London cops shoot suspect/NY Bag searches......

ok,so for those that havent seen the new today....

London police shot and killed a suspect,basically becuse he was wearing a large jacket....

there was no bomb reported on him or anywhere in his possesion,yet they kill him...

what THE fuck!!!!!!


now in NY they are doing Random searches.....

what THE fuck!!!!


and there's some dumb fuck little girls from myold city(knox,TN) that were injured in the first "attacks",NOW one one them is writing a book about it(and of course,they keep saying god did this and that)......

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!



discuss,or just join me in a collective "what the fuck"(in all caps)...



F.T.W,

K.K.....

it's the end of the world as we know it... and i feel fine.


seriously though, when the news gets too heavy like this, i just tell the girlfriend to break out the rubber gloves, home enima kit & crisco and get down for some hot and heavy cleansing action in the tub...kind of a symbolic ritual to rid ourselves of the depressing news in the world.

Uhm, KK, they didn't shoot him just for wearing a large jacket....the officers who shot him were plain clothes as well, which suggests he was an identified target...as far as the news is saying over here, they suspect he is (or rather was) one of the failed suicide bombers from yesterday.

Remember, suicide bombers generally don't care too much about CCTV or escape routes, because they figure they're going to be dead soon, hence they get careless.

Frankly, I think they did the right thing....if they just wounded him, and he proceeded to detonate a suicide bomb, there'd be another 15 or so dead bodies instead of just his. The guy had vaulted a barrier when challenged, then proceeded to run onto a packed underground train. There's no way the train would have left the station, and he's cornered....what would you expect a suicide bomber to do in a situation like that...give himself up and come along quietly? They eliminated the threat as far as I'm concerned.

from what i've heard,yes they were plain clothes,and yes ,they may have been following the man...

BUT what also heard was that the man did NOT have any bombs on him...

now if somone doesn't have a bomb/gun/knife ,anything....what right do they have to shoot him.....

first of all it's not very "human" but that opinon...

2nd he could have given information....



but i could have heard an early report,maybe he did have a bomb on him....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypnotic Vampire

Frankly, I think they did the right thing....

---

I agree. The rotten sod was asking for it.

I've not heard any confirmed reports of a bomb or weapon of any kind (someone mentioned a bomb belt, but I've not heard it from anywhere trustworthy yet), but I don't think it matters too much in a case like this....if you assume he's unarmed and he isn't....well, you've got another 15 or so corpses and bereaved families.

I agree it would have been a whole lot better to have taken him alive for interrogation purposes, but like I say, shooting a guy in the leg isn't going to stop him from setting off a suicide bomb. Shooting him in the head will, however (unless they have it wired up to a heart rate monitor or something :D ).

As for the long, padded coat he was wearing, a lot of civilian eyewitnesses have said it was a very odd choice given the warm weather in London today, so that would have only served to heighten suspicions as to what he may (or may not) have had concealed under it.

Quote:

---

"We just live in a world where, sadly, these kinds of security measures are necessary," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg,

---

What bugs me about this (I mean besides the invasion of privacy, the innafectiveness of it and... well it is a long list) is that you are more likely to be killed by non terrorist means. Imagine if the same amount of time and energy was spent responding to domestic violence, or stopping reckless drivers. When you compare the number of deaths caused by those compared to the number of terrorsist cause deaths it gets preety impressive. But familiarity breeds contempt. People would rather get illegally searched for the very rare bomb than be nconvienience by cops actually hammering reckless drivers.

Hell influenza will likely kill more this year than terrorists, and the estimated $900,000 a day could stop a lot more deaths. But randomly searching people bags will accomplis so much. :rolleyes:

apparently he had nothing to do with the bombings yesturday and didnt have a bomb on him today they shot down well an innocent man or so im led to belive watching the news on channel 4 and why did they need to shoot him 5 times at cloase range anyway i mean if he was guilty he would have been more use alive?

my point exactly....

thank you Miss Purple :D .....

This is how I see the shooting..You have a guy with a heavy jacket in the middle of summer in an area that has clearly been targeted for attack...and he didn't stop when told to by the cops...

Now I'm sorry but it does not take a friggin genius to think "Hey, maybe I should stop and let em search me." Instead he did not...so BANG!.

It's not like this is unheard of...if he was "innocent" then like normal citizens you put up with the search...in this case it was not exactly uncalled for. I'm sorry but IN A CASE LIKE THIS...you stop not get defensive ant try to outrun a bullet.

As far as random searches go...what's the big deal? retail stores have the same policy that they exercise with glee on minorities (oh how I love letting them go through my stuff so they can be sure I didn't steal their crap) so having this done at subways, trains, and you know...AIRPORTS...is no big deal. These places should already have such searches to begin with...

Where I think it goes too far is the 1001 camera system that can peek inside peoples home or having a search done to get to your own home...but with buisnesses already heavily doing it...it's sadly not too far off.

Does it work? Doubt it...random searches are too much like a hopefull loterry junkie in my eyes. Would rather have something that can detect the actual chemicals needed for a bomb or some type of technology or system to keep an eye out for that.

People use such systems to transport all sorts of illegal shit though...and again if you're part of a minority you;re already used to being illegally searched by cops...so really this changes nothing for me personally...just another idiot I gotta show my bag too.

WHAT THE FUCK
~collectively and stuff~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

What bugs me about this (I mean besides the invasion of privacy, the innafectiveness of it and... well it is a long list) is that you are more likely to be killed by non terrorist means. Imagine if the same amount of time and energy was spent responding to domestic violence, or stopping reckless drivers. When you compare the number of deaths caused by those compared to the number of terrorsist cause deaths it gets preety impressive. But familiarity breeds contempt. People would rather get illegally searched for the very rare bomb than be nconvienience by cops actually hammering reckless drivers.

Hell influenza will likely kill more this year than terrorists, and the estimated $900,000 a day could stop a lot more deaths. But randomly searching people bags will accomplis so much. :rolleyes:

---

amen to that.


Ok, so this guy is suspicious looking... ya know, because it's really out of the ordinary for a person in london to wear a coat...wow, they really said that with a straight face? I guess they've never actually been to london then... and this man is seen fleeing from an area where a bombing attempt has just taken place (if it was me I definatly would have stuck around to see if any more bombs were going off in my area when a bunch of people had just been killed by bombs the other day. who wouldn't?) so lets' assume for the sake of arguement that the "better safe then sorry" philosophy is applicable here... what ever happened to the right to a fair trail? just becuase a person is suspicious or uncooperative with a bunch of guys that aren't wearing police uniforms and look like civilians, it doesn't give the police the right to execute him (yeah that really proves how much better we are then the terrorists). why couldn't they have used non-lethal force to disable him, like those handy tasers? or did they not have enough of those to supply the police force because they are all being used in elementary schools on little kids?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

amen to that.


Ok, so this guy is suspicious looking... ya know, because it's really out of the ordinary for a person in london to wear a coat...wow, they really said that with a straight face? I guess they've never actually been to london then... and this man is seen fleeing from an area where a bombing attempt has just taken place (if it was me I definatly would have stuck around to see if any more bombs were going off in my area when a bunch of people had just been killed by bombs the other day. who wouldn't?) so lets' assume for the sake of arguement that the "better safe then sorry" philosophy is applicable here... what ever happened to the right to a fair trail? just becuase a person is suspicious or uncooperative with a bunch of guys that aren't wearing police uniforms and look like civilians, it doesn't give the police the right to execute him (yeah that really proves how much better we are then the terrorists). why couldn't they have used non-lethal force to disable him, like those handy tasers? or did they not have enough of those to supply the police force because they are all being used in elementary schools on little kids?

---

Folks, you really need to read the reports before going off with the knee jerk reactions. He was not randomly stopped, he was an identified suspect who was being followed by plain clothes officers. When challenged by the officers, he fled, vaulting over the barrier running into the station, and then on to a packed train...a train that was never going to leave the station with him on it, so he had effectively cornered himself....what do you think a cornered suicide bomber is going to do, if he's wearing some sort of explosive device? Are you really that naive to think he wouldn't blow himself up?

It's unfortunate, but with suicide bombers, you can't afford to wound them unless you are 100% sure that they are unarmed, and is anyone here going to volunteer to pat down a suspected suicide bomber? I don't think so....the only thing that's going to stop them detonating the bomb is if they are already dead. If this guy was innocent, why did he run after police identified themselves to him?

Like I say, better 1 dead body than 20.

As for the coat, Morning Glory, it was a warm day in London, and he was wearing a long padded coat, perfect for concealing things under. If you had an identified terror suspect linked with suicide bombings, dressed like that on a hot day, could you honestly say (with a straight face) that he was just feeling a little cold? Just a little pointer, but if a guy walks into a bank with a balaclava over his head, it's probably not there to protect his face from the chilly winds, you know?

Also, as you're not in possession of the facts, no bombing attempt had taken place, and he was not seen 'fleeing the area'....he was fleeing the Police (who had already identified themselves as Police...that's why he was running), plain and simple.

As for tasers.....good idea. Let's pass 1000's of volts through him (assuming we hit him and not an explosives-laden vest) and pray the explosives don't go off. How is it most explosives are detonated again....something to do with a wire and an electrical charge, isn't it? ;)

Non-lethal force? Sure...you wrestle the suicide bomber to the ground then. Assuming that you (or you and a colleague) can both successfully gain control of his arms before he can set the bomb off (and assuming he needs his arms to detonate it in the first place), it's a great idea...in theory. In practice, it would most likely mean 20 or so dead.


Speaking of patting down suicide bombers, has anyone seen that 'Third World Bomb Squad' clip that's doing the rounds? Nasty:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypnotic Vampire

Like I say, better 1 dead body than 20.
Nasty:eek:

---

Now that all depends on if the body is yours or not doesn't it?

I mean, What if man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents? Running from the cops, even while wearing a heavy coat is not a capital offence in the UK is it?

When Armed Police ask you to stop, you stop....if you haven't done anything wrong, why run?

In the current situation, why run into a tube station and onto a packed commuter train. He may not have been a suicide bomber, and may not be in any way connected, but given the situation, I would have pulled the trigger on him as well. There's no way you could afford to take the chance.

As for my dead body.....no, I would have stopped. I've been stopped by Police before, and it's a minor inconvenience at worst. If a Police officer asked you to stop, are you telling me you'd run off as fast as possible and expect them not to give chase? Do you think if some Arabic-looking guy in a bulky coat started running across the lawn towards the White House that the Secret Service agents would just say 'aw, he probably just wants a closer look' or do you think they'd shoot first, ask questions later? If some guy vaults the guardrail at a Presidential walkabout, do you think they'd assume he was just a real big Bush fan and wanted to give the Prez a hug, or would they cap him?

The guy outside Downing St. co-operated with the Police and wasn't shot....the other guy did everything you'd expect a suicide bomber to do and paid the ultimate price for it....hopefully others will learn from his mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypnotic Vampire

When Armed Police ask you to stop, you stop....if you haven't done anything wrong, why run?

---

haven't you ever heard of those police chases were someone has run just becuse there nervous,or skitzo,or anything....

while it may be incredibly stuipid...

you can't shoot someone for their stuipidity.....

I'll be just wtf... couple rumors... after main bomb asembla' escaped to egipt the new one placed smaler detonators than needed......

this is interesting:
firsth attack that was 2 weeks ago and guys that did that was especting to walk away because they were told that bombs were timed.... they have been fooled.... interesting... huh?

Yay, rumors. Some dude's still dead.

Maybe it's the fact that I'm Canadian and had to go through the whole why-capital-punishment-is-bad thing in my public education law class, but I believe there should be a bit more than a suspicion when you're aiming to kill a guy. I mean, fuck, there are non-lethal means to bring a person down. We keep researching larger and more efficient ways to kill the fuck out of everyone, but if we don't want to actually kill a person, what do we do?

*grumping, waving of fork*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypnotic Vampire

all that shit you said.

---

I guess you are correct that I am not in full possesion of the facts since an actual news article wasn't posted on here, the only thing I'm basing it on is what YOU said about it. such as, the police were chasing "one of the failed suicide bombers from yesterday"... then you tell me that "no bombing attempt had taken place". what the fuck? I think you are the one missing a few things here.

as far as all that jibberish about what to do with a suicide bomber.. that sounds really good.. until you consider the fact that the man who was shot DID NOT HAVE A BOMB. there's a fine line between what to do with a person you know is about to commit a crime or is linked to terrorrist actvity or just some guy that may be a terrorrist, and may have a bomb, or might just be wearing a coat and acting like an idiot.

and I really don't appreciate your racist comment about arabs. it makes me not want to take your views very seriously.

Funny.....I always thought the "Bobbies" just carried those cute lil' sticks and those hats that look like boobs.

They carry guns??? who knew???

On a serious note.. who the hell believes the press anyways, if they want you shot...you get shot, no matter who you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evilbink

Funny.....I always thought the "Bobbies" just carried those cute lil' sticks and those hats that look like boobs.

They carry guns??? who knew???

---

no. I think thats just when theyre chasing aorund guys in gorilla costumes to goofy benny hill music in sped up film motion....sigh. unfortuantely, the guy shot? news today indicates he (drum roll...........) WAS NOT connected to the bombings......wow. if it was somewhere out ehre, the cops woul probably get suspended for a few months then put back on the beat-what do they do on the other side of the pond for killing a fleeing person that is still not verified as being armed or unarmed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

I guess you are correct that I am not in full possesion of the facts since an actual news article wasn't posted on here, the only thing I'm basing it on is what YOU said about it. such as, the police were chasing "one of the failed suicide bombers from yesterday"... then you tell me that "no bombing attempt had taken place". what the fuck? I think you are the one missing a few things here.

as far as all that jibberish about what to do with a suicide bomber.. that sounds really good.. until you consider the fact that the man who was shot DID NOT HAVE A BOMB. there's a fine line between what to do with a person you know is about to commit a crime or is linked to terrorrist actvity or just some guy that may be a terrorrist, and may have a bomb, or might just be wearing a coat and acting like an idiot.

and I really don't appreciate your racist comment about arabs. it makes me not want to take your views very seriously.

---

Firstly, I did not say he was one of the failed suicide bombers, but that they suspect he is (or rather was) one of the failed suicide bombers from yesterday. (see my first post). There's a slight difference between the two.

Secondly, no bombing attempt had taken place...the failed attempts were the day before. I specifically stated that no bombing attempts had taken place to counter your assertion that this man is seen fleeing from an area where a bombing attempt has just taken place (from your first post). The man was not running anywhere until the Police identified themselves and challenged him, and there was no bomb or bomb scare to be running away from.

You say there is a fine line about what to do with someone who might be a terrorist and might have a bomb, and someone that you know definitely is, but with the situation as it is, the Police cannot afford to take the chance. As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck....well, if it's wearing a bulky coat, flees when ordered to stop by Police, and makes a beeline for a packed commuter train, given what has taken place in the past month, then I think it's a fair assumption to make. Yes, an unconnected innocent has been killed, and that is eminently regrettable, but he sure did everything in his power to make the Police think he was a suicide bomber, and with an enemy like that, you know they cannot afford to take chances, because if they're wrong, and he is a suicide bomber, and he is carrying a bomb, then you've got a whole lot of dead people to clean up. There's no option to wound either...shoot them in the leg, they can still detonate....shoot them in the body, you might set the explosives off yourself. A headshot is the only way to be sure, unfortunately.

Now, would you care to clarify what you mean by 'my racist comment about Arabs'? Having reviewed my posts, I can't see any, and the only mention of Arabs is the line 'Arabic-looking guy', and I fail to see how that is racist. Would you have prefered it if I had used something like 'person of indeterminate ethnic origin'? (PS: You'll notice I changed 'guy' to 'person', in case you wanted to accuse me of being sexist as well :thumb: )

I think you owe me an apology on that one MG, because I certainly do not appreciate the accusation, especially when it is absolutely unwarranted. :mad:

of all the news available to me i gotta say the cops must have not know what they where doing and should be jailed for shooting a suspect who was unarmed (in the US that would most likely be charged as 2nd degree murder) for all they kknew he could have been a drug dealer or something and that would have given him a very good reason to run, thats why i think cops should carry tasers

anyone ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypnotic Vampire

hopefully others will learn from his mistake.

---

1984 here we come! Hurrah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheshire centauri

anyone ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

---

That's null and void if you're poor or part of a minority.

also is null and void if a place is under martial law. you can be shot and killed after sunset if youre out past curfew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypnotic Vampire

I think you owe me an apology on that one MG, because I certainly do not appreciate the accusation, especially when it is absolutely unwarranted. :mad:

---

ok well I was wrong about my comment about the man appearing to "flee from a bombing attempt" I was unclear as to when the actual attempt had taken place, but I still think that it is revelent to the climate of the area especailly and the whole country most likely. with a climate of fear people are going to be acting franctily and irrationally. I can see that we disagree on the subject, but I still maintain that there's a differance... fist of all I can't understand the need for uncover officers on the street. I can understand them invovled in infiltration positions, but if they want to use standard police tactics then it is going to be difficuly for people to recognize thier authority when they look like civilians and NOT like police officers. if some guy told me to stop and pulled a weapon, if he didn't look like a cop, you expect me to do what he says?
and as far as the police being able to excercize the use of deadly force or even force at all to apprehend people simply based on an unconfirmed suspicion, I think that leaves too much potential for abuse. The threat of terrorism doesn't give the government the right to act as a facist dictatorship, when the police can arrest andyone for any reason at all, or no reason, what's to stop them from silencing anyone who evokes thier constitutioanl rights to free speach, free press, free essembly, free worship, etc. and charge them as enemies of the state on those grounds alone? as I said before, if we surpress the freedom on our own people, then that makes us just as bad as the terrorists.

lastly, I don't think that I owe you an apology and I do think your comment was racist because you singled out a particular ethnic group as one that should be viewed as suspect. If you thought that someone should be considered a criminal because they are black or hispanic then no one would deny that as being a racist comment.

See there are two things that bug me. First is the assumption that it is the victims fault for running from the (plain clothed) cops. The victim was from Brazil, and not a native to the UK. It may have been his assumption that, when a bunch of armed men brandished weapons and shouted at him, his life was in danger. When you look at it from his point of view, it seems a bit more rational to run. After all, getting shot seems more likely if you hang out where the armed men are yelling at you.

Second, there is the idea that it is ok because they are protecting the innocent. Sure he could have had a bomb. Anyone with a coat could be carrying a bomb. Is all of London fair game come winter? He was suspected because he was seen leaving a house under surveillance. As far as he knew, he had no reason to be stopped by armed men. As far as they knew he may have had some connection to people who may have been planning something. Oh, and he had a coat. No innocent man would have a coat on a 70 degree day.

An innocent man was shot down. All the hypotheticals about what a threat he could have been or how many people he might have killed if he did have a bomb are irrelivent. When people with guns make mistakes and shoot someone to death they should be held accountable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

lastly, I don't think that I owe you an apology and I do think your comment was racist because you singled out a particular ethnic group as one that should be viewed as suspect. If you thought that someone should be considered a criminal because they are black or hispanic then no one would deny that as being a racist comment.

---

Thanks for clearing that up....on the one hand, yes I did specifically single out a particular ethnic group (and gender too, which was sexist...girls can push the button too, y'know!) as suspect.

On the other hand, you've got to be realistic here...if the Police were searching for some Neo-Nazi/KKK sort of terrorist (such as the Soho nailbomber), how many black people do you think they would stop and search? It wouldn't be racist to single out whites in a scenario like that, would it? If a church with a predominantly black congregation gets firebombed, and police see a guy with a shaven head, DM's, and a couple of white pride tattoos hotfooting it in the other direction, do you think it would make sense to challenge him, or do you think the police shouldn't single him out as part of a particular ethnic or socio-political group? True, it could be that he just happened to be in the right place at the wrong time...or it could not.

To put it another way, out of the 9/11 hijackers, how many were white, asian or hispanic? Do you think Police should be banned from carrying out surveillance on mosques, even though all of the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorists had Islam in common? Or was that just a coincidence?

By the way, I'm not saying 'all Muslims are terrorists', but as it currently stands, the terrorists who pose the biggest threat to us are all Muslim (or at least believe themselves to be). Right now, if you fit 'the profile', and you're acting suspiciously around a potential terrorist target, then Police and security forces are going to play it safe and assume the worst until it can be proven otherwise....and fleeing when challenged, then running onto a packed underground train (given what had transpired on 7/7) is only going to make them believe that their suspicions are correct, even if they're not....

so how exactly were they able to tell that the man was a muslim? and as it was pointed out, he was brazlian, not middle eastern.

and this is a "war on terrorism" not a war on the middle east, so they say. so why don't we take a look at the majority of the terrorist acts commited in the United States and Europe... you can look on the FBI website it's right there: the majority of those crimes were commited by... White guys that call themselves christians.

ya know I don't see the difference between blowing up an abortion clinic and a car bomb in iraq. so why aren't the navy seals all being deployed to arkansas?

The answer is because it's easier to target the minority in a white community then it is to base a suspect model around the psychological profile of someone that would be compelled to commit a terrorist act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

ya know I don't see the difference between blowing up an abortion clinic and a car bomb in iraq. so why aren't the navy seals all being deployed to arkansas?

---

Actually it's for the same reason they don't use the Military to target street gangs...the name of the law escapes me though...never could remember it. But basicly unless martial law is declared you can't use the military to police or in this case attack citizenry. Always found it odd...I remember this lawyer trying to explain it to me but it went way over my head when he go into the law of it all...never had a head for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

See there are two things that bug me. First is the assumption that it is the victims fault for running from the (plain clothed) cops. The victim was from Brazil, and not a native to the UK. It may have been his assumption that, when a bunch of armed men brandished weapons and shouted at him, his life was in danger. When you look at it from his point of view, it seems a bit more rational to run. After all, getting shot seems more likely if you hang out where the armed men are yelling at you..

---

First off, in the UK, before our Police can even pull the trigger, they have to identify themselves to the suspect as armed Police, and signal their intention to use lethal force if required. They also have badges/ID as well, so the victim would have known they were Police. The other question is, where was he going to run to? There were uniformed Police in most stations given what had happened the day before, plus there are London Underground staff...if he believed he was being chased by a gang of 20-strong fully-armed muggers, surely he would have made a beeline for the authorities? Instead, he vaults the barrier and heads for a train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

Second, there is the idea that it is ok because they are protecting the innocent. Sure he could have had a bomb. Anyone with a coat could be carrying a bomb. Is all of London fair game come winter? He was suspected because he was seen leaving a house under surveillance. As far as he knew, he had no reason to be stopped by armed men. As far as they knew he may have had some connection to people who may have been planning something. Oh, and he had a coat. No innocent man would have a coat on a 70 degree day. .

---

Refer back to my balaclava example....bar screaming 'Allah!' at the top of his lungs, this guy did pretty much everything they would have expected a suicide bomber to do, and once he got on that train, the Police can't afford to take chances. You're also correct in your assumption about winter...if we haven't rooted out these terror cells by then, it will be perfect weather for long and/or bulky jackets, and thus concealing things under them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

An innocent man was shot down. All the hypotheticals about what a threat he could have been or how many people he might have killed if he did have a bomb are irrelivent. When people with guns make mistakes and shoot someone to death they should be held accountable.

---

What about when people with guns make mistakes and don't shoot someone to death? As regrettable as this situation is, surely it's better to be held accountable for one death than twenty?

[QUOTE=Morning Glory]

ya know I don't see the difference between blowing up an abortion clinic and a car bomb in iraq. so why aren't the navy seals all being deployed to arkansas?
[QUOTE]

Because Bush doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds (or more appropriately, elects) him? :D

at last we agree on something. haha :)

Hey, we fought a war to not be under British rule, so I'm hoping our system is better. At least on the books, Americans have the right to freedom from unwarranted search and seizure and the right to due process. I believe in capital punishment but not for something like resisting arrest or not noticing a police officer is speaking to you.

It seems like there is probably more to this story as, at least last time I was in Europe, the British police did not routinely carry guns, much less use them on people who had not had a proper trial.

[QUOTE=Evilbink]Funny.....I always thought the "Bobbies" just carried those cute lil' sticks and those hats that look like boobs.

They carry guns??? who knew???
QUOTE]

They weren't 'Bobbies', but 'specialist' armed forces not wearing uniforms. Nobody would waste a word about this incident, if it would have taken place in Haifa or Tel Aviv..cause it's happening every day there. We're getting close to Israeli standarts in Europe: Soon we'll get accustomed to people getting executed next to us, because they were talking to themselves (obviousley the last prayer of a suicide-bomber), had suspiciousley large hips, trenchcoats, were 'Arab-looking', or wearing umbrellas (think about the 'Aum'-incident in Tokyo)!
I see the illegal immigration-problem also solved by this measures: Whoever runs, must be guilty - welcome to our brave new world!!!
:grinning-

i've brought up Aum Shinrikyo on here so many times...

your the only one to say something about that....good on ya....


(i don't condone Aum,FBI don't search my ass)

I can't buy it no matter how you sell it. I cannot buy that someones false sense of safety is worth my freedoms or someone elses life. This is why transperancy in LE is a good thing. If the police were justified in shooting the man, then all the information should be out in the open.

An Electrician from Brazil. He may have actedhow you or the cops percieve a suicide bomber, but to him it very likely didn't seem that way. Unless we are going to print rules on how to not act like a suicide bomber then I think we need a lot more than he looked like one before we start offing people.

And why did he run for the train? Possibly because he though cops were there. Or maybe he was doing something wrong that was not bombing related. We are no safer for this execution unless the police can show more reasonable cause than brown skin, jacket and contact with a suspect.

Just read about this in the newpaper (I live in the UK by the way...), and according to the report, the man was from Brazil, a country where the police routinely take bribes and are notoriously trigger-happy, so maybe it was not that strange that he ran from armed police (which we don't normally have...they were a special armed response unit...the normal cops still have sticks and the boob-hats sometimes). Plus, it's not that unreasonable to wear a coat in July here....in fact, its fucking cold and miserable today, so i would wear a coat if i went out. Also, they did catch him when he ran, at least three officers held his arms and pinned him to the floor and another shot him in the head 5 times. Make of that what you will.....