?
|
>> Interesting, i wonder if it's ever happened in the real world?
I guess if it's happened then incidents most likely in places where suicide bombing is rife - Afghanistan? Iraq?.
If the risk assessment says it's possible in theory and result of risk materialising is catastrophic then you make sure it cannot happen.
|
>>I could see a tazer doing that but a round of ammunition? I wonder if it's ever happened?
A well publicised case of a sniper in Afghanistan (IIRC) shooting a suicide bomber at great distance, causing the explosives to go off resulting in the deaths of several of his accomplices.
|
>>
>>
>> I could see a tazer doing that but a round of ammunition? I wonder if
>> it's ever happened?
>>
I recall reading an account by an army sniper a few years ago where he had to shoot a 14yo boy who was wearing a suicide vest and on his way to a crowded market or some such. The boy was being led by a group of ISIS terrorists who were going to send him in to detonate his suicide vest while they slipped away, having no doubt fed him the Paradise fantasy beforehand. The sniper's shot detonated the vest killing the boy and the accompanying terrorists.
|
|
It would have been fitting to have slit his throat with his own knife
|
Fitting response. We're all on the front line, the run, hide and tell is all very well in some scenarios, sometimes you have to stand up and be counted. One of the MoPs was a Polish Hospitality worker and another an off-duty BTP Officers. I wonder if I would be strong enough to stand and fight
|
|
The use of the fire extinguisher was epic. Really disorientated the suspect.
|
...The Secret Barrister is not a happy bunny with Boris.....
twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1201076439250087936
(Frankly, even in this age of 'spin', what has happened here is a real indictment of Boris and his advisers - parts of the blog have been republished verbatim under Boris's name with no acknowledgement of the author, but those bits that are not helpful to the Tories' agenda have been missed out).
And some people think this man is Prime-Ministerial material?
|
Interesting. I wonder if any mainstream 'news' media will actually use that and the facts therein rather than reporting the untrue versions provided by politicians on all sides trying to get elected by blaming anybody else.
You might be interested in a BBC Sounds podcast called The Corrections. There are four episodes, each deals with a story, the way it was reported, and the truth behind it.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008jpc
It would be a wrong to suggest that journalism is not concerned with truth, but it's well to remember that truth isn't its primary purpose
|
Quite so R.P. None of us will ever know until the occasion.
I only know one person who would definitely stand and fight...he’s ex Army who did several tours in Armagh, but when the SHTFan he’s the one person I could always 100% count on.
|
*Everybody* will stand and fight putting themselves at considerable risk if what is at stake is important enough to them.
Simplistically the difference in people's reactions is that some will see public safety as important enough, and some will not.
It's not really a question of bravery. Bravery doesn't ocurr when one is unafraid but when one does something despite being afraid.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 1 Dec 19 at 13:34
|
"Simplistically the difference in people's reactions is that some will see public safety as important enough, and some will not.
It's not really a question of bravery. Bravery doesn't ocurr when one is unafraid but when one does something despite being afraid."
Not sure if I have understood correctly. Are you saying that no-one who took on the terrorist in this case was brave (i.e. was basically afraid, but acted anyway)?
If that is what is meant, how does anyone know what was in their minds? Has anyone done sufficiently in-depth interviews of all concerned?
|
>>Not sure if I have understood correctly.
Obviously not.
>>Are you saying that no-one who took on the terrorist in this case was brave
Please point out where I made any comment on the bravery or otherwise of the people involved in this event.
Do try to read what I write, not what you prefer to think I write. Your desperate rush to argue with me has always caused you to make bad decisions. Whatever name you use.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 1 Dec 19 at 14:14
|
I don't think anyone has mentioned the 'fight or flight' concept.
The fact that were at least three males of apparent similar age and stature banding together would have influenced the decision making process to fight rather than flight.
I'm amazed at how quickly people get there cameras going these days. If something was unfolding infront of me I'd be more focused on unfolding events than whipping the camera out.
|
>>I'm amazed at how quickly people get there cameras going these days.
Unless, it seems, you're being kidnapped by aliens or looking at the Loch Ness Monster. Seemingly both of those events are immune to a world of cameras.
|
>> Seemingly both of those events are immune to a world of cameras.
Yeah, never seen a video of Boris sounding intelligent or looking statesman like either.
|
>>
>> Unless, it seems, you're being kidnapped by aliens.......
>>
....that time I was abducted by aliens, they vapourised my 'phone before releasing me (and David Icke's 'phone as well)....
|
|
Useful for evidence gathering though
|
>> Useful for evidence gathering though
>>
Indeed.
But obviously the main driver is cash rewards from the media etc.
Even with good images
The initial report of a man with a stick going into battle can be excused for not identifying that it was a Narwhal tuck/tooth :-)
Image from Huffpost
tinyurl.com/tbofhz4
|
>> >> Useful for evidence gathering though
>> >>
>> Indeed.
>> But obviously the main driver is cash rewards from the media etc.
>>
>>
I wonder how much people get for those videos and pictures from this attack?
|
>> 15 minutes of fame.
Sold the odd clip here and there, the most I got was 100 quid, usually its just an attribution
|
|
I came across a car that had turned turtle a couple of years ago. There were two people attending to the driver (Who was unhurt) and about a dozen standing by their front doors filming it.
|
"Do try to read what I write, not what you prefer to think I write. Your desperate rush to argue with me has always caused you to make bad decisions. Whatever name you use."
Very sorry - you were obviously just making some general observations, which I wrongly assumed might specifically relate to the situation under discussion.
I've no idea what the rest of the quote means. Maybe I'm not the only one to make incorrect assumptions.
|
>>Very sorry - you were obviously just making some general observations, which I wrongly assumed might specifically relate to the situation under discussion.
I was talking exactly about the topic under discussion, but you were so keen to argue with me you failed to check who or what I was replying to.
>>I've no idea what the rest of the quote means.
Sure.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 1 Dec 19 at 19:36
|
>>
>>
>> It's not really a question of bravery. Bravery doesn't ocurr when one is unafraid but
>> when one does something despite being afraid.
>>
Very good point.
|
London bridge shooting - No FM2R
