WRONG! He happened to live in a multi-tenement apartment block that also housed some people who were under surveillance. He DID NOT KNOW the terrorists. Do you deserve to get shot if your nextdoor neighbour is a killer :rolleyes:

WRONG! He wasn't!! Even if he was .... think about what you're saying, man. It's not illegal to wear a thick coat, and it is not effective counter-terrorist policy to shoot everyone who is overdressed :rolleyes:

WRONG! They were plain clothes detective (ie didn't LOOK like police) brandishing guns and shouting and running after some poor bugger. This took place in Stockwell (London's equivalent of ... whatever part of downtown New York is renowned for random shootings and gang violence). Plus he was BRAZILIAN, maybe his English was not great, especially in a panic situation.

WRONG! What is this work of fiction! "Until he slipped and fell"- how does that add weight! He ran, slipped and fell because he was an innocent, terrified civilian being persued by three guys, shouting at him.

Do you maybe want to read that sentence again :rolleyes:
THE POLICE KILLED A LITTLE GIRL!!

Maybe my earier post wasn't clear, so let me lay it on the line for you: THE POLICE SHOT DEAD AN INNOCENT MAN. They screwed up, they got the wrong guy, and they executed him. "poor cops" getting sued by families of innocent people they execute!! Double-J I'm disappointed, you always seemed fairly sensible in your politics on other posts, now it seems your mind's turned to mush with all that comedy you've been playing.

The Police are human; they make mistakes; I DON'T WANT MISTAKES MADE WITH GUNS on a "shoot-to-kill" policy.

===================================================

TERRORISTS v WESTERN WORLD
21 July 2005, 2nd TEST, the OVAL

---INNOCENT PEOPLE---
-----------------INJURED-----------KILLED
Terrorists --------1-----------------0
Police-------------0-----------------1

Another win for the Terrorists, I'd say.