[silverbmwz3]

I think:

i) He should go. My father is a construction company director. Someone dies on one of his sites and he would either resign, go to prison, or be sacked or some combination of that. Doesn't matter whether it is directly attributable to you or not, it is on "your watch" so you are responsible and you go. This was a very exceptional set of circumstances and it is very difficult to say "yes I have all eventualities covered" but that is almost irrelevant other than perhaps to explain why he has various people's support - he should still go.

ii) NFS makes the whole shoot to kill thing/Kratos thing sound a bit silly, however I believe that if they truly thought he was a suicide bomber posing a genuine threat they should've shot him. The fault was with the intelligence and monitoring not with the guy who shot who he believed was a suicide bomber or with the policy of doing so. The 'hurdles' and procedure for authorising shooting someone should be higher i.e. positive ID, though it seems they felt they had that here. I'm with Dave in that all the people using the benefit of hindsight here would probably be the first to say they should've acted sooner if that tube had been blown up.

iii) The two guys look no more alike than Piers Morgan and David Cameron. Similar but that's it. It sounds like the surveillance was poor and the firearms guys got their late, and I do tend to think there is a way they could've challenged him then shot him if he didn't respond appropriately but perhaps that's naive.

iv) The terrorists are clearly more to blame for this than anyone else, and my thoughts are with the family of this innocent guy.