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

[The Smoking Man]

Would you mind briefly restating your position, I'm a tad too lazy to trawl through the thread again! Do you consider yourself a Brit (haven't 'met' you properly yet!)? Do you agree with the momentary decision to pull the trigger, even if you don't agree with the operational procedure which occurred up until that point? Just curious!

I condemn this thing from the start to the finish.

Confrontation is totally against the rules ... I have posted links to this a couple of times:

POLICE officers are to be issued with guidance on dealing with suicide bombers.

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

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.

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.

A range of tactics can then be used against the bomber - including the use ...

But it seems that every decision since the discovery of the address in the rucksack of one of the unexploded bombs was inevitably the wrong decision.

Most people see this only from the point of view of one thing ... He ran.

Fair enough... BUT

The police had the place under watch for 24 hours and had done nothing to secure or search it.

http://electroniciraq.net/news/2074.shtml][/PLAIN]
What is already known, therefore, is that almost 24 hours before they saw de Menezes emerge from his house, police had put it under surveillance based on information they found at the scene of one of the attempted bombings at lunchtime the day before. If the overriding goal of the police is to prevent further attacks, why did they not raid the house right away? They might have discovered sooner what they found out too late -- that de Menezes was totally uninvolved in any terrorist plot. The police clearly had more than a "split-second" to act and they need to explain why they did not act.

A person erroneously tagged by racial profiling was seen exiting a multi-occupancy dwelling and followed from an unpopulated area to a populated area ... A subway.

I have variously seen that he boarded a bus and that he didn't. If he did ... Target #1 seems to have been skipped and we have seen two of the terrorists a) blow one up and b) fail to blow one up ... the source of this address.

The explosives that MAY have come from this address have been delivered in Rucksacks containing 1.5 gallons of liquid explosive. With him, they suspected a 'vest' which implies 'C4' or 'Semtex' or TNT or another solid form of explosive not as yet demonstrated.

He did not have a rucksack.

He had on a baggy sweat shirt, not a coat, a baseball cap and baggy pants. This sounds like standard fare for South London.

He got off the bus or arrived at the tube were there is a large plaza.

Presumably, the police had been in communication with the terrorist centre response teams by radio and as per the above instructions, if they believed they had a threat, could easily have shut the gates at the subway, evacuated and/or established a perimiter with the multiple automatic-rifle carrying regular forces patroling ALL subways in London.

Once ringed, he could then have been challenged or rather the terrorist squad could have taken over.

As it was, he was allowed to make a phone call with nobody able to recognize he was speaking Portugese.

He was then allowed to stand in line for a ticked thus surrounding himself with bystanders all of whom have stated he was not 'warned' but that they merely put on their blue hats and drew their weapons.

He had been mugged by Brits less than two weeks before according to his relatives.

Now, for whatever reason, he jumped the turnstiles ... they are 5 feet high in an effort to prevent fare dodging... In a vest? Olympic hurdles are set lower and this guy in a pair of baggy pants seems to have made it with no effort and leaving the police eating dust.

Was he scared of attackers or fare dodging ... well if he was standing in line for a ticket up to this point, indications are he was scared. Maybe he thought there was a suicide bomber in the area. Has anyone thought of that?

So he runs down an escalator ... implies it was empty since he was running.

Why not shoot him before he got to the train and risk detonating him there?

For that matter, why was there any trains arriving at the station? If the police were in contact by radio, why hadn't the trains been moved from the station to the tunnel and others prevented from arriving?

Why hadn't all the passengers been moved into the WWII bomb shelters at the station less than 20 feet from the trains which were hardened against V1 rockets and could house over 8,000 people? (Nobody, had planned this in any emergency scenario for this station?)

They had over 20 minutes from him leaving his house to his arrival at the station. Given the previous targets, no contingency was enacted at any level. No evacuations as per the 2003 instructions were put into place.

It is said he 'stumbled when he got onto the train and looked distressed ... He also seems to have had a bullet in his shoulder ... I know this is speculation but ... was he shot in the shoulder as he entered?

He was then taken down by three men who had him pinned faced down.

He then got 7 bullets in the base of his skull at point blank range.

Are you telling me the man couldn't have had a hand run down his back to see if there was a vest present? Lift up his sweatshirt?

No ... this is the worst operation in history for cockups.

This man was executed because of his skin colour making him fit the profile and then every option taken by he police being the wrong one becaue they believed they had their man.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Do you consider yourself a Brit (haven't 'met' you properly yet!)? Do you agree with the momentary decision to pull the trigger, even if you don't agree with the operational procedure which occurred up until that point? Just curious!

I consider myself a bit of a mutt really. I have dual Canadian/British nationality and have worked in 6 countries around the world for an extended period of time.

I lived on Mindanao for 3 years studying the martial arts as a bit of a sabatical. It was in a moslem community. I owned a small farm and had a rebel NPA working for me and I knew the head of the Militia head (I was married to his sister).

I speak a few languages.

 

[Art]

Sorry to disapoint you.

That was just silly propaganda. Libya was very unpopular in the US and the US was a major source of funding for the IRA and so the British and US gov't tried to bracket Libya and the IRA together to cut off funding from american supporters. They also claimed at that time the IRA were connected to Hezbullah, Hamas and the Basque ETA group. Yeah right..

The guy credited with the design of the IRA's mortar is James Monaghan.

The IRA trained extensively in the ROI. When you think about it what possible training could the Libyans supply in the desert that would be useful in N. Ireland?

As for quoting 'Friends of Ulster' and F.A.I.R. as authoritative refs. You are surely kidding I could quote 'An Phoblact' as a rebuttal but I wouldn't insult your intelligence.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

- "Normal" British police don't carry guns. Those officers which do are extremely highly trained, and are often ex-British Marines, and sometimes ex-SAS.

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'?

- 20 degrees Celsius is hot, as far as we're concerned. If I were in London in 20 degrees, I'd be wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Really.

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.

- All this "we're not scared" stuff is nonsense, as far as many Brits are concerned. Many Londoners are scared, and to be honest, they're bloody well allowed to be. Why are they getting on with their lives? Because that's all they can do. For more on this, please see http://iam****ingterrified.com , apologies if the link is filtered. The "why" page is particularly informative.

So you feel safer now innocent people are having the heads opened up on public transport in front of terrified bystanders?

But every single Englishman I've spoken to regarding this incident agrees that pulling that trigger was the right thing to do. They also bear a common sadness that the victim was innocent.

Every single Englishman you've spoken to is a scumbag, to be frank. Anyone adopting the notion that it's better to brutally murder someone rather than spend a moment to determine whether or not they're innocent or guilty can go to hell.

- London is an extremely diverse place, in terms of its multicultural nature. I know white Muslims, black Christians, Asian Christians and, well, white Christians all living in London. Londoners know, perhaps more than residents of any other city, how it's impossible to tell a persons' religion or country of origin just by looking at them. If the police had cause to be tracking this unfortunate chap, let me assure you, it wasn't just the colour of skin which aroused their suspicions.

Sounds like a reason not to judge by colour of skin AT ALL to me. And you're right: "he looked Asian" was only one of the reasons this man was nailed to the floor and blasted in the head 7 times. The others were 'he was overdressed' and 'he lived in the wrong place'.

- What difference does 2, 5 or 8 bullets make anyway?

Well, if one bullet in the brain is enough to kill someone, why would someone choose to fire seven. It's FAR TOO MANY bullets than required, so why did he do it? There is no good reason. The logical answer is something even I can't bring myself to say, but with my experience of British police, doens't actually surprise me.

As I say, these aren't points to be argued on, but I think we should just bear in mind some of the cultural differences which we might have been forgetting about.

Yes, British police are the scum of the Earth. That was my opinion before this incident; that's my opinion now, and it's an opinion based on experience.

Smurf, I'm sure that the marksmen responsible will have to account for and justify their actions. However, I do not expect them to be convicted of any wrongdoing. We'll wait and see, it's silly to speculate any further at the moment though.

For once, I agree with you. The officer, whatever his motives for landing 7 bullets in an innocent man's brain, will not be convicted of anything. Remember the officer caught on CCTV stopping a black man recently released from prison. Three pigs surrounded the guy who backed away. They grabbed him, sprayed mace in his face over and over, unaware they were being filmed. Worst part: a passer-by asked them to stop, so the pig went after him as well, pointing the mace can right in his face. Remember what happened straight after? The cop was temporarily removed from front-line duty. Wasn't even suspended. Remember what happened after that? No me neither - it never came up again. The police look after their own.

Moral of this story: white British policemen can be violent, racist, abusive criminals in uniforms. Anyone see The Secret Policeman? Obviously, good coppers do exist. I've met one. Unfortunately I've met 20 coppers who were either incompetent, apathetic or, more commonly, thugs and bullies in uniforms. Worse than politicians. Worse, even, than judges. Never, ever to be trusted.

 

[Smurf]

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?

 

[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!