Its now a MISTAKE. He had NOTHING to do with the bombings at ALL.
This is why 'shoot to kill' is the most fucking pathetic retarded thing ever. Like we are to think that police are rational thoughtful people that can handle situations. pffffffffft. There just like us, panic like shit and (for some) shoot first ask questions later!
LONDON (Reuters) - The apparent adoption of a shoot-to-kill policy by police balances the hope of stopping suicide bombers against the risk of alienating Muslims who fear they will be the most likely figures in the crosshairs.
Police hunting four men who tried to bomb London's transport system on Thursday -- two weeks after suicide bombers killed 52 commuters -- chased and shot dead a man on Friday who had been under surveillance and refused orders to halt.
They said they believed he was carrying a bomb. But late on Saturday they admitted they had got the wrong man and expressed regret.
"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005," they said in a statement. "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."
The man's killing, at point-blank range with five shots to the head in front of shocked passengers on a packed underground train, triggered speculation that traditionally unarmed police had radically changed their approach.
"On Thursday the terrorists sent a message which was ... we can still reach out and touch you wherever you are," anti-terrorism expert Robert Ayers of the Royal Institute of International Affairs think tank told Reuters.
"The police message on Friday was 'we are not messing around ... we are going to kill your ass'," he said, noting the aim was to stop the device being triggered even in the throes of death.
Ayers said that aiming for the head not only ensured almost instantaneous death but also avoided the torso, where suicide bombers tend to carry their explosives which could be detonated by a bullet.
"Simple nervous system shut-down, that is the objective," Ayers said.
"The Metropolitan Police have very clearly demonstrated that they are operating on the premise right now that if they suspect that someone is a bomber, and that the public is going to be endangered by him, they have shoot-to-kill orders," he added.
NO DETERRENT?
But anti-terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp of St Andrews University in Scotland said the policy -- which he said was openly adopted three years ago -- could do more harm than good.
"The Muslim community is very uneasy about this -- understandably," he told Reuters. "If there is a series of shooting incidents like this then it becomes a big political issue.
"This is not a major deterrent in terms of carrying out an attack, but it is counterproductive to the careful strategy that the police and government have set out in terms of minimising polarisation within ethnic communities," he added.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), said it was deeply concerned at the apparent policy.
"IHRC fears that innocent people may lose their lives due to the new 'shoot to kill' policy of the Metropolitan Police," chairman Massoud Shadjareh said in a statement.
It also said police had taken lessons from Israeli security services which have extensive experience in suicide bombings -- a line echoed by some newspapers.
The Metropolitan police declined to comment.
Shoot-to-kill is not a new phenomenon. It was allegedly used by British security forces in Northern Ireland and by the Special Air Service when its operatives shot dead three Irish Republican Army suspects in Gibraltar in 1988.
But it is deeply controversial.
"The overwhelming duty is to save lives, and the niceties of gentle community policing may have to be brushed aside," The Times newspaper said in an editorial defending the police.
However, the Financial Times said police had "taken a potentially dangerous turning", while the Daily Mail said they risked being accused of behaving "as badly as the terrorists".
I agree. Now yes, the guy ran, but there are lots of reasons why he ran, which he could have been ASKED had he not been shot in the head 5 times.
This happened in LONDON. In a first world country that is respectable and has a reputation for unarmed negotiation. This isn't America or some middle eastern place.
It frightens me, and i'm worried for friends of mine who are muslim, from lebanon and live in London, who ar eopposed to the war in Iraq. What if one day one of them accidently gets 'shot'
