And to debunk another thing people have grabbed on, the fact that if he was at the house of one of the previous bombers he must have been involved with something:

Let me translate "flats" and "communal front door" for our American readers:
APARTMENT COMPLEX


Edit: 350 sheep buying the govt carp :Oh crap

Witnesses on the actual platform could hardly have seen what was going on upstairs before the guy jumped the ticket barrier

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2...340089,00.html

Well, there must be an easy way to find that out, look at his passport.
Would be convenient if his family members can't find it, just about when they are going to sue...

Here's your answer to that

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...707480,00.html


Yeah, well his family members must know exactly what he was thinking,
they also say that his visa was fine while the authorities say otherwise, why doesn't the family came out and show the guys passport in the news?
Would be even easier than showing the surveilance footage.
Did they guy press charges for the muggin? Should be pretty easy to find out,. And if he didn't why? Normally a person would contact the police if mugged.

Yeah, looking suspicious, and then afterwards acting more than suspicious by running.

Look at it this way, police is watching a house where they suspect a terrorist might be at, a man comes out in a padded coat on a hot day, and fits the profile, not the same guy but could be connected. What is the police supposed to do? I'll tell you right now that any efficient police force in the world would decide to see if he leads them somewhere, and not stop him right infront of the house they are watching and therefore blowing their cover.

I can't speak for them but I highly doubt the NYPD would allow someone they thought had a bomb to continue all the way to the subway or a bus before they decided it might be a good idea to take him down. I also don't see most US police forces tracking other residents simply because they came out of an apartment complex where they had a suspect, unless they knew that the person came from the suspect's apartment.

I'd like to remind you of something you said to me earlier:
If you have seriously read what has been released on this story you know that there are conflicting eyewitness statements in almost all aspects of it. As of now there has not been any evidence released to the public to show either side right or wrong, yet you have chosen to ignore the glaring problems presented without knowing such evidence and act as judge and jury and presume to know what happened. No, the legal system doesn't work that way where I'm from and if it works anything like that in the UK, that's a pretty well kept secret I've never been privy to before. You guys have my deepest sympathy.

Again, it is clear they were unsure to begin with if the man had a bomb or not, so they decided not to blow their cover by arresting the man infront of the place they were staking out.
They decided to watch the man and see if he led them somewhere.
When he was going to the underground they do decide to stop him and the man acts in to say the lease extremly suspicious manner.
The police also was watching the building from what I read, not just a specific flat.

So I quote again

A guy on the platform is not an eyewitness to what happened outside the station. That is just sensationalism by the press, the man on the platform saw him run in the train with 4 officers behind him and getting shot, sure many of the witnesses don't have the same 100% story, some say there were 4 officers some five, some say they were piled on him when he got shot others that the first officer in the door shot him as he fell.
Non the less most of the stories from eye witnesses do more or less concurr with what the plocie has said.

And btw. if witnesses don't matter in the judical system in America, why do you guys have schemes such as the witness protection system?
I mean hey, why kill a witness if anything they say is not usable in court?

Eyewitnesses count everywhere in the world, if there are many witnesses the story will differ, so what you do in that situation is listen to the majority of them, if 50 people saw something, 40 tell more or less the same story, 5 tell one story and another 5 yet another one, you have to belive the 40 (unless you think they're appart of some great conspiracy)

Basicly I am saying that the eyewitnesses are the evidence

Now, it is not anymore 5 times but 8 :

Police shot Brazilian eight times

Before, he was then wasn't linked to terrorists....


Maybe he was not running after all ....

Well, with a semi automatic gun fired rapidly people might think it was 5 times, specially when you're sitting on your way to work and all off a sudden this happens, I doubt people consiouly count, they would be to busy getting scared shitless.
And I never remember anyone saying he was linked to the terrorists, they said he was a suspect, or belived to have links to the terrorists.

And the one thing every single witness seems to agree on is that he was deffinately running, don't think there's any doubt about that

I thought the idiot from Israel may appreciate this month's cover. It also works so much better if he could manage to get his head around the fact that Ken's remarks and actions rarely represent anything most of the British public think. :)

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/

Not relevant to the thread but relevant to the reason the idiot started it which was also little to do with the actual thread subject.

please point me to where I said that Livingshit's remarks represent what most of the British public think. that, or stfu...

pretty close, no ????

Don't forget: perception by the people is what stays ... just like GW Bush never said that Iraq was involved in 9-11, but most american beleived so .... :2 cents:

fact is simple, he was under suspicion, was being stopped, ran and got killed.
He had not been under suspicion for long, and it did not take long for them to admit they were wrong, and he had done nothing wrong (exept making a very bad decision that cost him his life)

"He was assaulted by Englishmen (two weeks earlier) and because of that he may have been scared," Fausto Soares, a Brazilian friend who resides in London, told the Brazilian newspaper, O Globo

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/day...143775935.html


There we go.. Some fuckheads give him a beating two weeks ago and now he's an idiot for running away from plainclothes guys chasing him. Fucking whatever guys... the cops fucked up big time.

Obviously the cops should've known that! I wasn't disputing that.... [/sarcasm]
Like I said earlier, I would like to see any evidence other than hear say, eyewitnesses, police report (that's what you do when you get mugged right, call the police) what ever.

Also I have yet to hear of an incident in London involving a big group of well dressed adult men wit guns mugging people at 8'o click in the morning on a weekday. And I am positive he never heard of such an incident during the years he lived there.

Good lord, where did you ever read that into anything I said? Of course witnesses matter in the judicial system in America (as well as forensic, photographic and other evidence) but nobody decides a case before all that evidence has been presented and all of the witnesses have been heard from and their statements compared to other evidence for collaboration.
No, the witnesses are a part of the evidence.

If person A says "This is the guy I saw robbing the bank" and there is a video showing clearly that it was not him, should he go to jail because the witness was "sure"? CourtTV has run a number of excellent programs showing how faulty eyewitness testimony can be, where different people remember completely different heights, weight, clothes, hair color, actions, the whole 9 yards.

You were not there. You cannot pick one witness over another from news reports to believe. There are too many things in this case that just don't add up and they won't even start to add up until there are some pictures or official witness transcripts or something released... it's quite possible that key evidence won't be known by the public until the family has them subpoenaed in a civil suit.

Apparently you don't want to hear any evidence that doesn't agree with what you've already decided. :upsidedow

OK, please post links with multiple witnesses that say the cops clearly identified themselves in this case. No links to statements by the cops themselves, please.

In case any of you are waiting for it,
none of the witnesses reported hearing any warning :eek7