Mistaken Identity?

The BBC is reporting today that the man shot yesterday at Stockwell Tube station was unconnected to the incidents of Thursday 21st July. A Metropolitan Police statement said:

We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The incident will be investigated and referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who have the power to refer the case for a prosecution of the officers involved should they deem it necessary.

Two other men were arrested yesterday in connection with Thursday's attacks. One at least appears to have been arrested at the same block of flats that the shot man was followed from.

I confess myself mystified. Why did the man who was killed run from several armed officers? What followed was always going to be Darwinian in it's simplicity. Why did eyewitnesses say they saw a bomb belt yet there is absolutely no mention of whether he did in fact have one in the police statement? If he didn't have any connection to the blasts of Thursday, was he entirely innocent?

There's more to this than meets the eye. Hopefully the investigation will not be a whitewash of the incident and more details will emerge as it progresses.

I stand by my earler defence of a "shoot to kill" policy in such situations. There are only split seconds to make a decision in such situations and the safety of the general public should always be paramount, followed by a policy of direct action against known and definite terrorists.

The British police, unlike others, are not a fully armed force - only specially trained and vetted officers carry firearms. A friend of mine was for many years a police marksman and I trusted him absolutely with the power of that rifle and scope. His training and his own natural character meant he always erred on the side of not pulling the trigger except in carefully deliniated circumstances. The British security forces are not gun happy by any stretch of the imagination.

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers insisted that there had been no change in the law or in firearms policy. The relevant law is section three of the 1967 criminal law act, which reads: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime."

Acpo's guidance to officers, revised in February this year, says: "You may open fire against a person only when absolutely necessary after traditional methods have tried and failed, or must, by the very nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried.

"To sum up, a police officer should not decide to open fire unless that officer is satisfied that nothing short of opening fire could protect the officer or another person from imminent danger to life or serious injury."

The threat to life must be clear and present, say Acpo guidelines which add that weapons should be used when "police officers need to shoot to stop an imminent threat to life. The imminence of any threat should be judged in respect to the potential loss of life ... and consideration of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality."