I made this thread before and deleted it. I thought people would be offended. But Serpent7 made me relise this must be said.
English cops hauled off and shot someone they thought was a terrorist. I belive this is a pathetic sceme by the English government to make people feel better about the terror blasts. They rushed in to action just so people would not complain about how they do nothing to find them. Is it true that in England you are guilty until proven innocent?
I just wanted to say I don't agree with you, no one could kill just for PR, and he did have an invalid Visa.
and he did run away. also, you probably have a skewed view of things. when they thought he was a terrorist, everyone was clapping like mad, and the police couldnt get enough praise. they find out hes innocent, and suddenly the police are evil bastards that'll do anything for PR and to look good. i mean, they genuinely thoutght he was a terrorist, he heads towards the tube, the yell at him to stop and he legs it. is it just me or is there something slightly dodgy about the fact he runs away from armed police telling him to stop?? lets pretend hes a drug dealer then because of this behaviour. the police are still getting a double thumbs up in my view, its the press that report things in a skewed way that pisses me off.
Idd. What would you do? You chase someone wearing a lot of clothes on a hot day, who you know is a bit dodgy, they run into a tube station. You know they can detonate a bomb by pressing two fingers together if they're a terrorist. Well?
It was a tragedy, what happened. But think of it like this, you're a police officer armed with a gun and charged with stopping terrorist attacks. You challenge someone who is acting suspiciously, and instead of stopping and giving himself up, he runs away.
What are you supposed to think? If you shoot an innocent man (as this guy kinda was... his only crime was having an invalid visa), you get people breathing down your neck for shooting an innocent person. If it had been a suicide bomber who had then detonated his device everyone would be ragging on the police for not stopping it. Catch 22 much?
There's no government conspriracy here, and I'm usually the first to believe that the government is up to no good.
Oh, and I believe there is a crime in Britain for which you are technically presumed guilty before being proved innocent for - possession of a illegal weapon
The cops made the right choice. The guy shouldn't have ran because that gave the idea he was a bomber, in fact the guy shouldn't have even been in the country.
Meh, please don't difuse the history (The guilty country always do that).
That guys lived there about five years!
And the cops wasn't even dressed like cops (one of them).
It was wrong of him to run away. But information is controlled by the governement, I mean the cops can't say something like: "Ah that guy looked like a terrorist so I shooted him". If they did say that it would ashame the English cops.
He wasn't a terrorist, he lived there as a normal civilian about 5 years. Why just now he get killed huh? Some I'm sure about the "Visa card invalid" is fake.
And if he had a bomb in his corpse when the cops shoot he did have exploded -__-
And if him was terrorist/bomber the cops shouldn't even shoot him for the well of the people!
ok sange yashha, that is balls. (well most of it)
the guy living there for five years. so? the terrorists plant sleepers thaty will stay inactive for decades before doing what they need to.
most the cops may not have been dressed like cops, but if theres one cop, 5 other people and they all [pull out gun and yell 'police freeze' or whatever, you see the one cop, and stop. he didnt. he legged it.
info isnt really controlled by the government, the press+reporters have nothing to do with the government but the governemnt can ask them not to show something. the press love a scandal, and if it would ashame the cops and sell papers because of that, there would be no question about them doing the story.
he just got killed because of 9/11, the bombings before and the heightened aleart. you could do most things in america before 9/11, as soon as it happened though security from terrorists in america increased loads. same happened in england.
practically all modern explosives arent shock detonated. only old ones, like tnt are so it wou;dnt have caused him to blow up.
why the hell shouldnt they kill him??? whats better, kill one person who would probably get a life imprisonment and just crowd up the already overcrowded jails if he was caught without bloodshed, or let him kill himself and hundreds of other innocents, get one more space in jail and save a few lives?
think about stuff before you say it. hell, im a big conspiracy theorist and i think the cops did 100% the right thing.