DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Thoughts For The Day: Met Police shoot innocent man.

Forums > The General Forum: Thoughts For The Day

Met Police shoot innocent man.

2step-4eva	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 10:57 AM the met police shot a man 5 times in the head on the london tube, thinking he was a suicide bomber, but it turned out to be an innocent brazilian. should the police be allowed to shoot anyone they believe to be a terrorist? this means they can shoot anyone who runs from them, so dont run from the police. i find it worrying that anyone who runs from the police for any reason can be legally shot and killed at the discretion of police. any views?
FraDonaghy	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 11:06 AM Yeah I think it sucks too. One step closer to martial law. Worst thing is that it will probably happen again, because police will confront young muslim men who may panic and run... next thing you know they are dead and the police can get away with it under the "prevention of terrorism" excuse. It is a difficult situation, but why not shoot him once in the leg instead of 5 times in the head? He can't run, and he's still alive. Police will defend themselves saying that out in the field they have to make split second decisions, but to what extent are those decisions going to be swayed by their own prejudices and fears? It is a very bad situation that sadly the "authorities" are in no rush to sort out.
imemine	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 11:10 AM Welcome to the Orwellian days of the 21st century. It’s really a “damned if they do and damned if they don’t situation”. Public opinion would on one hand say that their not doing enough and then something like this happens and we all start being concerned about our freedoms. My heart goes out to this victim’s family! One way or another because of all of this terrorism, any free society is going to have to surrender some of its freedoms to combat this shit! I think we all hope that it doesn’t come to repeat killings of innocent people from trigger happy law enforcement. I frankly don’t have the answers but be assured that Big Brother IS watching. :milla:
chrismacmanus	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 12:15 PM Tony Blair's defence was something along the lines of - If it had been a suicide bomber and if he had not been shot, the police would have recieved greater criticism. A few too many 'ifs' in that statement I think.
zedsalt	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 12:30 PM Law enforcement tends to attract the absolute worst element of society. You can't be sure that an ex-con' is a criminal...or necessarily ever was...but if someone has a badge and a gun, he/she is probably a lawbreaker. Police officers injure/torture/murder so often, I have to assume that the only reason this story even made the papers was the association with terrorism.
MindSculpture	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 2:06 PM Well...there are of course 2 sides to this story... The man in question - a Brazilian electrician working in London - emerged from a flat that the police had been staking out. They then let him get on a bus ( even though a suicide bomber recently blew one up in London ), then plane clothes armed cops stopped him when he got off the bus. He panicked and darted for the nearest underground station ( a bomber recently blew a train up ) jumping over the barrier in a bid to escape. He was then shot 7 times in the back of the head (acording to ITV news). The guy of course was not a terrorist at all. The police should not be shooting innocent civillians, but what if he had been a bomber????
TameasDust	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 2:20 PM true... in extreme cases ... extreme action must be taken ... case in point the FLQ crisis in Canada http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-101/conflict_war/october_crisis/ Hindsite is 20/20
imemine	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 2:56 PM It might very well be within your civil liberties to run from law enforcement but under the circumstances I wouldn’t recommend it. All of this and our lives in general must be viewed through the lens of current events. British police chief Ian Blair accepted "full responsibility" for the shooting and issued an apology to the victim’s family. The victim’s cousin says this: "Apologies are not enough. I believe my cousin's death was a result of police incompetence." Well perhaps but I would hate to be the person having to make that split second decision. I’m curious, if this situation had actually turned out to be a foiled bombing attempt by the British officer, how would this have come to press? I remember that TameasDust!...and yes, hindsite IS 20/20!!!
AgentMGD	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 9:45 AM "should the police be allowed to shoot anyone they believe to be a terrorist?" No the police shouldn't think that every dark-skinned, asian/muslim/Paki-Indian-looking person carrying a backpack is a terrorist. What they did was excessive force - shooting an innocent man 8 times(7 in the head and 1 in the shoulder). Maybe he ran because he didn't understand the police instructions ...maybe he didn't speak very good English. I know a whole lot of "maybes" but take your pick. I have seen excessive force used before here in Chicago - twice. The 1st time a Northwestern football player was shoot numerous times because the officer said he was reaching for his gun(that was a total lie). The 2nd time, an innocent woman was shoot numerous times because the police mistake a cellphone for a gun. All the apologies and monetary compensation in the world will never bring back the innocent lives wrongly murdered(yes using excessive force should be considered as murder)by the police
DeadraveN	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 12:10 PM I'm agreed with Zed. The majority of police seem too eager to abuse their "authority" and special priveleges. A friend of mine was beaten to death by police just outside of Boise, ID. He'd been pulled over for "suspicion of Possesion of narcotics" or some stupid shit like that. He mouthed off, and they killed him. No apologies, no compensation for the family, nothing but a big f-u. Nothing even mentioned in the newspaper, except for the obit. Maybe if someone had whispered the word "terrorism" more action would have been taken... 'course, that was long before 9/11... The point is, yeah, it sucks. Yes, they should have shot the guy in the leg if they were that damn worried, but this shit happens everyday, and sadly, only people who are suspected of terrorism are going to get any attention these days... Thus concludes my longest forum post to date...
shadowself	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 12:45 PM The reports had all been steering clear of the word "innocent" because it would look bad on the police. They had been saying "not involved with the London bombings" as if he was involved with OTHER bombings, just not that one. Bleedin' cowardly.
zedsalt	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 1:05 PM From what I heard on the evening news last night, one of the four suspects they're posting security camera shots of on t.v. is only a suspect because he jumped a turnstile. Or do you suppose he was the only freeloader caught on camera that had what could be considered a Middle Eastern "look"? Buy your tokens/tickets if you're going to ride, folks! Doing otherwise could have some pretty dire consequences!
kingo	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 1:10 PM So the police think they might be confronting a bomber. He's got suspicious clothing that would be sufficient to conceal a bomb. Once they've confronted him, he takes off running. So now they can either let him run, give chase, and hope he doesn't set off the bomb, they can shoot him in the leg and hope he doesn't then set off the bomb, or they can shoot him in such a way as to prevent him from setting off the bomb. It's a no win situation. If the dude hadn't run, it'd be entirely different. And even though I understand that it's gotta be a tough call whether or not to run from police because you may stand to be falsely imprisoned or tortured or killed if you cooperate, the choice to run really leaves legitimate law enforcement with little choice.
Svensta	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 1:14 PM If sufficient circumstantial evidence exists for authorities to approach and question a member of society, then it is that members duty to stop and answer truthfully and completely. What manner of moron flees the police in a city that has recently been the victim of terrorist activity, when he has just completed MORE than enough behavior that would certainly warrant these questions? They weren't arresting him, merely wanting to SPEAK to him. I had my satchel searched just this morning by a police officer, did I try to run away from him? Noooo. And I have no lead poisoning as a result. Moral: If you run from the police, you should expect to be treated as a criminal. Darwin claims another fool.
BOWILLIE	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 1:24 PM they thought he was a bomber..and allowed him to get on the bus? whats wrong with that picture?
Svensta	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 1:59 PM Personal rights. They SUSPECTED it, but respected his rights to privacy until they could no longer allow it to go on unchecked, then they approached him and all hell broke loose.
blueyes2112	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:04 PM it isnt right and as its my profession I wont try and wriggle out of the police making a mistake. But I must say that the evidence and reasons reasons to shoot anyone must have been pretty dammed high! they must have had either a lot of evidence or the male failed fully to comply with the officers at the tube station. What would be said now in all fairness if he had ignored all the police's requests to comply and they had allowed him to just continue and walk on that train and he hadnt been just an innocent man?! We would be criticising the police for letting him go, what if he had then gone onto set off a bomb?!!
freddemillio	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:05 PM I can imagine a few situations where a person might panic and run from a police officer even when this is taking place in a city that has recently experienced some awful acts of terrorism. For example, what if the person is an illegal immigrant or has a family member in his house that is an illegal immigrant? This person might be quite scared to talk to the police and might panic and run. Now, I am not condoning illegal immigration and I readily admit that it is a prosecutable crime, but on the other hand it does not deserve a summary death sentence. There are no easy answers to situations like this and there never will be. And, as was mentioned above, hindsight is 20/20, so it is easy for us to now theorize and philosophize over the situation. I am sure that at the moment the stress on both sides made it quite a different situation. It's a pity that the police officer could not find a non-lethal way to respond. " id="144679">"What manner of moron flees the police in a city that has recently been the victim of terrorist activity, when he has just completed MORE than enough behavior that would certainly warrant these questions?" I can imagine a few situations where a person might panic and run from a police officer even when this is taking place in a city that has recently experienced some awful acts of terrorism. For example, what if the person is an illegal immigrant or has a family member in his house that is an illegal immigrant? This person might be quite scared to talk to the police and might panic and run. Now, I am not condoning illegal immigration and I readily admit that it is a prosecutable crime, but on the other hand it does not deserve a summary death sentence. There are no easy answers to situations like this and there never will be. And, as was mentioned above, hindsight is 20/20, so it is easy for us to now theorize and philosophize over the situation. I am sure that at the moment the stress on both sides made it quite a different situation. It's a pity that the police officer could not find a non-lethal way to respond.
freddemillio	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:07 PM I can imagine a few situations where a person might panic and run from a police officer even when this is taking place in a city that has recently experienced some awful acts of terrorism. For example, what if the person is an illegal immigrant or has a family member in his house that is an illegal immigrant? This person might be quite scared to talk to the police and might panic and run. Now, I am not condoning illegal immigration and I readily admit that it is a prosecutable crime, but on the other hand it does not deserve a summary death sentence. There are no easy answers to situations like this and there never will be. And, as was mentioned above, hindsight is 20/20, so it is easy for us to now theorize and philosophize over the situation. I am sure that at the moment the stress on both sides made it quite a different situation. It's a pity that the police officer could not find a non-lethal way to respond. " id="144680">"What manner of moron flees the police in a city that has recently been the victim of terrorist activity, when he has just completed MORE than enough behavior that would certainly warrant these questions?" I can imagine a few situations where a person might panic and run from a police officer even when this is taking place in a city that has recently experienced some awful acts of terrorism. For example, what if the person is an illegal immigrant or has a family member in his house that is an illegal immigrant? This person might be quite scared to talk to the police and might panic and run. Now, I am not condoning illegal immigration and I readily admit that it is a prosecutable crime, but on the other hand it does not deserve a summary death sentence. There are no easy answers to situations like this and there never will be. And, as was mentioned above, hindsight is 20/20, so it is easy for us to now theorize and philosophize over the situation. I am sure that at the moment the stress on both sides made it quite a different situation. It's a pity that the police officer could not find a non-lethal way to respond.
southwing	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:14 PM USA, Egypt, England, Canada, Spain, th whole world, we're all trying to deal with an idealistic enemy who actuallay have no real goals. They do know they want to upset our way of life, and that they are doing. Its evident just in this forum. Everyday, in every country, security mistakes are made at RR, airports, bus terminals, and military bases, primarily because of the newness of this crap. We are all in a learning stage.In time,we will learn to deal with terrorist,authorities will have the ablility to ID a bad guy. The enemy will either lighten up, be converted, or ELIMINATED!
blueyes2112	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:15 PM I think that is why the police in the UK have now began to train officers in the use of the TAZAR gun, which I believe is already in use in the USA. I will also say to all of you who are not from the UK that over here NOT every officer of the law carries a gun, it involves a very intesive almost 1 year training course to even be issued a gun. I am a serving officer of the law and do get a lot of grief where I work, I am not issued a gun, but if I was in that situation and the male was a target/suspect then I cant even say one way or another if I would have shot him or not. Its all a question of national security, do i let another bomb possibly go off in the london underground which may kill hundreds of innocent people or do i shoot one man who innocently or not is making off from me into a tube station with a bag on his shoulder. We forget that this officer may now be put on a murder charge foor defending his country, i guess thats the worst part of it for me cos I know how hard it is. 1 decision changes everything.....
freddemillio	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:23 PM I personally doubt that increased security or intelligence will cause the enemy to lighten up or to be converted. Bullets and bombs are rather ineffective against terrorism. Someone who is ready to be a suicide bomber is not scared of dying for his/her cause. The bombs and bullets have little dissuasive power for a suicide bomber. Bombs and bullets treat the symptoms but they don't cure the illness. You need to eliminate the root cause and not the people. Unfortunately, as long as the root cause still exists there will be another person ready to fill the shoes of the last one that was eliminated.
LostYears	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:36 PM i might be wrong but i didnt think that london police were allowed to carry guns
southwing	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:45 PM Oh the bomber is scared, be sure of that. He's convinced (scared), that this is what he has to do, by a group of cowards (they ain't carrying no bag). Perhaps his family is in danger (if he doesn't do it), or he's threatened some how some way, or promised rewards and than told its done in the name of (?). I do agree the root cause has to be eliminated.
southwing	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:46 PM Oh the bomber is scared, be sure of that. He's convinced (scared), that this is what he has to do, by a group of cowards (they ain't carrying no bag). Perhaps his family is in danger (if he doesn't do it), or he's threatened some how some way, or promised rewards and than told its done in the name of (?). I do agree the root cause has to be eliminated.
imemine	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 2:46 PM You are right Freddie! I simply do not see any way to fix the “root” cause of these actions. For the terrorist, this is a religious battle to the death and consisting of complete annihilation of all things West! A Jihad-- Jihad is a struggle, it is a struggle against all that is “perceived” as “evil” in the cause of that which is “perceived” as “good”, a cosmic and epic struggle spanning time and all dimensions of human thought and action, and transcending the physical universe. The West is percieved as the “evil”---these terrist actions are percieved as just in the battle of “good” verses “evil”. How can you protect yourself against that if your birthright is the soul cause of their percieved predjudice. Racial profiling at the highest level.
jd2theog	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 3:05 PM The police just go gunho all the time,they shoot first ask questions later,And the sad fact is they can get away with it cause they are law enforcement officers.Very few are convicted,or suspended. I think they should not be able to shoot somebody,...unless they are shot at first,or the person they are facing has hostages,or has just killed somebody. Any-other time they(the fuzz,cops,5-0,police,pigs)should have another gun that fires rubber bullets,or sand bags. The next part is unrelated,but somewhat relevant. As a kid I was some what wild,and had my share of run-ins with the law(under-age drinking,& other things)I got slamed around more than once, I actually got kidnapped by the police!! I was standing by my car on private property,waiting on a buddy to pull me out of the mud.I watched the vehicle coming down the road and thought it was my friend who owned the property so I kept the cold beer in my hand. Well I was shocked to see a city cop pulling up!!Being under age I threw the beer,and started eating gum,he asked what was going on and I told him I was stuck and was waiting on my friend who I had just called.Well he wasted no time at all and did'nt like my story so had me in hand cuffs and in the frount of his cop car before he asked for a breath-alizer,or read me my rights. Thats when shit got crazy!He then Chased a speeding car for about 5-miles with me in the front seat hand cuffed with no seatbelt on!And let me tell you I was fly'n all over in side that cop car,busted my head a good 3 times. After that,...he got out and wrote a ticket and sent that person on the way,he then pulled me out of the car and gave me a breath-alizer,0.6,then he told me they were searching my car and they found some illegal stuff(beer&pot),and they were having my car towed.When I said how can you search my car with-out me there,he became rather up-set and bounced me off the back of his car before telling me to watch my head as he opened the back door to throw me back in the car and take me to the jail or as he said THE FREE HOTEL.Well after I bailed out and contacted a lawyer and told him the story,They droped all charges.I could of sued the police dept,but who wants to be on the police sh*t list.
blueyes2112	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 6:35 PM Some police officers are trained and allowed to carry guns most however in the UK aren't! I thin you will find that the police in the UK do not go into situationa in a 'GUNG-HO' way, this may well be the case in the USA and much of eurpor bu I assure you the police here are well aware of the probelms we face. and the difficult situations we come accross. Who asks the questions when people get beat up on holiday in portugal for example?! innocent people die or get injured in holiday destinations all over the world an nobody ask questions then, they blame it on the drink. These days we live in a world there terror is brought into our lives by extremists not EVERYDAY PEOPLE!!!
AgentMGD	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 8:41 PM "I think that is why the police in the UK have now began to train officers in the use of the TAZAR gun, which I believe is already in use in the USA." Tassaring people is not the solution either. Chicago police alone have killed a 3 people using a tassar. There have been other reports of deaths from a police tassar across the US. Those thousands of electric jolts can cause a serious cardiac arrest(heart attack)on the young and old. And now I hear they want to allow private citizens to own their own tassar ...good grief, what a society we are leaving future generations...
imemine	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 9:35 PM Agent………… “what a society we are leaving future generations.” True---so very true! Curious though, are you including our friendly neighborhood terrorist in that “we” as well? Please enlighten us as to what might be the solution.
ChillinBuzz	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 9:42 PM wasnt standard police who were carrying the guns. trained officers who shouldve known better than to assume a man who jumps the turnstiles, runs on and off a train and resists arrest is automatically a terrorist, then shoot him seven times in the head not five and one bullet elsewhere. what was going through the man's mind to run from armed police if he had nothing to hide? the site of half a dozen guns in the average Brit's face would be enough to make us shit ourselves rigid. this dude made himself a moving target and a very twitchy and paranoid officer blew him away. sad but inevitable. both sides were wrong.
freddemillio	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 6:13 AM I obviously do not have the solution to any terrorism problem. That would be a wonderful thing to have and give to the world, but unfortunately it will not be something easy to create and implement. I do not think that religious differences are at the root of the issue. I see them as still being rather high up on the cause and effect tree. I think that we get closer to the root when considering grossly unequal distribution of wealth ( aka poverty ) and corruption. I see these as being located in both rich and poor countries. Treating those issues might be more efficient. That is probably too idealistic and utopian of a view. :mushroomcloud:
Svensta	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 8:13 AM I do agree that this was a sad, sad mistake and very unfortunate. He was indeed a complete moron, but being a moron should invoke a slap to the head and not multiple gunshots. Honestly though, the fault predominantly lies with the deceased. Freddie points out a few reasons that the man might have had for running. Guess what? All criminal reasons. Now if you are a criminal, maybe running IS the preferred way to handle things. But lets use a LITTLE common sense. I fit the profile for what is currently the most likely terrorist suspect (young male with dark skin and dark hair) I am in the subway system acting at least SOMEWHAT suspiciously. The cops approach, I KNOW they are a bit paranoid. I'm not a terrorist either and EVEN I AM PARANOID. Should I run? 2 months ago, he'd get away or at least only get tackled and shuttled into a paddywagon. Now, thanks to the terrorists, he gets killed. Freddie also says that this isn't the way to cure the problem. I agree totally. But the security guard standing in the London underground is NOT an agent of the cure, he is security put in place to limit the symptoms. He made his gut choice and did what he felt he was forced to do. JD is an example of the poorly-worded distaste (if not outright hatred) people have for authority, especially when the authorities make a mistake. I don't know about you, JD, but I do make mistakes at my job sometimes. Granted that police mistakes can cost people their lives, who ELSE is going to do the job? You pick us out an army of infallible clones, and I will be right next to you demanding this guy's badge. Until then, all humans screw up, even the police with guns and surgeons with scalpels. You just use as much common sense and luck as you can to avoid being around when they err. Again: You. Do. NOT. Run. From. The. Police. Ever.
freddemillio	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 12:00 PM Svensta, I appreciate your posts and point of view.
zedsalt	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 2:13 PM There was some poor sap on the roadside Sunday night when I was going out for dinner. There was an area of about 25 sq. feet of his belongings strewn about, getting soaked in the driving rain, including two guitar amps, while the rear seat was being removed from his car by a police officer. I ate at a nice leisurely pace, ran a few errands, and when I headed home a couple hours later, there was the driver loading his stuff back into the car. The police had all long since departed, because apparently, the only crime the guy committed was a DWLD-driving while looking different. Running from the police IS terribly bad idea. If you want to avoid having any large amounts of money you have on hand being "confiscated"; if you don't want the vents on your car broken out, your seats slashed open, the cardboard and insulating material in the back of your glovebox shredded, etc., there are things you can do: have a "normal" haircut wear "normal" clothing don't drive a nice car, unless your skin is pasty white and you're at least 35 yrs. old for Pete's sake, don't put bumper stickers on your car that label you as a fan of any band "associated with drug use" *don't "race mix"...whether you're deciding who to stand and talk to in public or who's riding in whose car... There are probably a lot more that I should mention. And I probably should mention that all of the scenarios I mentioned happened to me pre-9/11, with the exception of the poor sap I saw Sunday, and the confiscation of money without an arrest...those happen all the time.
blueyes2112	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 3:39 PM well done SVENSTA, you managed to put accorss all I was trying to in my threads!
Svensta	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 3:50 PM BTW: When I am in these debates, please don't ever let the color of my bolt dictate the way you attempt to get your point across or to make you hesitate before attacking any position I take. This is a debate, so go for it! I'm not the end-all voice here, nor do I believe in editing or deleting anything other than outright personal attacks (which is damned rare). okay fine, sometimes I edit my spelling errors. HAH! I can do that! /no, I can't
2step-4eva	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 5:00 PM worry not sven i will not let the colour of ur bolt dictate my response. one thing that annoys me is people saying if u have done nothing wrong then u dont need to fear the police...the guy might have been an illegal immigrant, or he might have been possessing illegal drugs. whether this is a bad thing is open to debate but as a principle u shouldn't get shot for things like this...my fear is that the more terrorism occurs the more vague the government's laws get. you can be treated as a terrorist even when there's no evidence. im not having a go at the individual cops here. they are only human, and they make mistakes. i feel sorry for the guy who did the shooting, who didnt intend any of this. i believe that we should be able to run from the cops without fear of getting shot, because who says that all the laws the government makes are right? we have to be able to resist them, and this is in everyone's interests, not just the criminals. terrorism is also a problem that will never be cured by tough policing or harsh security, and these powers for police are unnecessary i think.
LostYears	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 5:50 PM yeah thats the one thing that i never really liked about the parliamentary system is that there is no set in stone constitution or bill of rights, maybe thats a closed minded or un educated view, but i dont know. feel free to tell me im a ignorant asshole but at least clarify what i m wrong about
AgentMGD	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 8:45 PM "Curious though, are you including our friendly neighborhood terrorist in that “we” as well? Please enlighten us as to what might be the solution." imemine - call me "olive branch waving peacenik" all you want but i don't advocate or support war as the end all means to dealing with terrorists, ie Iraq and Afghanistan. i don't support backing down to their demands either. there will always be radicals within every religious group wanting to spread their message to others in this world and if they have to take innocent lives with them to the grave - they will do it in the solemn name of God. throughout our world history - there has been a group or groups of religious cultures taking this same message via war or by other means since Biblical times to now. a solution - wish i had one up my sleeve to satisfy everyone who are reading this however i don't. perhaps in future generations when we are all gone ...6ft under and dust again perhaps... just maybe - there will be peace...
AgentMGD	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 8:49 PM also i want to add - two wrongs(the terroists and our current world leaders)doesn't make what they're doing right. the current strategy presented by both sucks! bombing buses and trains is not going to stop the US and the UK troops from bombing cities even though this "war" was based on lies and bad intel info.
bender	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 11:19 PM yea i agree now someone do call me some weird name for peacelover but our world leaders are a little trigger happy
blueyes2112	Date: July 28, 2005 @ 5:47 AM My consipracy theory, a little off the topic but never mind! Certainly Tony Blair seemed to run as soon as Bush shouted "LETS GO TO WAR" and now after their friendship was waining a little and Blair is thinking of pulling out his troops. The G8 meet up on the wednesday and Bush is looking extremely nervous for some bizarree reason! Maybe jet lag maybe someting else?!..... break to thursday morning and there we have some terrorists killing 60 or so innocent people on the public transport system. Tony Blair then makes a statement about raging war on terror yet again, and bush shows his agreement that things should go on as usual yet he stays uup in scotland and tells his troops based in the UK that theyre not allowed anywhere near London?! a little bizarre to me! No after these attacks Blair and Bush are friends again, blair isnt going to pull his troops out and we have our own war on terror in the UK! Afterall the CIA were the ones who originally funded AlQauida, gave them all the weapons etc. Maybe just maybe these two are linked in someway?!.............
chrismacmanus	Date: July 28, 2005 @ 10:11 AM hmmm, conspiracy theories don't really hold much water. I don't think that Bush was looking all that nervous - it's just him looking like a moron as usual, he's not the most dignified or polished politician in the world after all. I do think that part of the problem has been Blair's relationship with/support of Bush. The two of them were all to happy to go to war in the first place: Blair had earlier sought the support of Bill Clinton to commit troops to the Balkans (which Clinton was not prepared to do); and when the time came, Bush was all too happy to finish Daddy's botched and uncomplete war in Iraq. I think that the war was inevitable on account of the 2 major players, and it has clearly cost allied countries quite dearly - e.g. Madrid bombings & London bombings. Has the war left us off any better, or could an alternative way of delaing with the situation been sought? - I, for one don't know the answer to that. As for the question about the parlimentary system - I don't really think that an uncodified vs written constitution would have really prevented this from happening. Would a written conctitution have prevented this? Is there anything about whether it is right or not to shoot-to-kill an international terrorist in the American constitution? Anyway, that's beside the point. Back to the recent police shooting. This is not the first time that this has happened in recent years in the UK. Most recently was the case of Harry Stanley in 1999, who was shot dead as he walked out of a pub carrying a table leg that the police thought was a sawn-off shotgun. There have also been numerous cases of shoot-to-kill in the eraly '90s in Northern Ireland (and Gibraltar) where suspected (and indeed confirmed) IRA members were shot dead. So clearly. Thge question was asked - is it right for the police to shoot anyone who runs away from them at their own discretion. I really don't think that it is acceptable for a handfull of police officers to literally act as judge, jury and executioner as they have done so many times in the recent past.
chrismacmanus	Date: July 28, 2005 @ 10:12 AM rant
TameasDust	Date: July 29, 2005 @ 2:11 AM
bender	Date: July 29, 2005 @ 2:51 PM i agree man i agree
idealist	Date: July 29, 2005 @ 3:26 PM "I do agree that this was a sad, sad mistake and very unfortunate. He was indeed a complete moron, but being a moron should invoke a slap to the head and not multiple gunshots." ... i agree but the poor guy was in the middle of a terrorist war on britain, although he was not a terrorist he was not supposed to be here as his visa ran out a while ago, so i can see why he. thing is you cannot run from armed police when there is such violence and hatred in the world...
idealist	Date: July 29, 2005 @ 3:29 PM "see why he ran*" sorry
mrjonnyd	Date: July 30, 2005 @ 6:04 AM Why didn't they intercept him before getting to the tube? How come it got to the point where this guy was far enough away to sprint and make it onto a train? I think they had to shoot then... but that was bad police work, just following him - then having to run - then having to shoot.
AgentMGD	Date: July 30, 2005 @ 10:49 AM it was still a senseless act of murder - he wasn't a wearing a thick heavy coat as first reported. oh please remember, the same CIA is the one who put Saddam into power back in the 80s and funding all these radical groups. not a conspiracy theory - sound facts
chrismacmanus	Date: July 30, 2005 @ 1:13 PM That's not what the earlier post on the conspiracy theory was referring to. It was suggested above that the CIA had something to do with the rise in terror in order to consolidate the allied forces' waning support of the US.
orgasmotron	Date: July 30, 2005 @ 4:11 PM a) he probably didn't know he was at a house being staked out by terrorists. b) he got on a bus because it was probably his only way home. c) he was approched by plain-clothed officers whom he didn't know had any relation to an anti-terrorist unit probably. so really, this guy is going about his buisness, cops try to talk to him, he probably thinks he is getting busted for over staying his welcome, and then he gets capped in his dome. Not his fault. But at the same time you must respect the decisions of the police officers, if they believed the where acting in the best public interest, it isn't really there fault either. In the end, in my opinion, that guy was just pretty freakin' unlucky and the cops where just doing their jobs.
blueyes2112	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 4:49 PM Think your spot on orgasmatron!
Alecs	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 9:23 AM Well what do you expect to happen when you a police force that normally does not carry fire arms a gun for every officer when they are not trained to use them and in a panic. nothing good can come of it.
AgentMGD	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 9:52 AM according today's news from the UK: Leaked documents appear to contradict the official account of how police mistook a Brazilian man for a suicide bomber and shot him. The papers, from the probe into Jean Charles de Menezes' death, and leaked to ITV, suggest he was restrained before being shot eight times. (7 of them to the head) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm
psypig	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 11:36 AM I think this was a terrible tradgedy but it doesn't help the way that (UK) journalists cover stories like this. If they hadn't have shot him there would've been a similar reaction. If they'd never known about him and he did turn out to be a bomber there would have been a similar reaction. People seem happy to condemn the police for their mistakes but forget about all the successes, especially journalists looking for stories. I agree that this was a terrible thing to happen and it isn't right that we can end up with situations like this.
shadowself	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 12:16 PM Yep... he was not wearing a padded jacket, did not jump the turnstyle, was not warned, was not acting suspiciously, and the reason he ran at all was to catch the train that he was SITTING IN when he was shot. http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163038&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163185&contentPK=13029120
Snoogans775	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 9:20 PM quite a sacrifice for all the good the police has done though.
wailingmiserere	Date: August 23, 2005 @ 2:17 PM Psypig... 'if they hadn't have shot him there would've been a similar reaction. If they'd never known about him and he did turn out to be a bomber there would have been a similar reaction.' No, there wouldn't, because he was an innocent man on his way to work. He was executed in public, just because he lived in a certain block of flats and looked slightly 'foreign'. And there hasn't been any backlash against the police for the 7 July attacks. No one is blaming them for what happened then. Just because police enforce the law doesn't mean they are immune from the law. Shooting dead a suspect who is behaving strangely and running from the police is one thing. This is a completely different situation. The people responsible for this should be prosecuted. Not necessarily the officers who fired the guns, but whoever gave the order.
zedsalt	Date: August 24, 2005 @ 1:25 PM "Just because police enforce the law doesn't mean they are immune from the law." It damn well shouldn't, but it almost always does. That's why "Law Enforcement" has replaced "The Wealthy" as the demographic group I think most likely to break the law. It seems to be accepted by the general public that the police HAVE to break the law in order to enforce it. All of the garbage in movies and on T.V. about "perps gettin' off on technicalities" doesn't spur folks into legal reform efforts; apparently it just makes the public accept illegal actions by the police.
mattbanx	Date: August 24, 2005 @ 4:25 PM There are cops that think often that they are giving a message shooting holes in to suspects. Systematic killing is the gravest form of narcism. If that is not executed just right, it can turn to resentment and terrorism. I find it strange that a countries law abiding citicenry has fewer rights than child rapists and also terrorists that would cut our heads off. Crime equals litigation, that along side of money. Most who are imprisoned are not even a threat to society. That may have more to do with the pantywastes in charge of the laws than the cops. The police are our front line against crime. Even though too many of them are bullies. I may have thought the suspect could have had a bomb strapped to him and ready to go off. But 5 times in the head?? I hope these were unavoidable situations of what the cops do like that. Their just as likely to commit crime as anyone else. I try to think of how I might be if I had that power. Good people get screwed by far less. Some are sitting amongst our juries.
MindSculpture	Date: August 25, 2005 @ 7:36 AM So, all the footage from the 10 or so cctv cameras managed to somehow be blank... now there's a surprise eh?

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: