Shooting of innocent Brazilian in UK...

[savage]

I cannot believe and am appalled that UK citizens and I assume citizens from around world just accept that the killing of an innocent Brazilian is acceptable in this "war on terror".

Would everyone think it was ok if the police accidentally shot Tony
Blair's son just because he ran away from some plain clothes people
holding a gun, who claimed they were police? On top of this they had him
in custody, eye witnesses say he was held down by 2 officers, and another officer still shot him in the head and 4 more times. This is not the behaviour of a so called civilised nation. Where is the justice for this boy and his family? How can this possibly be seen as acceptable? Or is it just collateral damage? Would it be acceptable if I was the one who had been shot? Would any of you gladly sacrifice the life of your innocent daughter or son, for the great good of the "war on terror"?

This makes first world countries like the UK no better than a dictator
who uses hit squads to kill people suspected of things without proof.
"Shoot to kill" should not be used in so called civilised countries.
Proof is what civilised countries use to bring offenders to justice.
Proof is what is required, not bodies.

I am not a fan of circular emails, so instead I urge you to write to your local Member of Parliament so that these sort of things do not happen in your part of the world.

[cairnswm]

.. Deleted my other rant.

[savage]

Why? Aren't all of our countries supposed to be leaders in "free speech"? Or does South Africa also have an "anti incitement" law that actually stops anyone questioning the government's actions. The UK has such a law.

In the UK, you are not allowed to say that "if you invade another country this logically MAY cause people to become suicide bombers as they feel there is no other option left to them". By saying this, it apparently means you condone suicide bombing and is therefore incitement. "Free speech" indeed!

[tux]

from bbc...



1: Jean Charles de Menezes leaves a house under surveillance and arrives at Stockwell station
2: Witnesses say he vaults the automatic ticket barriers and heads for the platforms
3: He then ran down an escalator after being approached by up to 20 plain-clothed police officers and tried to board a train
4: He apparently refuses to obey police instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead





he was questioned many times, he ignored. he then ran from armed police. so its his own fault. why run from armed police? and then WHY run onto a tube train the day after people tryed to blow them up

suicide by police i think

[cairnswm]

Because I dont want to start a flaming thread in this normally peaceful environment.

When I was younger I never thought before saying things - it got me into trouble too often - I've now learnt (the hard way) that not everyone agrees with me

I live in a country that has a reputation for being crime ridden - we have almost 150 policemen killed each year. Even so I, do not believe that goverments should break laws to prevent crime. I believe that the behaviour of the US and British goverments crossed the line (refering to the war in Iraq and Afganistan). However I well understand that other people do not neccessarily agree with that sentiment.

(That was put a lot better than my initial rant )

[tux]

yes i agree with the iraq thing. but what if this person *was* a suicide bomber? if they didnt shoot him that would be another train blown up.

if they wanted to shoot him then they could have easily done it before he got to the train. but because he had a big puffy coat on (on a hot day) and ran towards a train they had no choice.

normal police dont have guns anyway

[cairnswm]

but what if this person *was* a suicide bomber

Police need to do their duty. By the sounds of it they did the right thing.

[tux]

but what if this person *was* a suicide bomber

Police need to do their duty. By the sounds of it they did the right thing.

then i dont understand why people are complaining :?

[savage]

but what if this person *was* a suicide bomber

Police need to do their duty. By the sounds of it they did the right thing.

I disagree for the following reasons.
I agree that the police need to do their duty, but it needs to be within the criminal justice system's guide lines. As if there are not enough innocent people dieing around the world, now we give the police a carte blanche to shoot anyone they suspect of being a terrorist. They do not need PROOF. They can just kill you and me and then say sorry when they get it wrong.

This is not acceptable. By giving the police a carte blanche to do what ever they like, we have changed our way of life by foregoing our civil liberties. And that basically means the real terrorist have WON!!! Read that again, the terrorist have WON because we have changed our way of life.

Also, they had the guy in custody. 2 officers held him down and another officer shot him in the head then shot him 4 more times. Also at the moment all we have is the police's word that they made their precence known. I would like to hear from other independent witness to see if this corroburate the police's story. It would not be the first time that the police have lied/bent the truth to cover their wrong doing.

If you have not read 1984 recently, I suggest you re-read it and see exactly how small changes, over a period of time basis, errode the very ideals our forefathers fought to uphold! As long as the root causes are not identified and dealt with, namely the US and it's allies occupation of Iraq and the the Middle East, then we can expect more suicide bombers and therefore more civil liberties will be curtailed in the name of our so called "way of life".

[tux]

but savage. you have to look at it in the eyes of the police...

the man ran away when confronted
the man was wearing a big coat in teh middle of summer
he ran onto a train (with his coat big enough to hide things in) the day after people attempted to blow them up


in my view, theres nothing else the police could have done. what would you say if the police just restrained him but he still managed to blow the train up? is that a better outcome for you? many more commuters dead instead of 1 suspected bomber