Go back
the shot man was not a bomber

the shot man was not a bomber

General

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dfm65
not really - 'low' as in 'low' relative to normal bullets. no oxymoron there.
to describe a bullet used to kill someone as 'low impact' is an oxymoron in my book.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Freddie2004
yes. why do you not?
Pretend you're from a really dangerous city where you've seen maybe 50 people being gunned down in front of your eyes during your life. Pretend you don't speak English.

You're wandering somewhere one day, and suddenly there are what look like civilians pulling guns on you and screaming something that you don't understand... what are you going to do???

Freddie, you're naivety is astounding. You should do some reading before throwing away your civil liberties so eagerly.

D

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Freddie2004
yes. why do you not?
I don't think they acted correctly. Shooting an innocent man, without a positive identification, is law into your own hands.

If you are going to kill someone you need to be pretty sure they are a danger to the public.

Having dark skin, and coming out of a block flats is not sufficient evidence.

Next time you are in San Paulo and three guys with guns start chasing you, asking you stop. Would you? Or would you keep running?

I would be scared out of my wits a run.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The Police action will just increase the fear of young asian men of travelling in London.

The Police are racist always have been will be for the forseeable future. These actions help drive wedge between the State and disenfranchaised Muslims.

Oh Joy, as Stang says Violence leads to violence.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Freddie2004
yes. why do you not?
No I don't think they did.

Maybe I'm not a realist but I don't like to think we live in a world where you can be shot and your death explained away by "We thought he might have had a bomb. He acted a bit strange."

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Ragnorak


You're wandering somewhere one day, and suddenly there are what look like civilians pulling guns on you and screaming something that you don't understand... what are you going to do???


D
Good perspective. The fact of their being in plain clothes hadn't quite sunk in on me. Bloody hell, I think I'd have run. And been shot.

Unless the man had actually been fingered as a suspect (seems unlikely now), it would appear that the police blew it completely. Panicked, even.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by invigorate


Having dark skin, and coming out of a block flats is not sufficient evidence.

Next time you are in San Paulo and three guys with guns start chasing you, asking you stop. Would you? Or would you keep running?

I would be scared out of my wits a run.

In a crowded bomb alerted town centre?

You throw your hands in the air.

and show you have nothing to hide.

Vote Up
Vote Down

the fact the police admit he was innocent shows they are honest.#


They could have lied and said he was guilty.

Thats Britian for you.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Pretend you're from a really dangerous city where you've seen maybe 50 people being gunned down in front of your eyes during your life. Pretend you don't speak English.

You're wandering somewhere one day, and suddenly there are what look like civilians pulling guns on you and screaming something that you don't understand... what are you going to do ...[text shortened]... unding. You should do some reading before throwing away your civil liberties so eagerly.

D
pretend you're a cop in a city where several bombs have gone off on trains and buses in the last few weeks, killing and injuring scores. pretend someone emerges from a residence under investigation in connection with this. pretend he is wearing bulky clothing in summer and when challenged runs into a tube station and onto a train full of people. pretend you have a split second to make a decision on which might rest his life on the one hand, and your own, his, and that of everyone else on the train.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rhb
to describe a bullet used to kill someone as 'low impact' is an oxymoron in my book.

fine - you're free to use English in a way different to everyone else if you want...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Pretend you're from a really dangerous city where you've seen maybe 50 people being gunned down in front of your eyes during your life. Pretend you don't speak English.

You're wandering somewhere one day, and suddenly there are what look like civilians pulling guns on you and screaming something that you don't understand... what are you going to do ...[text shortened]... unding. You should do some reading before throwing away your civil liberties so eagerly.

D
That is not the point. The number one priority in these times is to prevent any more suicide bombs going off. The man was wearing a thick jacket on a hot summers day. He was seen leaving a house that was under surveilance and was followed on a bus to stockwell tube station. He was called at to stop and there is no doubt that the undercover officers shouted "police"; a word that i would recognise if it was shouted in portugese: "policia". The man kept on running and police had to make that split second decision whether to risk the lives of everyone on board that train and let him go, or whether to shoot him dead and protect the lives of the people on the train.

What would you be saying if the police had been chasing this man, and had let him onto the train and he had blown it up, killing 50 more people.

How can you people not see that we would be in so much more danger if the police just decided to let people they were chasing get away because "they might not be suicide bombers". What happens when they actually do let a suicide bomber through. How much of the rap will they be getting then?

Fred

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by celticcountry
the fact the police admit he was innocent shows they are honest.#


They could have lied and said he was guilty.

Thats Britian for you.
Are you joking?

I don't think his innocence would have been long coming out even if they said he was guilty.

D

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
No I don't think they did.

Maybe I'm not a realist but I don't like to think we live in a world where you can be shot and your death explained away by "We thought he might have had a bomb. He acted a bit strange."
read my post above! he left a residence that was UNDER SURVEILANCE!!! the police had a millisecond to decide wether to risk 50 people's lives and let the man get on the train in the hope that he wouldn't blow himself up, or kill him and protect everyone!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dfm65
pretend you're a cop in a city where several bombs have gone off on trains and buses in the last few weeks, killing and injuring scores. pretend someone emerges from a residence under investigation in connection with this. pretend he is wearing bulky clothing in summer and when challenged runs into a tube station and onto a train full of people. pretend you h ...[text shortened]... might rest his life on the one hand, and your own, his, and that of everyone else on the train.
you missed the third option in the decision there... that this man might be innocent, and pose no threat to anyone.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dfm65
fine - you're free to use English in a way different to everyone else if you want...
oxymoron = conjoined contradiction

There is a definite contradiction between 'low impact' and 'bullet'. [edit] when we are referring to a bullet used to kill a man.