as i posted in the channel zero thread, the officers were in plainclothes.
earlier there was this chief from scotland yard giving a statement... from what I heard, he said following things:
-there hasn't been any official moderations to the rights/practice of carrying or using firearms
-in these situations, common sense should tell the officers to go for head shots (he really said this in live bbc broadcast, it was hilarious) as body shots could leave the subject alive enough to explode himself, or cause the explosives to go off by the impact of the bullets. as he mentioned this, I remember he was wondering why would an officer shoot the subject in the torso. So I guess they had information about five shots to the torso, not head, and were talking about this subject for that reason
- the chief was also sweating about, and almost doubting the shooters were actually police officers. As if he would've rather believe that a "real" cop would realize the circumstances and not expect to make a successful arrest there: a person moving in a shady area of london would most likely flee from 20 aggressive, plainclothes men telling him to stop.
Then again, why would a cop shoot a man lying on the ground, if he didn't hold a threat under his coat. If it was a bomb and we were in a packed subway car, I'd shoot the guy all over his body and face at least five times.
Anyway as I wasn't there and I don't know the details, there's not much I can say that wouldn't bee too subjective. all I know is that there's a guy with 5 holes in him and he's in the world of shit.