Talk:Armed police shoot man dead on London Underground

Active discussions

Listening live on BBC Radio Five Live. Statements from the Metropolitan Police and the London Ambulance Service were read out - pretty much all they said is in the article. Dan100 (Talk) 09:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Morgunblaðið in Iceland and SKY News are reporting that a possible suicide bomber has been shot (Morgunblaðið says shot and killed) at the Stockwell tube station in London. BBC News is also reporting on this. The tube station has been evacuated. --Ómar Kjartan Yasin 10:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

UPDATE The BBC World Service confirmed that a man, probably of Asian origin, has been shot. Eyewitness says he was shot five times. --Ómar Kjartan Yasin 10:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Shoot to kill?Edit

The line "The police have been given orders to shoot to kill if they believe someone is about to detonate a bomb." was added but I can't find a source for this statement.

Anyone know any more on this? --Pvtparts 10:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Take it out for now - we need sources Dan100 (Talk) 10:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
Done. --Pvtparts 10:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Thanks Dan100 (Talk) 10:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

The shoot to kill orders are mentioned by Sky News - [1] - is that a reliable source? Bigpresh 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
Sky News are known to be a little 'over-excitable' - Indeed, the BBC seem that way at the moment too.
I would suggest that one reason that the BBC are more than usually excitable is that Wood Lane (runs past the TV Centre) was still cordoned off this morning by the police after the Shepherds Bush incident.
I doubt they know more than anybody else... Let's wait for a bit and get more firm sources. --Dejan Čabrilo 10:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
Good idea - better not to just guess at things! Bigpresh 10:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
Well, it's a non-statement really, because 'shoot to wound' simply doesn't exist in the armed police. It's shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. Hence the rumors the 'shootee' was a bomber, about to blow himself up. What I find interesting however, is the presence of undercover officers in the tube around the station where the bombs failed to detonate yesterday. Could suggest the police thought the bombers might come back to 'finish the job'.Adidas 10:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
BBC reports that police tell them they had been following the man as the result of CCTV footage from yesterday's attempted bombings. FWIW. 24.176.12.100 13:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Well, it's a non-statement really, because 'shoot to wound' simply doesn't exist in the armed police. It's shoot to kill or don't shoot at all - very true... Dan100 (Talk) 10:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

[2] - mentions it in may 2003. Itsme 10:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Asian?Edit

what does 'asian' mean to english speakers? is a pakistani asian, or does it mean chinese, or maybe indonesian looking? Itsme 10:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

yes that's something common in England, where 'asians' pretty much mean pakistanese or indian. For some reason chineses are called 'chineses', etc. It took me a while to get used to as well. Adidas 10:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
Added a note for non-(british) english speakers. --212.50.162.251 10:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
I'm a Brit. To me it means Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. Otherwise I would expect 'Indian' or 'Arabic'.
The problem is that non-"Indian" South Asians often object to being called Indian and Arabic generaly refers to people from an Arab Country (usualy taken to be middle east and North Africa). South Asians generaly self identify themselves as "Asians" or Anglo-Asian, etc. --ElvisThePrince 11:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

That's a good point. Thank you Dan100 (Talk) 11:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Me again added metric reference for non-imperial types --ElvisThePrince 11:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
Perhaps we could just go with the metric? (Usually just as acceptable in the UK) Comments?

Just metric will do Dan100 (Talk) 11:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

In the States, "Asian" usually refers to someone from east Asia, like Japan, China, Korea, or Vietnam. It's been used to replace "Oriental" which is sometimes seen as something of a pejorative for some reason. 24.176.12.100 13:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Is Racism raising its ugly head in this story?Edit

"Asian" reference is weird... He could be a 4th. generation Brit from what we know so far. Do you call white people in London "Anglos"? Does this have anything to do with the story..the fact he looks "Asian"? Does that mean if he had looked chalky white he would not have been killed? If it had been a an average cockney looking chap would we be reporting that a man of caucasion origin was shot? Paulrevere2005 17:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Because what the majority of british people would call asian are in the minority. People describe and define people by the attributes which stand out - in this case his skin colour in a predominantly white country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.242.201 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[]

automatic pistolEdit

A bit of a moot point really, but lots of eye witnesses talk about an 'automatic pistol' being used. Obviously unless the cops started carrying tweaked-out glocks <grin>, the truth is probably closer to a 'semi automatic pistol' firing shots in quit successions or the use of a submachine gun. Since the standard issue mp5 is too large to be carried undercover, odds are a semi auto pistol was used. Adidas 11:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I don't know if you've heard the full Mark Whitby interview but he went on to say "not a revolver" - he was emphasising that it was a pistol, rather than a SMG (he made that clear too) or a revolver. I challenge anyone to manage to say "semi-auto" in such a situation... afaik London uniformed armed police are armed with Glock 17s and MP5s (snipers aside) - I don't think they carry Glock 18s or things like MAC-10s when in plain-clothes. Dan100 (Talk) 11:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
I'm wondering whether these were actually police officers at all. Our (Brit) police don't tend to carry weapons and I don't know enough to say whether our plain clothes would be likely to. Coupled with that, it's pretty exceptional to shoot a criminal five times (I know, these are exceptional circumstances). I'm wondering whether the anti-terrorist chaps have SAS or (more likely) intelligence services people on the stations. It would seem to be a role better suited to them than to policemen.
Met firearms officers are trained in the use of GLOCK 17 handguns, so I imagine it was one of those.

What does MI5 use? These guys sound very much like intelligence more so than run-of-the-mill Bobbies. 24.176.12.100 13:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Misleading headline?Edit

Is the headline to this article easily misread? I know what it means, but it could also be taken that the armed police were shooting at a dead man, as opposed to the man being shot dead by the armed police - comments anyone? Bigpresh 11:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

You're absolutely right. That was my fault, sorry! Dan100 (Talk) 11:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Actually it's supposed to be "newsy headline" style, hence no "a" between "dead" and "man". Putting the a in their makes it a bit more clunky, and I don't think anyone would mis-read it really... plus there's at least three redirects that would need updating if we changed it again :-(. Dan100 (Talk) 11:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

um, i got confused. when i read that i immediately asked myself why the british police would shoot a man that was already dead.
Wouldn't "shoot man dead" be better then?
yeah, that'd read better - Dan100 do you think this is worth doing? Bigpresh 11:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Yeah, that is better. Someone changed it :-) Dan100 (Talk) 12:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Suicide bomber?Edit

A lot of news websites are referring to the man as a suspected suidice bomber. Is there any police or official source that refers to him like that, or is it just the journalists that are doing the suspecting?

That is apparent speculation by the news agencies. --Pvtparts 12:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

There's a press conference due any moment... hopefully it'll provide some answers (and I'll take some notes) and post them here. Dan100 (Talk) 12:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Image:Northern Line Explosions and Shooting.pngEdit

Hi Shen (or someone else?), would you please go to this page at Wikicommons and add a copyright-tag?! I have uploaded the file of your map at Wikimedia-Commons to use it in the German Wikinews. Hope you don't disagree :) .. --Wolf-Dieter 12:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

So this topic has been sorted out. Some nice guys have done it, whom I contacted via IRC. --Wolf-Dieter 13:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
Heh, confusing... you may use the image, and now it's been done everything's ok :). (thanks to whoever did it when I wasn't here) Shen 16:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Why are our troops still in Afghanistan?Edit

Why are our troops still in Afganistan (killing civilians)[[3]] Why are they still in Iraq(killing civilians)[[4]]? Our troops marching around their homelands can't be helping this situation. Paulrevere2005 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

  • Because Afghanistan and Iraq are in the region which gives the London terrorists the support and blessing of them to follow out these attacks. Please do not tell me there are no terrorists in this region, you would not stand a chance backing up such a claim. And we are not killing civilians on purpose - show me one war where civilian casulties were not suffered, and the war was still successful. --Mrmiscellanious 14:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Sounds like a vicious circle.."violence begets violence" so to speak..and both sides say the other side started it all. Paulrevere2005 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
Paul, this has nothing to do with the article's content. Please help wikipedia by using the discusssion page to only comment on the actual content of the article. Cheers Adidas 15:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Disagree; if there is truly a war going on, this is related to it; just like Hitler's buzz bombs...so the war is the genesis and core of this story;imo. Paulrevere2005 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Would some of us be doing the same if the situation was reversed?Edit

This requires imagination, but if we (Americans and Brits) were living in Kabul or Baghdad and there were Afghan and Iraqi troops occupying Washington D.C. and London, and those occupying forces were killing thousands of civilians[[5]]; maybe many of our own relatives; in chunks of 10 or 20 at a time,[[6]]; I wonder what many of us would be doing? I think we(the more "militant" among us) would've burned down Kabul and Baghdad by now if the shoe was on the other foot. Paulrevere2005 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Perhaps, but this is not a general discussion forum, I'm afraid, but a forum for discussing what should go into a specific article. Submarine 15:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]
  • Disagree; if there is truly a war going on, this is related to it; just like Hitler's buzz bombs...so the war is the genesis and core of this story;imo. Paulrevere2005 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Copyright issue with BBC R5 Live audio clip?Edit

I would have thought the Radio 5 Live audio is copyright owned by the BBC - Is this acceptable here?

No, it isn't, and has been deleted. People would do well to read and think about the fair use guidelines before uploading things. Dan100 (Talk) 14:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Press conference at 3.30pm todayEdit

I watched the Police press conference today, to be honest they didn't say much:

Sir Ian Blair

in relation to yesterday's incidents, man shot at stockwell

direct link to ongoing anti-terrorist operations

man challenged and refused to obey police instructions

Andy Hayman

Oval: device in Northernline carriage northbound

Bus - I went to look at the telly at this point, sorry

Warren Street: northbound victoria line 12:39

Sheppards Bush: Hammersmith and City westbound 12:21

Three houses being searched at the moment in connection with investigation.

Bomb partially detonated at each of the four sites - homemade explosives in rucsacs.

Hopefully we can get hold of the images they showed (some were crystal clear) of the attackers yesterday. Dan100 (Talk) 14:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

They indicated that the images would be made available via Scotland Yard at some point this afternoon. This presumable would mean they´re licensed under something akin to ´public domain´ or rather an unlimited license so they could possibly be included via wikicommons. --Pvtparts 14:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Page protectionEdit

Dan, can you please explain what were the "attempts at re-writing history"? -- NGerda 23:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

linkEdit

FYI: We have a wikipage about this incident here: JnanaBase wikipage - it contains an overview and various links, maybe it can be useful to you I'm not sure. Www.wikinerds.org 23:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[]


Updated articlesEdit

Could we possibly add the newest article related to this: Brazilian shot by police on London Underground was not acting suspiciously to the updates section of this article? --Jake 07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[]

Return to "Armed police shoot man dead on London Underground" page.