ImHere

No. In that you are wrong. it is not part of a police officers duty put their lives at risk. We do on occiasion even though we are actually not supposed to. As any police officer will tell you, uppermost should be the officers personal safety as a dead or incapacitated officer is no use to anyone which is drummed into you during training. That of course does not stop police officers from putting themselves on the line to protect members of the public.

paddingtongreen

Maybe, just maybe, we may may be getting you to understand. If he was not shot because he was an illegal immigrant, why do you keep harping on it. It is completely irrelevant. He was not a suspected bomber, he was mis-identified as one because of a procedural breakdown. Police, participating in a faulty process are not going to be much use.

In determining the potential danger posed by a person, there are indicators, pro and con. There appears to have been an absence of guilty indicators and a couple of innocence indicators, according to the leak. But the government has not denied the information and they usually do if they can, or if they think they can spin their way out.

ImHere

Which means we just dont know. I cannot criticize the actions of an officer based on what can only be described as unreliable evidence at best. You weren't there, I wasn't there, none of us were there and so none of us are in a position to say what should have happened or what they should have done.

anotherlimey

Personally I hope the guys that pulled the trigger aren't prosecuted - unless they did something really wrong. I don't want them second guessing themselves when they have the right suspect.

ImHere

Amen to that. Fix any bad protocols not admonish the officers for following them.

doctor scrumpy

Maybe just maybe you can get your head around the idea that had he pissed off back to the Amazon when his visa ran out he would have not been in the UK to be a suspected terorist and therefore shot.

Why should the UK give his family a single penny for his death ? That is after all all his family really seem to give a shit about.

Let us have sympathy for those who died in the bombings, or have you forgotten them in your left wing rush to bitch about the cops ?

Brit'n'TX

you keep harping on about how he was in the country after his visa had run out ...

how would your reasoning change if his visa had still been current?

or would you rather answer with another question?

ImHere

I think the point he's making is that if he had followed the law he wouldnt have been there to be shot. Akin to burglars suing for damage during the commision of a burglary. If they hadn't been there illegally then the chances are they wouldnt have got hurt. You can claim degrees of criminality but to be honest when it comes down to it if someone is somewhere illegally (for whatever reason but still illegally) should they have the right to compensation for injuries? He WASNT shot for being an illegal alien (I hope) but his getting shot could be said to be a consequence of being one.

Brit'n'TX

what he appears to be saying (and he doesn't usually have any trouble speaking for himself) is that it serves the guy right ...

ImHere

Ok.

doctor scrumpy

If the visa had changed it would have made no difference to my view that the police acted as they saw fit, and should be commended not condemned.


I don't say he got what he deserved for being an illegal, and never have held that viewpoint. All the visa changes is that the UK should not give compensation to criminals. And that after all seems to be the prime motivation for the lawyers involved as well as some of his family.

I would answer with another question for you, but you seem to have avoided answering the last one.

fatbrit

Have you really thought this one out?

Brit'n'TX

so where do you draw the line and decide what constitutes a criminal?

say you're in your car, travelling at 35 in a 30mph zone and a police car crashes a red light and ploughs into the side of your car, injuring you seriously ... you are forced to give up your job and can no longer earn the income you were accustomed to ...

you were commiting a criminal offence when the accident occurred - if you had been obeying the speed limit, you wouldn't have been there for the police car to hit ..

do you deserve compensation for the financial hardship and physical suffering caused?

snowbunny

As Brit has painted in another scenario, what if someone was speeding? Hadn't paid their television licence fee? Used foreign plates to avoid paying traffic tickets? We tend to think of these sorts of "crimes" as "innocent victim" crimes, whether or not that's correct. I would bet every single one of us here is in violation of some law at this moment whether we are aware of it or not.

That does not change my right to have every possible care used in determining whether to take my life by force.

To make this crystalline: I am less concerned with the amount of money given his family, than I am that the full truth comes out and that any practises which lead to this tragedy are corrected and that any practises that were not followed are given fresh emphasis. I do not think that the government owe any punitive damages to the family, as is so often the case with corporations sued by injured plaintiffs; rather, an appropriate settlement made for wrongful death.

The police have exacerbated the family's rightful pain by having their son painted as a shady criminal who ran from the police and vaulted a barrier. The refusal of the Met to cooperate with the investigation is now in the mainstream news. This IS an indignation to the family.

ImHere

Point of order. He was a criminal, no doubt. Whether he ran or not appears to be under some debate.