But the problem is worse than one shooting. Remember the time-line: he was under surveillance as a suspect, he was followed to the tube, they attempted to arrest him and he ran away, then they shot him. Surveillance is an incredibly resource-guzzling business; I recently read that a successful operation against an IRA Quartermaster in the early 90s used no less than sixty agents from the MI5 surveillance force, the Watchers, to say nothing of the police contribution. So, God knows what percentage of the available surveillance force was busy following an innocent man around, and ended up shooting him. Where is the terrorist they were meant to be following?
Another point: you may remember the long-running case regarding Harry Stanley, an Irishman who was shot by the Met because he was carrying a table leg in a bag, which some bloke in a pub convinced himself was a gun. The courts found the police guilty of unlawfully killing Stanley, the police appealed, the case continues. What happened to Stanley was that, in profound peace, someone shouted "Freeze! Armed police!" at him from behind. Now, I really doubt anybody who wasn't expecting to be challenged by armed police would not have turned their head in the direction of the noise, especially if they'd been drinking. And they immediately plugged him. (It's now in doubt, after re-examination of the forensics, whether he did in fact turn as the police claimed.) The man shot in the tube came from a country where it is not uncommon for people to be shot in the streets by some nameless authority for reasons that are never given, to one where the police do not even usually carry anything deadly. I suppose that was why, when he realised he was being followed by men with guns (in civilian clothes), he ran away. We are, however, now a country where you can be shot at any time for any or no reason.
There are the usual explanations. Split-second decision...need to maintain confidence..haunted for ever more. Of course, there is some truth to 'em, but it wasn't a "split-second decision" to put him under surveillance as a suspected terrorist, and if that had not happened he would never have been shot. Sir Ian Blair should probably resign, but it isn't going to happen. We are, after all, at War.
Slightly off-topic, Robert Sneddon comments that:
" The Glock pistols and most other pistols don't burst-fire. There are a few which can do this but only if they are mated to a shoulder-stock, and this would make the pistol very bulky and not able to fit into a belt holster. The H&K VP-70Z and Beretta 93-R are two such pistols."Some googling suggests otherwise, here for example, or here, which seems a better source. However, it's the Glock-18 or -18C that is the select-fire version. Whether the police have them or not I dunno. That's quite enough gunblogging.