It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Man mistakenly shot dead in London was Brazilian...

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:
CX

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Conspirator
"all you supporters of the shoot to kill/public execution policy that we now have would feel entirely different if it were a close friend or family member of yours."

Sorry, but i think that is a poor arguement. EVERYBODY would be devestated to lose a family member in this way (or any way for that matter). Just because it wasn't a member of "our" families that was shot doesn't make those who support the "shoot to kill" policy wrong.

If your going to use that arguement then you could say about everything - no one should comment on war unless they no someone who's died in war! No one should comment on murder unless they know someone who's been murdered!..etc etc.

The person responsible for the death of the brazilian last friday - is the brazilian. HIS actions led to his own death.

I for one am very glad this policy of "shoot to kill" is in place.


Totaly agree with this. Whilst it is plainly obvious that any of us would be devastated had this happened to one of our relatives, if it happened to one of mine i'd also want to know what the hell was doing coming out of a suspected bomb factory and then running from armed police when he was told to stop! I think i'd shoot him myself for being so damn stupid! I have every symathy for the family of this guy and i hope it does'nt ever happen again, but i would still like to hear thier explanation as to why he was there and why he acted like he did when he was supposedly so innocent in all this?

CX.




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
the guy who dies was not connected, but whatever the police said to him hte guns must have been obvious - he took off in a terribly scared fashion - why did he run into the underground - why not just stay in the street where there were more witnesses around or people to help him. none the less its a shame and im sure that the marksman who shot him feels pretty cut up about it too. they were only acting on intelligence from officers at the location someone had identified as where the bombers were.
look ast arrest today - no guns - just a taser - but of course we would rather have suspects alive. the british police dont shoot people for nothing as a rule


CX

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
What i would like to know is this, there has been so much fuss about fireams officers not shooting the suspect in the body due to fear of detonating the device, yet today they used a Tazer on this guy who according to the news just now was wearing a rucksack when they raided the place. Now i'm no bomb expert but would'nt it be a bit risky using a Tazer on a suspected suicide bomber wearing a rucksack? Could'nt the electrical current possibly set off a device?

Yeah ok it all ended up ok in the end but i was just curious.

CX.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The guy was buried today in his homeland.
The family is asking for severe punishment to the policeman involved in the shooting.

Peace
Crustas



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
``


there's been more info released

"Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket"
www.guardian.co.uk...

~~~~~

then on to phase 2

Islamophobia.......story at
www.guardian.co.uk...


from article
"Football hooligans communicating over the internet have spoken of the need to put aside partisan support for teams and unite against the Muslims. Hooligans from West Ham, Millwall, Crystal Palace and Arsenal are among those seeking to establish common cause"

www.guardian.co.uk...

...................
one should easily see the domino effect...after the 'shoot-to-kill'
stance was given approval...and the first sacrifice/example made, to
test the citizenry



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
So basically we now know:

Police followed him for over 5minutes.
He was not wearing a large bulky jacket.
Pulled a gun and told him to stop.
There were 3 Police officers - not in uniform, who did not show badges.
He did not jump the gates but ran away from them.
He fell or was tripped, to the ground.
7 bullets got put into the back of his head.

----

Looks a whole lot different to that.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
In all fairness, the only proof that he wasn't wearing a heavy jacket, and didn't jump the turnstiles, is from his cousin, who wasn't there. I believe it's highly possible, but it'd be nice to have an official word on it. Of course, governments aren't usually keen on embarrassing themselves.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
On sky news they're saying that his(the brazilian) visa card had expired 2 year's ago. Does it matters? For what?


Crustas



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
he wanted to stay in england to get some money for a ranch back in brazil...either way he ain't getting his ranch now.

i never knew immigrant laws were so strict



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Technically England, like the U.S., is in some sort of "war"-like situation within her borders. Innocent people sometimes get killed. That doesn't make it right, but it's inherent in the current situation. Running away from police into a crowded transportation area, the likes of which were recently terrorized by bombers/terrorists, is not really a brilliant thing to do.

How many excuses do we need to make for this guy? He was in London illegaly, ran from cops into a highly protected area (almost a sort of warzone even), etc. I'm not saying this shouldn't be looked at skeptically and investigated by a neutral organization. But many of these out-of-hand cries of racisism or profiling or whatever are pretty stupid IMO since so far internal attacks in the U.S. and now Britain have been committed and allegedly committed by non-caucasions. Was it profiling when the U.S. took a hard look at the Japanese in WWII? Or when countries "singled out" Germans?

I guess this is a therapeutic RANT by me...

I fear that this will lead to national identity cards for Britain and in some similar form in the U.S. Then, the databases will be neatly tied together. No buses, trains, plains, bicycles, skateboards, etc. will be tolerated or used without first using an "international" ID card. Eventually the use of satellite-tracked RFID chips will be argued for, to minimize the need for physical checkpoints.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
2nd Hand Thoughts,
they pulled the guns, shouted stop and once he had started to run they pulled their Police badges. Once he was too far away to see them.

(Question time last night).

He wasn't running from the Police, but 3 people with guns.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
2nd Hand Thoughts,
....
He wasn't running from the Police, but 3 people with guns.


Yes. In his mind he may have not been running from police. But they WERE police. Are a lot of small criminal groups brandishing weapons in London and shouting for people to stop? Not that I wouldn't or would have run away. (I have had a gun pointed at me however.) Were the cops dressed as undercover thugs? Or did they look more like you average 8 to 5 pm-type?

Sad and unfortunate but none-the-less not surprising given the circumstances and climate of the country(s). I don't know if the situation turned out for the better or the worse but at this point one more life unfortunately doesn't seem like much anymore given the numbers in iraq. Or when 50 perish in one day. Or 3000. He's one more victim and they all have stories.

And frankly, if I was in any country illegally (except of course here in the the U.S.), I would consider EVERY DAY a gamble. How long does one need to get away with something illegal before his luck turns for the worse?

[edit on 29-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
i've never heard of a situation where police have ever 'called-out' or 'shouted' at a possible suspect to try and aprehend him. the only scenario that happens is if the suspect is toting a gun and the police shout 'police, put down your weapon'. the police should have 'according to training' gone up to the man slowly, indiscretely and the brazilian man shouldn't have even known there were police around until they had hold of both his arms.

what's the point in wearing indiscrete clothes, hence plain clothes, when the opportunity comes up and you see a suspect...and you shout 'police'?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   


Were the cops dressed as undercover thugs? Or did they look more like you average 8 to 5 pm-type?


ok From what im aware living in London the undercover police would have wore jeans and a blue T shirt, Now also they would have had a police Cap. or some police logo on there T shirt, Thats the normal under cover look here in the UK, If they ran in to a station I think they would have put there Caps on when they Shout Police!


Thats just what i know from living here, But on the actual happenings, i could not be sure what they did that day, but the above is standered procedure,



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
It depends on the style of Police.

If they are under-cover, they won't have any logo, etc and their clothes will be suited to the area that they are working in.

If they were non-uniform, they would have no symbol but their badge/id on them in their pocket.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
this man had overstyed his welcome in the uk and proably spent tiem avoiding the police or any other oficials. uk is full of people who are not here legally and as a result our small country is becoming overcrowded. we dont have enough houses jobs or school places for kids - casual work is done by imiigrants, you go to hopsital and get treated by someone who can barley talk english. some of the immigrant are white and english speaking they are not all indian pakistani arabs etc. our freedom and way of life are changing and one guy got shot as we are under major threat from terrorists - if he had been here legally then no doubt he would have stopped and therefore avoided being shot. we are civilised in the uk and our police dont go around just shooting people - would it have been any different in any other civilised country in the world?....and if it had been isreal, iraq, pakistan or anywhere lese he would probably have been shot sooner



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I've saw today on a portuguese News TV ( www.sicnoticias.pt ) , that the Scotland Yard is going to pay around 800 000 Euro to the brazilian family.



Crustas



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
€800,000...that's what someone's life is worth now? what a kick in the teeth.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   
just to answer a few points made on this page...

1. the man had not overstayed his visa and was in the uk legally
2. he was not wearing a bulky jacket - the cctv footage showed this
3. he did not jump the ticket barrier - the cctv footage also showed him putting his ticket in just like any other paying passenger.

as for his reasons for running away, we will never know because dead men dont talk.

the police were ordered to shoot to kill suspects (which to me is a rather stupid idea when you suddenly find yourself being bombed by unknown terrorists that your intelligence knows nothing about - wouldnt it be a safer bet to catch one to learn something from them?)

i just wonder why the police lied about the mans appearance & behaviour when they must have known the cctv would not back up their version.


xu

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   
if that was the price for a persons life than some countries external debt would skyrocket beyond recognition. and life-standards in some other countries would improve %10000. actually it would be lot better if human life could be priced and every government that kills people could pay the price. I know it is horrible but believe me this would improve things and decrease the triger happiness among some. for example the government of your country decides to bomb a poor country to pieces where the life standards ae already below minimum and kill 100.000 people. as a result of this your country would be automatically forced to pay 100.000 x 1 mil. $ = 100 billion $ to the people of that country. (well it would be more dissuasive if the price was more). so the bombed country would get richer and life standards education health etc. would increase where the bomber country would get poorer, the jobs would pay less, the helath policies would suffer, education and other services would lack etc.

this is actually a great idea, since lots of people on the planet are getting bombed for free. I sometimes wish there was an actual god to enforce this. all this can sound to you as black humour, but no it is the reality. and the god of todays word (at least the god of the forces at power) is money. so when the money is involved then it will be dissuasive for the gov, and finally for the public who would lose life standards therefore not support the bombing of innocent people to bits. Im sure you noticed that Im not even mentioning that the "bombing innocent people is bad" idea because it doesnt work. basically people need to get hurt (not literally, economically in this case) to consider their actions.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join