|
|
那么巧磕药租车,还那么巧清醒的辨识会场的安检,那么巧懂冲过保安,那么巧巧巧巧。。。
被和谐了的恐怖袭击新闻?
新闻出处 CNA
SINGAPORE: Security forces' fatal shooting of a driver outside the Shangri-La Hotel in May last year was a “lawful killing” the State Coroner said on Friday (Apr 22).
Mohamed Taufik Zahar, 34, was shot dead after he breached four layers of security checks and crashed through a concrete barrier in an attempt to evade the road block set up to secure the nearby Shangri-La Hotel, where a high-level security summit was being held.
Also in the rented car were his friends Muhammad Syahid Mohamed Yasin and Mohamed Ismail – along with 17 tablets of nimetazepam, or Erimin-5, and four packets of methamphetamine, also known as Ice.
At the start of the inquiry into Taufik’s death in January, the Coroner’s Court heard the trio had planned to evade any road block in their way, as all three had taken drugs prior to meeting.
Police shouted repeated warnings as the car barreled through the security checkpoint, and two Gurkha officers stationed beyond the final barrier opened fire after Taufik had breached the final block and the car turned towards the Shangri-La Hotel.
State Coroner Marvin Bay said on Friday that there would have been nothing that the Gurkhas witnessed that would have given them any pause to interpret Taufik’s actions "in a more benign or innocuous light”.
Having seen Taufik “violently breach” the security checkpoint, the Gurkhas who opened fire had no reason not to view Taufik’s actions as a threat, Mr Bay said. “There is no place for complacency.”
Taufik’s “rash conduct” would have appeared to be an "irrational and dangerous act" to anyone, Mr Bay said. “Unfortunately for him, his attempt would naturally cast a sinister impression that he might be attempting to perpetrate an act of terrorism.”
Taufik’s bloodied body was found slumped in the driver’s seat, and he was pronounced dead at the scene just before 5am on May 31, 2015. An autopsy report stated he died from a gunshot wound to the head.
The coroner stated that Taufik was not a terrorist, but this could not have been discerned from his "rash, erratic and impulsive behaviour" at the wheel. In neutralising the perceived threat, the Gurkha was "simply doing his job", he concluded. |
|