Reply #184: You are saying it was a mistake, which seems like baseless speculation too

[daleo]

At this point it is baseless speculation because the police haven't even responded to the new evidence.

What was the mistake? Shooting the suspect when his arms were pinned in the middle of the subway car?

When you make a mistake, it is equivalent to saying "I did action X, which I didn't intend to do" or "I did action X, which it turns out I had no reason to, or bad reasons for". In this case that amounts to:

"I shot the unarmed man in cold blood, which I didn't intend to do" - basically impossible unless the officer is claiming his gun misfired 9 times.
or
"I shot the unarmed man in cold blood, but I thought he was armed and a danger to me and others" - basically impossible unless the officer is claiming he saw something nobody else did (like a gun or a bomb belt), and felt he had to respond to it immediately with deadly force.

Nonetheless, version 2 will probably be proffered at the inquest. It will cause the least fuss, and lots of people will accept it, because they want to. The shooter will probably get off with nothing more than a letter of reprimand on his file, or something like that.

I think the mistake was probably a mistake in identification. I don't necessarily think it was on orders from Number 10 Downing Street or anything. It could well have been the quintessential rogue cops or rogue elements within the security apparatus. Organizations like that aren't monolithic. Had they shot anyone who was connected with the subway bombings, very little objection would have been raised.