Well, let’s see: A member of the surveillance team is quoted in the report. He said: I heard shouting which included the word `police and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.” It is reasonable to assume that the police identified themselves and ordered the suspect not to move. Standard operating procedure.

It also seems reasonable they didn't order him to not move.

2 bullets (or more) for one officer. Multiple officers, multiple bullets. I allowed for that possibility in my scenario (“Other officers around me do the same.”).

Okay, 2...or more now.

I haven’t seen any information regarding “orders for not letting him in the station, on the tube, when to shoot to kill, etc.”, other than an officer’s statement than “Police had agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.” They, in fact, did not do that (he ran and they did not at that time shoot him).

You haven't read about Cressida Dick, the operational commander? Well then maybe you don't have as much information as is actually out there.

Unlike a great deal of the blogosphere, however, I’m just not ready to convict the officers of murder, or even negligence, until more facts are presented and verified as to what actually took place and why.

See here is the problem. Once the powers that be start lying their credibility starts to go right down the crapper right fast. Even if the officers did nothing wrong, top level people at the Met should be fired at the very least.

Today's dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny ... It's Stop the ACLU Thursday

2 bullets (or more) for one officer. Multiple officers, multiple bullets. I allowed for that possibility in my scenario ("Other officers around me do the same.").

I haven't seen any information regarding "orders for not letting him in the station, on the tube, when to shoot to kill, etc.", other than an officer's statement than "Police had agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran." They, in fact, did not do that (he ran and they did not at that time shoot him).

I have allowed for the fact that the allegations may be true, and that both the officers involved and the police administration may have committed acts which were inadvisable or even blatantly illegal. In fact, even if the officers followed procedure and were completely justified, I have agreed that the administration has badly bungled the whole shebang. That includes the investigation, the leaks, the press releases, everything. Horribly done. I'm not sidestepping these issues, I'm in fact agreeing with you on them.

Unlike a great deal of the blogosphere, however, I'm just not ready to convict the officers of murder, or even negligence, until more facts are presented and verified as to what actually took place and why.

The newly leaked report may or may not be authoritative--that's one of the problems with leaks. Does it represent the determined truth, or is it yet another version from another "eye witness?"

Perhaps the Met. can be faulted for less than a full discussion of its methodologies--both for the shooting and for the examination--but I'd like to see more results from the examination before I conclude I was "lied to."

To the contrary, Steve, the “speculation” in my post is based entirely on assuming that the most recent revelations are true.

Really? I see nothing in there about freeze. You claim 2 bullets for a double tap, but 11 were fired. You ignore all of the issue about orders for not letting him in the station, on the tube, when to shoot to kill, etc. You side step the issue of trying to halt the investigation into the shooting. And on top of it, so far (and these revelations are several days old) nobody has contradicted them. Granted it could all be wrong and everything was "in policy" and its just a horrible tragedy, but right now that probability is small and getting smaller.

Having said that, you are correct in stating that this has been badly handled from the start. If the police officers were justified in their actions, their supervisors have bungled their jobs badly and cast unjustified doubt on those good officers. If the police officers acted wrongly or, worse yet, criminally, then the Met administration has probably broken a few laws themselves by covering up the fact.

It’s been known to happen. On the other hand, the “new facts” are coming from “secret” documents, and even assuming they are true, one must take into account the perspective of the police officer actually on the scene.

Sure this is possible, but I think unlikely. For one thing, the pictures in the links show a man wearing a denim jacket (lie number one). Second, the Met has had time to this new information respond and they don't dispute the accuracy of any of the claims so far. It is looking more and more like an innocent man was killed because of complete and utter incompetence on the part of the Metropolitan Police Service.

Scott's post is virtually all speculation at this point. It is far, far less reliable than reports that we've had that this incident stinks beyond belief.

Scott has a point. If indeed the new version of events is true then heads need to roll—but it still needs to be corroborated.

This will never ever happen, IMO. The organization will cover up for its incompetence.

Oh and Scott, your advice to not be hasty should have been followed by the people in charge at the Met. Instead they blatantly lied to the public.

Let's not be hasty. It may very well be that you are right, the initial version was all lies, and that this incident may have been criminal on the part of the police. It's been known to happen. On the other hand, the "new facts" are coming from "secret" documents, and even assuming they are true, one must take into account the perspective of the police officer actually on the scene. What did he know? What was he thinking? What were his concerns? What response did his training dictate? As a lawyer who defends police officers, and as a part-time police officer myself, these are the questions I have to answer on a daily basis, and sometimes the public is surprised by the change in perspective.

See my post here.