Phil Hayton asked the most ridiculous question earlier, "do you think they killed him"? Well, what else do you expect to happen if 5 bullets go into you?
Well it is a perfectly valid question in my opinion. You ask a question to get an answer. If the eyewitness hadn't mentioned whether the suspect was alive or dead - you have to try and get that information. If the answer had been - "No he was still moving when I saw him" or "Yes - I think he was definitely dead" then you have more information. The point about interviewing is to ask questions that provide you and the audience with more information - not to appear to be clever.
It is now becoming clear that the police have been advised to shoot to kill in the case of suicide bombers, rather than their usual shoot to stop advice. However initially it wasn't clear whether 5 shots had been fired, or the man had been shot 5 times, it became clear, through questioning that the police shot at close range, but without asking the obvious questions we wouldn't know this. It is also possible to survive that number of shots if they were aimed into your body even at close range (you won't be in good condition - but you could survive) - however if they were shooting into your head it is a different matter.
Must say a great job on ITV NC this morning. Broke the news and stayed with it (Not credited on media guradian i note!!)
Raises an interesting point...Sky had a pre-planned segment (one of many that we will no doubt get after the relaunch - along with 'personality' driven news shows) And did very, very badly with the
start
of the breaking story.
Is this a sign of things to come? Sky News second or third choice becouse the producers have got so caught up in a planned running order?
Going solely by what he said he seemed to imply that the police had their hands on him or at least were very close to apprehending him, so why was it necessary to shoot him five times at point blank range? was he armed? was he wearing a bomb belt? was he involved in the attacks?
If not, we could well be looking at a murder case.
Going solely by what he said he seemed to imply that the police had their hands on him or at least were very close to apprehending him, so why was it necessary to shoot him five times at point blank range? was he armed? was he wearing a bomb belt? was he involved in the attacks?
If not, we could well be looking at a murder case.
They wouldn't have shot him unless they were convinced that lives were in jepody. Remember they would have got far more infomation out of him if they had managed to get him alive
One of the reporters on News 24 said that there were policemen "sitting on top of" the suspect and the plain-clothed officers then shot the suspect. Strange.
It'll be interesting to see if that story gets a second confirmation. If he was a suicide bomber, the last thing I'd want to do is "sit on top of" him.
If that's true
, it sounds like the operation was ballsed up completely.
Going solely by what he said he seemed to imply that the police had their hands on him or at least were very close to apprehending him, so why was it necessary to shoot him five times at point blank range? was he armed? was he wearing a bomb belt? was he involved in the attacks?
If not, we could well be looking at a murder case.
They wouldn't have shot him unless they were convinced that lives were in jepody. Remember they would have got far more infomation out of him if they had managed to get him alive
Maybe, but this is the same force that shot a man carrying a table leg. The fact that they fired five shots at close range suggests the policeman was jumpy and nervous.
I hope the police got it right, but if they didnt they may have just created another dozen suicide bombers.
I'm watching on BBC News online at the moment, and the picture seems completely frozen. However, the astons and ticker are still working.
Anyone know what's going on?
UPDATE: Seems fine now.
Err - for a long period they were using a still image of the Harrow Road incident to cover phone interviews - the image was frozen because it was a still...
I do wonder why Sky haven't bothered to use the 'Skycopter' at all today. Pretty poor effort on that side of things... it would've helped their coverage immensely.
Yet again all the broadcasters are having to make do with maps... apart from the BBC, who have yet again employed their four-mile-away camera, pointing at a block of flats, which has nothing to do with anything.