Military expert: Mohammed Yassar Yaqub shooters ‘not police’

Earlier this week, a Huddersfield Muslim man, Mohammed Yassar Yaqub, was shot dead – according to a senior local officer – by a police officer in the performance of his duty. Mr Yaqub was killed during a ‘hard stop’ operation on the Ainley Top slip road off the westbound M62.

The SKWAWKBOX has been contacted by a senior military officer, who suggested that the ‘shooters’ in the operation were not police officers.

The officer, known on this blog as ‘Major X’ has provided evidence to this blog previously about the activities of military personnel masquerading as police officers – and he speaks with considerable expertise on the subject, as he has been responsible for placing those military personnel with police units and reporting on their operations to at least two serving Prime Ministers.

Here’s what he had to say about the Ainley Top operation:

The “police” shooters who killed Yassar Yaqub were described as not wearing identifying numbers or squad details [see here and here for other instances] on their uniforms…and they shot a (roughly) 3-inch group of 3 shots through the windscreen from 6-8 feet while running/jumping onto the bonnet of a car that may have still been moving.

That’s not likely to be actual “police”.

Here is an image of the “3-inch group”:


Some news outlets have reported that the vehicle was ‘riddled’ with bullets through the windscreen and bonnet. This is incorrect. The reports may be referring to objects or marks on the bonnet of Mr Yaqub’s Audi that are hard to identify on most pictures:


However, in one image they can be clearly seen to be car keys – presumably placed there from the various vehicles involved in the ‘hard stop’ and stopped at the scene:


As you can see in this image, the bonnet is unmarked – and while the passenger-side window is shown smashed in some images, there is no indication of bullet-holes anywhere else on the vehicle.

Except for that tight, ‘roughly’ 3-inch grouping that killed Mohammed Yassar Yaqub.

Given that the stop was made at a location which – unusually for a major slip road and roundabout – reportedly had no CCTV and that the officers involved were not wearing bodycams even though these have been in use by West Yorkshire Police, the question must be asked about the identity of the ‘shooters’ and whether they really were bona fide police officers.

Especially when a military expert with long experience of placing military personnel with police suggests they were not.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but relies on the generosity of its readers. If you can afford to, please click here to set up a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support!


  1. If Mr Yaqubhad in fact been dealing drugs how many innocent love has he taken??

    1. And if the ‘police’ got it wrong and shot someone *you* care about? Would you say ‘ah well, they *thought* it was a drug-dealer.

      1. You assume they got it wrong? Nothing about this looks like they got the wrong guy. Besides the police don’t just go out and shoot people on a whim, as much as I dislike the police the chances of them accidentally shooting any of us because they thought we were a drug dealer is so stupidly astronomical, that it’s embarrassing to even mention it. Nice fallacy though, but not cutting any mustard in the real world.

      2. Way to miss the point completely. The police *do* get it wrong. Menezes is the most famous example. So, *if* the ‘police’ got it wrong and shot someone *you* care about – and then you found out it was military in police uniforms specifically to carry out the kill – would you be ok with that?

      3. Again with the one example, have you no other cards to play? If there was genuinely an issue here you’d have loads of examples but you keep harping on about something that happened about 12 years ago.

        You’re presenting an entirely fanciful scenario that is less likely to happen than a meteorite impact, seriously what are the chances of the military shooting anyone I know?

        Anyways you’ll need to come up with some new material, the “what if it was someone you know” or “what about Jean Charles De Menezes” isn’t a valid response here and is quite embarrassing that you think it is.

      4. Menezes wasn’t shot by police. When the police feel the threat has been upped then the military become involved. Just like the Moat case where he was being sought by the police and other agencies. Dale creagen was being pursued by special forces as soon as he started using grenades on the street. Yes military and other agencies are being used in the police force. If it takes people off the street that would cause harm to others then I’m all for it. Yes the menezes case may have been a wrongful killing. By there are 100’s more cases that haven’t come out in the media that have the right outcome.

  2. What was the shot man suspected of doing? Why are we told he was a muslim? Is it relevant? Were the ‘police’ anti-terrorist officers perhaps? Questions, questions…

  3. The perpetrator was a drug dealer who was armed with a silenced pistol, he deserved to die , one less scum bag.
    The “Army hit squad” claims are total nonsense , anyone who shoots knows a 3″ group at up to 25 yards is not difficult for a shooter who practices regularly as the Police do.

    1. And if they get it wrong and shoot someone *you* care about, you’ll just put it down to ‘worth the price’, eh? As for the rest, I’ll trust a senior military specialist over you, but thanks.

      1. People he knows likely aren’t carrying a gun or involved in the stuff this guy was, so the likelihood of them getting shot is up there with getting hit by a meteorite. Also until that guy actually proves he’s a senior military specialist then he’s just a random keyboard warrior. I wont hold my breath for that proof.

      2. Jean Charles de Menezes wasn’t carrying a gun or doing anything else wrong. Meteorites can’t make mistakes, they’re inherently random – police do. And when they’re not police, but soldiers in police uniforms, it’s worse.
        And no, I’m not revealing my source, so you can have whatever opinion you like.

      3. Oh hey look you played the Jean Charles de Menezes card, but do you have any more cards to play? A single tragic shooting doesn’t back up anything you’ve said, but then I didn’t expect you to offer anything of substance.

        that’s because your source is a keyboard warrior with delusions of grandeur, so there is zero chance that he could prove he was who he claims and your convenient response completes the circle of stupidity.

      4. Assertions come easily to you, don’t they? There’s a *big* difference between ‘not known to G’ and ‘not real’. The source isn’t going to be revealed, deal with it.

  4. The man was assassinated it could that the police are not telling the truth about why the man was killed. These incidents are not common in Britain therefore I assume it’s more than what we know.

  5. I think it’s most likely that police training has changed and become more military like to deal with potential gun attacks like in Paris etc and also more ex army/special forces are becoming fire arms officers so they react the way they do.

  6. A senior military official but he’s leaking info to a pretty much unknown website, come on let’s get real here no one is that naïve. Besides nothing he says is of any substance it’s just speculation and not even clever speculation.

    You can see from the pictures that the silver Mercedes penned him in and most likely the police officer in the passenger seat fired the shots, he couldn’t have gotten out because Yaqub’s car is crushed against his door, so the running and jumping on the bonnet stuff is probably nonsense, and would be completely unnecessary and not to mention stupid.

    You don’t have to be a senior military official or even in the military to see what this guy is saying doesn’t add up, why would it require the army or any sort of skill to shoot the guy from almost point blank range? Any police officer carrying a gun already has the training to make that shot easily, heck I’ve never shot anyone but even I could have managed that.

      1. Probably dealing for the government as most drug dealers at the top end of the scale know who they working for, unfortunately mr.yaqub broke ranks and wanted out!

      2. Yes, we’re also known as people who live in the real world. I’m going to state this categorically so you don’t misunderstand me, this will never happen to me or anyone I know, because they all live in the real world too.

        But hey why let that in the way of your love of logical fallacies.

      3. You can rest soundly with the knowledge that I am indeed right, and that fate is a made up concept that doesn’t have any bearing here.

        I don’t live my life in fear of statistical impossibilities.

    1. Even if Mr Yaqub had tried to use a gun so close to the window, surely he wouldn’t have been able to aim properly, I’m thinking outstretched arms for accuracy. Having said that he would have had to have extremely long arms to reach into the passenger foot well to get the gun in the first place. Shouldn’t the passenger have been shot? Police officer firearm training misses out an important aspect – Incapacitating a suspect. I can find only one instance where a suspect was injured, compared to 20 that were killed. One unlawful killing off the top of my head is Harry Stanley, shot for carrying a table leg in a bag. If it’s so easy that the police can do it, how come they used military for Jean Charles de Menezes at an even closer range? Have you thought that it’s not necessarily the targeting but the taking of another human life that is the problem for police? I believe that Mr Yaqub was shot because of his previous acquittal for attempted murder where the judge quite rightly dismissed the case due to an unreliable witness. As another commenter pointed out, no cctv on the slip road and officers without cameras is no mistake.

  7. This experts an idiot. Of course it was police officer/s. This article is nonsense. ARV officers don’t and never will use standard body worn video because that would give away tactics used which aren’t or shouldn’t be easily accessible to prevent crooks using or learning counter-actions for said tactics. The training given to ARV officers is brilliant so groupings like this is easily attainable. Especially when using the preferred long arm weapon such as G36. Don’t dismiss the capabilities of ARV officers. They aren’t some bobbers just given a gun. They are well trained firearms experts which is why this gun wielding drug dealer came off worst. My advise to any wannabe gangsters. When ion receiving end of hard stop, stay still, don’t make any sudden movements and do exactly as you are told.

  8. “Maybe” the officer(s) who took the shots is ex services ? May be he is highly trained and skilled ? Maybe “Major X” is a member of the Walter Mitty’s Club ?

  9. This is garbage of the highest order. Firearms officers are trained to the highest standard. It isn’t like they just hand guns out at random to PCSOs. Your military “expert” is nothing of the sort. As for the sliding over bonnets and firing on the run, I think he is confused between reality and Body and Doyle. Yaqub was shot by the firearms officer sitting in the passenger seat of the Merc. It was a targeted preplanned hard stop. Police knew what was going on, knew what was in the vehicle and knew what Yaqub had been up to in recent days. Chances are going on the fact someone shot him last year and his house had been attacked too, when a flash Merc rammed him he didn’t think it was the police more likely a rival. Firearms officer considered lives were at risk and opened fire. Judgement was proved correct when the firearm was recovered. There is no conspiracy, no dark forces, no kill squads here. Just a organised and serious criminal who chose to be around illegal firearms and paid the price for his career choice.

      1. Nope. And you still haven’t stopped arguing with your own construct instead of what I actually wrote.

  10. Far more accurate than the claims of the some “military expert” are the suggestions that the firearm found in the footwell of Yaqub’s car had been held to the head of a woman in Huddersfield in the days running up to the M62 incident. Police knew of this through intelligence and this is why a hard stop was carried out. It wasn’t a random stop. They knew a firearm was there, it was in the possession of those willing to use it, and that the firearm and those people needed separating.

    1. That’s an easy story to tell, much harder to prove. No ballistics if the gun wasn’t fired, so it’s basically hearsay that it was used for anything. The possibility of it being planted would also be unsubstantiated but not impossible. Too much we don’t know at the moment for anyone including you to be as emphatic as you’re being.

      1. Hearsay? Try intelligence. And accurate at that. As for the suggestion a gun was planted? What utter rubbish. Yaqub was a career criminal. Ask anyone in the area. Sad for his family and friends but they need to face reality. Police do make mistakes but your suggestions of conspiracies to assassinate him are unhelpful and dangerous. Menezes was a tragic error in an incredibly difficult time, Duggan was again a career criminal choosing to be around firearms. As was Azelle Rodney. Sad but occupational hazard. Advice above about a hard stop and way to behave is spot on. Don’t move do exactly as you are told.

      2. You see, you don’t really *read* what people say, do you? Nobody suggested it *was* planted. Work it out, it’s too depressing to keep trying to communicate with someone who is determined not to hear what you’re actually saying.

      3. Lets be utterly honest about this.

        There are people who have real life experience of policing matters, firearms issues, and criminal intelligence…………..and then there are those who don’t.

        I know which one of the camps I am in. And I suspect which of the camps yourself and the mysterious “Major X” fall into.

        Making wild suggestions based on absolutely nothing such as “military masquerading as police” or “planted” weapons is extremely dangerous.

        If you don’t like being called out for peddling junk and rumour don’t publish it on t’internet.

        It was a planned stop of a dangerous criminal based on solid intelligence about an illegal firearm that had recently been used in criminal activity. Nothing more, nothing less.

      4. Suspect all you wish. You’re not ‘calling me out’ for anything. You’re making assumptions and expecting us to treat them as fact – even though you talk of things you don’t know, such as the bona fides of my source, as though you have a clue as to fact.

      5. My information is good. Yours isn’t. This “military expert” either doesn’t exist or is a walt pulling your chain. Whichever his claims are Sunday Sport stuff.

  11. I personally don’t have a problem with trained police shooting dead an armed, dangerous career criminal. It’s their job to protect the public. If that is what happened here, then ‘Well done’ to the officers who put their own lives on the line to deal with the threat to society.

    That said, conflating an incident like this with the systematic outrage committed at Orgreave under Thatcher (for example) is an insult to those people affected by ‘police’ action at Orgreave. The miners were ordinary people and should not be grouped with career drug criminals, terrorists and the like. We should not be using an incident like the one in this article to unjustly demonize the police in the mistaken belief it will help the cause of an inquiry into Orgreave. It will do the opposite.

    Still, it’s interesting that this article should inform us that Yaqub was a Muslim. Had he been a Methodist (for example) would that have been worth a mention? Of course not. Religions generally are not championed by the Left – only the barbaric ideology of islam whose adherents call it a religion. Unless Mr Skwawkbox is implying that being a Muslim makes you a special case and puts you above the law, I’m still wondering why it’s relevant to this story.

    1. I don’t think the article in any way demonises the police. And you’ve got exactly the wrong sense of what I was saying about him being a muslim, Marge.

  12. From Huddersfield and these were some of the local smack dealers so no need for all the bullshit

    1. No Graham. He was a good lad, a family man. He was taken out by the SAS dressed as police officers who then planted the gun. Honestly. “Major X” told me.

      1. Again, you’re arguing with your own imagination. Do better, or I’ll break my usual habit and unapprove your comments so you won’t have a forum or an audience.

    2. So you will disapprove posts simply because they disagree with your suggestions. Sounds a little extreme.

      1. And there you go again – I say something, you make something up and argue with that. I’ll leave this one up so people can see how you operate, but no more will be approved.

  13. To add a little to my earlier post, we are supposed to live in enlightened times where if we are suspected of a crime, we are entitled to be tried in a court of law by our peers. No matter how heinous the crime and no matter how vile the suspect is, our rights should not be infringed by armed police or military deciding what the outcome should be. Furthermore, the element of surprise should not be understated in the vast majority of these ‘hard stops’. Besides having multiple officers aiming guns at you, only a madman would then think he could draw faster, even if the weapon was in his lap. It seems like the police don’t even offer the chance of ‘hands behind your head’ warning and simply take out the target without a second thought. They have been emboldened to do this because they face no consequences apart from being suspended on full pay and are subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.

    1. Right to a fair trial a basic right. This is absolutely correct and what makes us civilized, but it depends on the suspect voluntarily submitting to the legal process. If he is armed and determined not to, is it really worth a policeman’s life?

  14. duplicitousdemocracy – How do you know what procedure was followed? Where you present? How do you know a warning was not offered? Most people will react before logically thinking a situation through and going for his gun would be a natural reaction for a career criminal, which he was

  15. Paddy, he has never been convicted of a crime. If you know otherwise, can you please put forward your evidence?

    In any case, ‘being a career criminal’ or even having some involvement with firearms does not provide the police legal grounds to shoot that person dead.

    That said – firearms officers have such a wide scope within which they operate, the IPCC on their side, ability to plant evidence, corroborate stories etc etc that nothing will ever happen to them.

    The police started an immediate character assassination after shooting the poor kid dead. They will do the same with those that were in the vicinity. Nothing will ever happen to the cops.

  16. Indeed John, we hear the same stories after events like this. Officers are allowed to exchange views and confer to correct any ‘misunderstandings’, the victim is then made out to be the worst villain since records began. No conviction of officers for similar incidents and no convictions for ‘death in police custody’ support your view that ‘nothing will ever happen to cops’.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: