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 [Roll Eyes]
No, but if the house he is living in is under suspicion, and being surveilled, doesn't it make sense to tail the habitants of the house when they leave? And even more, when they head for the subway, after two huge bombings over a two week span?
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
Here is a link from witnesses...source: Foxnews
Witnesses said he was wearing a heavy padded coat
No, it's not illegal to wear a thick coat. But it is rather unusual, isn't it? Especially in the hot summer? So, let's check our sheet so far...
1.) He leaves a house already under surveillance
2.) Wears a thick coat; it's summer time. Could potentially be hiding bombs or some other article under his coat.
Let's continue?
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.
It makes sense to me that plainclothes cops would follow him, because they were trying to tail him without him knowing. So when he darts for the subway, I can understand why he was afraid. However, he could've just as well stopped a real cop in the subway, rather than dart for a train. Personally, I don't think the cops acted in the wrong, at least in this case - because he darted on the train, how are they supposed to know he
isn't a suicide bomber? Do they wait until he's detonated his load before stopping him? I don't think they can afford to take that risk. And keep in mind, they didn't shoot him until he'd darted onto the subway car.
So, continuing...
3.) He did not stop when police tried to detain him.
4.) He ran into a subway car, rather than trying to find a real police office, or stop when originally told to. I can't imagine it would be that hard, if he thought he was being chased by a "gang," to find a cop in the now occupied London mass transit system.
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.
How is this a work of fiction...he was run down by the police, he tripped, and they forced him to the ground. At that point, how are they supposed to know he isn't going to "press the button" and kill everyone on the train? Do they wait, and try to restrain him, potentially threatening the lives of innocents on the train? Or do they take him out, preferring to save the lives of those on board?
Do you maybe want to read that sentence again [Roll Eyes]
THE POLICE KILLED A LITTLE GIRL!!
So, let's see...it means nothing that the father pushes his daughter in front of a rash of bullets?
Here's the story from the AP. You can decide for yourself.
[i]A toddler was shot and killed when her father used her as a human shield in a gunbattle with Los Angeles police.
The man also died and a police officer was wounded in the hours-long standoff, officials said.
The man was identified as Jose Raul Lemos, and the girl, about 17 months old, was his daughter, police said.
The officer, who was not immediately identified, was shot in the shoulder and was expected to recover.
"He was using the baby as a shield," Assistant Police Chief Jim McDonnell said.
"We showed a tremendous amount of restraint, but unfortunately the suspect's actions dictated this," he said.
The standoff began at around 3.50pm (0550 Monday AEST) when officers went to an area in South Los Angeles west of Watts, after residents reported an armed man standing near an intersection with a toddler and behaving erratically and aggressively.
There were three exchanges of gunfire between police and Lemos, who was about 35, McDonnell told reporters. In the final exchange, at around 6.20pm (0820 Monday AEST), Lemos held the girl as he shot.
"We did everything we could to hold our fire," McDonnell said.
At one point, Lemos retreated into an apartment building, where police said he held the girl hostage.
Police called in a SWAT team and tried to speak with the man. When they at one point tried to help a neighbour escape the area, he fired at them and they fired back, McDonnell said.
Under police regulations, officers may only fire "when it reasonably appears necessary" to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury.
The man had a 9mm handgun and a shotgun and was intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, police said.
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.
The police shot dead one man, whom, if he was a suicide bomber, would've killed hundreds, including the police.
The LA cops didn't "execute" a little girl. They held their fire until the last possible moment, and, rather than leave an innocent life out of it, her sick fuck of a father puts his daughter in the line of fire. So it's the police's fault?
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.
Yeah...for the innocents column of those killed by the terrorists, knock it up by the thousands, with the WTC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania, the Madrid bombings, London, etc... :rolleyes:
You can't shoot everyone who acts suspiciously. You would kill dozens of people per day: mentally ill, those unable to understand the language, or just those with innocent but odd habits.
Look at it from the terrorists point of view: if he can kill with a bomb, he's happy ... but if he can get the infidel westerners to kill his own kind, then he's very happy indeed. You want to make these people very happy? I don't.
As I've already pointed out, if he was a terrorist, what then? Should they have let him go, to accomplish his mission, killing hundreds and injuring more?
Some people just look a bit odd or act suspiciously without even realizing it, and the police shoot first and "apologize" afterward.
But you're taking it out of context. We're not talking about your ordinary "weirdo" ( :p ). This is someone who ran from police and dove onto a subway car, not less than a week after two of the most deadly terrorist incidents in Britains history.
Let's see....if you don't obey the government, give up your civil liberties and let the police do whatever they want you are a rebel to your country and can be shot.
What if he is a terrorist wearing a walkman, to blend into the regular community? Hmm? Who do we blame then?
Why not just open all the subways then, no searches, no security measures?
This isn't some black-and-white issue that liberals would like to paint it as - a slippery slope where big government is stealing our rights. It's the government taking action to prevent more attacks, to prevent another 9/11. I guarantee that the libs would be the first out to pounce of the gov't if another attack hit.
You can't have it both ways. In this day and age, you cannot expect to prevent another 9/11 while living in the carefree pre-9/11 world. Yes, we have to stop these bastards, and it means utilizing more controversial methods. I would much rather wait in line at an airport to be searched (my father was searched on his last business trip, he also ran into an old professor of his, who was an Indian-American, also searched on another business trip) than find out once I'm on board that there are passengers onboard with a bomb or are planning on hijacking the plane.
