OK OK... So WHY was he allowed on board the bus in the first place ? He took a bus to stockwell tube. There were bombings on the buses the ONLY safe place to have shot him would have been outside the door of his house. I dont buy this. If this evidence had been released on the day there would have been riots. Hence the misinformation. Also, OWG show me 1 benefit to any muslim from these bombings. Who actually benefits? All the bombs were in some of the most ethnically mixed areas of London.
I don't blame the actual police that shot him...They were given strict orders and weren't allowed to assess the situation. Its the survellience team that gave the order and they had plenty of oppurtunities to take the suspect down
Things can be taken out of context, but agree. He was marked for death no matter what he did(or didn't do). Not necessary intentionally, but because of a fouled up system imposed by the police. He was executed for looking like he did.
The guy was executed. He could have been stopped and detained at any point in his journey to the underground station. Eventually, he was pounced on and restrained within the tube carriage. At that point, a plain clothes, undercover policeman put the gun to his head and emptied a 9mm clip into his brain. While he was restrained by another officer. Why wait till he was on the tube itself? No cctv footage, that's why. Everywhere up to that point was covered by cctv. Within the carriage wasn't.
DA please don't have a go at me, I really do not want to get into a religious political debate online as posts are continually misunderstood. This is plain to see by the fact you think I am suggesting that Muslims have gained or in some way have a gripe against Muslims. I do not and have not, I have many Muslim friends and customers. Put simply NO ONE has gained from these suicide murderers. It is wrong for these people to kill others and it is wrong for the police to have shot this guy. I am NOT taking sides, I am judging each case on individual merits. It makes no difference to me that it was Muslims who carried out these atrocities, you have to remember that in the 70's & 80's we had to put up with terrorist bombings from the IRA. I spoke out against them then, and speak up against those carrying out the current waive of murders. As you quite rightly pointed out (something which i have also done on my politics forum). There were Muslims killed in these actions, so how can they claim what they claim when they are killing indiscriminately? I have told you how I thought they could have gained more attention and public sympathy. Now what they have done is to make every single Asian, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or whatever religion, a target for the right wing extremists who have been dreaming of an outrage like this so they can say 'we told you so'. The BNP, combat 18 etc will have a field day now, this has probably been their best recruiting summer for a long time. I am no pacifist by any stretch of the imagination, but what i do believe is that if you have a problem with someone then you speak to that someone. What you do not do is try to terrorise them into submission, as 9 times out of 10 that will have the revers result. As I mentioned earlier, for many years we had the IRA etc bombing the mainland of Britain. eventually they realised that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and they came to a negotiated settlement. ALL that is going to be achieved by this sort of action in the name of Islam is the alienating and damaging of relationships in society, in EXACTLY the same way that in the 70's & 80's anyone with an Irish accent was treated with suspicion. (The IRA stands for Irish Republican Army, hence the Irish accent thing). All I ask is that you read what I am saying. People blame America and Britain for the situation in Iraq. Fine, I understand that. BUT, is it right to punish those who stood against the very war? Surely that is racism in itself. It was NOT the British or the American who invaded Iraq, it was our governments, and even then not all politicians were in favour. Some stood up against it and some even resigned over it. I fully understand that emotions are running high, as you can see from my post. But what set me off being concerned was your comment of 'show me 1 Muslim who has gained from it' . WHY? Why should I do that? why did you ask me this question? in reply to your question I will ask you one of my own that I feel is better asked. can anyone show me 1 PERSON who has gained from this? The simple answer is no because it is an affront to humanity, carried out by people who should ashamed to consider themselves part of humanity. Like I say I don't give a damn what race colour or religion they were, I would condemn them if they were my own family. Hopefully that has made my personal feeling a little more clear. <edited to spell check only, no content changed> OWG I am crop at spolling
Good point. I shall read the official report when it comes out, but what is crystal clear is that someone lied. Somewhere along the line someone lied, and that is not acceptable in my book.
Read through some of the articles about the Mock Terror Drill happening at exactly the same time as the bombings on www.infowars.com. Then the execution of an innocent man. Classic 'occult double blind' (psy-op) strategy to muddy the waters.
Maybe that dude saw something he was not supposed to see, so the policemen shot him to death...? Just a thought. And yes, I agree with dcristo completely. You could go so far and do so much harm in the name of "benefiting the majority." This logic leads to the eventual conclusion that in order to settle the differences, the world should always work the way that would benefit the group that has the largest population. I wish for a peaceful world to live in, but there are things I wouldn't do just so I can achieve that goal, for the fear that I wouldn't deserve such peace and prosperity afterwards.
what really ticks me off, is this other poster (wanker) talks as if this person was deserving of being killed.
Latest documents and photographs: 1- He did not run from the police. 2- He used his Tube pass to enter the station. 3- He had taken a seat on the train before being grabbed by an officer. 4- He was wearing a light jacket and not padded coat. 5- He was physically restrained when he was killed 6- it is suggested that intelligence operation was botched because an officer watching an apartment believed to be the hide out of one of the suspects in the abortive July 21 attack was "relieving himself" 7- Lethal force was not the only option since a few days later police used a Taser stun weapon to arrest Yasin Hassan Omar, one of the July 21 bombing suspects. Source: Daily Telegraph
STK is a quite complicated and also hard to decide position for the officer. Facinfg real danger and the limited decision time(1 or 2 sec.maybe) causes panic; on the other side, there's always a risk of finding himself being judged for his action.
Give a thought to how terrified this poor man was before he had seven bullets in his brain. To how horrified and bereft his family feel at losing him, multiplied by the fact that if it wasn't for sharp reporting I really doubt we would have learned the truth that Menezes was a completely innocent party in this. If that hadn't have come to light his family would be left to carry the blight of all their neighbours and friends thinking their son died a murdering terrorist. Would any of you accept your son or brother being gunned down in London because he lived in a shady building, had a good tan and was wearing a denim jacket?
Exactly, and that's also why not everyone could be an police officer. When people trust these people to carry firearms and walk around in the public, they believe they are being protected by the trained individuals who would make the right decisions and react the right way in the critical situations. This is a tragic accident, and this is also something that is absolutely not supposed to happen. Even if he did behave as a bombing suspect, there are laws to apprehend such individuals. I thought all suspects are innocent until proven guilty? I didn't know the laws make exceptions when the officers see it fits, not to mention this guys wasn't doing any of the above. Even if he was running, screaming, waving both of his hands and laughing and doing catwheels while wearing three rain jackets plus a fur coat, the policemen still shouldn't have shot him seven times. Not to mention they shot him in the head SEVEN times. Was he wearing some kind of helmet that required such overwhelming power to put him down? No wonder many thought it was an execution.
OK, I'll agree with the fact that we cannot fully put ourselves in the thinking process of an officer in danger. If he was. Now was he(or they) in danger here, after reading reports of people who got to see the footage, and eyewitness accounts, I wonder how was in danger here? The officers? The executed? Hint: It was the one who was targeted by armed men blinded by rage (so much so, they pumped several shots into the head of a innocent subdued unarmed man and tried to get away with it by lying).
TommyD, Yiang; I also feel sorry for the civilian, just like you. Poor man, this could still happen to any of us or to a beloved friend/family member. But if we have to look at both sides equally, there are other points we have to consider. How many police officers are employed in big cities?Not 10, neither 100; thousands of them. I know it's not easy to accept, but actually, "real professionals" suitable for this kind of ops only exist in elite units, just like the SWAT, GSG or GEO, etc. The rest are ordinary police officers, some of them are very young&unexperienced people behind a uniform. I'm sorry but this is the fact for any country. You can't expect ANY OFFICER to decide and act like real pros, bearing in mind that even pros may be mistaken sometimes. Now, was the situation dangerous enough? Unfortunately, yes. The suspect didn't have a firearm in his hand, but the real risk factor that the officers were warned about, was a suicide bombing. You can't see a suicide bomber approaching the police with a gun. These people load their bodies with explosives, hide them under thick clothing, just like the suspect. They often look pale, breath rapidly, display nervous/suspicious behaviour with wide open concentrated eyes, especially when facing security units. The suspect exhibited all of these symptoms. So, was there potential danger through the officers's eyes? Yes. And the rules of engagement: The officers received STK orders in such situations. They fired multiple times at the head to neutralize the opponent's reflexes.This is done for the purpose of stopping a terrorist to press the triggering button at the final second. Final risk analysis for the officer: If the suspect is a suicide bomber, tens of people die. Despite the warning, the suspect is still on the move. He bears many symptoms of a suicide bomber. There's no chance to wait for more evidence in this situation, and he's running out of time. The officers can't take anymore risk and the man dies. Actually, if the man was really a terrorist, and was not shot, many civilians, perhaps including people you know, would have been dead. It could still happen to anyone: Yes. So if you somehow find yourself in such situation, try to keep calm. DON'T RUN,MOVE OR SHOUT. Don't try to tell your story. If you can't stop yourself, just say "Ok" and repeat it calmly. DON'T PUT YOUR HANDS IN YOUR POCKET. Rise your hands and do exactly what you are told to do. Remember that "things will be clear and ok in a short time, you are innocent, so there's no need to panic". Sorry for the long post, but please consider these factors and realities, too.