ElCarl wrote:he bicep shot was a through-and-through which then carried on and hit the other officer in the radio.
That's supposition. The IPCC press conference didn't specify who shot when or at whom, nor whether any bullets passed through the dead man. It did specify that a firearms officer fired two bullets, that two bullets struck the dead man, one in the torso and one in the biceps, and that the bullet lodged in the radio was a jacketed hollow point of the kind used by police officers. While it is likely that the bullet was fired at the dead man, the possibility remains that there was another shot fired by another officer, not aimed at the man, but fired by accident. That would fit with the highly specific and careful language used by the IPCC spokeswoman. It's not likely, but how likely was the final explanation of the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting? If the bullet fired into the radio was fired by accident, then the case becomes much, much worse for the Met.
Plasma Man wrote:That doesn't sound like a restrained and well-organised action.
The biggest possibility for scandal, in my view, is the possibility that the converted starter pistol was not brandished or even evident during the shooting. In that case the Met would have been grossly negligent in storming a vehicle for no apparent reason, precipitating an entirely unnecessary "firefight" and shooting dead a man who, while he was likely guilty of drug dealing, was also innocent of any offence necessitating such risky tactics.
Steering this into entirely speculative territory, I wonder about the angles of fire that would allow the police to shoot one another if the target was seated in a vehicle with the doors closed. The only way I can imagine it happening would be if the suspect's arms were raised, either surrendering or brandishing a weapon. No allegation has arisen from the IPCC of him threatening the police with the gun, so I wonder what else could have happened.