London Calling
 

"London Calling"

London calling to the faraway towns
Now war is declared, and battle come down
London calling to the underworld
Come out of the cupboard, you boys and girls
London calling, now don't look to us
Phoney Beatlemania has bitten the dust
London calling, see we ain't got no swing
'Cept for the ring of that truncheon thing

[Chorus 1:]
The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin
Engines stop running, but I have no fear
'Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

London calling to the imitation zone
Forget it, brother, you can go it alone
London calling to the zombies of death
Quit holding out, and draw another breath
London calling, and I don't wanna shout
But when we were talking, I saw you nodding out
London calling, see we ain't got no high
Except for that one with the yellowy eyes

[Chorus 2: (x2)]
The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
'Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

Now get this

London calling, yes, I was there, too
An' you know what they said? Well, some of it was true!
London calling at the top of the dial
After all this, won't you give me a smile?
London calling

I never felt so much alike [fading] alike alike alike

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/A...hub=TopStories

http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Home

I know it's not a popular topic, but really. Just another forgotten person blown away because why,... he looked like a terrorist? What does a terrorist look like?

I'm all for finding terrorists but does anyone see the hypocrisy firmly entrenched in how a suspected TERRORIST is gunned down. And by police that usually don't carry firearms. Unreal.

I can understand some democracies using such methods but really, who now is safe. Probably the terrorist that walks and doesn't run.

Um, he didn't so much LOOK like a terrorist, he ACTED like a terrorist. He was wearing weather inappropriate clothing (heavy, bulky coat on a day when the temp. was 71F), he left a building which apparently was under surveillance for terrorist activity, he ran from police, he jumped the turnstile, and still refused to stop when they told him to stop or be shot.

If you make a cop think you're about to kill him or her, you WILL die, even if you're joking.

Yeah... that's a good excuse... five shots.

I like to wear a coat when it's hot... so what? I'm a target now?

The man was doing a bit more then just wearing a puffy coat.


I think there isn't enough info on the incident to make a sound judgement yet. However, given the timing and circumstance I don't think this is anything to go ape about.

It's from one of "Murphy's law of combat"..."when in doubt, empty the magazine." When you are dealing with somebody who you think wants to kill you, you "kill him a lot."

Just wearing a coat isn't enough to get you in trouble. Wearing an inappropriate coat, while exiting a suspected terrorist hideout, and then running from the police WILL get you in trouble.

My advice to you if you like to wear heavy coats on the subway in the middle of summer is to STOP if the police scream "STOP!" at you. You also might want to raise your hands and not shove them in your pockets.

BTW, would it be any better or worse if he'd only been shot in the head once or twice? He'd still be dead, yes?

I agree that it's a terrible tragedy, but WTF??? Running from the cops is bad enough, but unless he had been in a cave the last few weeks, he knew what had been going on.

I really can't blame the bobbies for killing a guy under these circumstances.

Sounds like a case of suicide by police to me.

Can't believe anyone would do that otherwise.

I'm really shocked that people are siding with the police on this one. Shoot first, ask questions later. I really do not like where this anti-terrorism thing is heading.

All of you are just amazing. I can't believe that all of you are siding with the cops too.

But of course, this is half a world away and you have no connection to this guy so who cares right? Until a cop kills your, brother, sister, cousin, nephew, etc becsaue they were wearing some jacket, it might hit a little more close to home.

Running from police is generally a bad idea. I'd be all over them if he were one of those "just standing in his doorway" victims, but I've yet to hear an account that didn't describe the guy as going on an extended fleeing spree. Unfortunate he chose to flee, it's tragic he was killed, but not surprising given timing vs. the bombings.

Edit: One of my favorite albums of all time though. Still have the vinyl. RIP Joe.

i hate to say it, but if i were in the cop's shoes, i would have probably have reacted in the same way. This guy wasn't just standing around ignoring a cop's orders or anything, he was actively trying to get away while at a suspicious area while wearing suspicious clothing and acting in a suspcious manner. Now, i'm sure that if you came out of a terminal, looked 'suspicious' and stopped when the police told you to, you'd probably be talked to, then let go, no harm done, just a few minutse of time.

so, in this case, from the little info given, i'm forced to side with the cop. it is unfortunate, but seriously, what were they supposed to think

ditto, it was obvious innocent people will pay for the attacks, and here is an example. unfortunate for his loved ones that are now in misery over his loss.

actualy, i spoke too soon. I just re-read and it said they wrestled the guy to the ground, then unloaded into him...sorry, but if you have a guy down and relatively under control, there is no need to shoot him. If he was a suicide bomber, then the mere act of wrestling him to the ground would probably have caused him to set off the bomb and hell, even the chase would have caused the guy to panic and blow himself up. the mere fact the cops got close enough to take him down is a slight indication that maybe he wasn't involved.

Also, didn't realize that the police were undercover...in that case, yea, i'd probably run...

dammit, so confusing.

WTF has been my reaction as a whole to the politics board lately :rolleyes:

Had this guy in fact been a terrorist, acted exactly the same way, and the bobbies did not shoot him, I'm sure we would have some of the same people complaining about the futile and ineffective 'war on terror'.

This doesn't belong in the poltics board, but should be in nonsense for a Darwin award.

Not quite. Instead of "shoot first, ask questions later", it was "Watch. Watch. Watch. See something suspicious. Follow. Follow. Follow. Notice something that looks REALLY suspicious. Approach with caution. Order suspect to stop. Chase after suspect. Watch suspect jump the turnstile to escape INTO a confined place where he can cause the most damage. Watch him ignore "stop or I'll shoot!" orders. Watch the officers, who are clearly in fear of their lives, act in the defense of themselves and others."

Why does this remind me of the song that goes: "I wasn't gonna run from the cops, but I was high."

Just like "No means NO!", "Stop! means STOP!"

The dead guy caused it. He could have easily stopped it at any point. He chose not to. And shooting him in the head at point blank range just means that there's less chance of injuring somebody innocent.

In most of the US, based upon the reports we have, the police would have acted within lethal force guidelines. If the cops reasonably believe that a suspect poses an immediate threat to their lives or the lives of others, it's generally legal to shoot the suspect.

he was tackled and there was no need for him to be murdered simply because he was wearing a jacket. suicide bomber? i'm sure he would have detonated before being tackled if that was case. this is a case of police abusing their power, plain and simple.

Your reply seems to show that you haven't read the whole story. He wasn't shot "simply because he was wearing a jacket". He was shot because the police had every reason to believe he was a terrorirst, because he *acted* like one.

This was a case of police doing exactly what they were told to do, plain and simple.

If this was a suicide bomber, tackling and holding him down is NOT ENOUGH to stop him. He can (and will) still push the big red button. The only way to be sure he won't do that, is to shoot him. And if you shoot him, you shoot more than once, to be absolutely sure that he's dead.

The fact that he wasn't a terrorist is tragic. The incident will be investigated, and if the cops did something wrong, they will be prosecuted. However, I very much doubt that they did anything wrong. I believe that these police officers followed their "rules of engagement" to the letter, and this incident was a direct result of that. If anything, the rules may have to be amended.

Just a thought: if this had indeed been a terrorist, most people would be happy that these cops shot him. (I say "most people", because there will obviously be people that would have wanted a fair trial instead...)

I dont have a lot I would say about this here,,, but the use of the word "tragedy" in the police statement seems to me particularly grotesque. I think the word I would use is "murder"

if they tackled him, they would have no reason to murder him had they not had the jacket excuse once they had him down, aside from the fact that he was "acting" like a "terrorist", he could and would have pushed the "big red button" you speak of before he was tackled, or when he was. had he still had easy access to the "big red button" once he was tackled, he would have pushed it before they killed him, it only takes a split second. Also, they weren't in uniform, correct? anyone would run in that situation.

He wasn't murdered, he was shot in self-defense. You say you're sure he would have detonated before being tackled. How do you know what goes through the mind of a potential suicide bomber? Based upon the information presented so far, it was a righteous shooting. If you can't play with the Big Dogs, stay under the porch.

No, only a coward with a guilty conscience would run in that situation. If somebody yelled "stop or I'll shoot you", do you think most people would run? Really?

Sorry, but murder is generally defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought." This killing was neither unlawful or done with malice aforethought.

1) Like moosenose said: you don't know what a suicide bomber thinks.
2) If we follow your reasoning, a terrorist being held down by the police would simply have wait a few seconds before blowing himself up. After all, if he doesn't blow himself up immediately, police won't shoot him, allowing him to push the button anyway.
3) The guy was a moron for acting the way he did. According to the BBC, he was chased by 20 plain clothes police officers; he jumped over obstacles, ran down the stairs, and into the train. IMO, that is not normal behaviour; it is exactly what I imagine a suicide bomber would do. Therefore, if I had been one of those cops, I would have shot him too. After all, what's the alternative: if he had been a terrorist, we would have dozens of dead people, and everyone would have been angry at the police for not stopping him when they had the chance.

A tragic accident, but I'd say the victim was to blame, not the police.

If the guy has a bomb strapped to him - as the police thought - and he RAN INTO A SUBWAY SYSTEM THAT HAD JUST BEEN BOMBED SEVERAL TIMES, they had no choice. You cannot wrestle with a guy who may have his finger on the trigger of a bomb that would kill dozens. 5 shots to the head is appropriate to minimize the chances of everybody blowing up.

It's an unfortunate incident. But the guy ran from the police who were actively hunting terrorists. The guy died because of his own stupidity and panic. The cops did their job as far as the information we have tells us.

More came out in the news... the cops were plainsclothes and pulled guns on him...

It has been suggested they scared the shit out of him and his instinct was to run... also as a Brazillian wearing a coat in the "heat" is not out of the ordinary. English heat is cold to them...

It was a bad situation I can agree...

That's the most asinine thing I think I've read on this thread. Are seriously insulting this poor guy who was mistakenly shot? What does courage have to do with anything...

You have a very skewed perspective. In the end, none of us were there and can't say what triggered his flight response or why the cops shot (although we can certainly guess given the situation).

All I can say is if a guy (not a cop) just a guy with a gun (they were plainclothes not bobbies) pointed at me my flight or fight would be running overtime...

You guys amaze me. We don't even know the full story and you guys are going out on a limb to demonize the victim and condemn or paint the police as heros as if you saw the whole incident with your own eyes.

Ok, moose, some stranger in plain clothers yealls at you, STOP OR I'll SHOOT YOU!!!. What are you going to do? You have no idea if he's a cop or a crackhead.

So let's never discuss newsworthy incidents until 2 years after the fact and we've had a full public enquiry?

It seems to me so far that it comes down to two possibilities:

If the police had the suspect under control and then shot him, it was manslaughter or non-premeditated murder.

Otherwise, it sounds like a rational and justified action to take. Perhaps they should've made it more clear that they were police, but that doesn't change the very reasonable perception of imminent danger.

Ok, there is some new information bringing bought up here. If the police were plainclothes, then I can see the guy doing exactly what he did, so then this goes from "idiotic person" to "unfortunate tragedy". However, I won't blame the police either, because unless something else comes out they seem to have been doing exactly what they should.

You know, they had the guy under surveillance and were following him. Why are people surprised the cops were plainclothed? It's tough to follow someone discreetly wearing a Bobby's outift.

The only thing I have not heard was whether they shouted "Police" or flashed a badge. Given that that is about the first thing they teach you in cop school, at least in North America, I'd be surprised if they didn't, and that'd be about the only that would get me to think the cops, more than the deceased, are to blame for the situation and outcome.

So, you don't think they identified themselves as police when they pulled guns and chased him? Do you really think you could outrun twenty guys shooting at you?

Being confronted with one plainclothes person screaming that they are police and pointing a gun at you is one thing, he might be a robber or something. With 20 of them doing it, the chances of it being a robber diminishes greatly. And you'd think that if you were scared because people were chasing you, you wouldn't essentially run into a dead end, you might instead run somewhere that normally had uniformed police present.

Your point about fight or flight is a good one. Personally, if I had somebody that I thought was a criminal or twenty after me, I'd open fire while taking cover, with the intent of staying put until the Cavalry arrived. I sure as hell wouldn't do something to put others in danger, like running into a crowded place and using other people for cover...

I'd open fire while taking cover. Now if they yelled "Police! Stop or I'll shoot", I'd look to see if they are indeed police officers (I know virtually every local cop, both uniformed and plainclothes, by sight) and take it from there.

You "virtually" know every cop whether their in plainclothes or not? Define virtually. I that that THIS is the most idiotic statement you've made in this thread. How can you possibly know who every cop is? Have you been in out of the big house long enough to know? Or do you live in a town small enough to need a sheriff and one deputy? :lol:

And you'd open fire too??? On the cops? I thought we were talking about cops possibly committing murder here. Now, if I follow your advice, I'm sure to get my ass pumped full of lead.

My knowing the cops comes from working with them. If they are on the street arresting people, I know them...maybe not by name, but certainly by sight. If they're admin (by this I mean either supervisory or records), I know them. Now there may be some meter-maids and support personnel out there that I don't know, but they aren't armed (or sworn) anyway. As far as the number of officers, there are well over 200 sworn officers on just one of the police forces that I deal with.

As far as opening fire on the cops, I'd never do that if I knew that they were cops. Around here, the cops, by law, must first identify themselves by yelling the word "POLICE!" first. There have been cases where police failed to do this and were fired upon, and the shooter walked because they didn't ID themselves, and a reasonable person would have thought his or her life was in danger, so it was legal self-defense.

sorry, still haven't heard if the cops identified themselves.

also, the guy was brazillian...and maybe he did do something, so he did have a reason to run from the cops, but maybe he was just a purse snatcher who happened to be wearing a large jacket. Maybe he couldn't understand the cop. I do know that i have driven away from police officers that i couldn't immediately identify. I would only stop when they start running and flashing badges.

Hell, maybe the guy didn't speak very good english and just saw people chasing and screaming after him. I'd run in that case.


I don't think it is easy to sit here and judge either, but i can see how i would have reacted if i were either of the people involved. I still think that the police over-reacted AFTER they put the guy down, by that point, the guy is pretty much under control, although, again, if he really was a suicide bomber, he would have waited until the cops were close and then would have pushed the button.

I still think it's sad that this is the result of this war on terror.

I can't understand the mentality of many on the left at all-terrorists attack innocent civillians and what do you hear "we need to understand them, it's because of western imperialism/christian crusading/whatever that they did that". But when officers of the law shoot someone acting suspiciously, there's no equal outcry to understand how officers after two close, tragic, bombings might be in a heightened state of agitation and don't want to wait around to shoot a suspicious acting individual AFTER his bombing has made the evening news. It seems like certain elements of the left won't be satisfied until everyone in the west is dead.

hrm
 

Not sure.

Wow, I have a lot to say, but I would instead pose the following question. If it was in NYC and a black man, that was 'shot' would we all say the same thing.

Or on a better parallel since we might say NYC has not had recent suicide attacks, what if it was in Israel, and a Palestinian was killed.

I do think it was an unfortuniate mistake, not exactly the same as murder.

This is what I would call more grey then either black or white (murder / justified), and leaves open a lot of legal / moral questions. Like what if a citizens saw a guy like that, and tried stopping someone and the person died (not neccesarily by a weapon)?

This is a sad reality we live in.

We can discuss it BUT we have to continually understand that we don't know shit about the circumstances.

We don't know:

a) did they idnetify themselves as cops?
b) did he understand them?
c) why did he run?
d) did he see that there was more than one cop?

the list goes on...

We simply don't know. We can easily sympathize with the cops... high stakes. Recent bombings... tensions high. I get that.

BUT we should also not be so quick to condemn the victim of the shooting.

We really know nothing about him or his circumstances. Calling him a coward is just not justified.

hysteria is a dangerous phenomenon.
the cops are not immune.
someone wearing the wrong style of jacket in the tube at the wrong time would not have been immune either.

i think that the american "war on terror" is systematized hysteria--so judgements fashioned from here would be colored very deeply by that political choice/climate---what i get from the many of the previous posts is that in the united states, right now, a significant segment of the population would be able to rationalise such an act on the part of the police.
maybe this is partly a function of living in bushworld.
maybe it is partly a function of a decade of shows like "cops" the primary function of which is to provide an ongoing justification for any and all police actions.

so what i learned by reading through this thread is that in the states, with its context of rationalized hysteria, apparently many would see something parallel as understandable: that the cops would shoot five times at close range someone who happened to be brown, wearing the wrong type of jacket and who reacted in the wrong way--based on a fleeting logic, a circumstantially driven decision, it seems some folk would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops....
the rationale itself seems to rely on the conservative-particular assumption that the law is drawn to the guilty.

roachboy... I think one BIG difference is that there *could* have been explosives under the jacket.

Though I think it is safe to say that if you have tackled someone you could feel if he had explosives strapped to his chest... again more speculation...

charlatan: well yes. of course. but had that happened, everything would have transpired otherwise.
i am not pretending that i have some procedure in mind that would prevent such things from occurring, if it was followed--some checklist of features that would justify shooting someone at point blank range 5 times. the shooting itself seemed to me a very very complex situation unfolding very quickly in which very quick decisions were made with tragic and politically complex outcomes. and i cannot pretend that i know what kind of decision i would have made had i been in mr. menezes's place. i do not think anyone nows how they would have reacted. but getting killed is a pretty stiff penalty for making what apparently was the wrong choice in an instant---plainclothes cops shouting that they were cops while waving a gun around---i dont know. do you?

what i was focussing on is the willingness of folk from the states (referring to the posts above exclusively) to rationalize such an act in favor of the cops--who are in a crappy situation, btw---and i focussed on this because of the extraordinary distance that seperates these responses from everything i have been reading in the british press as to reactions, official and otherwise. i explain the divergence to myself with reference to the american ideological climate.

And you didn't blame the cops or insinuate they were overzealous?

Pot, meet kettle.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...on_6inf416.gif

1: Jean Charles de Menezes leaves a house under surveillance and arrives at Stockwell station

2: Witnesses say he vaults the automatic ticket barriers and heads for the platforms

3: He then ran down an escalator after being approached by up to 20 plain-clothed police officers and tried to board a train

4: He apparently refuses to obey police instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead - 7 shots to the head and one in the shoulder.

___________

I don't believe I did blame the cops... I was a bit sarcastic about puffy coats out of season.

In the end, it sucks, what happened but I think my reaction is similar to roach's... The jump to rationalize the cop's actions was just a little too quick and pat. I'd rather sympatize with a cop who accidentally shot someone than normalize what occured here...

Uh huh. You made the crack about 5 shots too.

The implication given who and what you were responding to, was blame the cops.

At the end of the day, if the guy hadn't run, he likely wouldn't have been shot, don't you think?

Five shots on a tackled guy is excessive.

I am willing to grant that this was under extraordinary circumstances.

I am willing to place *some* of the blame for this on *both* parties.


Yes, he probably wouldn't have been shot if he hadn't run. However, under normal circumstances, would police actually shoot someone for running?

If, as it has been suggested, he was running because he hadn't renewed his visa do you think he thought he was going to be shot?

Do you think if something like this occured three weeks ago, that he would have just been arrested, or would they have blown his head off for running?

But there's the rub; it wasn't normal circumstances and they will never be.

Sure, it's excessive to shoot a guy running away if you are trying to ticket him for jaywalking.

Ditto to shoot a guy running away for shoplifting.

But again, this guy was a suspected suicide bomber running into a subway.

Context is everything here.

And again, why was he suspected?

1) Left a house that was under surveillence for ties to a bombing.
2) Was wearing a heavy coat in warm weather like many suicide bombers have done.
3) Ran from cops into a subway which has been a recent target of suicide bombers.

So at the end of this, he was shot to stop a threat that [i]was not real, but was reasonable to suspect[/b], given the circumstances.

And there is the key, the cops had a reasonable suspicion that this man was a lethal threat to them and the innocent people around them.

It is a tragedy, but not murder or even unreasonable force.

so what you are saying is that in the above scenario, lebell, it is tragic but understandable that the police would have shot this guy 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder?

i would agree with you if the outcome had been, say, that menezes been wounded--the cops were looking to stop him, he was fleeing, there was doubt. etc....
i would agree with you had the cops been in uniform and menez had been wounded.

but 7 times in the head?

that seems well beyond excessive, perhaps tipping into the pathological--that many shots in the head? for wearing the wrong jacket, jumping a turnstyle and not stopping when guys in regular clothes identifying as/claiming to be cops said stop? there is something really quite creepy about this.

i know that it is reassuring to imagine that the police etc. are somehow above the political fray, that they are not swayed in the performance of their duties by waves of hysteria that impact on others...but that is naieve. they are human beings and memebrs of the same communities as they folk they are to protect. they are affected by the same climate. i have to say i have a really difficult time not seeing in the excessive character of this killing a reflection of the wider environment. and that is really not good.

Lebell... I don't neccessarily disagree with what you say. I am just trying to add some balance to the discussion that was leaning towards villifying the vicitim of this tragedy.

I am suggesting that...
none of this went through his head as he chose his outerware for the day.
None of this went through his head as he chose to take public transit.
None of this went through his head as he chose to run.

It is easy to sit back and make a judgement as some have done, hind sight is 20/20 and all that. But none of us were in his shoes or knew what he was thinking. The leap to normalize what happened and shake our heads that this, while terrible, was just what happens when someone does, "X" is a little too clean and tidy.

Question:

If the trailing police thought he was such a threat to public safety, why did they wait until he got to the tube before stopping him? Why not surround him on the street where there was less chance a chase in a crowded tube station?

There were "fuck ups" on BOTH sides of the equation.

Well, how about this scenario:

there were a couple of undercover (plain clothes) cops following him, because he was being watched. No problem at all - they won't move in until he does something weird.

But then the guy boards the bus, and the police is getting nervous (remembering the bus bombings). They call in backup. After leaving the bus, the guy goes to the subway station... The police is getting *really* nervous now, and decide to stop him, just in case.

There's now about a dozen plain clothes police officers following the guy (who is probably walking rather fast now, feeling threatened by those guys). They identify themselves as police officers by shouting: "Police! Stop right there!" (FYI, given their training, it would be highly unlikely that they would NOT have identified themselves.)

But instead of stopping, the guy jumps across the barriers, and runs to the stairs. The police officers, fearing that another suicide bomber is about to strike, run after him. And we all know how it ended: a load of bullets through the head, just to be absolutely sure that he won't blow himself up.

=========

Now, I have no way of knowing whether this scenario would be real or not. But it would certainly explain why they hadn't stopped him before (why would they?). It would also explain the actions of the police, and (to an extend) the actions of the brazilian guy. I also find it much more believable than the stories about him being shot *just* because he was a foreigner and/or wearing bulky clothing.

Please, let me be clear: This has nothing to do with feeling "reassured" that the cops are "protecting" me, nor does it have anything to do with hysteria.

It has everything to do with the situation the cops were in.

I would hazard a guess that you have never shot a handgun in a life and death situation (Fortunately, neither have I). But I do know from my own experience that I can pop off five shots in one to two seconds (certainly the time it would take a suicide bomber to trigger his load). And I also know that cops are trained to take out threats until they are not threats any longer. This frequently means emptying their guns into suspects that they feel are imminent threats to their lives. One or two shots to the chest frequently do not instantly kill or even incapacitate. A determined attacker will still have seconds (which are a long time in combat) to do what they want to do. The only thing that instantly stops all determined action are shots to the central nervous system, which for all practical purposes, means the head. And then, there are times when even a head shot isn't fatal.

The cops actually showed some restraint because frequently the adrenaline does make them empty their guns. In the case of a SIG-SAUR P226 9mm or a Berretta, that would mean roughly 15 bullets per magazine.

No, they acted exactly as their training told them to. STOP the threat, no ifs ands ors or buts.

The only question left is was the the decision that this person was a threat reasonable, and I've already given my view on that above.

Edit to add:

I want to be clear that I am addressing the idea that "hysteria" somehow affected the police in this situation.

If there had been NO bombings, then I might agree that they had been unreasonable.

But the fact of the matter is that there were subway bombings and that there were additional attacks.

This is not hysteria speaking, these are the facts of the matter.

And as I've said above, there was sufficient reasonably believe that this person might be engaged in another attack. He was not a random individual in a big coat on a street who was just shot out of the blue. If he were, now THAT would be hysteria.

i dont think there is a real disagreement across this, lebell--more a dispositional thing which leads to somewhat different takes at the level of detail.
perhaps you're right about the speed of the gun and that having played a role on its own in all this--i doubt that this information would have registered with me, so yes. thanks.
i think i imagined an old school revolver and from there figured that 7 head shots would require a fair amount of deliberation. so point conceded on that.
and the others drift a bit once i concede that.

a shitty situation all the way around.

One question based on a point I've seen brought up several times.

How many officers fired?

If several fired at once, isn't it LIKELY that he ended up with seven shots in the head, or whatever ended up happening?

here is a more detailed account of what happened.
no doubt the official version will differ.
i make no claim about the contents of this (i simply do not have enough information sitting in philadelphia to be able to say much about questions of detail) but here it is.

source: http://electroniciraq.net/news/2074.shtml

From today's Arizona Republic Opinion section:

nevermind....................

That guy's theory seems the most unlikely out of all the of the ones I've read. Suicide decoys :rolleyes:

I thought of the possibility myself. By doing this you get a bunch of liberals in a huff that someone acting like a terrorist was treated like one. Not only may it make future bombings easier, but it puts more pressure on the exisiting government.

Better yet, let's stick our heads in the sand and accept anything that is done without raising questions...

If innocent people are killed they probably deserved it anyway. I wonder how many of us "act like terrorists" every day and are completely unaware of it...

Yes, this was a tragedy that took place under an extraordinary situation. That doesn't mean the police get carte blanche it means we should examine the events thoroughly to make sure a) they didn't make a mistake that could have been prevented this time and b) that they shoot the right people from here on in...

Oh and thanks for the lead in to, "let's blame the liberals for the next bombing because the authorities can't do their job correctly". Nice.

That seems a rather broad generalization. Not a single conservative was in a "huff?"

The head of police has already stated that something like this is likely to happen again. Why would future bombings be made easier in your opinion?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=17
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=10
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...06&postcount=5
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=16
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=14
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=22
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=15
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=31
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...73&postcount=5
Ustwo, do you have any interest in sharing with the rest of us how you come by the opinions that you post? To me, what you post is not compelling or obvious enough just to accept, or to refute at face value. Please add some references to draw attention to "main stream", "source based" reports that I can use as a starting point to counter...or to agree with your all too brief points and arguments. Or.....are my suggestions too removed from your motivation to participate here ?

I've included the bulk of your recent posts here in the last ten days to provide you with a visual aid to further your understanding of my motivation for the questions and comments that I am directing to you. My opinion is that your are intelligent and politcally aware, and that you have much more to offer the rest of us if you choose to. How about it?

If it makes you feel better host, I gave up on the hope for rational discourse on the politics board longer than 10 days ago.

If you expect me to provide some sort of links or explanation to each and every statement I make, I will have to disappoint you. I would hope some would be most obvious to you at least. In the past I have done so, but the net effect is the same, the effort is wasted, and the unwashed are still unclean. So if you will excuse this simple man, I have kin folk coming over tonight and pieces of meat to roast on the fire.

trust me, ustwo, you are not smart enough to dash off little quips and pass them off as constructive.
no-one is.


but i understand from your post above that it must be frustrating for you in your guise as moses descending from reactionary mountain with the day's tablet of talking points to encounter a population that actually wants you to argue for your positions rather than accept them as the mystical insights you no doubt understand them to be.

and if you are jamming your role as prophet into an already busy schedule, i can see how this would get on your nerves. it must be exasperating to feel as dame edna does, that you give and give and give.

but if you really are delivering messages that would help us lesser beings up from the mire in which you imagine us to be trapped--far far from the elysian fields you obviously occupy----then maybe you owe it to the mystic source of your Science to actually make arguments for us, the unwashed...

unless you take us, the unwashed, a little seriously, what is the point of descending from reactionary mountain with the tablets--why not just stay up there and commune with the source of rightwing truth and wisdom, in a space where facile little quips can be understood as the multifaceted jewels of argumentative technique that you no doubt confuse them with and no-one is bothered by the occasional slide into "kill them all and let god sort them out" type pronouncements? that lovely place where everyone agrees with you and nothing ever has to be spelled out.

I have a question and no sarcasm is intended. Why do you continue to post in Politics when you have given up on the hope that any rational discourse can occur? Why would you wish to waste any of your time here?

roachboy... I don't think you are being entirely fair... nor is host.

Ustwo is hardly, like some on this board, just regurgitating the latest talking points. As much as I disagree with him, I have found a lot of what he has to say interesting and relevant (yes, even some of the quips).

As someone who doesn't always post a book in support of his ideas, I can appreciate that sometimes a quip is just what you have to offer.

let me be clear then--i do not doubt at all that ustwo has interesting things to say--i sometimes find myself wondering what they would be if he found the population here worth the time to engage with.

second: i would not have reacted as i did had the crack about the unwashed not been in his post. seriously.

Like this:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y59...thymcveigh.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y59...k/Nichols2.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y59...Terrorists.jpg

If you will notice my posting on the politics board is far lower now then it has been in the past, but if you will indulge me I may post from time to time, or even more often provided some of the rational left, or libertarians return.

Don't forget the most prolific terrorist in U.S. history:
http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/ur..._rudolph,0.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,506634,00.jpg
so much for "wearing weather inappropriate clothing (heavy, bulky coat on a day when the temp. was 71F)"
It is a denim Jacket.


The documents, seemingly from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into the shooting, contradict first reports which suggested Mr de Menezes did not hurdle the barrier at Stockwell tube station and was not wearing a padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb.

They also 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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4159310.stm

If this new information is accurate someone really fucked up.

1) He was wearing a denim jacket
2) He was not hailed by the Police
3) He was running to catch the train
4) He was held down and *then* shot

Paints a *very* different picture than the original story.

wow...remind me not to go to london as i'm always wearing an overshirt or something 'bulky' and jeans on supremely hot days...

honestly, though, i can't imagine the police/scotland yard fabricating a story so far from reality, especially an incident with witnesses that can be verified. It just seems very odd to me.

People make mistakes and try to cover their ass all that time... I don't see why the cops would be exempt from this.