At the risk of opening this wound again and having the Democrat and liberal blogs flay me again, let me say a bit more about what I think about the shooting of the innocent man in the London subway during the recent London bomb scare.
I thought I'd said it a few times, but I'll repeat it.
Shooting an innocent man is wrong. The London cops shouldn't have done it.
Additionally, the London cops shouldn't have lied about why they suspected him of being one of the bombers. The story they told the first day is looking more and more like it was false in every detail.
So this is a complete whiff on justice and law enforcement. Wrong guy, innocent guy, dead guy. Strike three — London cops out.
However, I still stand by my statement that if the London cops — and by that I mean these special anti-terror units — do have a real bomber in their sights, I think they are going to have to shoot him.
Bombers set off their bombs with the movement of a finger. Just putting two fingers together is enough to detonate.
So what are we supposed to do? Ask them to put down their bomb and kindly stand trial for terrorism?
Seriously, all you people blaming me for the innocent young man getting shot because I approve of the tactic, what is your alternative?
It's not enough to shout, "You don't kill an innocent man!" We all know that.
But what do you do with a real bomber if you have managed to chase him down?
What is the tactic you would employ, all you justice experts who so self-righteously decry the killing of an innocent man? You all take the time to write to me to tell me I should be ashamed of myself and how can I live with myself, etc. because I so callously titled the column that day, "Five in the Noggin." So, you're all so smart. What exactly is the solution to a man with a bomb wrapped around his chest and the detonator in his hand?
I await your wisdom.
That's My Word.
Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: email@example.com