I think you have mistaken my points here. I am not saying I don't think he ran from police. I am challenging those who are certain he did when there has been nothing official confirming that and those who say what would have been happening at the scene when there has also been nothing confirming that either. The government changed it's story in a major way concerning this man, so why are people so quick to defend the latest version before the investigation is completed and any evidence released?

He has to apologise. It is his job.

And another thing for you to ponder. If they were so certain this man was a potential problem why did they let him get all the way to the train before taking action? The official story does say they followed him from a house.

Wonder if the rumours about that Brazilain guy being an "illegal resident" and being well known on the gay scene affect some peoples opinions here lol

I heard ken livingstone plans to wear a fake suicide belt to express solidarity with the terrorists...

Were do you read he was an "illegal resident"? The articles I've read said he was legal.

They didn't know anything about the guy, but yeah, a good question is actually why did they let him get on the bus? Maybe the bus was to empty to be a prime target I don't know, but sounds like the most logical explanation to that. Sure you have to question things, and that is why there will be an official investigation. I'll be the first one to appoligize if it is proven that the officer used exessive force.

There are a few things that have to be answered, but to me it is clear, why would the police shoot him if they weren't convinced that he was an extreme threat to public safety? The man reacted in the wrong way and unfortunately payed for it with his life. And it is pretty clear that he did jump the ticket barrier, and he did run for the train after he was asked to stop.
Nothing justifies those actions by them man, what the hell di he run for??

And I hear Isreal plans to continue killing innocent Palesitinian babies...

:Oh crap

The cops were undercover, and this guy was asian... maybe he didn't speak english and thought they were trying to jack him?

He ws Brazilian and he spoke English.
Also a gang of ten or more armed people is not a common thing in England, so if they say they're the police 99.9999% chances is that they're telling the truth, as any person living there for years would know...

The dead man had not lived in London for years, but where he did live for years a gang of armed people 99.9999% chances weren't police and should be avoided. Old habits die hard. :2 cents:

I think injustice like that happen everywhere but only some are really reported.

3 to 4 years he how long he had been in the UK. Fuck it he shouldnt have jumped the barrier. He got shot.

We have a system for getting rid of terrorists and it works. We had to put up with the wankers called the IRA for years. The bottom line is this 'Shoot to Kill' policy works.

When the police tell you not to move in the UK it is highly advisable not to move.

3 years is plural, so yes, he had lived there for years.
And having lived there for years he either had to be completely unaware of the place he was living in to think he should run from the cops for no aparent reason, or he had a reason to run.
I know for sure that I would not try to run from the cops in Brazil as they most likely would shoot you (as he should know being a Brazilian).

oh and actually, gangs of armed pepole in Brazil, I'd say it was 50/50 on that

Shoot to kill policy works
 

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=228

The British wiped out the IRA using it. We will now do it again against the suicide bombers fucking with us.

Where are the IRA now? On their knees begging for their piece of shit country back.

Hate the way we do things? Well you live with it. Want to come into our country and fuck with us? Pay back it final. We invented beheaded people in public. Want to see us get nasty?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=228

Most of the times we didnt even bother to turn up at the court trials.

To all people crying about the guy getting shot. Blow me. When British police say "Dont move" it is highly advisable not to move.

The more bullets that are pumped into idiots that fuck around disobeying the British the better.

Yep :2 cents:

If dudes in plain clothes are pointing guns at me, I'll put my hands up and say it's cool take anything you. Losing some chump change isn't worth my life.

Especially when there is bombings going on... it's a hyper sensitive situation.

I made the word years bold as to distinguish between 3 years and enough years to be totally absorbed into the lifestyle of a new country. Semantics as that may be, the last part of your statement is what is exactly repeating the main points I have been countering in this thread. The cops were not in uniform... there has been no mention of actual uniformed cops on the scene until afterwards... there has been no video released to even suggest that he may have known he was running from cops, and from the way the story is being told it sounds like they followed him all the way to the station, then at some point he jumped the turnstyle and rushed to the car, tripping as he did.

Until video is presented showing him running prior to jumping the turnstile, in a "heavily padded coat" or near uniformed officers, everything that you and a couple of others in this thread are trying to espouse as facts is nothing more than your opinion. :2 cents:

Sorry, I'm just a stickler for that "until proven guilty" thing. :winkwink:

I sure hope the carte blanch "kill anyone who fits the profile" policy will never be accepted here :eek2

Careful, you're supporting my argument :winkwink:

Well then the fuckers need to be in uniforms. :disgust

what part of he ran past armed police and normal police all in uniform who were standing by the barrier dont you understand?

Ofcourse not, you're from a S-state in the USA, you lynch people with out evidence :thumbsup

There is nothing that says this is not exactly what happened, you're just making things up, where have you ever heard anyone say that they did not identify them selfs as police?

There is also nothing that says the cop was not wearing a pink elephant suit and shot him with an apple, at least I've never heard anyone deny that...
maybe that is what actually happened, when we get the video then you'll all see!!! Pink Elephant suit and an apple I say!!! :upsidedow

Post me a reputable link that says he pushed past uniformed police (preferrably published after the government retracted the statement they knew he was connected to the attacks the day before :winkwink:)

I'm not familiar with your term S-state.Uhm, are you dense? You are proving my point. There is nothing that has been presented to the public that says this is or is not exactly what happened. Your judgement on what happened is like a trial jury making their decision after only hearing opening statements and never hearing any evidence.
You obviously breezed over my earlier posts before debating. That is why I broke this one down into step by step bits for you. Where did I ever say nobody "identified" themselves as police?

I'm not making a judgement on what actually happened until there is video or pictures collaberating the truth in the very different government's version Vs. witnesses versions or at least the testimony of those witnesses on the record and you should do the same. :2 cents:

I live just down from the station. I often pass through it. I know what the security is like there and at all stations now.

In other words you can't.

Unless you were at the station when this happened you have no idea what was going on the minutes prior nor know for sure that there were uniformed cops at the turnstile he jumped over. Half the world is debating it, they can issue a couple pictures and reduce the roar.

Sorry, ment southern state.

ok, if eye witness statements are not evidence in your eyes then the I don't understand how the legal system works where you're from
kind of sounds like it in the quote here below

All testimonies by witnesses have sofar supported pretty much what the cops said. The man ran like mad onto the train and got shot, he jumped the ticket barrier and he was wearing a thick coat.

Recent events have also shown that he had an expierd visa, so that is the most likely reason for his actions. But not even in Brazil does the police draw guns at people that have expierd visas (I know that from first hand experience).

It is a tragedy, but to me it's the same as if he had got startled and ran into inncomming traffic and got killed, the police could not be blamed there either

You mean like these witnesses?:
He must have forged documents that he showed his family.BTW, the article above raises my main question:One more:
How 'bout that... I practically Columbo'd that one...
If the behavior is "inexplicable", there's usually an explaination.

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: