Man gunned down on Underground (London)

that appears to be the way the world works, DjM and foxy.

I was laid off from work and I qualified for temporary unemployment compensation.
Yaay for me! wrong. The government took it from me when I started school, saying that being in school cut into my availability time to work and it would make it harder for me to find a job. Like college is a bad thing.

I just graduated in May and Virginia Employment Commission sent me a letter to restart my unemployment check. How backwards is that?

Shouldnt the govt try to help those helping themselves? guess not.

Quote:

---

Shouldnt the govt try to help those helping themselves? guess not.

---

Kthln01 - Be careful now! That is an awfully Republican line of thought! :D the next thing you know, liberals will start calling you a "Racist" if you are white or a "Homoginized Nigger" (National Black Caucus term for Judge Clarence Thomas) if you are black, at least that is the general sentiment according to the Democratic Leadership in the U.S. :D

Back on Topic - If the guy didnot want to get shot he should have listened to the police. Since we don't know the details, I can only speculate on what happened. If he was hiding his hands or attempting to place his hands in his pocket or coat as if to grab a detonator, then this becomes an issue of self defense for the police. If he was restrained and unarmed and then shot , then I will agree that there is a need for a murder case. Either way, I think this kid knew the profile the police were looking for and attempted to make a statement by acting like a terrorist.

you may be right, OverdueSpy

but I work to pay my bills and the government (the same government that encourages the unemployed to work AND go to school) is telling me that school is bad for work, especially if it means that the government has to send me an unemp. check. thats ridiculous.

They would prefer for me to drop out of school and never find a job. They would let me continue to renew my unemployment check for an undetermined amount of time, as long as I SAID i was looking for a job. I just dont get it. But I am GAINFULLY employed now, so que sera, sera. (hope i spelled that right).

ON TOPIC:

Hopefully the police will pull together something logical and present it to the press concerning this dead man. Otherwise something like this will eventually be forgotten. Not the whole bombing incident, but the death of some man the police thought was a threat.

Just to update on the four suspects they were chasing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072702457.html
British Arrest Man Wanted in Transit Attacks

Quote:

---

In a dramatic early morning raid Wednesday north of London, police captured one of four men wanted in last week's abortive transit system attacks, subduing him with a stun gun, seizing a suspicious-looking backpack and hurling it out the window of his hideout.

---

and for those who do not share my view that the police acted appropriately...:p

Quote:

---

Everyone who looks like a terrorist will be treated like that?

---

NO!!!

Everyone who acts suspiciously, wearing in-appropriate clothing for the weather, entering a known terrorist target, refusing to stop when challenged, running away from armed policemen, vaulting ticket barriers and running at full pelt towards a known terrorist target will be considered to be a threat that must be subdued. If, when captured, they do anything that might imply that they intend to continue the "action", (by not showing their hands and lying still), will be treated like that.

What is so frigging hard to understand about this?????

A shoot to kill policy is not granting the police judge, jury and executioner powers. It is allowing them to do the job they were hired to do which is to protect all the sorry asses who can't look after themselves, aka the "General Public".

I can assure you that when the police officer took the shot the target was not, even though he was apparently being held by 2 other officers, lying still with both hands palm up in full view. He was still struggling.

What you people who are whining need to remember is the incredible bravery of the officers involved. To them they were following a probable suicide terrorist who was dressed in a manner that implied he was concealing a bomb. The probable terrorist then entered an underground station that, just the day before, was a primary target in another suicide attack. When they challenged him he ran - _towards_ the presumed target. At this point they would be becoming convinced they have an active terrorist in front of them. With his desperate rush towards the train itself, (where the maximum number of civilians are most probably congregated), they would have firmly believed that his inappropriate dress did indeed conceal a bomb. They had a choice right there - remember, witnesses stated that one officer was carrying a pistol in his left hand - Begin shooting at the terrorist to prevent him getting to the train. But they didn't... They may miss and hit civilians and they may not stop the terrorist anyway. So, despite the fact that they are convinced that at any second this man will detonate a bomb they chased him down and tackled him when they could have taken cover. Only when they had placed themselves in the maximum amount of danger did they take the course of maximum force. Re-read that and imagine yourself in that situation. At what point would you have chickened out?

Don't ever question men in the field and don't ever criticize their decisions after they have placed themselves between the public and the enemy.

I'd like to see Tiger's version as THE version around the world ...........

BUT, I'm certain that Satan would be ice skating before THAT happens.

Quote:

---

At what point would you have chickened out?

---

When the option to shoot at a distance had passed :ashamed:

Quote:

---

Don't ever question men in the field and don't ever criticize their decisions after they have placed themselves between the public and the enemy.

---

Just a few points:
a) i will question whatever i want. That is called "democracy". If nobody can criticize that Government acts, what the hell is that?
b) "enemy"? WTF? THIS IS NOT WAR. War rules cant be used by police. In a war, you have 1 second to decide if the guy is friend or foe. You allways want to kill the enemy. However, in the normal life, police just cant ack like that.
Running is not a valid reason to shot someone.
Using weird clothes is not a reason to shot someone.
Unarmed people cant be killied by police "just because..."
That is Called "civil rights".

And BTW, you are supposing that. Until now, there is no wittness (funny, isnt it?) about the incident. No official version, no surveillance cameras.... only the version of they police (and fragmented)
"we say a guy exiting a building under survelliance"
"the guy was using a heavy jacket on summer"
"the guy was running " there is no mention that police shout "Police stop", neither they were using unforms. If someone, weird, civilian clothes, with guns, run towards to you, did you run or stay calmy waiting they cath you?
"the guy passed the barrier" - perhaps trying to escape from unknown, armed guys?

They only state "they gu looked suspect, using a weird jacket, run toward a train.... so we killed him. We were protecting people".

“Repeat a lie, often, and it becomes the truth” – Dr. Joseph Goebbels

A detailed investigation must be done to see if they had enough "signals" to kill him or they just entered in panic and kill a poor and stupid guy.

Ahn, killing stupid guys is a crime on UK, isnt it? or is now allowed?

Quote:

---

A detailed investigation must be done to see if they had enough "signals" to kill him or they just entered in panic and kill a poor and stupid guy.

---

somethings not right, i agree. But that's just wishful thinking. Police or law enforcement are not to quick to admit mistakes, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

THIS IS NOT WAR

---

ROFLMAO.....

Do yourself a favor.... Place your head firmly back in the sand and hope they don't come for you before you die.....

Not war???? Do you people not get 21st Century news down there yet?

3,000 civilians killed on 9/11
191 civilians killed in Madrid
56 civilians killed in London

Then we have the bombings in Bali etc. etc. etc.

We won't even look at the numbers of wounded in these events.

For what? They were going about their daily business. That, my son, is WAR..... and it's worldwide.....

Since you are so fond of quotes, (inexact):-

They came for the Jews,
and I did nothing.
Then they came for the Blacks,
and I did nothing.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I did nothing.
Then they came for me,
and no-one was left to help me.

When do you think Brazil will be "in the crosshairs"?

Quote:

---

i will question whatever i want. That is called "democracy"

---

You are confusing criticism with questioning? You _criticise_ and complain. In order to question your _ONLY_ statement _should_ be "Were they justified"? Instead you go mouthing off about too much power in the hands of the police and such ridiculous statements as "wearing a bulky coat isn't a capital crime". It was the series of circumstances that you take as individual things that led to his death but you prefer to take them as isolated events/circumstances because it makes you feel like you have "ammunition" against those nasty people who risk their lives to protect yours everyday......

You like democracy? Lets have a vote:-

Situation:

A suicide bomber is standing in the middle of a crowd of children holding a timer that indicates he will detonate the bomb in ten seconds. A police marksman has a clear headshot on the man.

The vote options:

1. The policeman should take the shot

2. The policeman should withdraw.

3. We should call the Liberals so they can ask him why he hates us.

Thats a democratic vote.... Let's see how it unfolds.... Please, feel free to publicise your choice here.

1 ?

Quote:

---

Situation:

A suicide bomber is standing in the middle of a crowd of children holding a timer that indicates he will detonate the bomb in ten seconds. A police marksman has a clear headshot on the man.

The vote options:

1. The policeman should take the shot

2. The policeman should withdraw.

3. We should call the Liberals so they can ask him why he hates us.

---

Easy. 1.

And on that:

Situation:

Policemen are looking for a terrorist (suicide one). They saw a guy, using that middle-west clothes style (sorry, i dont have even a clue the english word for that), running toward a group of children (about 100). He is far from them, so they cant shout "Police, stop".
A police marksman has a clear headshot on the man.

The vote options:

1. The policeman should take the shot

2. The policeman should withdraw.

maybe its me, but that ones a bit different.

you both are saying "headshot", therefore I would not know which option to choose.

However, if the snipers were clear for a non-fatal shot, take it. :3pow:

Quote:

---

if the snipers were clear for a non-fatal shot

---

SO: we pay millions to train our snipers ...............
and you WANT them to MISS :)

In ALL circumstances shoot KILL one shot.

multiple shots are for when YOU are up close and dirty

Special Forces do NOT fire once
if attacked or attacking they use all force available
if that means the full clip - so be it.

you HAVE to take out the threat - PERIOD.

[edit]
Capo :
It IS war, started on their terms - being fought on OUR terms NOW.

it has the potential to last a LONG time, but long wars are something we [UK] have in our history, it's the only thing we have in common with those pesky French ..........:)

To continue Tiger's question .........

What will YOU do to save YOUR land / people / family / friends ????

Brazil is a large country with a diverse religious background, majority of Roman Catholic,with a hint of Voodoo / JuJu ? [sp]
not a large Muslim body........... BUT you are their enemy, and your [south america's] turn to appear in the worlds spotlight will come ..........

1. That would depend upon whether or not it was a trigger that would detonate upon release...but suppose it was...either way the police end up scapegoats for doing their job...

1a. cops do nothing and the guy explodes the bomb...children die...mothers ask ' why didn't you shoot him ? '

1b. cops shoot him the trigger releases...children die...mother's ask ' why did you shoot him...he might've changed his mind '

either way they lose for doing their job.


Sure they could have waited...they could have held him and hoped he didn't wiggle a hand free to detonate a bomb and kill them all...and depending on the power of the explosion a few citizens along with them...or...they could put a few bullets in him so he can't wiggle a hand free and has no chance to set off any device...

but if they had waited and he had gotten a hand free and was able to detonate a bomb...everyone now would be saying ' why didn't they just shoot the guy? '

It's a no win situation for the cops no matter how you slice up the pie...if they kill the guy and he's innocent they're brazen murdering cops...if they don't kill the guy and he blows up 100 people they're incompetant b@@t@@ds for not shooting the guy and they ought to be railroaded out of town on a stick.

The only way I can see that anyone has a right to complain is...' if '...these cops worked for the LAPD :D

Eg ;)

i think you misunderstood, foxy.

by non-fatal, i meant:

Shot to the leg, arm, buttocks, etc.

I dont want them to miss; not at all.

Quote:

---

Sure they could have waited...they could have held him and hoped he didn't wiggle a hand free to detonate a bomb and kill them all...and depending on the power of the explosion a few citizens along with them...or...they could put a few bullets in him so he can't wiggle a hand free and has no chance to set off any device...

---

Those few bullets....did they have to go to the head? :what:

Hi Kthln01,

The very fact they went for the HEAD proves they wanted him to stop twitching fast...eg. bomb! It proves they thought he did have a bomb!

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

It's a no win situation for the cops no matter how you slice up the pie...if they kill the guy and he's innocent they're brazen murdering cops...if they don't kill the guy and he blows up 100 people they're incompetant b@@t@@ds for not shooting the guy and they ought to be railroaded out of town on a stick.

---

You sum up very well. Its no win situation. My problem is: if he is a terrorist, he is a hero, but if the guy is inocent, he is a murder. Just that.
You cant cover police mistake using that "he tried his best". Unfortunatelly, one inoccent has killed.

I do understand that UK & USA people looks this as war. But its not. Again, you cant use war rules against terrorist. If you do so, they win. You will spread so terror on the population that they (the terrorist) wont even do anything else.

E.G. When UK was fighting against IRA (is that correct?), police was using that kind of tatic?


BTW, ive found a "description" of the sequence of actions on BBC (inst new)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712061.stm

And on that schema ("what happened at stockwell station - plain view)

They mencioned "after being approached by up to 20 plain-clothed police....."

Plain-clothed = using a uniform
or
Plain-clothed = using "regular clothes - undercover?

I didnt find on any dictionary.

Cacosapo,

Plain clothed means in every-day clothing. Jeans, t-shirt, etc.

I think YOU mis-understand Kthin.......

to leave them alive is to miss ............

this is a war like no other
for the first time the opposing forces will never face each other in a field of battle
because the enemy know their weakness, they would be destroyed before they began.

Gulf war 1
Iraqi tanks killed - 4000+
US tanks killed - ZERO - a couple were put out of action in combat. but were repaired ......
My brother was in 3RTR then, the regiment was going to bring back some T80's as a souvenier
but they didn't lose a tank, and had no room to fit the 'guests' into .....

Quote:

---

Those few bullets....did they have to go to the head?

---

Absolutely
head shot by itself is only 90% certain to kill [modern medical technology] which explains why you pump in plenty when up close and dirty.

Snipers use a heavy Hi-Velocity slug that is designed to stop in one WHEN applied to the head.
and it's a rifle too, VERY accurate in their hands

this doesn't mean they SHOULD shoot to wound, they are a weapon of last resort, and death is the ultimate last resort.

as an afterthought:
what kind of 'paradise' would allow this type of scum into it's portals?
I think I'd rather go to hell :)

And seeing how they treat their women, why would they want 70 virgins THERE ?
I believe that they believe that the people they kill will serve them in 'paradise' too ??

Not gonna be the best atmosphere :)

[edit]

Quote:

---

When UK was fighting against IRA (is that correct?), police was using that kind of tatic?

---

The IRA were not known for their self destructive policy :)
hence, you COULD apprehend them.
BUT, if it was deemed correct, then they were killed .......

Gibraltar is the 'best' case in point ...........
intel was that they were carrying a remote detonation device
when, in fact, they were still in recce mode
even the IRA did not say they weren't their people
they were just p155ed that they lost 'em BEFORE the fact.........

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by foxyloxley
What will YOU do to save YOUR land / people / family / friends ????

Brazil is a large country with a diverse religious background, majority of Roman Catholic,with a hint of Voodoo / JuJu ?

---

No Voodoo here. I have no clue that is "julu" :)
maybe you are referring to "Umbanda", but...

See, a lot of people die here. A LOT. More in on day that on that tragedy on London. Diferent "enemy" here.
We have drug dealers.
Heavy armed (for our standards).
They have UK & USA & Russia modern weapons while our police are still using .38 and .40 :(

Statistics:
On some regions, the number of (inocent) people killed by drug dealers IS THE SAME that killed by police.

Can you see what that means?

I will give you an example:

To kill 10 drug dealers (yeap, they deserve it) that killed 30 people, police kill those 10 plus more 30 inocent people during the confrontation.

"Oh, but that last 30 one was necessary. It was a tragedy, but at least we have killed to entire (10) group".

Here, they kill poor one.

There, they are killing foreigners.

Can you see the pattern?

Do you want to turn UK into a EU Brazil?
(without our esplendid beachs and weather, of course :) )

Ok, I dont feel like what happened was merit for the "ultimate last resort".

Quote:

---

And seeing how they treat their women, why would they want 70 virgins THERE ?I believe that they believe that the people they kill will serve them in 'paradise' too ??

---

Those are practices and customs that go back before you and I were born, they are irrelevant to the situation.

no one is saying Brazil doesn't have problems.

and killing innocents IS a tradegy.

BUT:
WE are at war
YOUR war is drugs, you just don't call it war.

OUR war is going to turn into a crusade [the dreaded C word]
and will probably last just as long as the war on drugs will

And war demands its sacrifices :(

you / we cannot ask our defenders NOT to defend themselves?

[edit]

Quote:

---

Ok, I dont feel like what happened was merit for the "ultimate last resort".

---

Too late for that.
but, for the record, I do .......

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Kthln01
[B]Ok, I dont feel like what happened was merit for the "ultimate last resort".

---

There is two diferent situations form me:

a) of course, on a clear and present danger to civilians, police should shoot to kill. If a guy has a revolver, they MAY shoot for incapacitate; but i will never complain about if they shoot to kill. If the guy HAS a bomb, they MUST shoot to kill.
b) on that situation, they "suspected" that he has a bomb. So, we went into the shadows....i
It is the same situation that i put for voting:

a) if you kill the guy and he was running to kill 100 children, you are a hero
b) if you dont kill the guy and he kill 100 children, you are a @#$## bastard.
c) if you dont kill the guy and he is inocent, you did our job.
c) if you kill the guy and he was running (because he was late) to get 3 son, your are a murder.

Hi cacosapo,

a) yes
b) you will be perceived so
c) you got lucky
d) you will be perceived so

Unfortunately we can sit back in our favorite chairs and play monday night quarterback all day...but these guys didn't have days or even hours to reflect on the moment...they had to make a decision and carry it out...based upon the evidence and circumstances before them...at that moment...

there is no evidence these were corrupt cops with bad records...these guys aren't LAPD...they shot him in the head...that alone tells me they thought the guy had a bomb and was going to use it...

they were wrong...what if next time they aren't and this ruckus causes the next cops to think twice and in that moments lapse of action a 1000 people are killed...because some people decided to persecute cops for doing what they thought was right at the time?

You want us to look at the downside of police corruption...how this extra authority can cause abuses...

How about the other downside...how many people are you willing to sacrifice by handcuffing the police and causing them to ' hesitate ' when immediate action must be taken?

sometimes immediate action must be taken at the moment and they do not have the luxury of playing Monday night quarterback.

' Where's the dead guy? ' ' Over there! ' ' And why didn't you call 911, sir? ' ' because when he started to crawl through my window, I grabbed the first thing I could find, I couldn't call 911 because I had the phone cord wrapped around his neck while I was beating him with the phone ' ( just an example of ' immediate action ' :D )

Eg ;)

Can we just clarify something here, there is all this talk of, "shoot to kill". I'm sorry but there is absolutly know way to shoot any other way. You simply can not shoot, "to hurt a little bit"

The standard doctrine is to aim at the largest body mass, this is where all the internal organs are. It also increases the likelyhood of a hit. Most people that die of gunshot wounds do so of shock and not the damage caused by the round, within reason. Fatal shots are not that common.

There is an ex Irish (If memory serves me correctly Guards Officer who, who was shot in the head, during the Falklands war. He lost a massive % of his brain and lived, not going into shock is what saved his life.

The point i am trying to make is, if there is a threat, perceived of other wise, the only way to deal with it is kill it. Suicide bombers represent what is probably the most dificult challenge that faces security forces any ware in the world. There is know taking them prisoner. They need to be isolated and killed. As has been mentuned before shot to the head to avoid detonation af any charges that may be strapped to a body.

Quote:

---

I do understand that UK & USA people looks this as war. But its not. Again, you cant use war rules against terrorist. If you do so, they win. You will spread so terror on the population that they (the terrorist) wont even do anything else.

---

If you say its not war, you do NOT understand....so don't fool yourself. 3000 innocent civilians killed within one hour and you tell me its not war....wtf are you smoking? You do not know how we feel about it, and probably will never know until something like that happens in your country..You will NEVER understand what it feels like until you see the faces of those who had loved ones in the WTC and watching the towers fall on live television...so do us a favor and STFU about it cuz you don't know what the **** you're talking about!

Quote:

---

E.G. When UK was fighting against IRA (is that correct?), police was using that kind of tatic?

---

IRA is not known for blowing themselves up or for purpously going after innocent civilians. They targeted military structures.

Quote:

---

IRA is not known for blowing themselves up or for purpously going after innocent civilians. They targeted military structures.

---

First part, somewhat correct, although they did have a nember of accidents, which involved blowing there selves up. They did however target civilians.

Quote:

---

From Here: http://www.newcriminologist.co.uk/ne...?id=-516644988
300 people were injured in the bombing as well as the 29 that were killed making it the single worst terrorist strike in Northern Ireland's often turbulent history. No warning of the attack had been given meaning that there was no chance to evacuate innocent people from the target.

---

That is just one example.

There are plenty of others, IRA, PIRA, INLA never held back from killing, even if it meant civilian casualties. The Droppin Well Pub bomb killed 6 Civilians. Patrick McGinty and his merry men walked into a church and machine gunned the congrigation.

Have a look here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/..._killings.html

Well...over 108 posts and 11 pages we have accomplished this:

23 members accounted for...

11 members say...cops acted appropriately under the circumstances

4 members say...cops overstepped their boundaries

4 members sitting on the fence

3 members beliefs unknown

1 member ( cough Negative cough :D ) doing a good impression of Don Rickles

If this is an indication of the norm...then...most people believe they acted appropriately under the circumstances.

Democracy in action :D :p

Quote:

---

4 members say...cops overstepped their boundaries

---

Oops. Im not saying that. Perhaps due a lack of knowledge of english i may passed that impression.
What i am saying is "Dont think about this a war casuality". The facts should be investigated deeply. Im a saying that we should investigate this episode as a "possible police error".
Some people are saying "yeap, there were right" and some "No, they are murderers". What i am saying is that "we dont know yet, so we cant support this as a correct action. Lets investigate and if the policemen were wrong, they will be prosecuted. "

Annyway, cops didnt overstepped their boudaries. They did what "we" (in that case you) established as boundaries. If they had overstepped, we are not discussing that.

The problem here is "Society" establishing new boundaries for cops actions due the new threat. Only this.

If you establish new boundary to them, they will use it.

WHen some people "talks" here, they present clearly a "Military Background"

Quote:

---

If you say its not war, you do NOT understand....so don't fool yourself. 3000 innocent civilians killed within one hour and you tell me its not war....wtf are you smoking? You do not know how we feel about it, and probably will never know until something like that happens in your country..You will NEVER understand what it feels like until you see the faces of those who had loved ones in the WTC and watching the towers fall on live television...so do us a favor and STFU about it cuz you don't know what the **** you're talking about!

---

Dont mix the subjects, man. OF course it was a tragedy (too). Im not endorssing that acts. i can ask back "wtf are you smoking?". But are you ready for the next 10 years? when cops can
arrest anyone because of a small suspect?
I can ask you back:
what about it was your son killed by police? Can you come here and say "he was inocent but i still believe that cops can kill inocents on those situations".
I support actions against Terror 100% percent (and my country is not even affected by it - yet). What i cant support (without further investigations) is a innocent murder. If they had enough (not those ones) elements to shot him, i will applaud them. May be he was carrying a bomb. Maybe cops saw a weird device attached to him. Maybe he tried to put his hands on his pockets after police shout "Police stop" and identified themselves. But, NOW, weird jacket and running from 20 guys, civilian clothes, heavy armed, dont ressembles me a "good element" to kill someone. Perhaps there is diferent.

Dont come with that "he was a war casuality".

Just thought i would correct a mistake I made in my last post. It was not Patrick McGinty I should have said, Dominic McGlinchey Old age and alchol abuse is starting to get to me:)

By the way, Cacosapo,
You bring up some very valid points.

The Police here have now captured the remaining three bombers, and the Rome Police have captured the FIFTH one, it was suspected that there were in fact, five, but details were supressed.

The turds were 'captured' on live TV too, snivelling and crying, and complaining about THEIR human rights ................

They were ALL living here [UK] on benefits :Aaaaaarrrgggh:
they will now be protected, and cared for by the judicial system .............

and take note ................. THEY WERE NOT SHOT ..............

Not even in Italy :D

OUR Police are trained and do a damn good job for almost no recognition.

God save the Queen
God bless America

Now let them find and [if they feel like it :)] kill the rest.............

Quote:

---

complaining about THEIR human rights ................

---

We get that alot here too. I think every country in the world has complained about it in fact.

Egal nice list. ;) Perhaps you could compile a list of how many would support a little more agressive than normal interogation technics in order to retrieve counter cells?

Quote:

---

Perhaps you could compile a list of how many would support a little more agressive that normal interogation technics in order to retrieve counter cells?

---

That depends on what you mean agressive...........Pulling fingernails, blow torches, unmodified electroshock treatment :D

Apparently, hooding was outlawed by British Services back in the 70s?? I guess no one told the guys that lifted me for 36 hours back 82/83. The human rights biatches are even calling stress positions torcher. They do, however recognise that valuable Intel can begotten from interigation, how the fisk you are supposed to get it though is anyones guess. :rolleyes:

I think we should go back to using the technique we used very succefully during ww2. Captured agents had two choises.
a/ Turn and work for us.
b/ Trial followed by summary execution.

Well within the auspices of the Geniva convention.

Execution? We already know they aren't afraid to die. Feed them Lemon Chicken. That will do 'em in.

Quote:

---

Feed them Lemon Chicken. That will do 'em in.

---

Nah ...........
Feed 'em into a mincer ............... one size fits all [eventually :)]

As for Brit forces and interrogation, Northern Ireland was the training ground for the modern times.
They stopped the stress positions AND hooding AND white noise ...............late 70's early 80's,
don't remember the IRA giving Captain Nairac the option though :(

which kinda begs the question : How DO you get 'em to talk ?

You could always arrest MORE than you admit to
and mince the extra in front of the 'suspects'

my [real weird / odd / plain deranged thoughts

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Execution? We already know they aren't afraid to die. Feed them Lemon Chicken. That will do 'em in.

---

Ha, don't you mean Force feed them BBQ Pork sandwiches?

Somebody here mentioned that in the US L.E. are not allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect. Well, that's not totally true. If the suspect is causing eminent risk to other's lives, it's a green light. To me it's a horrible tragedy what happened to that poor guy. I feel bad for his family and also to those cops who have to live with that mistake for the rest of their lives. I can't judge, I wasn't there. Both sides of the story sounds aweful. God bless them all.

Looks like things were not as straight forward are they appeared at first.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157892.stm

Quote:

---

Leaked documents appear to contradict the official account of how police mistook a Brazilian man for a suicide bomber and shot him.
The documents, from the probe into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes and leaked to ITV news, suggest the he was restrained before shot by officers.

---

Quote:

---

The documents, including witness statements, also suggest Mr de Menezes did not hurdle the barrier at Stockwell tube station, as first reports previously suggested, and was not wearing a padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb.

---

Quote:

---

The latest documents suggest Mr de Menezes had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers, had started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down in a train when he was shot.

---

There was a police advisor on the radio this morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/radios...dex.shtml?link
Go to listen again and choose Good Morning Scotland he was on between 7:30am and 8am.

He was trying to describe what might have happened but suggesting that the media wait to hear the whole story and that the leak may predudice the investigation.


Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder.

Well that just spits in the face of reason.

I still believe that our Police acted in OUR best interests ...........

I don't care HOW many get killed, as it is NOT an issue, our Police are not the trigger happy types that the leftie apologists would like us think ...........

He was in the wrong place at the wong time..........

his family are already licking their lips at the prospect of all that compensation settling in .........

I just hope that when they are required to kill again, that they will allow training to overcome the possibility of it being another Stockwell .............

And YES, I've seen and read the reports as printed in the press.......
Just remember most UK media has a hidden agenda, and what they say is what they WANT you to listen to, NOT the truth..............

Before anyone has a go at those who defend us, wait until it's YOU in the firing line ......

THEN criticise them ........

Pax