You wrote “Are the London police getting away with this murder?”
Then, “Did I ever say or indicated that ALL London police officers are murders?”
Yes, your first statement does imply that.

“Sounds to me they were making up a story to hide their premeditated "mistake".”
Well, you did it again. Who is “they?” I assume you mean the London police. “They” might be just one person. At this point we just don’t know. On the whole I trust the London police more than I do the media that reports on them.

It doesn’t matter what the victim was warring, or what he did. An officer was told he was a bomber and he shot him. Only the bombers that get caught show outward signs.

We don’t have all the answer yet, but maybe we can. Why was he shot? Was it because the police were told he was a bomber? Who said that? Why did this person think that?

Until we get the answers to those questions, we don’t know what was wrong or who is to blame.



>>I agree that this guy being killed should not have happened, but to call the London policemen murderers is convicting them and killing their character without knowing all the facts.
>
>Did I ever say or indicated that ALL London police officers are murders?
>
>They said they had him under surveillance and followed him.
>They said he jumped the turn stile. Doesn't seem to be the case.
>They said he was running away. Doesn't seem to be the case.
>They said he had on a "bulky" heavy coat. He was wearing a light denim jacket.
>
>Sounds to me they were making up a story to hide their premeditated "mistake".
>
>
>>The police are told that if someone is a suicide bomber, shot them in the brain so that they cannot detonate their bomb. I have no problem with that. It is the best way to end the crisis with the lowest number of deaths and damage. I have no problem with a suicide bomber being shot 8 times, or even 108 times.
>
>I have no problem with killing them either. But shouldn't you know who you're shooting before you commit a something so drastic?
>Is their policy to shoot them on sight and ask questions later? The guy wasn't doing anything except reading a news paper.
>
>Can you imagine what many of us in the states would say if we were told that the policy is to "shoot a suspected terrorists in the brain so that they cannot detonate their bomb..."? Heck many Americans cry bloody murder about the Patriot Act, and the Patriot Act hasn't killed anyone.
>
>>The problem is that the man was not a suicide bomber. Is the guilty one the one who pulled the trigger or the one who said on the radio “He is a suicide bomber”? Based on what I’ve heard, I suspect it’s the one misspeaking on the radio. But without knowing more, I’m not going to convict that person yet either. I still trust that they will do what it takes to get answers.
>
>Either way is the gunner blind? Does he not have a brain? Can't he determine that the guy was not threatening anyone?
>
>>It’s OK to put yourself in the place of someone like a family member of the man who was killed by police. But, to be fair you should also look at it in the eyes of a policeman that has been assigned to protecting the public from someone who has no value for your life, the general public, or even their own life.
>
>All I'm saying that the seem so blatanly over the top by the officers who were involved.
>
>>Picture yourself in the role of the policeman. You are told that the guy is a suicide bomber. What guy? That guy, right there – He IS a suicide bomber. He’s coming towards you. What do you do? Do you ask, “Hey are you a bomber?” If your information is correct, you can’t ask that question. You’ll be dead before you finish the question.
>
>I realize that police work is tough. But according the the report yesterday, they guy was just being a guy. Certainly nothing to get himself shot by the police. Draw your weapons if you must, but did they have to drag him down and shot him?