News The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties: Innocent Man Shot Dead in UK

[fuzzyfelt]

This idea is in Arthur Koestler- "Janus- a summing up".
I can't see how it is applicable here. I can't see that the policeman invovled deliberately chose not to warn him he was armed police, deliberately let him get into the position that he could have (had he been guilty) threatened the lives of many, and then took the opportunity ( despite the inevitable consequences to the reputation of the police force and himself) to commit murder.
Rather, I can only see he believed that this poor fellow was threatening the lives of many and risked his own life and career and the reputation of the police force to prevent greater loss of life.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I'm with you El Hombre.

I'm constantly reminded of this guy in another forum who once said to me that he thinks there's a certain kind of person that will automatically defend authority and power, not because he's assessed the situation and come to a conclusion, just because he doesn't know how to not do so.

I thought it was interesting but unfounded at first. I'm becoming even more superstitious though. Or maybe fear just rules all.

Have you seen any of the theories that it was an intentional killing?

No, I have not. There's only so much I can handle. Right now, as I see it, this was a sum of two grosses: gross incompetence, and gross carelessness. The lead up to the shooting highlights the former. The desire to shoot someone seven times in the brain suggests the latter.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

This idea is in Arthur Koestler- "Janus- a summing up".
I can't see how it is applicable here. I can't see that the policeman invovled deliberately chose not to warn him he was armed police, deliberately let him get into the position that he could have (had he been guilty) threatened the lives of many, and then took the opportunity ( despite the inevitable consequences to the reputation of the police force and himself) to commit murder.
Rather, I can only see he believed that this poor fellow was threatening the lives of many and risked his own life and career and the reputation of the police force to prevent greater loss of life.

But why did he come to that belief. The only real argument was that he ran towards his train, possibly in response to police presence. But the police were already following him by this point, based on the following information:
- they didn't know who he was (why not?);
- he lived near terrorists (like terrorists would rent an entire block);
- he wasn't caucasian (have you seen his picture - he does not look asian);
- he wore a fleece.
Based on that, they had him pegged as a suicide bomber, despite not fitting any of the criteria that would suggest he was (carrying a ruck-sack, for a start). Why? Can you seriously make a leap from that above information to "this guy's going to blow up a train"? Plot that path for me if you can.

But what sounds fishy to me is the supposed change of tactic. According to the police, but contradicted by eye witnesses, the police warned "Stop, armed police" when the man was buying a ticket from a machine. What were they intending to do as this point? Two possibilities: 1) apprehend him; 2) shoot him. The latter would have been based only on the above information and one more: he was catching the tube, as millions do every day. If the former, then why did they shoot him when they did apprehend him? Why did they change their minds? Did they think he'd managed to find a bomb en route to the train?

This, to me, is what makes no sense. They planned to apprehend him on suspicion of being a terrorist... Then they DID apprehend him on suspicion of being a terrorist. Well done there. Full marks. Then they shot him seven times in the head. It simply makes no sense. Think of the time that passed between him supposedly being warned and him being shot - if the police didn't have enough time to pat him down for weapons (after all, they were holding him down) in case he blew himself up, then explain the much larger interval of time in which he could have caused many deaths after hearing the warning. I mean, it's not like he had any advantage in being on the train - all he did was corner himself.

This is where it stops being incompetance and becomes something more sinister and fishy. We'll never get an answer to this question. What we do know, though, is that police did not follow procedure and an innocent man had his brains splattered over a tube train floor.

With hope, we might get an answer to the question of whether or not the police did shout a warning. If they did not, this will go down as the worst case of police brutaility in British history. But while heads of police, politicians and callous Brits who would rather see the black man dead just in case he was a terrorist keep shouting about how justified those seven bullets were, there is no reason to believe that the British police force/service will ever get the overhaul it so drastically needs. We need to get the thugs, psychos and bullies out of the force. It seems if you have intelligence, you either get promoted off the front line or become a dick. Natural selection leaves the very worst examples of the human race in the positions where they can do the most harm.

 

[brewnog]

Do you know the first thing about the shooter? Do you honestly think if you offer your opinion that some armed police are ex-military, people will roll over and say 'oh, okay - he must have done the right thing'?

No. My point was that these officers were extremely highly trained. Problem?

This is really winding me up. The guy was Brazillian. You are using the fact that he was dressed up a bit warmer than you would be as a justification for blowing his fugging brains out. Some people won't go outdoors without two vests, a shirt, a jumper and an overcoat IN ANY WEATHER! You are a shining example of the callous, as-long-as-its-not-me contingent of the British public and all I can say is I hope a loved one of yours is the next 'justified, but sadly innocent victim'. You can then sing your patriotic praise of British armed police until you choke and you won't hear a peep from me.

We've been through the temperature thing already, if you care to read my reply to TSM. Otherwise, I'm going to leave it here, since it seems that you can't read points which have already been accepted on the same page, or hold a discussion without resorting to cheap insults ("scumbags", "scum", "...can go to hell" etc).

 

[DM]

Burnsys

But DM you are only quoting the little fragments that you think you have a little chace of arguing and forgeting and dismising the rest. That kind of conduct (very common in this forums) makes me want to blow up my self!

And that's the divide line. You have your views whilst I have mine. I'm not dismissing 'the rest', I have in fact addressed numerous points, I'm not culpable for your lack of knowledge towards 'the rest' that I have opinionated on. It would help if you start reading!

That kind of conduct (very common in this forums) makes me want to blow up my self!

That kind of view dictates what kind of person you are.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

Totally skipped over this little gem didn't he

From given reference:

They will be told not to intervene or challenge a suspected suicide bomber, but to alert anti-terrorist experts immediately.

What do you call the officers that dealt with the situation?

Patrol officers will then be offered advice on how to assess whether the suspect is a potential suicide, or someone planning to plant a bomb.

Like you know what was assessed and confered!

If a potential suicide is thought likely, officers will be advised on how best to clear people from the path of the bomber without alerting him.

Precisely what the officers accomplished when following the suspect from the 'block of flats'. As to when he was challanged in the station, nobody is able to credibly state what had happened, with or without references.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

No. My point was that these officers were extremely highly trained. Problem?

Yeah, problem. You're trying to justify the actions of what appears to be a bit of a psycho by proposing that he may be an ex-marine... even maybe ex-SAS! If he'd come round to your house and shot your dog would you have thought "Well, he might have been ex-SAS... he's been trained well, so fair enough"? NO!

We've been through the temperature thing already, if you care to read my reply to TSM. Otherwise, I'm going to leave it here, since it seems that you can't read points which have already been accepted on the same page, or hold a discussion without resorting to cheap insults ("scumbags", "scum", "...can go to hell" etc).

Yeah, we've been through it and the two main points are a) he wasn't that overdressed; and b) he hails from warmer climes. It's not justification for extermination, so why does it keep coming up?

What we're holding isn't a discussion. Your arguments are an affrontary to human decency. The very idea that it is acceptable to blow someone's brains out just on the off-chance they may be terrorists without any actual evidence is the height of perverse callousness. Like I said, had it been a loved one of yours, we wouldn't be reading posts like: "Under the circumstances, it was the right thing to do". I wonder what the reaction would have been if the guy had been white. Anyway, that was more the textual equivilent of a smack in the teeth. The events that took place that day have enraged many of us enough. Blind exceptance and approval of such mindless slaughter enrage me further, because it's with thanks to people like you that nothing will change. And the people I'm insulting do not deserve more expensive insults.

 

[The Smoking Man]

What do you call the officers that dealt with the situation?

Amateurs and murderers comes to mind.

Like you know what was assessed and confered!

Precisely what the officers accomplished when following the suspect from the 'block of flats'. As to when he was challanged in the station, nobody is able to credibly state what had happened, with or without references.

I know one thing for sure ... a 'suspected suicide bomber' traveled for over 20 minutes and managed to board a train in a tube station even though tailed from his house.

Had he been a REAL suicide bomber, they would be picking the teeth of the train patrons out of the roof at the moment.

That is one thing you would do VERY WELL to remember.

HE may have been unlucky but these three idiots and the train full of people are the luckiest in the world.

If ONE fact had changed ... that he was a suicide bomber ... all the people on the platform would have been goo.

Now defend them.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

I know one thing for sure ... a 'suspected suicide bomber' traveled for over 20 minutes and managed to board a train in a tube station even though tailed from his house.

In which shows the officers' abilities not to shoot him straight away. They challanged him, he failed to comply.

The Smoking Man

Had he been a REAL suicide bomber, they would be picking the teeth of the train patrons out of the roof at the moment.

No, you're wrong. Had the sliding doors been closed, there could be carnage.

The Smoking Man

HE may have been unlucky but these three idiots and the train full of people are the luckiest in the world.

Your paradox.

The Smoking Man

If ONE fact had changed ... that he was a suicide bomber all the people on the platform would have been goo.

That's what you assume. Again, I respect what you think, I'm not chastising it.

The Smoking Man

Now defend them.

Um... now attack them?

 

[Anttech]

No, you're wrong. Had the sliding doors been closed, there could be carnage.

So tell me what is wrong with using a demobilser, like a stun gun?? Sorry you don't just let off 8 rounds into the back of someones head... The Police were WRONG! he had done nothing ILLEGAL

 

[DM]

Anttech

So tell me what is wrong with using a demobilser, like a stun gun?? Sorry you don't just let off 8 rounds into the back of someones head... The Police were WRONG! he had done nothing ILLEGAL

Using a stun gun on a suicide bomber?? do you know the accuracy required to stun an individual? the range? a stun gun is not a guarantee that a suicide bomber will not gain conscious and detonate the bomb.

 

[Anttech]

Using a stun gun on a suicide bomber?? do you know the accuracy required to stun an individual? the range? a stun gun is not a guarantee that a suicide bomber will not gain conscious and detonate the bomb.

He wasnt a suicide bomber! He was just a normal citizan like you and me. I thought people were innocent UNTILL proven guilty!

So if the police are just allowed to go around kill everyone they think 'might' be a suicide bomber... perhaps London will be less crowded soon!

 

[DM]

Anttech

He wasnt a suicide bomber! He was just a normal citizan like you and me. I thought people were innocent UNTILL proven guilty!

So if the police are just allowed to go around kill everyone they think 'might' be a suicide bomber... perhaps London will be less crowded soon!

You're missing the whole point!

How would the officers distinguish him as being a suicide bomber from being a normal citizen? Stunning him?? You're biased, given that you use a lot of hindsight. In these situations you cannot 'hope' that an individual is innocent.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In which shows the officers' abilities not to shoot him straight away. They challanged him, he failed to comply.

So excuse me for 'putting words in your mouth' but ... are you saying that a man they suspected being a suicide bomber (and did not know he wasn't until he was dead) making it into the target is a TRIUMPH in your eyes?

No, you're wrong. Had the sliding doors been closed, there could be carnage.

Had he trains been cleared from the platform and the people led to the bomb shelter ... had the 'night doors' been lowered on the station before he arrived, there would have been no chance of him making it to his target.

Your paradox.

Not really ... you just fail to acknowlege the truth of what I say. An untrained civillian made it to the target. The people were never IN any danger and the half dozen times he could have detonated simply didn't happen because there were no explosives.

That's what you assume. Again, I respect what you think, I'm not chastising it.

What I think? What fact don't you realize here? He made it to the train and one of the witnesses on the train stated he had time to question the man if he was okay when he looked disoriented after getting onto the train. That happened.

If there was time for that, there was time to reach under his shirt to detonate a vest.

Um... now attack them?

I thought I just did.

 

[The Smoking Man]

How would the officers distinguish him as being a suicide bomber from being a normal citizen? Stunning him?? You're biased, given that you use a lot of hindsight. In these situations you cannot 'hope' that an individual is innocent.

I'll even help you out here DM.

You don't use a stun gun because the charge will detonate blasting caps.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

So excuse me for 'putting words in your mouth' but ... are you saying that a man they suspected being a suicide bomber (and did not know he wasn't until he was dead) making it into the target is a TRIUMPH in your eyes?

Hindsight. Now excuse me for 'putting words in your mouth' but are you stating that shooting the innocent before reaching the train would've been more 'rational'? That challenging him before the chase was irrational?

The Smoking Man

Had he trains been cleared from the platform and the people led to the bomb shelter ... had the 'night doors' been lowered on the station before he arrived, there would have been no chance of him making it to his target.

Had the trains being cleared? with the 'potential terrorist' being chased?

The Smoking Man

Not really ... you just fail to acknowlege the truth of what I say. An untrained civillian made it to the target. The people were never IN any danger and the half dozen times he could have detonated simply didn't happen because there were no explosives.

Another handful of hindsight.

The Smoking Man

What I think? What fact don't you realize here? He made it to the train and one of the witnesses on the train stated he had time to question the man if he was okay when he looked disoriented after getting onto the train. That happened.

In conjuction with witnesses finding it peculiar when being 'disoriented' and proceeding to disobey police intructions? I listened to at least two witnesses in the news.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

I'll even help you out here DM.

You don't use a stun gun because the charge will detonate blasting caps.

Well thank you TSM

 

[Anttech]

DM


You're missing the whole point!

How would the officers distinguish him as being a suicide bomber from being a normal citizen? Stunning him?? You're biased, given that you use a lot of hindsight. In these situations you cannot 'hope' that an individual is innocent.

I am not missing the point! They were WRONG! He wasnt a suicide bomber, they didnt have enough reason to believe he was, apart from a jacket, and the fact he ran

Look... I am not hoping that an individual is innocent! Our (I am Brittish by the way) Judical system is BASED on INNOCENT till proven Guilty! This system helps us prevent misscariages of justise... And help prevent authoritarian goveners and Policers from doing EXACTLY what happened!

If we start to fall into a restrictive Marsh law situation who won? Us or the Terrorists?

 

[DM]

Anttech

They were WRONG! He wasnt a suicide bomber, they didnt have enough reason to believe he was, apart from a jacket, and the fact he ran

I completely disagree. They had every right to challange and pursue him. Such attributes cannot be labelled as 'innocent', they were led to believe he was a suspect. Very unfortunately the gentleman's behaviour towards the situation made the officers commit a terrible mistake.

Anttech

Our (I am Brittish by the way) Judical system is BASED on INNOCENT till proven Guilty!

The new bill was adopted by Israel, a country that is a pundit in resolving and dealing with terrorism. If officers are led to believe an individual is a suicide bomber, they 'shoot-to-kill' and that is based on 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

[Anttech]

The new bill was adopted by Israel, a country that is a pundit in resolving and dealing with terrorism. If officers are led to believe an individual is a suicide bomber, they 'shoot-to-kill' and that is based on 'innocent until proven guilty'.

The situation in the UK is not anything near that of Israel/Palestine. And I would hate for the UK police/army to move towards the totalitarism and total disrespect for life that Israel has towards others.

a country that is a pundit in resolving and dealing with terrorism

And the UK isnt? You don't remember the new IRA and UDF?

They had every right to challange and pursue him.

I aggree, they did have this right! But the police screwed up, they had ample opertunities to stop the situation escallating before the fact.. which they didnt do, and thus killed (I say it again) an Innocent man!

This twichyness and totalitarism is exactly what the Terrorist want!

 

[DM]

Anttech

The situation in the UK is not anything near that of Israel/Palestine. And I would hate for the UK police/army to move towards the totalitarism and total disrespect for life that Israel has towards others.

I fail to understand how the UK, at this present moment, "is not anything near that of Israel/Palestine".

Anttech

And the UK isnt? You don't remember the new IRA and UDF?

The UK has never, to my knowledge, implemented a 'shoot-to-kill' policy. If the UK was a pundit, the new bill would've never being adopted.

Anttech

I aggree, they did have this right! But the police screwed up, they had ample opertunities to stop the situation escallating before the fact.. which they didnt do, and thus killed (I say it again) an Innocent man!

You have previously disagreed with:

He wasnt a suicide bomber, they didnt have enough reason to believe he was, apart from a jacket, and the fact he ran

Anttech

This twichyness and totalitarism is exactly what the Terrorist want!

I fail to see this as totalitarianism.

 

[Art]

Anttech

Using a stun gun on a suicide bomber?? do you know the accuracy required to stun an individual? the range? a stun gun is not a guarantee that a suicide bomber will not gain conscious and detonate the bomb.

They used a stun gun to catch one of the fugitive suicide bombers today in Birmingham. So now let's see you eat your words

 

[DM]

Art

They used a stun gun to catch one of the fugitive suicide bombers today in Birmingham. So now let's see you eat your words

That was a raid.

Art

So now let's see you eat your words

No, let's see YOU eat your words.

 

[Anttech]

I fail to understand how the UK, at this present moment, "is not anything near that of Israel/Palestine".

-NT-

You have previously disagreed with:

Are you trolling? or serious? I never said anything about the police not persuing the man.. I aggree with that, if he is a suspect of a crime then pursue him... But I don't aggree with shooting him in the head 8 times!

Maybe re-read my posts

They had every right to challange and pursue him.


I aggree, they did have this right

just so you understand "this" was referring to "They had every right to challange and pursue him"

 

[alexandra]

The new bill was adopted by Israel, a country that is a pundit in resolving and dealing with terrorism.

I'd hardly call the Israeli way of dealing with the situation successful - they have not, after all, managed to sort anything out, have they? The thing is, unless one understands the root causes of a problem, one cannot hope to address it and solve it. What causes terrorism? That is the question that one must ask, in my opinion. It is the answer to that question that will lead to appropriate ways of solving the problem. Of course, this is much more difficult to do than to adopt a 'shoot-to-kill' policy and, in any case, does not suit the ruling classes (who actually benefit and profit from the chaotic and dangerous world their very policies have created).

 

[Art]

Art


No, let's see YOU eat your words.

Yeah right . Don't you just hate when you are proved wrong within minutes of asserting a piece of nonsense. Not that I expect you to admit it because I strongly suspect you are only trolling anyway.

So my advise to others which I will be taking myself is DNFTT. Byeeeeee

 

[DM]

-NT-

Your given terminology is not registered on my mental lexicon.

Are you trolling? or serious? I never said anything about the police not persuing the man.. I aggree with that, if he is a suspect of a crime then pursue him... But I don't aggree with shooting him in the head 8 times!

In which I understand.

You have previously disagreed with:

Referring to:

they didnt have enough reason to believe he was, apart from a jacket, and the fact he ran

 

[DM]

Art

Yeah right. Don't you just hate when you are proved wrong within minutes of asserting a piece of nonsense. Not that I expect you to admit it because I strongly suspect you are only trolling anyway.

What? That was a raid

So my advise to others which I will be taking myself is DNFTT. Byeeeeee

 

[vanesch]

No, I have not. There's only so much I can handle. Right now, as I see it, this was a sum of two grosses: gross incompetence, and gross carelessness. The lead up to the shooting highlights the former. The desire to shoot someone seven times in the brain suggests the latter.

Let's get nasty: could there have been some "jouissance factor" ?
In that, for ONCE, we are allowed to blow a f***ing desertnigger his brains out, let's not miss the opportunity ?

 

[Anttech]

NT = No text ... I didnt write anything because what you posted was totally absurd! What you wrote didnt deserve any comment

n which I understand.

Quote:
You have previously disagreed with:


Referring to:

Quote:
they didnt have enough reason to believe he was, apart from a jacket, and the fact he ran

ehh? what are you saying? that I have changed my opinion?

Let me reitterate! I haven't changed my opinion... I think your "mental lexicon" are unable to comprehende what I wrote...(or you are trolling, after re-reading what you have wrote I am thinking the latter)

As I said before, the police have the RIGHT to pursue someone they believe to have commited a crime, or is about to commit a crime... They don't however have the right to put a bullet in the back of someones head becuase they 'think' (wrongly) that he maybe a suicide bomber!

As someone in anther thread said.. and I aggree with they deserve to go to Jail.. for a VERY long time!

Adivce: don't put words in my mouth! or try to use spin on what I wrote!

 

[DM]

Alexandra

I'd hardly call the Israeli way of dealing with the situation successful - they have not, after all, managed to sort anything out, have they?

Whether they have dealt with the situation or not, is in my opinion, not the question in need. The 'Shoot-to-Kill' policy is seen as a 'tougher' policy towards terrorists and doesn't necessarily mean it has to be successful in order to be implemented.

Alexandra

The thing is, unless one understands the root causes of a problem, one cannot hope to address it and solve it.What causes terrorism? That is the question that one must ask, in my opinion.

I too agree with this view but the flaw with 'understanding the root of a problem' is that is has already been understood. Will we comply with the terrorists? I of course link this with Iraq, I perceive and link the current terrorism with the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Anttech]

How can somebody in there right mind, actually think that the situation in Israel is the same as the UK ? ? ? LOL... Pure fantisy...

Whether they have dealt with the situation or not, is in my opinion, not the question in need. The 'Shoot-to-Kill' policy is seen as a 'tougher' policy towards terrorists and doesn't necessarily mean it has to be successful in order to be implemented.

what is your point?

I too agree with this view but the flaw with 'understanding the root of a problem' is that is has already been understood.

What the terrorists want and the root of the problems are not the same and one!

 

[DM]

Anttech

NT = No text ... I didnt write anything because what you posted was totally absurd! What you wrote didnt deserve any comment

I thank you for clarifying the terminology.

Anttech

Let me reitterate! I haven't changed my opinion... I think your "mental lexicon" are unable to comprehende what I wrote...(or you are trolling, after re-reading what you have wrote I am thinking the latter)

You're misinterpreting information. My 'mental lexicon' response was associated with your "NT" response and not "I haven't changed my opinion". I am and was perfectly able to 'comprehend' what you wrote, and I was therefore stating that I understood your position and views on the matter.

Anttech

ehh? what are you saying? that I have changed my opinion?

No, that was a misunderstanding on my behalf, apologies.

Anttech

Adivce: don't put words in my mouth! or try to use spin on what I wrote!

I beg your pardon?

 

[Anttech]

No, that was a misunderstanding on my behalf, apologies.

accepted

I beg your pardon?

you are pardoned

 

[DM]

Anttech

How can somebody in there right mind, actually think that the situation in Israel is the same as the UK ? ? ? LOL... Pure fantisy...

Well, if you fail to see the same scale of terror in London as there is in Israel, with all due respect, you're the one who's having a 'pure fantasy'. I have come to understand that you like to insult people without clarifying views. I don't support this kind of attitude and would appreciate further clarifications in the future.

 

[Anttech]

Well, if you fail to see the same scale of terror in London as there is in Israel, with all due respect, you're the one who's having a 'pure fantasy'. I have come to understand that you like to insult people without clarifying views. I don't support this kind of attitude and would appreciate further clarifications in the future.

non-clarity is your dogma not mine! My views are transparent! The situation in London is nothing like the situation in Israel, it is a total exageration... The two are not comparable!

Palistein is currently being occupied by Israel, the Israelies are being bombed weekly, and the Palisteins are being shot at weekly... 1000's of people are being killed in the ME conflict every year which has been going on since WWII...

Show me the similarities? I see none...

 

[Smurf]

Alexandra


Whether they have dealt with the situation or not, is in my opinion, not the question in need. The 'Shoot-to-Kill' policy is seen as a 'tougher' policy towards terrorists and doesn't necessarily mean it has to be successful in order to be implemented.

So... You admit it's an unsuccessfull policy... WHY do you support it then?

 

[Andy]

The only reason its unsuccessful is because they shot the wrong man

 

[Joel]

In a previous thread I suggested that the terrorists goal was to marginalise the wider muslim population by driving a wedge between them and their non-muslim neighbours thus shifting the centre further to the right and so gathering new recruits who will begin to fall into the enlarged extremist far right. Current events suggest their policy is working.

I think you are right on spot here. By polarizing the relationship between the larger muslim and non-muslim countries the extreme fundamentalist organizations are effectively making reformation less popular in their respective countries. In this respect their policy seems to be working.

On the other hand, they increase the outside pressure on reform. Just taking this discussion as an example; would we be debating our ears off about how to prevent further terrorism and frequently touching issues of better socio-economic development in countries where these organizations are recruiting, if it wheren't for the terror attacks? In this respect their policy isn't working (for them, that is. For the larger population reform may just be what is needed).

I find a lot of irony here. First, the extremist are succeeding and shooting themself in the legg, as said. Second, tough measures by the west make it easier for extremist propaganda to lure young ones on the wrong path, while only 'soft' measures may actually make terrorism a rational way for political influence even for a reformistic idealist, who's goal is real development. Irony was it.

 

[Smurf]

The only reason its unsuccessful is because they shot the wrong man

But you still support the actions of the police men, even though they violated the policy and killed an innocent man. Why?

 

[The Smoking Man]

The only reason its unsuccessful is because they shot the wrong man

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The last time I read that statement, they said it this way:

"The operation was a great success; unfortunately the patient died."

Andy, you officially just became the punchline to a philosophical joke.

 

[Theatre Of Fate]

Salutations!

I am Brazilian like the man killed by mistake. There is something interesting that I read here...someone mentioned that 20 C is considered a very high temperature for most of people in London (I do not remember the exact words uttered)...

Here in Brazil we got used to tolerate much higher temperatures during most of the year...30 C, 35 C and even totally extreme and infernal temperatures like 40 C (!)...so, 20 C is considered a pleasant temperature in Brazil (but not cold)...10 C is considered cold and 0 C, -5 C (typical minimum temperatures of winter in the South of Brazil) is considered VERY cold...

Regarding the death of Mr. Menezes, I see it as a sad episode. Unfortunately, the terrorist attacks in London have created the "atmosphere" that propitiated this tragic ending...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The last time I read that statement, they said it this way:

"The operation was a great success; unfortunately the patient died."

 

[Burnsys]

What do you say. The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties??

Fox news says YES!

-------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163870,00.html

Big Brother may take away big liberties, but it’s worth it

Surrender Privacy or Your Life?
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
By Neil Cavuto

"It's the moral juggling act of our times. You surrender some privacy or you surrender your life."

"I know there's a risk Big Brother takes away big liberties. But I wouldn't bet my life on it, maybe because my life could depend on it."
-------------------------------------------------

I can imagine, if i were american and reading this i would seriusly think about killing neil cavuto!

 

[Andy]

Andy, you officially just became the punchline to a philosophical joke.

You know the thread's dead when sarcasm gets lost.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Anttech


Using a stun gun on a suicide bomber?? do you know the accuracy required to stun an individual? the range? a stun gun is not a guarantee that a suicide bomber will not gain conscious and detonate the bomb.

Not wanting to pi55 on your fire here, but this is exactly what the terrorism squad did when they arrested their last suspect. In this case a) they knew who he was and b) they caught him with a rucksack on his back in his flat at 4 am. They taser'd him, if I heard right. This is presumably what people who are actually trained to deal with this kind of situation are meant to do. Although they did chuck the bag outside into the street, which seems a little weird, but hey!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Anttech


You're missing the whole point!

How would the officers distinguish him as being a suicide bomber from being a normal citizen? Stunning him?? You're biased, given that you use a lot of hindsight. In these situations you cannot 'hope' that an individual is innocent.

So what... shoot everyone who arouses suspicion on the tube just in case?!? What a wonderful world we live in right now.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Let's get nasty: could there have been some "jouissance factor" ?
In that, for ONCE, we are allowed to blow a f***ing desertnigger his brains out, let's not miss the opportunity ?

I'm hanging by a thread, so let's not go that way. Still, I'd definitely call 7 bullets in the brain 'getting your gun off'.

 

[arildno]

As anyone of reasonable judgment knows, suicide bombing by wackos is a small security threat for every country with the sole possible exception of Israel.

The so-called "highly trained" personnell which is given the task of dealing with this annoying phenomenon are in all likelihood religious country bumpkins who are too dumb to be given solid tasks within the regular police force.
Repeatedly, they show themselves to be wholly incompetent in doing their job, not the least because their personal motivation is to "catch a bad guy" and experience the thrill of the chase, rather than making cool deliberations (they are incapable of such thinking) as to the most effective measures in order to actually protect the public as best as one can from such isolated wacko attacks.

There will be many more such examples in which the public is taken by complete surprise by a suicide bomber because the officers nominally in charge of the public's safety are incompetent in doing so, and also a lot more De Mendez cases with totally f**ked-up operations with the murder of innocents by the hands of the police as the basic result.

 

[DM]

Anttech

non-clarity is your dogma not mine! My views are transparent!

Suit yourself, I'm getting sick of exchanging views with a brick wall.

Anttech

The situation in London is nothing like the situation in Israel, it is a total exageration... The two are not comparable!

Is that right? 8 bombs go off in less than 2 weeks and you consider it as "London is nothing like the situation in Israel".

Anttech

Palistein is currently being occupied by Israel, the Israelies are being bombed weekly, and the Palisteins are being shot at weekly... 1000's of people are being killed in the ME conflict every year which has been going on since WWII...

And then you label yourself as 'transparent'. Read my posts; currently, the state of terror, hence fear, is in my opinion in the same scale as Israel, it doesn't mean bombs have to go off every week in order to be in the same state of terror.

Anttech

Show me the similarities? I see none...

NT, assimilation is a great tool!

 

[DM]

El Hombre Invisible

So what... shoot everyone who arouses suspicion on the tube just in case?!? What a wonderful world we live in right now.

I have addressed this point several times.