London Shooting - the real facts emerge Watch

This discussion is closed.
Scheherazade
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#81
Report 13 years ago
#81
(Original post by melbourne)
Its the same as the burgular who sued the person whos house they were robbing because they fell through the roof and landed on a knife.

He shouldnt have been there, therefore he took his own risk and paid the consequences.

The home office has stated that his visa was 2 years old. That means he was here illegally. Therefore there are no excuses- he shouldnt have been here.
Fine but what if the burglar was shot by the resident while running away?
0
melbourne
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 13 years ago
#82
(Original post by Rasta)
The police have admitted it is policy NOT TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES in such a situation. So no, he wasn't being unco-operative, he wasn't ignoring police instructions - they did not tell him they were police. Many witnesses have said there was nothing to identify them as such and no witness has been reported as hearing any warning.

You keep saying 'if he had been a bomber' - you could say the same thing about anyone! Should every person who tries to get on a Tube train be shot because they 'could' be a bomber? By your logic, they should.

Should everyone walk around naked now, then, so police can see they've not got a bomb on them?

The police had no good reason to suspect Mr Menezes of any terrorist activity. By your logic, every single bloody person is a legitimate suspect. Should everyone be shot?

If they thought he was a bomber, why did they let him get onto a bus? If they allowed him to be in a situation where he could have killed scores of people (if he had been a bomber), why did they suddenly decide he needed to be shot when he was in another situation where he could have detonated any bomb (that didn't actually exist)? If they're so concerned about safety, why did they let him onto a bus? Answer that one.

Even if they did think he was a bomber, when they had no reason to think so, there was no need for him to be shot - he was on the floor, totally restrained by police officers, and unable to move to detonate any device (which was non-existent). They didn't need to shoot him - he couldn't move to do anything anyway, and they could simply have Tasered him to make sure he couldn't do anything while they took him away.

This was cold-blooded murder. Commanda ****, who authorised the murder, should be tried, as should the murdering policeman who killed a man he had no reason to suspect of anything.

With the kind of things that are being bandied about here, every single person is a suspect and every single person is in danger of being executed by police. If it can happen to one innocent man - Mr Menezes - it can happen to any of us. Ian Blair has even said it probably will.
If i had people behind me with guns i would automatically assume they were police, its just obvious!!!!!!

I would get down on my knees and put my hands on my head!

It was not cold blooded murder, the man ran away from them- guilty.
0
melbourne
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 13 years ago
#83
(Original post by ayaan)
Fine but what if the burglar was shot by the resident while running away?
No i dont think you should shoot them, unless it was a shot to maine them (ie in the leg).

I do however feel you should be able to stab or kill a burgular in your home. On the other hand this could cause murders to take place where people have been dragged into houses, shot, and then made out to be burgulars......

its a tough one............

All im saying is we know he shouldnt have been here, therefore he took the risk and he paid the price.
0
abc101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#84
Report 13 years ago
#84
(Original post by melbourne)
If i had people behind me with guns i would automatically assume they were police, its just obvious!!!!!!

I would get down on my knees and put my hands on my head!

It was not cold blooded murder, the man ran away from them- guilty.
Not if you came from the slums where gangs with guns were rife.

It is not 'obvious' to assume men with guns are police. It is obvious to assume they are criminals.

Guilty of what exactly?!!!
0
melbourne
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report 13 years ago
#85
(Original post by Rasta)
Not if you came from the slums where gangs with guns were rife.

It is not 'obvious' to assume men with guns are police. It is obvious to assume they are criminals.

Guilty of what exactly?!!!
He isnt in brazil- stop using that as an excuse. He had been in this country for 7 years!

Not even yardies run through tube stations with guns yielding! Only police would care as less to show off the weapons.

It was a tube station
It was the day after a near-terrorist situation

Its not asif any other idiot is going to run through stockwell tube stattion with a gun, is it?!!?!?!
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think the internet has made political discussion more aggressive?

Yes (34)
97.14%
No (1)
2.86%

Watched Threads

View All