By their own admission, neither did the officers concerned.
Really, and where is that admission, unless you have questioned them?
Before: the surveillance officer requests identity confirmation as he was taking a leak when supposed to be watching. (Source- official enquiry)
Correct. Not police though.
During : they let him ride on a bus full of people when potentially carrying explosives, then rush onto a tube train, hold him down, fire 7 bullets into his head, 1 into his shoulder and one or two down the carriage. (Source-official enquiry)
And you would have done what? Remember its fast moving. Your playing catch up.
After- Ian Blair talks about the puffy jacket he was later found to NOT have been wearing, nobody corrects his inaccurate statement. Woman in charge of operation later given promotion. (Source- BBC, Times, etc).
And?
My personal opinion is that they did a superb job protecting innocent people in London. Except the one they shot, obviously.
Unless he'd had a device of course, which they believed to be the case, then tea and medals all round.
Damn right- when I was in the military I had a very big gun. I also had rules about who I should & shouldn't shoot.
Good to hear those rules work and the military have never shot the wrong person.
The problem with the military is that they don't like and won't accept any form of criticism from outsiders, constructive or otherwise. The police are totally different, of course, as this debate clearly shows.
I had no problem with criticism from outsiders, 'cause they usually did'nt understand, just like now really.
RH[/QUOTE]