Suicide bomber shot DEAD in London : )

[Scrubking]

A suicide bomber was killed by police at a London Underground station this morning, shot five times after attempting to board a packed Tube train. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1704443,00.html)

HELL YES!

[Quackzilla]

PWNED!

(can't read your whole post, because I have you ignored, but it is probably full of bullshit. Sip some haterade and get over it)

[evilmax17]

They'd better hope to find a bomb.

[E-Z-B]

They'd better hope to find a bomb.

That's what I was thinking. Haven't heard anything yet. This might be a case of CYA (cover your ass) if that guy didn't have anything on him.

[Derwood43]

What is he doing wearing a coat, running onto a train??

[Quackzilla]

What is he doing wearing a coat, running onto a train??
That's why they shot him?

Shit, better not be late for the train!

[vienge]

Another innocent civilian killed by Bush's PACK OF LIES! :roll:

[Scrubking]

PWNED!

(can't read your whole post, because I have you ignored, but it is probably full of bullshit. Sip some haterade and get over it)

You have me ignored and you still post your stupid fuckING comments??

I don't know whether to laugh or wag my head in disbelief.

Here folks is your #1 most worthless poster on CAG. He ignores people but still replies to their posts!

[evanft]

Ignoring, but replying to stupid posters>>>>>>>Stupid posters

[alonzomourning23]

One again, scrubs wrong:

A man has been shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station in south London, as officers hunt four bombing suspects.
Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said officers fired after the man was challenged and refused to obey police.

The incident was "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation", he said.

BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said the man shot dead was not thought to be one of four bomb suspects shown in CCTV images released by police.

Officers hope the CCTV footage will help them trace the four people they say tried to set off devices on Thursday at Oval, Warren Street, Shepherd's Bush stations and on a bus in Shoreditch in east London.

Police have yet to release details of the identity of the man shot dead at about 1000 BST in Stockwell.

Sir Ian told a press conference: "I need to make clear that any death is deeply regrettable but as I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

Our correspondent says the man was under surveillance as a result of evidence gathered from the scenes of the four attempted bombings.

Stockwell passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen a man of Asian appearance shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers".

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said.

Police have cordoned off a 200-metre area around Stockwell station, where teams of forensic officers are working.

Passengers were evacuated from the station, which is on the Northern Line and Victoria Line. Services on those lines have resumed butStockwell, Oval and Warren Street stations remain closed.

BBC Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said officers had challenged a known suspect they had been following.

"He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him.

"They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him. He died at the scene."

Police had warned they would shoot to kill if they believed somebody to be a threat, she added.

The Muslim Council of Britain said Muslims were concerned about a possible "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's vital the police give a statement about what occurred and explain why the man was shot dead."

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

Londoner Dan Copeland was in the carriage in which the man was shot.

He told BBC News: "We were sitting for a few minutes on the platform, then we heard shouting from the concourse between the two platforms.

"Then the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.

"An officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, 'Everybody out!'

"People just froze in their seats cowering for a few seconds and then leapt up.

"As I turned out the door onto the platform, I heard four dull bangs.

"I ran past an armed officer who was standing on the platform and ran up the stairs."

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Great to see British officers with orders of "SHOOT TO KILL". Jump barricades? Run from the cops? Ignore warnings to stop, get down or halt?

Love it, love it, love it.

PWNED!

(can't read your whole post, because I have you ignored, but it is probably full of bullshit. Sip some haterade and get over it)

I absolutely love this. The most tolerant, open minded, sensitive and intellectual among us are the first to shut off posters, thought and statements they may disagree with.

I can't come up with more proof that the intolerant, stupid, insensitive and vacant posters come from the left.

Qackzilla, "LA LA LA LA LA! I CANNOT HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA! CANNOT HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA! YOU DON'T EXIST! LA LA LA LA LA!"

[trytej]

He deserves it. Good for the London Police.

[Quackzilla]

Bang Bang, he shot me down.
Bang Bang, I hit the ground.
Bang Bang, that awful sound.
Bang Bang, my baby shot me down.

[doraemonkerpal]

"they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

overzealous?

:cry:

[alonzomourning23]

"they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

overzealous?

:cry:

Ok, somehow I missed that part. If that's true then the cop should definately see prison. You can say that it was a mistake, they were chasing a suspected bomber and wanted to stop him etc. But to have him pinned down before deciding to kill him, that's clearly illegal.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You realize of course that a suicide bomber can still detonate a bomb with someone on top of him?

Thumbs up to the British. I'm quite pleased someone is operating with orders of shoot to kill.

I'm sure alanzo that you're quite familiar with British law, the protections MI 5 and Scotland Yard have to fight terrorism and know this was illegal. They've been dealing with bombings for 30-40 years. Their concept of fair play in dealing with terrorism is radically different than our ACLU influenced pussified concepts.

If you want proof, ask the IRA.

[alonzomourning23]

You realize of course that a suicide bomber can still detonate a bomb with someone on top of him?

Thumbs up to the British. I'm quite pleased someone is operating with orders of shoot to kill.

If they thought the guy had a bomb they wouldn't have jumped on top of him.

Though I would like you to dig up something in british law where it states you can pin down a suspect (bomber or not) and shoot him 5 times.

[doraemonkerpal]

You realize of course that a suicide bomber can still detonate a bomb with someone on top of him?

if he did have a bomb, why didn't he detonate it already? the suspect had ample time to detonate the bomb WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY before the cops shot him. :roll:

[PittsburghAfterDark]

It's called heroism. I know, an alien concept to you, but people in law enforcement, counter terrorism and soldiers are all prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can save others.

I know you would have negotiated with him, shown him cultural sensitivity, talked him down and then of course been killed for giving him the time to detonate himself.

[Rich]

If they thought the guy had a bomb they wouldn't have jumped on top of him.

Though I would like you to dig up something in british law where it states you can pin down a suspect (bomber or not) and shoot him 5 times.

Honestly, who cares if he's dead. He doesn't deserve to live for running from the cops after what has happened in the last few weeks. I show no sympathy for him.

[Quackzilla]

Honestly, who cares if he's dead. He doesn't deserve to live for running from the cops after what has happened in the last few weeks. I show no sympathy for him.
Running from the cops should get an instant death penalty with no arrest and no trial?

[alonzomourning23]

It's called heroism. I know, an alien concept to you, but people in law enforcement, counter terrorism and soldiers are all prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can save others.

I know you would have negotiated with him, shown him cultural sensitivity, talked him down and then of course been killed for giving him the time to detonate himself.

PAD, the guy got into the train where there were people. There was no better time to detonate a bomb then right there.

[Rich]

Running from the cops should get an instant death penalty with no arrest and no trial?

On a London subway the day after an attempted terrorist attack there, and 2 weeks after a successful terrorist attack there? Yes. Shoot first, ask questions later in this situation.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

If they thought the guy had a bomb they wouldn't have jumped on top of him.

Though I would like you to dig up something in british law where it states you can pin down a suspect (bomber or not) and shoot him 5 times.

Do you really think that MI 5's, Scotland Yard's and British Counter Terrorism ROE's are going to be published on the net?

Yes or no.

You forget that in Britain the rule of thumb in their legal system is guilty until proven innocent. They operate in a much different legal sphere than our law enforcement.

Running from the cops should get an instant death penalty with no arrest and no trial?

Bingo. We're learning quickly around here.

[alonzomourning23]

Honestly, who cares if he's dead. He doesn't deserve to live for running from the cops after what has happened in the last few weeks. I show no sympathy for him.

I saw a guy being chased through a boston subway a few months after 9/11 (it was somewhere around the time, as I remember talking to the guy next to me about it), guess he should been killed to.

[doraemonkerpal]

It's called heroism. I know, an alien concept to you, but people in law enforcement, counter terrorism and soldiers are all prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can save others.

LOL, i don't know how you can make that statement by reading one or two lines that i wrote. it just goes to show how judgmental and dense that you are. i give the utmost respect to the authority. i think soldiers, firemen, etc are some of the bravest people who have ever lived. however, you don't know all of them personally so therefore, you shouldn't be making blanket statements like that. think of officer perez in the LAPD crash unit....

I know you would have negotiated with him, shown him cultural sensitivity, talked him down and then of course been killed for giving him the time to detonate himself.

try think a little further PAD... he could've detonated a bomb anytime before the cops showed up. if he was carrying a bomb, and he was an islamic extremist, he probably would've blown himself up before the cops showed up. if not before, he definitely would've pulled the trigger once the cops surrounded him. look at the israel/palestinian suicide bombers as an example.

:roll:

[camoor]

It's called heroism. I know, an alien concept to you, but people in law enforcement, counter terrorism and soldiers are all prepared to sacrifice their lives if they can save others.

PAD, put the 'Swat' and 'Navy Seals' movies down, stop watching old 'Dragnet' reruns, and go out to buy a newspaper (and no, 'Soldier of Fortune' does not count as a newspaper)

[PittsburghAfterDark]

doraemonkerpal I wasn't even addressing you.

[alonzomourning23]

Do you really think that MI 5's, Scotland Yard's and British Counter Terrorism ROE's are going to be published on the net?

Yes or no.

You forget that in Britain the rule of thumb in their legal system is guilty until proven innocent. They operate in a much different legal sphere than our law enforcement.

PAD, in the british legal system you are innocent until proven guilty, just like in the rest of the western world.

In British criminal trials the accused in presumed innocent until proven guilty. Trials are in open court and the accused is represented by a lawyer.
http://www.britannia.com/gov/gov4.html

And if something isn't legal then it isn't legal, cops in britain can't do whatever they want. Again, post something to back up your statement.

[Rich]

I saw a guy being chased through a boston subway a few months after 9/11 (it was somewhere around the time, as I remember talking to the guy next to me about it), guess he should been killed to.

Assuming it wasn't for stealing someone's purse or something stupid like that where the pursuing authorities knew what they were chasing him for; then yeah, they prolly should have shot. But then everyone would bitch and moan.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Again the left sides with the criminal, the would be murderer and would be terrorist and the police are to blame.

When someone has broken into your house is raping your sister, mother or wife are you going to call civil libertarians or the cops. If your answer is the cops you know which side of the thin blue line you should be on.

I admit I was wrong about the guilty until proven innocent. However you cannot and do not know the ROE's in effect and what kind of legal protections the Brits are operating under pertaining to those ROE's.

[doraemonkerpal]

Assuming it wasn't for stealing someone's purse or something stupid like that where the pursuing authorities knew what they were chasing him for; then yeah, they prolly should have shot. But then everyone would bitch and moan.

what if the guy was just trying to catch the train and was in a hurry? try to think outside the box sometimes instead of just black and white!

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You don't run from the police. Period. Halt means halt. You miss a train there will be another.

[alonzomourning23]

Again the left sides with the criminal, the would be murderer and would be terrorist and the police are to blame.

When someone has broken into your house is raping your sister, mother or wife are you going to call civil libertarians or the cops. If your answer is the cops you know which side of the thin blue line you should be on.

I admit I was wrong about the guilty until proven innocent. However you cannot and do not know the ROE's in effect and what kind of legal protections the Brits are operating under pertaining to those ROE's.

Now I have two things I want you to show me, one where in british law can a policemen pin down a suspect and shoot him 5 times?

Second, where did it say anywhere that the guy was a "would be murderer and would be terrorist"? The guy had nothing on him.

[alonzomourning23]

You don't run from the police. Period. Halt means halt. You miss a train there will be another.

You ever been to a party that was broken up by the cops? Guess you think all those kids should be shot for running away.

[doraemonkerpal]

You don't run from the police. Period. Halt means halt. You miss a train there will be another.

again, try being more empathetic and think outside of the box. what if in this case, the guy was deaf? wtf are you going to do then?! :roll:

it's pointless arguing with you b/c you're just making up all these scenarios and judging situations which you were not a part of.

ps. for your "somebody is raping my mom/sister" sitaution, i wouldn't call anybody. i'd just shoot he guy myself. that example does not apply to the current scenario. i could start making up a bunch of pointless examples too. what if the guy that was shot was your dad, and he didn't stop running from the cops b/c he couldn't understand english?! geez.... :lol:

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Are you so thick that you don't understand what the allusion to their ROE's may be? What they're doing now may be perfectly legal. You don't know, I don't know and they certainly aren't going to post the limits and scope of those ROE's.

You've asked the question numerous times, I've answered numerous times. How thick headed and stupid are you not to realize I've said there's no way we can know?

[alonzomourning23]

Are you so thick that you don't understand what the allusion to their ROE's may be? What they're doing now may be perfectly legal. You don't know, I don't know and they certainly aren't going to post the limits and scope of those ROE's.

You've asked the question numerous times, I've answered numerous times. How thick headed and stupid are you not to realize I've said there's no way we can know?

What they can legally do to a suspect is accesable to everyone, mainly because those who go overboard and violate that can be arrested. This isn't about tactics used, but about what is legal in britain.

[doraemonkerpal]

Are you so thick that you don't understand what the allusion to their ROE's may be? What they're doing now may be perfectly legal. You don't know, I don't know and they certainly aren't going to post the limits and scope of those ROE's.

if you look at post #29, alonzo answered your question perfectly well.

You've asked the question numerous times, I've answered numerous times. How thick headed and stupid are you not to realize I've said there's no way we can know?

then why do you keep making up all these extreme and absurd examples? you're just trying to justify your own reasoning for shooting this guy that you've never even met or know.

[E-Z-B]

The right-wingers would argue that our founding fathers were a bunch of liberals:

Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

James Madison: "[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."

Thomas Jefferson : The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Samuel Adams: "If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of god, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

James Madison: I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.


Lastly, I feel this is important as well: This nation can never be conquered from without. If it is ever to fall it will be from within. - President Abraham Lincoln

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Amazing you bring up the founding fathers of the United States when we're talking about Britian.

You know..... another country?

[MrBadExample]

I admit I was wrong about the guilty until proven innocent. However you cannot and do not know the ROE's in effect and what kind of legal protections the Brits are operating under pertaining to those ROE's.

Thanks for the new sig. :lol:

[RBM]

Will police now shoot to kill? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm) (BBC article, 3:30pm, 7/22/05)

Some quotes from this article, in which Muslim groups express their fears that members of their community may be gunned down with little warning, but also consider the situation with impressive reserve and objectivity:

"The fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him."

He added: "You don't shoot somebody five times if you think you might have made a mistake and may be able to arrest him."


"The fact is that when you're dealing with suicide bombers they only way you can stop them effectively - and protect yourself - is to try for a head-shot," he said.


"I have just had one phone call saying, 'what if I was carrying a rucksack?'.


*****
I've made this somewhat grim comparison before; I try to wonder what I would have done if I were a Vietnamese villager during the Vietnam War. How do you live your life as normally as you can while others in your community--who you don't know and can't identify--are mounting guerilla attacks on an occupying force, which then counters by mowing all of you down?

Although I don't know the full story behind the shooting, I am inclined to support those London officers. When the enemy resorts to suicide bombings, then there is little alternative to rapid application of lethal force in any circumstance where a suicide bomber might possibly be involved. I know that the extremists are hidden--even from their fellow countrymen and moderate Muslims--and that most Muslims couldn't rat them out, even if they wanted to. I also believe that embracing this rash application of lethal force will predictably victimize innocents in the Muslim community and quite possibly swell the ranks of the extremists as a backlash. However, I consider the alternative completely unacceptable: respecting the civil rights of the innocent by increasing the chances of others dying in an explosion.

[camoor]

Amazing you bring up the founding fathers of the United States when we're talking about Britian.

You know..... another country?
Gee, last time I looked Britian wasn't conquered by Germany in WW2. In that case our US legal system would be based on... you know... theirs. ;)

The law of the United States is derived from the common law of England, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_legal_system

[E-Z-B]

Amazing you bring up the founding fathers of the United States when we're talking about Britian.

You know..... another country?

I brought that up because Republican support for the murder of this person runs contrary to the beliefs and efforts of our founding fathers.

[Sarang01]

EZB they don't give a fuck all what our Founding Fathers stood for. People like PAD SPIT on those statements regardless of how valid they are. The ONLY Right winger in the US they could agree with back then is John Quincy Adams. I'm also sure our Tori PAD here loves Edmond Burke.

[Quillion]

The right-wingers would argue that our founding fathers were a bunch of liberals:

Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Doesn't apply. The people are not giving up liberty for safety. Someone believed to be carrying a deadly weapon in the comission of a crime was shot by police. Simple enough.

Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Yup, I agree. Has nothing to do with this situation.

James Madison: "[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."

As far as I know, protecting it's citizens from murder and terroist attacks are the jurisdiction of the federal government. Or would you rather it didn't do that?

Thomas Jefferson : The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Would you consider mass slaughter "injurious to others"? Because if you wouldn't, then you could probably use a neurological exam.

Samuel Adams: "If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of god, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

Which right? The one to wear backpacks and belts with wires sticking out, potentially filled with explosives and then run from the police, one day after an attempted mass-murder and two weeks after an actual one. In at the very least, an imitation of the crime?

James Madison: I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

Abridgement of freedom, huh? Once again, which freedom? Even freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Lastly, I feel this is important as well: This nation can never be conquered from without. If it is ever to fall it will be from within. - President Abraham Lincoln

Obviously applies to the US, not GB. Which brings me to my main point. We're debating this back and forth, but it doesn't effect us. Let the British take care of their own, and we'll police ourselves.

[Rich]

then why do you keep making up all these extreme and absurd examples?

Oh, like this man being a deaf man just running to catch the train?

[camoor]

Obviously applies to the US, not GB. Which brings me to my main point. We're debating this back and forth, but it doesn't effect us. Let the British take care of their own, and we'll police ourselves.

But that's the reason of the month why we're in Iraq. If you believe that, how can you support the fact that we attacked Iraq in the first place? Let them police their own.

Ooooh right - the terrorists (who really came from Afganistan and Saudi Arabia) and the nuclear weapons (ooooops)

Iraq aside, your arguement is bogus. Human rights abuses are human rights abuses, whether they happen in the US, the UK, or China.

However I do want more facts on this incident before I make a judgement.

[CheapyD]

Damn, no chance for therapy and understanding.
Maybe we can get his corpse into counsuling.

[Quillion]

But that's the reason of the month why we're in Iraq. If you believe that, how can you support the fact that we attacked Iraq in the first place? Let them police their own.

Ooooh right - the terrorists (who really came from Afganistan and Saudi Arabia) and the nuclear weapons (ooooops)

Iraq aside, your arguement is bogus. Human rights abuses are human rights abuses, whether they happen in the US, the UK, or China.

However I do want more facts on this incident before I make a judgement.

Well, I did not support the initial rush to war in Iraq. I do support the war as it runs now. Don't turn an argument about how we deal with actual terrorists who are currently committing actual crimes into one about operations in Iraq.

It's not a human rights abuse to shoot someone who is about to detonate dozens of people. The police may have shot this person by mistake, however, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[doraemonkerpal]

Oh, like this man being a deaf man just running to catch the train?

LOL, that was in response to his absurd statements and examples (and it applies to your blind statment as well). :roll:

Assuming it wasn't for stealing someone's purse or something stupid like that where the pursuing authorities knew what they were chasing him for; then yeah, they prolly should have shot. But then everyone would bitch and moan.

EDIT: added what you previously stated

[whoknows]

"He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him."
"they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said."
Wow, they gave him a warning, how nice :roll:

[vienge]

only liberals could find a way to sympathize with a terrorist.

[Scrubking]

Wow, they gave him a warning, how nice :roll:

Terrorists should feel lucky to get that much.

[camoor]

Terrorists should feel lucky to get that much.

How about innocent citizens?

[Drocket]

How about innocent citizens?

They should be so overjoyed at the prospect of fighting terrorism that they willingly give up all freedoms and right, including the right to not be shot dead because they missed their train. Anyone who's not willing to give up all rights and freedoms is clearly a terrorist sympathizer and therefore deserves no rights or freedoms.

[Rich]

including the right to not be shot dead because they missed their train.

Don't forget he was deaf, too. :roll:

[whoknows]

Terrorists should feel lucky to get that much.

They have no proof that he was a terrorist :roll:

[alonzomourning23]

only liberals could find a way to sympathize with a terrorist.

Wanna find me where it said he's a terrorist they knew he was clearly a terrorist?

[vienge]

Wanna find me where it said he's a terrorist they knew he was clearly a terrorist?


They were watching him to see where he went and who he met because he was linked to the people who blew themselves up on public transport. It seems that he left the house wearing concealing clothes unsuited to the weather. He approached a train station and they went to stop him. He fled.

He ignored their warnings and went hell for leather to get to a train despite the risk of being shot by the (reported) twenty or so armed men around him. Now, he could have been trying to escape or he could have been trying to make it to a concentration of targets. Either way, the moment that he got near the train the authorities were out of choices and he was a dead man.

From first hand witness reports the police shoved/jumped on him as he tripped on the platform/carriage door, then shot him. Given that they couldn't really fire wildly in a train station towards an occupied carriage, and given that if he detonated he'd kill them and everyone in the carriage, then I think it was reasonable.

[Rich]

He ignored their warnings and went hell for leather to get to a train despite the risk of being shot

I don't think you understand...he was late for his train!

[vienge]

I don't think you understand...he was late for his train!
I heard he was a descendant of Helen Keller.

[Rich]

I heard he was a descendant of Helen Keller.

I heard he had 3 testicles and was have sex with liberals. (Why else would they support him?)

[vienge]

You should ALWAYS take sides with a person associated with terrorists over the people who serve to protect people from harm.

That's just common sense.

[alonzomourning23]

They were watching him to see where he went and who he met because he was linked to the people who blew themselves up on public transport. It seems that he left the house wearing concealing clothes unsuited to the weather. He approached a train station and they went to stop him. He fled.

He ignored their warnings and went hell for leather to get to a train despite the risk of being shot by the (reported) twenty or so armed men around him. Now, he could have been trying to escape or he could have been trying to make it to a concentration of targets. Either way, the moment that he got near the train the authorities were out of choices and he was a dead man.

From first hand witness reports the police shoved/jumped on him as he tripped on the platform/carriage door, then shot him. Given that they couldn't really fire wildly in a train station towards an occupied carriage, and given that if he detonated he'd kill them and everyone in the carriage, then I think it was reasonable.

He was suspected, just like that egyptian chemist, you see where that lead went.

[vienge]

He was suspected, just like that egyptian chemist, you see where that lead went.

He also refused surrender several times.

Get over it. The fucker went for a train and got pwnt.

[alonzomourning23]

He also refused surrender several times.

Get over it. The fucker went for a train and got pwnt.

You seem to have a problem, it seems like every other post ends with some form of "shutup".

But, he went for a train, with what exactly?

[doraemonkerpal]

Don't forget he was deaf, too. :roll:

LOL, i think you're too simple-minded to argue against. :hot: what i said is called an "example."

1. One that is representative of a group as a whole: the squirrel, an example of a rodent; introduced each new word with examples of its use.
2. One serving as a pattern of a specific kind: set a good example by arriving on time.
3. A similar case that constitutes a model or precedent: a unique episode, without example in maritime history.
4. a. A punishment given as a warning or deterrent.
b. One that has been given such a punishment: made an example of the offender.

5. A problem or exercise used to illustrate a principle or method.


it was in response to one of PAD's ridiculous "OMFG, WHAT IF YOUR MOM/SISTER WAS BEING RAPED IN FRONT OF YOU" example.

your comments just show how asinine and immature you really are.

asinine:

1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.
2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.

[vienge]

You seem to have a problem, it seems like every other post ends with some form of "shutup".

But, he went for a train, with what exactly?
the possibility of a threat to civilians. He refused surrender and was suspected of terrorist ties. The last resort was to ensure the safety of the population.

[alonzomourning23]

the possibility of a threat to civilians. He refused surrender and was suspected of terrorist ties. The last resort was to ensure the safety of the population.

If they got something on him indicating he was an immediate threat that's one thing, suspected of terrorist ties is not a justification, especially when many claims of "suspected" terrorists have not been substantiated. Unless the police want to comment on what happened, we won't know where to begin.

[Rich]

LOL, i think you're too simple-minded to argue against. :hot: what i said is called an "example."

1. One that is representative of a group as a whole: the squirrel, an example of a rodent; introduced each new word with examples of its use.
2. One serving as a pattern of a specific kind: set a good example by arriving on time.
3. A similar case that constitutes a model or precedent: a unique episode, without example in maritime history.
4. a. A punishment given as a warning or deterrent.
b. One that has been given such a punishment: made an example of the offender.

5. A problem or exercise used to illustrate a principle or method.


it was in response to one of PAD's ridiculous "OMFG, WHAT IF YOUR MOM/SISTER WAS BEING RAPED IN FRONT OF YOU" example.

your comments just show how asinine and immature you really are.

asinine:

1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.
2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.

You're too simple-minded to realize that your example was asinine and immature. A ridiculous example to counter a ridiculous example? Oh, you ARE mature. My bad.

[doraemonkerpal]

You're too simple-minded to realize that your example was asinine and immature. A ridiculous example to counter a ridiculous example? Oh, you ARE mature. My bad.

my example stemmed off of an anecdote about a guy running in a subway. to say that he couldn't hear somebody yelling at him while racing toward a train is not an absurd example, LOL! :hot: at least you admitted that PAD's example was ridiculous. too bad, you aren't smart enough to notice that mine wasn't. everybody in their lifetime has misheard something that was spoken to them, or has missed something b/c they were distracted and in a hurry. the example i gave was to show what could've happened and hopefully garner some empathy for the people that you guys are wishing death upon... even without knowing these people personally! i remember you mentioning that you were a christian in another thread, and that there is a difference between a christian extremist and what you are. however, your recent posts really negate what you originally stated.

the word for today is empathy:

1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pity).
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

you never know what's going on with a person unless you were there or are in their shoes.

[Rich]

my example stemmed off of an anecdote about a guy running in a subway. to say that he couldn't hear somebody yelling at him while racing toward a train is not an absurd example, LOL! :hot: at least you admitted that PAD's example was ridiculous. too bad, you aren't smart enough to notice that mine wasn't. everybody in their lifetime has misheard something that was spoken to them, or has missed something b/c they were distracted and in a hurry. the example i gave was to show what could've happened and hopefully garner some empathy for the people that you guys are wishing death upon... even without knowing these people personally! i remember you mentioning that you were a christian in another thread, and that there is a difference between a christian extremist and what you are. however, your recent posts really negate what you originally stated.

the word for today is empathy:

1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pity).
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

you never know what's going on with a person unless you were there or are in their shoes.

Christian? No. A Deist who believes in Christ? Yes.

And your example is still ridiculous to think that someone could be running from the authority for any amount of time and continually "misunderstand" what they're saying.

"Stop!"
"What? Keep Running?"
"STOP OR WE'LL SHOOT"
"The train is leaving? Oh fuck, thanks for the heads up!"
"DO NOT GET ON THAT TRAIN!"
"Get on? OK!"

*boom*

Besides, your example was deafness, not misunderstanding.

[doraemonkerpal]

Christian? No. A Deist who believes in Christ? Yes.

And your example is still ridiculous to think that someone could be running from the authority for any amount of time and continually "misunderstand" what they're saying.

"Stop!"
"What? Keep Running?"
"STOP OR WE'LL SHOOT"
"The train is leaving? Oh fuck, thanks for the heads up!"
"DO NOT GET ON THAT TRAIN!"
"Get on? OK!"

*boom*

Besides, your example was deafness, not misunderstanding.

LMAO! your example doesn't coroborate with what i previously said. if a guy says, "the train is leaving? oh ***, thanks for the heads up!" THAT OBVIOUSLY MEANS HE HEARD WHOEVER WAS CALLING OUT TO HIM! damn man, go back and reread what i already stated. *sigh* it's like arguing with a brick wall.

regarding the "deaf" portion of my example, i used it to show that may be one of the many reasons as to why a person would not hear somebody calling out to them. that is not an absurd example. you've never heard of a person who is hearing impaired?

:hot:

EDIT:

btw, where's the boom? my example didn't have a suicide bomber in it LOL!

[Rich]

LMAO! your example doesn't coroborate with what i previously said. if a guy says, "the train is leaving? oh ***, thanks for the heads up!" THAT OBVIOUSLY MEANS HE HEARD WHOEVER WAS CALLING OUT TO HIM! damn man, go back and reread what i already stated. *sigh* it's like arguing with a brick wall.

regarding the "deaf" portion of my example, i used it to show that may be one of the many reasons as to why a person would not hear somebody calling out to them. that is not an absurd example. you've never heard of people who are hard of hearing?

:hot:

You're grasping for fucking straws. The guy was running FROM authorities. Not running TO a train.

[doraemonkerpal]

You're grasping for fucking straws. The guy was running FROM authorities. Not running TO a train.

hello? i'm arguing for my example, you're arguing for the op's article. if you're going to jump into an argument, then stick with the topic! :bomb: geez, i thought it was pretty evident considering how many times i mentioned the word "example." PAD used this example, i countered with this example and so on and so forth.... :roll:

[Quillion]

Why is it that every discussion in the VS forum degenerates into a "What is the definition of example?" ridiculous argument?

I tried to elevate this discussion, but apparently you're all too entrenched slinging hatred at each other to form a coherent argument.

Morons.

[MrBadExample]

I'm not going to condemn the police for their actions because we haven't heard a complete account of what happened. But I think there could have been an alternative to shooting him once he was subdued on the ground (if that report is completely accurate). If he was already being held on the ground, couldn't they control his arms so he couldn't trigger any bomb? Not knowing what kind of explosive the man might have, isn't there a possibility of setting it off with the gunshots, or at least forcing him to release a trigger? These were plainclothes cops, right? If so, panic might explain why someone would run from someone with a gun in the subway a day after a terrorist attempt. The problem is they aren't going to be able to question this guy now and find out if/how he was tied to the terrorist bombings.

Like I said, I'm not going to condemn the cops; they are doing a very dangerous job and need to weigh protecting themselves and the public versus the suspect all in a heartbeat. I hope this guy was guilty for their sake.

[alonzomourning23]

I'm not going to condemn the police for their actions because we haven't heard a complete account of what happened. But I think there could have been an alternative to shooting him once he was subdued on the ground (if that report is completely accurate). If he was already being held on the ground, couldn't they control his arms so he couldn't trigger any bomb? Not knowing what kind of explosive the man might have, isn't there a possibility of setting it off with the gunshots, or at least forcing him to release a trigger? These were plainclothes cops, right? If so, panic might explain why someone would run from someone with a gun in the subway a day after a terrorist attempt. The problem is they aren't going to be able to question this guy now and find out if/how he was tied to the terrorist bombings.

Like I said, I'm not going to condemn the cops; they are doing a very dangerous job and need to weigh protecting themselves and the public versus the suspect all in a heartbeat. I hope this guy was guilty for their sake.

He had no connection to the bombings:


Shot man not connected to bombing

A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.

The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.

Two other men have been arrested and are being questioned after bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus. The statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.



"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The statement confirmed the man was followed by police from a block of flats that was under surveillance.

His death is being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Arrests

Two men are still being held at Paddington Green police station, central London, in connection with Thursday's attacks.



The first man was arrested at around 1630 BST on Friday during a raid on a block of flats near to Oval and Stockwell Tube stations.

Eyewitnesses said he was led away with a woman and child.

The second man was arrested late on Friday night, also in the Stockwell area.

Both are being held under anti-terrorism legislation which gives police 14 days before they have to bring charges.

CCTV images

Scotland Yard said they had been contacted by over 500 members of the public following the release of CCTV footage of four suspects.

Detectives said they were hopeful of useful lines of inquiry coming from the calls and e-mails.

Three devices found after the failed bombings were the same size and weight as those used in the suicide attacks of 7 July, which killed scores.

The fourth was smaller, apparently contained in a plastic box. The same chemicals appear to have been used.

They targeted Oval, Warren Street and Shepherd's Bush stations and a bus in Hackney.

The Hammersmith and City line train was removed from Shepherd's Bush station on Saturday afternoon. Transport for London said it hoped to have trains running on the line from Paddington to Hammersmith on Saturday evening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711021.stm

[beguile]

Will police now shoot to kill? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm) (BBC article, 3:30pm, 7/22/05)
[/size]

"Mr Ramm said the danger of shooting a suspected suicide bomber in the body was that it could detonate a bomb they were carrying on them. "

Nice article. Mr. Ramm made a good point that shooting a suspected bomber will detonate a bomb. Clearly the police knew he wasn't carrying a bomb, otherwise why would they shoot him point blank 5 times and endanger those around them.

[Scrubking]

1. Not all bombs are volotile enough to be detonated by shooting them.

2. Better to detonate the bomb in an area with few people instead of inside or near a moving train where many people will be affected.

[alonzomourning23]

The innocent guy shot dead was Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, from brazil. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711021.stm
Scotland Yard said Mr Menezes, who lived in Brixton, south London, was completely unconnected to the bomb attacks and added: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The Brazilian government has expressed its shock at the killing and Brazil's foreign minister Celso Amorim is on his way to London to get an explanation from foreign secretary Jack Straw.............

Meanwhile Dr Azzam Tamimi from the Muslim Association of Britain told BBC News the police should review their procedures.

"Frankly it doesn't matter whether he is a Muslim or not, he is a human being.

"It is human lives that are being targeted whether by terrorists or whether in this case unfortunately, by people who are supposed to be chasing or catching the terrorists."

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/7537/41336597diesel2034tw.jpg

He's the white guy in front. How the hell he was described as looking south asian (which he was described as) is beyond me.

[camoor]

Thanks for the info Alonzo.

BTW, I'm noticing a pattern:

1. Conservative "christians" and neocons rush to judgement, in favor of suspiciously agressive action by a western government authority.
2. Conservative christians and neocons start circle-jerking about what he-men they are and how liberals are all big sissies.
3. Conservative christians and neocons are proven to be flat-out wrong.
4. Conservative christians and neocons hurriedly start a new topic --> Lather, rinse, repeat.

[beguile]

I don't think you understand...he was late for his train!

yea he deserved to be shot. That's what he gets for looking like a terrorist. Dont ever run from the london police and dare to disrespect them. Otherwise you will get shot point blank five times and there isn't a chance in hell you will survive. I totally agree with you Rich... who cares if he's innocent. You rather see 10 innocent people get shot point blank than to let one suspect get away.

I especially like this quote from the government.

"The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public.

"This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility."

The terrorist bear the responsiblity of this innocent victim.

[Rich]

yea he deserved to be shot. That's what he gets for looking like a terrorist. Dont ever run from the london police and dare to disrespect them. Otherwise you will get shot point blank five times and there isn't a chance in hell you will survive. I totally agree with you Rich... who cares if he's innocent. You rather see 10 innocent people get shot point blank than to let one suspect get away.

I especially like this quote from the government.

"The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public.

"This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility."

The terrorist bear the responsiblity of this innocent victim.

Yes, he was shot dead because he "disrespected" the police. :roll:
I'd gladly sacrifice one innocent in the name of preventing terrorism; because I'm not stupid enough to give the authorities reason enough to make me that innocent.

And the terrorists ARE indirectly responsible for this death.

[evilmax17]

Yes, he was shot dead because he "disrespected" the police. :roll:
I'd gladly sacrifice one innocent in the name of preventing terrorism; because I'm not stupid enough to give the authorities reason enough to make me that innocent.

And the terrorists ARE indirectly responsible for this death.
So, any form of breaking the law...is acceptably punished by death...as long as you use terrorism as an excuse?

http://www.2000adonline.com/features/intro3.jpg

[alonzomourning23]

Yes, he was shot dead because he "disrespected" the police. :roll:
I'd gladly sacrifice one innocent in the name of preventing terrorism; because I'm not stupid enough to give the authorities reason enough to make me that innocent.

And the terrorists ARE indirectly responsible for this death.

Well I guess the terrorists are responsible for our abuses at abu ghraib too, since bush never would have had an excuse to invade Iraq without 9/11.

[Drocket]

Well I guess the terrorists are responsible for our abuses at abu ghraib too, since bush never would have had an excuse to invade Iraq without 9/11.
Of course he would have. He just would have had to work a little harder to find it.

[vietgurl]

gee, who cares.

1) the US and the rest of the western world rule the world. whoever else dares oppose them deserves to die.

2) why does it matter how many of those damn arabs die (even if it's women and children..it's their fault for being born into the wrong race) as long as the great western world can continue to enjoy life.

3) 1 american/english/whatever life = 10,000 muslim lives

4) the US (and its allies) are not terrorists when they kill. when someone attacks the US (or its allies), they are terrorists.

come on everyone, cheer up. it's a videogame forum...

[Sarang01]

So, any form of breaking the law...is acceptably punished by death...as long as you use terrorism as an excuse?

http://www.2000adonline.com/features/intro3.jpg

YES! and don't you forget it! ;-P

"He stole my groceries! SHOOT him!" "We can't do that sir." "But I think those groceries are going to feed members of Al Quaida." "Well when you put it that way.". Police officer draws gun, shoots robber point blank in the head. "Thank you Officer." "Sure, whatever I can do to combat Terrorism.".

[beguile]

gee, who cares.

1) the US and the rest of the western world rule the world. whoever else dares oppose them deserves to die.

2) why does it matter how many of those damn arabs die (even if it's women and children..it's their fault for being born into the wrong race) as long as the great western world can continue to enjoy life.

3) 1 american/english/whatever life = 10,000 muslim lives

4) the US (and its allies) are not terrorists when they kill. when someone attacks the US (or its allies), they are terrorists.

come on everyone, cheer up. it's a videogame forum...

LoL. this thread is getting too funny. The groceries one was too damn funny. Keep it coming.

[supermariomelee]

Getting back to the story. From the sounds of it, the guy was a illegal alien in England, so he didn't belong there in the first place. Second, the guy didn't speak or understand a lick of english(according to what was mentioned on CNN), so there was no way he knew what the hell people where saying. Lastly, he was wearing a coat, which is pretty damn weird for this time of the year.

[alonzomourning23]

Getting back to the story. From the sounds of it, the guy was a illegal alien in England, so he didn't belong there in the first place. Second, the guy didn't speak or understand a lick of english(according to what was mentioned on CNN), so there was no way he knew what the hell people where saying. Lastly, he was wearing a coat, which is pretty damn weird for this time of the year.

Why don't we ever get any decent new posters? Being illegal is no reason to be shot or not care if someones shot. Either way, he was legal and spoke english


He had lived and worked in London legally for at least three years and spoke excellent English.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711779.stm


Though I love that "from the sounds of it", he's from brazil, so you just assume he's illegal.

[spyhunterk19]

If for no other reason than respect for the guy, change the thread title.

[E-Z-B]

If for no other reason than respect for the guy, change the thread title.

lol, Scrubking's like the Bush Administration - he'll never admit he's wrong.

[MrBadExample]

lol, Scrubking's like the Bush Administration - he'll never admit he's wrong.
Because for both of them, it would take too long.

[E-Z-B]

Also, forget about SK taking down the http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif next to the thread title.

[evilmax17]

http://www.subsolo.org/host/images/h3lx/crikey.jpg

[MrBadExample]

WOW! The conservatives ran from this topic like it was a NOW rally for Hilary Clinton.

[doraemonkerpal]

British Police Name Two Bombing Suspects
AP - 2 hours, 8 minutes ago

LONDON - Police on Monday released the names of two of the four men suspected of taking part in the failed July 21 bombings and said a fifth device similar to others used in the botched attacks was found in a west London park. Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized Monday for the police killing of a Brazilian electrician mistaken for a terrorist. Britain's police complaints commission later said the man, Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot eight times.

this story keeps getting sadder. :(

[MrBadExample]

I saw that too. Have they mentioned whether it was one or more cops that shot him? Just curious since they said it was seven shots to the head and one in the shoulder.

[spyhunterk19]

This is a disgrace, and you, scrubking, are a disgrace to CAG if you don't change that thread title. You're making the whole forum look bad.

[alonzomourning23]

Ms Socorro said the family were considering suing over the shooting.

Friends of Mr Menezes in London said he had recently returned to Brazil for eight months to be with his father, who was being treated for cancer.

Fausto Soares, 26, said Mr Menezes had been sending money to pay for the treatment and was concerned how the family would now cope financially.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713753.stm

[beguile]

Quote:
Ms Socorro said the family were considering suing over the shooting.

Friends of Mr Menezes in London said he had recently returned to Brazil for eight months to be with his father, who was being treated for cancer.

Fausto Soares, 26, said Mr Menezes had been sending money to pay for the treatment and was concerned how the family would now cope financially.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713753.stm

That's sad. You should read some of Rich comments. It doesn't matter if he's innocent. He ran away from the cops, he deserved to be shot. Besides he's from Brazil. He's not even American. He deserved to be treated as a second class citizen if he's even lucky. Too bad he ain't lucky enough to survive this time. Don't you agree Rich?

[eldad9]

It doesn't matter if he did it or not; the point is somebody was shot, and we all felt safer for a little bit. Surely that's worth the price of one human life?

Next you'll tell me you want to make sure all the Iraqis tortured, raped and murdered by american soldiers are actually terrorists.

[beguile]

It doesn't matter if he did it or not; the point is somebody was shot, and we all felt safer for a little bit. Surely that's worth the price of one human life?

Next you'll tell me you want to make sure all the Iraqis tortured, raped and murdered by american soldiers are actually terrorists.

As if one human life isn't precious. Next time I hope it's someone related to you. And it ain't going to be one human life. This is just the start and future incidents like these will happen. And you can look forward to it just so you can feel safer a little bit when you and your relatives go to a funeral. You will be safe enough. Or so I hope.

[E-Z-B]

As if one human life isn't precious. Next time I hope it's someone related to you. And it ain't going to be one human life. This is just the start and future incidents like these will happen. And you can look forward to it just so you can feel safer a little bit when you and your relatives go to a funeral. You will be safe enough. Or so I hope.

I think he was just being sarcastic (at least I hope he was...).

[eldad9]

He was.