London again, terrorist...boom?

[The PIT]

Funny I was talking to a guy from the home office today and he said the guy couldn't understand English. Funny how you get different sides of the story. He also made the point that guns would also have been issued to unexperianced officers in the present climate.

Of course if the police didn't shoot him in the head and he did detonate the questions he would be why didn't they shoot him. He was heading for a Train as well at the time I understand. Also if he was worried about being followed by some nasties why didn't he go to the Police they'd have been plenty around at the time.

Interestingly the MCB spokemans this morning on the TV was a lot happier and said the Police had done the right thing in difficult circumstances.

As for resigning thats pure nonesense but then Mr Ellis no doubt would say the same if the guy did get on the train and then went boom.

[RichL]

It was a tragic mistake, but I'm not going to blame it on the Police.

Two weeks after a suicide bombing, on the same morning as another attempted suicide bombing, you're wearing a baggy jacket and carrying a bag when three people identify themselves as armed Police and point a gun at you.
Do you :
A) Do what they say, slowly and carefully, because most UK criminals don't have guns and identifying yourself as a Policeman when you're actually a mugger is a bit unlikely.
B) Run into the nearest train station and hope they wont follow?


You're an armed Policeman. Two weeks ago suicide bombers killed over 50 people. This morning they tried again and failed. You see a man of dark complexion wearing a baggy jacket and carrying a bag come out of a house you suspect is something to do with terrorists.
You challenge the man and he runs into the nearest tube station.
Do you:
A) Let him go, he might not be a suicide bomber. Plenty of people have reasons to wear jackets in hot weather and run away from Policemen with guns.
B) Assume he IS a bomber, he's heading for the tube to blow himself up, and shoot him dead?

According to BBC reports they tried to resuscitate the victim. Five 9mm rounds at point blank range into the back of someones head isnt likely to leave much to resuscitate and I'm sure even the most medically inept copper is going to realise that when they have to hunt around the carrage to find his lips before they can give him the kiss of life.

[The PIT]

It was a tragic mistake, but I'm not going to blame it on the Police.

Two weeks after a suicide bombing, on the same morning as another attempted suicide bombing, you're wearing a baggy jacket and carrying a bag when three people identify themselves as armed Police and point a gun at you.
Do you :
A) Do what they say, slowly and carefully, because most UK criminals don't have guns and identifying yourself as a Policeman when you're actually a mugger is a bit unlikely.
B) Run into the nearest train station and hope they wont follow?


You're an armed Policeman. Two weeks ago suicide bombers killed over 50 people. This morning they tried again and failed. You see a man of dark complexion wearing a baggy jacket and carrying a bag come out of a house you suspect is something to do with terrorists.
You challenge the man and he runs into the nearest tube station.
Do you:
A) Let him go, he might not be a suicide bomber. Plenty of people have reasons to wear jackets in hot weather and run away from Policemen with guns.
B) Assume he IS a bomber, he's heading for the tube to blow himself up, and shoot him dead?

According to BBC reports they tried to resuscitate the victim. Five 9mm rounds at point blank range into the back of someones head isnt likely to leave much to resuscitate and I'm sure even the most medically inept copper is going to realise that when they have to hunt around the carrage to find his lips before they can give him the kiss of life.

Mmm well he doesn't have to be dark as I'm sure theres plenty of white or yellow Muslims around. You've got to do point B. People aren't used to this sort of thing in this country or used to the British Police behaving in this manner. It's something that People are going to have to get used too and yes mistakes will be made.

Years ago we're in Tenerife and asked a Policeman for directions. Since British Tourists had a reputation for causing trouble his hand kept on moving towards his gun. Something we found rather nerve racking.

[badpauly]

This thread is very close to another board's thread on the same matter, so I'll post something that I've just posted there, as a little something to think about.

It's a Friday morning, and your wife/girlfriend/sister/mother is heading off to work. After work she is planning to head out with the rest of the girls for a few drinks, so as well as her laptop and other office gear, she has a change of clothes. She is wearing a jacket as it may be cold later on that night, due to a change in the weather coming through.

A block from the apartment building where she lives, she notices 5 mean looking guys following her. This spooks her a little, so she starts to walk faster. All she can think about is the reports in the papers recently about the rash of gang-rapes, and she doesn't want to be a statistic.

The group following her starts walking faster to keep up, and are no longer hiding the fact that they are following her. Her heart rate speeds up, all she can think about is getting to the safety of the train-station, the closest location with a lot of people around - she will be safe there, they wouldn't attempt to rape her in front of hundreds of people would they?

She looks behind and they are gaining on her. "**** it" she thinks, and starts to run, glad she is wearing her runners and not her office-shoes. The 5 attackers give chase.

She is close to the station now, and all she can think about is making it onto a train and getting away from these animals. She dives through the barriers and into a carriage. She doesn't care if it is heading the right way, she just wants safety.

The five men burst into the carriage as the doors close, she screams and falls to the floor in hysterics, and a man pulls out a gun, places it to the back of her head, and pulls the trigger.

Her face explodes across the floor in a mash of blood, brains and bone. There won't be an open casket.

The next day while you are still in shock and grieving, you start to hear people talking about it.

"She should have known better",
"It was her fault she was killed",
"What the hell was she thinking".

[Brian Ellis]

when three people identify themselves as armed Police and point a gun at you.

According to witnesses, they neither identified themselves nor wore anything that would do so. In any case, to use TP's epithet, would you believe three yobs, even if they did shout that they were police. If they really thought he was a bomber, they should never have let him into the crowded concourse of a tube station, when the streets outside were relatively deserted.

And the guy spoke fluent English.

[GNEP]

The Brazillian guy apparently left a house in Tulse Hill that they were watching, and was followed. He was shot in Stockwell station. He must've got the number 2 bus (a route I take myself to see a mate in Tulse Hill regularly). That's a 15 minute bus ride, with a walk of a minute or two at each end. They only shot him in the tube train. Something smells fishy.

Oh, and I didn't post it here before we knew what had actually gone on, because I didn't fully believe it, but according to 2 friends who were in the next carraige on the tube at the time of the shooting, he was clearly white. So none of this "fit the profile" nonsense either.

[RichL]

According to witnesses, they neither identified themselves nor wore anything that would do so. In any case, to use TP's epithet, would you believe three yobs, even if they did shout that they were police. If they really thought he was a bomber, they should never have let him into the crowded concourse of a tube station, when the streets outside were relatively deserted.

And the guy spoke fluent English.

Hmm, we appear to be referring to different witnesses. I was going by the story of the BBC News website that said the officers DID identify themselves and opened fire after when he refused to comply. Personally I find it inconceivable that three trained officers, no matter how jumpy and nervous, would fail to identify themselves to a suspect before shooting him with intent to kill.

[schmosef]

This thread is very close to another board's thread on the same matter, so I'll post something that I've just posted there, as a little something to think about.
[snip]

Dude, did you jerk off to this?

That's not how the incident played out.

Why not write a similar piece from the policemens' perspective to balance your bias?

I suppose you're not interested in that.

[Sasq]

lets make this clear, 1) I asked Paul to post that. 2) none of us know how it played out. only what the news reports say.

I asked him to post it, just so we all had a think about what could have been going through the now dead mans mind.

[badpauly]

Dude, did you jerk off to this?

No. But come to mention it, your reply has me strangely aroused. Can you make your next post longer?

That's not how the incident played out.

Correct. Mine was a hypothetical story involving a female, while most of the initial media stories that people are basing their facts on are hypothetical stories involving a male.

Why not write a similar piece from the policemens' perspective to balance your bias?

Because I don't see the majority of people questioning the police, or the government, on their use of the tactics that cost a young man his life.

I suppose you're not interested in that.

I'm interested in the truth, and not finding myself in a police-state.

[schmosef]

No. But come to mention it, your reply has me strangely aroused. Can you make your next post longer?

I'm too busy to get very involved with this right now. But I'll respond to you as best I can. You'll have to wait until tonight for more.

Correct. Mine was a hypothetical story involving a female, while most of the initial media stories that people are basing their facts on are hypothetical stories involving a male.

Your "story" is so contrived as to not have any legitimate parallel to the event being discussed. Motivation you ascribe to the girl is simply not appropriate for Jean Charles de Menezes. You also fail to identify the motivation of the police. Your analogy is deeply flawed. The parable is broken. Again, I submit that your story's only redeeming quality is, as Stephen King would say, "stroke material".

Because I don't see the majority of people questioning the police, or the government, on their use of the tactics that cost a young man his life.

R U joking? Open your eyes! There's LOTS of criticism and requests for clarification going on in the press. Don't you think everyone here is dying to know more. The only people jumping the gun here are those demanding resignations from high up ministers. The plain fact is that we don't have a full report yet. Just telling us what they did is compromising an ongoing investigation. Why not wait until we have a real report before writing about the psycho-sexual motivations of the players?

I'm interested in the truth, and not finding myself in a police-state.

That's a nice platitude. You're interested in "truth" but you didn't write anything truthful, or even partially based in fact.

I'm interested in not living under Sharia. Preventing that is going to cause a little bit of upset among people who run from police on a day that multiple other bombings have occured.

[Brian Ellis]

non of us know how it played out. only what the news reports say.
.

Perfectly correct. Unfortunately, many of the news reports contradict others. And some are clearly reporting either what one side would like to emphasise or the other, whether it be the truth or not. I refer back to Sir Ian Blair's first press conference after the event. He clearly implied that the victim was Muslim and closely linked to the terrorists having committed the putative attempts. WRONG on both counts. He also stated that the police handling firearms should have worn caps with the chequered stripe to identify themselves. It was also implied that no oral warning was made. In his elation that a dangerous terrorist had been eliminated, it would seem that he considered any procedural errors were of minor importance.

And why was it concealed for days that the victim had travelled on a bus from Tulse Hill to Stockwell, while the police followed him? Would it not have been easier to intercept him while he was quietly seated on the bus, rather than start a chase after he left it?

It transpires today that there was even a reason why the victim may have been wary of the cops: he had outlived the duration of his visa. If he had known that his pursuers were cops, he paid a heavy price for being scared of them because he had not renewed his visa. However, I find it hard to credit this excuse. Not even in Brazil would plain-clothes cops pull guns to arrest someone with irregular papers.

There has been too much of the smell of a cover-up of a gigantic boo-boo. The public have a right to know the facts, not just what the media and the authorities deem fit for publication.

[badpauly]

Your "story" is so contrived as to not have any legitimate parallel to the event being discussed. Motivation you ascribe to the girl is simply not appropriate for Jean Charles de Menezes. You also fail to identify the motivation of the police. Your analogy is deeply flawed. The parable is broken. Again, I submit that your story's only redeeming quality is, as Stephen King would say, "stroke material".

My story was simply to cause a thought process to happen, to give pause from all the "I read in the paper that... so it must be true" crap that is flauting around. By putting a female character in, we can remove the testosterone-fueled fapping that is going on.

I do worry about the continued sexual spin you are putting on my story.

R U joking? Open your eyes! There's LOTS of criticism and requests for clarification going on in the press. Don't you think everyone here is dying to know more. The only people jumping the gun here are those demanding resignations from high up ministers. The plain fact is that we don't have a full report yet. Just telling us what they did is compromising an ongoing investigation. Why not wait until we have a real report before writing about the psycho-sexual motivations of the players?

There has been little to no information given as to what occured between someone deciding a bomber lived in a building, and chasing someone into a busy train-station to execute him.

All we have is a bunch of government employees saying that it's a shame, but there was cause to do what they did, and nothing will be changed.

And again with the sexual reading of my post. What is bringing this on? My original story wasn't sexual in the least... if you are reading that into the story, I'd be stopping for a long talk with yourself.

That's a nice platitude. You're interested in "truth" but you didn't write anything truthful, or even partially based in fact.

As above, it was somethign to get people thinking. I made no claim to it being a work of fact.

It was a story. Based on a similar situation that has caused this thread.

I'm interested in not living under Sharia.

I'll race my "Western world as a police state" against your "Western world as a Muslim state"

Preventing that is going to cause a little bit of upset among people who run from police on a day that multiple other bombings have occured.

A guy, who has lived in areas where death-squads operate, is followed, and then chased, by a group of unidentified armed men, and is shot for it.

Is that ok? Would you be happy if you, or someone you know, was shot while running for a train, just because the police had word that a bombing may occur?

What occured seems to have happened because of a huge ****-up. What should be happening is the government, and those under them, doing all they can to make sure it won't happen again, and for an explicit "Sorry, we ****ed up, it won't happen again" instead of the current "we are sorry, but nothing will be changed" that is occuring.

At the least, those involved in the decision to follow and shoot should be removed from duty, as they DID screw up. They followed the wrong man, and then executed him.

Sorry won't bring him back.

[schmosef]

Brian, don't you agree that making up stories of girls getting gang raped leads us no further to the truth?

I agree with you that something isn't right about what we know. Earlier in this thread, I quoted a bbc article had a witness to the event describe Jean Charles as wearing a bomb belt with wires coming out. As far as I know that hasn't been retracted.

The media are all over this. Sensationalist crap trap about fear of a gang rape doesn't get us any further to the truth.

[badpauly]

OK, I'll explain my story a little. Background, I have written, both fiction and non-fiction, in the past. I can put words together to get a story across. And I can get paid well to do so.

I chose a female character for two reasons.

1. The actual story was about a male
2. A general male audience such as is found here would possibly put aside the neanderthal mentality if faced with a female character.

Now, when a female is faced with a male follower/stalker, the major fear they have is of rape. I know this because I have a lot of female friends, and know that a number of them have indeed been raped. I often will walk them home, to the car, or to a bus/train station because of this.

Added together, we have a female with a fear of rape. This gives her a reason to flee. End of story.

It was NOT added as some sort of male masturbation fantasy, or to detract from the story, or even to titilate. In fact, as far as the plot of the story goes, it is a minor part. It simply gives cause to her fear.

We don't know what reason Charles de Menezes had when he ran, because the last thing that went through his mind was a few lumps of 9mm copper encased lead. We will never know. He may have been scared because he hadn't paid a debt for all we know.

Again, the story was written, and posted after a request from Sasq, to get those who have become all "factual" because they heard a rumour or read something in the paper, to stop and think. TO question. To discuss.

I did it to personalise the issue.

Death isn't pretty. Hearing people carry on about how much the guy deserved it when in fact he was innocent sickens me.