LaPennaBianca
Well-known member
There is no need to personalise this and ask me questions about my job, as it implies that only those in these direct situations are permitted to comment. Which, in a country with a civilian police force, is not how it should work.Being blunt equates to being entirely simplistic.
If it's so apparently obvious what should have been done differently I'm bound to ask, what? They acted on the intelligence they had at that material time; its entirely different, not to mention easier, to make decisions with absolute hindsight, armed with facts that weren't known at the time. They believed he was an active terrorist, intent on murdering scores of people. I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision to shoot, or not, because either option carries massive risks and potentially career ending scrutiny, even criminal prosecution. How often does you job carry these risks I wonder?
The influence terrorism has is to create the situation in the first place - the 7/7 attacks were only a matter of days earlier and, in terms if the police and army activities, still on-going.
The reason why the the MPS were against the IPCC investigating this is because they are (and to a lesser degree now), inept. The operation involved army intelligence, in addition to police intelligence and having that shared with the IPCC, together with the tactics used was, they felt, an unacceptable risk.
And in terms of the 'hollow point' bullets point, and the suggestion he could have been 'restrained', then I can only say, with respect, that is an incredibly naive comment - once the decision is taken, given the circumstances, restraint isn't an option. Even the IPCC acknowledged this.
Also, if the IPCC are inept, how do the police face robust investigation? You've contradicted your own point.
As Stu above says - the police lied about it, smeared a dead man and led his family on a gruelling legal odyssey to gain justice. You mention that it's easy with hindsight - why didn't the police use and recognise they had made an enormous and grave error in this operation, rather than lie to cover for themselves?
They killed an innocent man and you're effectively putting it down to 'one of those things'.