Jump to content

Change Mode

Police Shoot Man dead


Rebel=UK=
 Share

Recommended Posts

its not about what he heard or didnt, its about what was said or not said.

well yes and no.

 

As I have said, running from the police is not a good enough reason to jump him and shoot him in the head 5 times.

 

there are reasons that innocent people 'could' run. Since this is the case... running should not result in death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But running from the police when they think you have a bomb certainly can be good reason.

If they thought he had a bomb and let him get to the subway before apprehending him even though they were watching him is a travesty (IMO)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant agree with that. Taking into account the situation that the UK was in, his behavior and dress I would have to think that running from the police was a good reason to get shot.

 

Like I said before, what if they hadnt shot and he did have a bomb that detonated because they didnt kill him. How would the tone of this thread be then. Its easy to second guess actions after the fact but inreality the citizen needs to take into account the situation at hand and act accordingly. This person didnt and paid the ultimate price. The best we can hope for is that the rest learn from his mistake and that the police dont get gun shy because the next time it may go boom.

 

If they thought he had a bomb and let him get to the subway before apprehending him even though they were watching him is a travesty (IMO)

They may have tried to subdue him without using guns but ultimately failed and felt they could no longer take any chances. Remember, you have to take into account the situation at hand. Its no ordernary time in the UK.

Edited by one2gamble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant agree with that.  Taking into account the situation that the UK was in, his behavior and dress I would have to think that running from the police was a good reason to get shot.

 

Like I said before, what if they hadnt shot and he did have a bomb that detonated because they didnt kill him.  How would the tone of this thread be then.  Its easy to second guess actions after the fact but inreality the citizen needs to take into account the situation at hand and act accordingly.  This person didnt and paid the ultimate price.  The best we can hope for is that the rest learn from his mistake and that the police dont get gun shy because the next time it may go boom.

if they thought he had a bomb.... why not stop him before he got on the bus?

 

the timeline stated they WATCHED him leave the house. they WATCHED him go to the bus stop , they WATCHED him get on a bus and they WATCHED him when he got off

 

 

Why not stop him earlier?

Edited by hftmrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you cant really make this about the right to fire chop. i dont know the uk gun laws, but in this country the second amendment makes it ok for every citizen to fire, now your gonna pay consequences if you do so wrongly, but debating the right to fire a weapon away from any police force is just stupid as hell. of course they have the right to fire.

 

or did i misunderstand what you were saying?

Yes, you misunderstood what I have said.

 

 

 

 

I am questioning whether or not they were right (as in correct) in firing, as in according to SOP, prevailing orders, the situation, etc.

 

 

 

The right to fire is a bit of a different discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they thought he had a bomb and let him get to the subway before apprehending him even though they were watching him is a travesty (IMO)

I have said this multiple times. They atempted to stop him before he got to the subway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but not before he got on the bus.... If you are looking out for public safety, why not stop him earlier?

Like when he came out of the building to begin with. :blink:

 

Wow lots of very interesting opinions on this Subject thats for sure..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they thought he had a bomb.... why not stop him before he got on the bus?

 

the timeline stated they WATCHED him leave the house. they WATCHED him go to the bus stop , they WATCHED him get on a bus and they WATCHED him when he got off

 

 

Why not stop him earlier?

Obviously because they were following him. Get it? As in watching him. As in surveiling him.

 

 

As in they wanted him to lead them to more people or resources related to the bombings.

 

 

When he approached the Tube the situation changed drastically. It is only then that the possibility of a bomb becomes more important. It is a matter of index of suspicion.

 

 

If he had gone for a ride in the country it would have been no big deal. He tried to get on a subway.

 

 

 

Why not stop him as you asked? Because there was as yet no reason to and it would be counter to the investigation. That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but not before he got on the bus.... If you are looking out for public safety, why not stop him earlier?

I have answered that multiple times. Don't you get what a police investigation is?

 

They were investigating him. There was no significant percieved threat until he approached the Tube, at which time they thought it would be safest to end the tail and stop him. He ran.

 

I think it's very clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, right. Nothing to do with incompetence then;

 

Scotland Yard boss Sir Ian Blair admitted the terror suspect was logged entering via a Channel port but still left to his own devices.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=1...-name_page.html

 

 

 

Police shot the man five times at point-blank range, witnesses said, after chasing him into a train stopped in the Stockwell tube station in South London at 10 a.m. Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, said the dead man had been "directly linked" to the ongoing terrorism investigation, but he would not say how or why or identify him by name and nationality.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/12204414.htm

 

How about the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone;

The Muslim Council of Britain expressed concern about the possible operation of a shoot-to-kill policy.

 

Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear.

 

"It is vital the police give a statement about what occurred and explain why the man was shot dead," Mr Bunglawala added.

 

However London mayor Ken Livingstone praised the swift police action

 

"I think we are making people safer by better intelligence and a better use of our resources. With each of these attacks, we have responded more rapidly and effectively and I'm glad it went as well as it did today."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/200...MILLARLEAD.html

 

Don't forget this bozo come election time.

Edited by moon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like when he came out of the building to begin with. :blink:

 

Wow lots of very interesting opinions on this Subject thats for sure..

Why would they aprehend somebody they were tailing?

 

Why?

 

 

I'll tell you why they won't, because it blows their cover and the entire investigation that's why.

 

They decided to stop him when the index of suspicion indicated they blow their cover for the greater safety. Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously because they were following him.  Get it?  As in watching him.  As in surveiling him.

 

 

As in they wanted him to lead them to more people or resources related to the bombings.

 

 

When he approached the Tube the situation changed drastically.  It is only then that the possibility of a bomb becomes more important.  It is a matter of index of suspicion.

 

 

If he had gone for a ride in the country it would have been no big deal.  He tried to get on a subway. 

 

 

 

Why not stop him as you asked?  Because there was as yet no reason to and it would be counter to the investigation.  That's why.

I still dont get how its not important about getting on a public bus with a bomb :blink:

 

 

I dont think I will get that from you chop.

 

 

The peoples lives on the bus weren't less important the the people on the train.

 

Busses blew up a few weeks ago Chop....

 

 

Edited for clarity

Edited by hftmrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they aprehend somebody they were tailing?

 

 

 

Well if they truly thought he had explosive's on him then IMO they should have stopped him long before he got into the tube.

 

JMO ( and I have been on both sides of this topic ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate of whether this guy (who's a Brazilian also) should have been shot is over. They have already stated that there is little remorse, and they will continue to shoot first and ask questions later. The irony of course is that they are doing this in the name of safety. I believe that the government will assume more and more power to fight terror at the expense of individual rights. At some point, I hope that people will say NO MORE. But now is not the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since this is where i get my news:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163460,00.html

 

i wonder about the man they shot after reading this:

 

"He spoke English very well, and had permission to study and work there," Menezes' cousin Maria Alves told the O Globo Online Web site from her home in Sao Paulo.

kinda ruins that whole he did not know to stop thing....

 

and now the brazilian government wants answers, this is gonna get far uglier than it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still dont get how its not important about getting on a public bus with a bomb :blink:

 

 

I dont think I will get that from you chop.

 

 

The peoples lives on the bus were less important the the people on the train.

 

Busses blew up a few weeks ago Chop....

I have answered that already.

 

The tubes are a higher profile and much more likely target, as well as the fact that explosions there are potentially much more devastating. It's a matter of index of suspicion.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you feel that some lives are worth less than others? I think that's terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since this is where i get my news:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163460,00.html

 

i wonder about the man they shot after reading this:

 

 

 

kinda ruins that whole he did not know to stop thing....

 

and now the brazilian government wants answers, this is gonna get far uglier than it already is.

Nobody claimed he didnt understand.

 

the question is IF they said it.... IF he heard it and SInce he was mugged there 2 weeks ago, what he must have been thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Busses blew up a few weeks ago Chop....

my post page 24

 

The intelligence must have indicated a threat to the train not the bus services?. It has been reported that the attack on 7/7/05 in London were the device exploded on the bus in Tavistock Square was actually intended for the Northern line service. But that whole line had recently been closed for maintenace and replaced with a bus service.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you feel that some lives are worth less than others?  I think that's terrible.

I am saying YOU are indicating this.

 

 

I think ALL life is important and if they thought he had a bomb then they had an ABSOLUTE responsibilty to make sure he did not get on that bus

Edited by hftmrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have answered that already.

 

The tubes are a higher profile and much more likely target, as well as the fact that explosions there are potentially much more devastating. It's a matter of index of suspicion.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you feel that some lives are worth less than others? I think that's terrible.

First off I dont feel that any life is worth less than any other that isnt my point. Nor did I ever say that.

 

To be honest I dont think that the terrorists care where they explode their bombs.. as long as there is a loss of life they are happy. We all know this..

 

And I still believe that if they thought he was such a "target" and that he had a direct link to the bombings that they should have stopped him long before he got anywhere near the tubes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...