[von Wrangell]

update:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

The BBC's correspondent in Brazil, Tom Gibb, said Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police.

He said: "The murder rates in some of these slums are worse than in a lot of war zones and that could explain why, when plain clothes officers pulled a gun on him, he may have run away."

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

update:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

I still don't buy that answer. Did he really think he was going to outrun a bunch of physically fit men with guns? He didn't find it odd that they didn't fire at him until he went on the subway? Last time I was in London every 6 year old had a cell phone - and he didn't call the police why?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SSharon

I still don't buy that answer. Did he really think he was going to outrun a bunch of physically fit men with guns? He didn't find it odd that they didn't fire at him until he went on the subway? Last time I was in London every 6 year old had a cell phone - and he didn't call the police why?

He obviously tried to get on the train to get away from them. Do you really think he started running and then started wondering "Why aren't they shooting at me?" No, he ran for his life.

And do you really think a person, when seeing a bunch of guys draw weapons, just picks up his mobile and calls the police?

You are just looking for excuses for the UK police killing a completely innocent man. There are two guilty parties in this. The terrorists for creating this atmosphere and the UK police for shooting an unarmed man without being 100% certain that he was a terrorist.

Trying to blame the man who saw a couple of guys draw their weapons and aim at him and who then took a split second decision to safe his life is disgusting.

Chalk this down as yet another victory for the terrorists. They have been able to change the way we(the West) live once again.

[moodymonster]

I find it odd they let him board a bus.

There are too many unknowns and much shifting information around this incident to know what happened yet. The only thing that is known for certain is a man died at the hands of the British authorities. Anything else is conjecture based on 'facts' that are constantly changing.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

I find it odd they let him board a bus.

There are too many unknowns and much shifting information around this incident to know what happened yet. The only thing that is known for certain is a man died at the hands of the British authorities. Anything else is conjecture based on 'facts' that are constantly changing.

One fact that is known is that the man killed was a completely innocent man. The circumstances of his death is what is the only thing left to discuss.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

One fact that is known is that the man killed was a completely innocent man.

More spin.
We know he wasn't connected to the Thursday bombings. We don't know that he was completely innocent (what's an innocent man doing coming out of a house under surveillance?).

[Athens]

Originally Posted by red rocket

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163466,00.html

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Ken Livingstone is an utter moron.

Just because the police decide to designate someone as a "suspect," does not give them the authority to shoot down civilians at whim.

I say, disarm the police completely, this so-called "protection" of the innocent clearly isn't working, and we can no longer trust the police to protect us either from the errorists or themselves.

again I dont blame the police, what happened was a mistake. But it does prove that cops might become trigger happy in the name of saving lives. This was just a tragic error on all parties. I do think the British System of not having guns on regular cops is part of the problem in this case.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Doofy

More spin.
what's an innocent man doing coming out of a house under surveillance?

In cities most houses are inhabited by multiple parties. That he came out of a house under surveillance doesn't mean he was guilty of anything.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

In cities most houses are inhabited by multiple parties. That he came out of a house under surveillance doesn't mean he was guilty of anything.

He lived in that building.

Update:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711779.stm

On Friday Mr Menezes had come out of his flat in Tulse Hill, south London, which he shared with cousins Vivian and Patricia.

He was thought to be on his way to fit a fire alarm.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

There are two possible scenarios here:

1. The shot guy was part of a radical islamist group trying to escape the police chasing him, while the police thought he were a bomber trying to get on a station to blow himself up.

or

2. The shot guy left a house and was aware that some people followed him and he wasn't aware that it was the police, considering they had no uniforms on, and was afraid that they maybe some racists trying to beat him up, so he tried to escape from them with a subway. When they drew their weapons he panicked and run for his life thinking they would kill him which they then actually did, not knowing or not believing or not understanding (could be that he spoke no english, or didn't listen anyhow) they were from the police.

Further investigation will probably reveal which scenario is more probable.

Taliesin

Odd to reply to myself, but it seems as if scenario 2 was the true one, indeed a tragic mistake.

Taliesin

[kilechki]

This story is really amazing and I am astonished by the few number of critics that the british police received so far.
Basically, this man has been shot to death - although he was already surrounded by 20 cops that kept him on the ground - *just because he was dark skinned, did not seem to understand english and lived in a house that the police did not even think to investigate*. The Police are all wrong on this case ; hopefully this is the only innocent who will lose his life because some cops did not manage to do their jobs correctly. On friday, everyone already knew that the bombs used in London seem to require a lot of effort to detonate and that they require the use of a rather big rucksack. This should have been enough such a murder.

Moreover, this just sounds like a complete failure of MI5 in infiltrating islamic groups in London. Had they managed to get at least minimum information on the responsible of 7/7 and 7/21, this would have probably not happened. Cops are not supposed to panic like that in front of someone against who they have so few elements of suspicion.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

He lived in that building.

So what? That tells you nothing.

In cities usually many parties live in one building. In the building I live in we are 20 parties (and two stores in the ground floor). Just because someone in the house is a suspect of a crime and the house is under surveillance doesn't mean that I have something to do with it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

So what? That tells you nothing.

In cities usually many parties live in one building. In the building I live in we are 20 parties (and two stores in the ground floor). Just because someone in the house is a suspect of a crime and the house is under surveillance doesn't mean that I have something to do with it.

That was my point

I was backing you up.

[ThinkInsane]

Mr Menezes' grandmother, Zilda Ambrosia de Figueiredo, told Globo TV "there was no reason to think he was a terrorist".

No reason except the way he he reacted to the police. You're telling me that with 20 cops ordering him down, not one of them identified themselves as law enforcement? I really find that hard to believe. None of the back-up officers were uniformed? All 20 were plain clothes? The cops aren't psychic, they don't know this guy lived in Sao Paulo where roaming bands of thugs are commonplace. Too many people are using a justifiable mistake that ended in tragedy to support their agenda, and that's a load of bull. The blame for this sad incident should be put where it belongs, on the murdering terrorist scumbags that think it's a good idea to blow up innocent people. If it wasn't for that, this guy would have made it to his job without drawing suspicion, he'd still be alive, and a bunch of cops wouldn't be spending the rest of their lives tearing themselves up because the inadvertently killed an innocent man.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

He obviously tried to get on the train to get away from them. Do you really think he started running and then started wondering "Why aren't they shooting at me?" No, he ran for his life.

That only happens in the movies. If you were being chased, would you really run from your home to the subway? Also, I'm sure he noticed he wasn't in Sao Paulo anymore and that many men with guns (most likely screaming, "police, stop!") were not a group of thugs.

So taking out a cell phone might be challanging, but why not yell "help!" or something of that nature? Witnesses all thought he was a terrorist and not innocent. Had he been yelling police I'm sure more people would have been receptive to him. And please don't tell me his english wasn't good enough to scream for help. Screaming anything other than allah would have gotten the appropriate response from people.

[christ]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

The blame for this sad incident should be put where it belongs...

Yes.

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

... on the murdering terrorist scumbags that think it's a good idea to blow up innocent people...

and yes

But this does not excuse what happened. Killing innocents is inexcusable, regardless of which side you are on, regardless of where one chooses to lay the blame.

The police "Shoot to kill" policy was a bad idea when Irish Republicans were ostensibly on the receiving end, and remains so now.

A shoot to kill policy is more or less guaranteed to result in innocent deaths. If (as you maintain) it is not the fault of the shooter, or the policy, that does not necessarily make it the fault of the terrorist - they would say it is the fault of the events that led them to the terrorist act in the first place - it seems that you are only willing to follow the chain of blame until you find someone that you disagree with, and then you stop there.

The police are not allowed to shoot innocent people because they come out of the house of a suspected rapist, or because they come out of a house believed (by our flawless intelligence) to house drug dealers. Why should they be allowed to shoot people because someone suspects someone else that lives in their house of being involved in something related to possible terrorism?

And how can you'all seek to justify random acts of violence by the police, without also noting that this means the end of western civilization as we know it? It seems that Western civilization as we knew it was not that attractive to some of you anti-libertarians.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by christ

The police are not allowed to shoot innocent people because they come out of the house of a suspected rapist, or because they come out of a house believed (by our flawless intelligence) to house drug dealers. Why should they be allowed to shoot people because someone suspects someone else that lives in their house of being involved in something related to possible terrorism?

Because they thought the guy was right about to blow himself up. The shoot to kill policy is very specific and meant as a last resort emergency tactic.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SSharon

That only happens in the movies. If you were being chased, would you really run from your home to the subway? Also, I'm sure he noticed he wasn't in Sao Paulo anymore and that many men with guns (most likely screaming, "police, stop!") were not a group of thugs.

So taking out a cell phone might be challanging, but why not yell "help!" or something of that nature? Witnesses all thought he was a terrorist and not innocent. Had he been yelling police I'm sure more people would have been receptive to him. And please don't tell me his english wasn't good enough to scream for help.

What help would other unarmed civilians have to offer against several people with guns? The most likely reason he ran for his life was that he saw a bunch of guys tell him to stop, drew their guns and aimed at him. That's enough for someone who has lived in a bad neighbourhood to just run and not to think much more about it.

And as for thinking he was a terrorist. Of course they did. An "olive-skinned" man running away from the police. What else should they think? They weren't the once with guns aimed at them.

Screaming anything other than allah would have gotten the appropriate response from people.

[moodymonster]

How are the police to know he doesn't have a bomb on him - a grenade in his pocket.

When challenged he seems to have aimed to get on the tube against all odds. The police put themselves in harm's way by challenging him. They seem to have still been shouting at him to stop even on the platform - the other bombers blew themselves up on tube trains. There was an attemp one station down the line less than 24 hours ago. He seemed desperate to get on the train despite having the police after him. How are the police meant to restrain him, keep his fingers from a trigger in his hand, in his pocket? As the police showed, it only takes a split second to pull a trigger - that's all the time they have to act. They put themselves in danger chasing him, if the carriage was empty they may have held back - as it was, at 10am it was probably very full. How could they take a chance for both themselves and the public not to act given his prior actions. The police aren't in a position to wound him, or threaten him not to blow himself up.

If someone shouts at you "Armed Police! stop, or we'll open fire!", its not open to interpretation. The fact they didn't gun him down in the street as soon as he ran would indicate they were not "trigger happy", and the way he was shot would strongly suggest that a well rehearsed drill was being followed. If anything they held back to the very last moment before firing.

[von Wrangell]

That's all true. But they should have done some basic research on the residents of the building he lived in. If they did they would have known that he wasn't a threat.

[nath]

I've read a lot of praise for the policemen concerned, but IMO they botched the job in both ways. Stockwell is busy as hell all day, and if they did believe he presented a threat then he shouldn't have been allowed to enter the main ticket hall, let alone get onto a tube. They could have phoned ahead when they realised where he was going and simply had London Underground close and lock the station doors before he arrived. Since they were waiting outside his flat they could have posted agents at the nearest tube stations to stop him should he attempt to get onto the network. They could have done any number of things to prevent what they claimed to believe was a tube bomber from getting on a tube.

And, of course, if they had been able to close him down rather than actually rugby-tackling him onto his supposed intended target, they may well have been able to establish that he was a Brazilian electrician.

[moodymonster]

I would imagine the surveillance was to work out who was living there and events overtook this. The operation hadn't been going long enough. Tailing him was part of that process.

I think they started following him to work out where he was going and became suspicious - nath's suggestion that they should have phoned ahead is a valid one, IMO.

Also I don't think they should have let him on a bus.

[Mithras]

Is it suggested that his job as an electrician had anything to do with the report that he had "wires" and a heavy jacket?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

THAT sent a strong message to would-be and current Muslims terrorists in London.

Homeboy got his ass capped just for looking like he was a homicide bomber.

heh.

Thumbs-up, Brits.

For this post I hope your the next one wearing the wrong clothes in front of the police!

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Mithras

Is it suggested that his job as an electrician had anything to do with the report that he had "wires" and a heavy jacket?

Not to the best of my knowledge. I would take any witness reports with a degree of care. Not through their own fault, but people's recollection of events in such situations can be very circumspect. The reports so far vary a lot. I'd imagine the CCTV would have picked most of what happened up. A lot of trains also have CCTV on them as well now.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by badidea

For this post I hope your the next one wearing the wrong clothes in front of the police!

You really wish harm/death upon someone? Are you liberal, conservative, or fence-sitter?

[christ]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You really wish harm/death upon someone? Are you liberal, conservative, or fence-sitter?

Good call RR.

But why did you not call Spliff on his original post? He appears to approve of shooting people for looking guilty, but this doesn't appear to attract your ire. Are you liberal, conservative, or fence-sitter?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by christ

Good call RR.

But why did you not call Spliff on his original post? He appears to approve of shooting people for looking guilty, but this doesn't appear to attract your ire. Are you liberal, conservative, or fence-sitter?

Spliff didn't directly wish death/bodily harm on anyone. Just pointed out that if you do stupid things, expect stupid things.

I am mostly a fence-sitter. Abortion is my key political topic of interest though.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You really wish harm/death upon someone?

No, I didn't wish death upon someone - I just want that Spliffdaddy experiences what he seems to like so much! We can't send enough good messages to potential terrorists, can we??

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by badidea

No, I didn't wish death upon someone - I just want that Spliffdaddy experiences what he seems to like so much! We can't send enough good messages to potential terrorists, can we??

OK. Well, that's not what I got from your post. You said:

For this post I hope your the next one wearing the wrong clothes in front of the police!

Which seemed to imply that the police shoot and kill people wearing the wrong clothes. And that you wanted that to happen to him.

Can you see how I misunderstood what you said?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Which seemed to imply that the police shoot and kill people wearing the wrong clothes. And that you wanted that to happen to him.

Can you see how I misunderstood what you said?

Originally Posted by Railroader

Spliff didn't directly wish death/bodily harm on anyone. Just pointed out that if you do stupid things, expect stupid things.

As you posted before, you yourself didn't think that Spliff wished death on anyone!
It's up to you and Spliff now to see my post as you want to understand it...

(Oh, and it should have been you're not your!)

[loki74]

Something kind of off topic... we all say this guy was "innocent," but really that wouldn't be accurate. He's not guilty of terrorism. At least from a legal standpoint (and in my personal opinion an ethical standpoint as well) one can only deem a person guilty or not guilty, but never innocent. Just a kind of interesting fact.

Anyway, yes, it is very sad that a person not guilty of terrorism is tragic, but hardly inexcusable. If even bystanders thought this guy was a terrorst, he definately had to have looked like one. I mean I know its been said and said many many times here and elsewhere but lets look at the facts:

1) Thick, padded coat in warm weather
2) Wires hanging out of that thick, padded coat.
3) Runs from cops (who, although apparently in normal clothes, probably where shouting "stop, police!"
4) Doesn't shout for help
5) Goes to a subway... (Hello? Subways were recently bombed!! What WILL the cops think?)
6) Does not respond to warning shots

What would you think if you were a cop? I would definately think:

1) Thick padded coat with wires in warm weather = Bomb
2) Runs from cops & doesnt scream for help = Terrorist
3) Runs to subway = Bomb -> subway, JUST LIKE recent attack
4) Tackle this guy to stop him
5) OH SH!T I'm on top of this guy who's got a bomb! Perfect time to blow it up, right?
6) Only one way to stop that: shoot to kill.

This is something I've learned, and have posted before in this forum. Often times we judge risks by the probabilty of an undesireable event happening. It seems to me that in situations like this, risks must be judged not by probability of an undesireable event, but rather by the magnitude of an undesireable event were it to happen.

So the cops had two choices: risk this guy being a terrorist, and killing them and all bystanders present, or risk this guy not being a terrost, and having them kill an "innocent" man. In weighting these risks they chose to take the latter, as the magnitude of that undesireable event is much smaller scale than that of the other. I know that sounds cold, but it is true. If I had to weigh the same things in my head, I would probably have come to the same conclusion and done the same thing, especially if I had to weigh all those factors in just a few split seconds.

Case and point: Because we know this guy was not a terrorist, all that remains to discuss is whether or not the cops should have done what they did. While it would be better if they did not do what they did, it is clear to see that what they did is what they should have done, based on what they saw at that time. That of course, if we are to follow my theory about weighing risk.

RS. Re: confusion w/ rr and badidea: umm. I'm with Railroader on this one. Suffice it to say, badidea: that post was indeed a tribute to your namesake.

[Thorin]

Everyone keeps saying that the police had to make a split second decision. This is true, and they made the wrong decision. The guy who was shot also had to make a split second decision, as adrenaline started to course through his body, his instincts would be telling him to fight or run away, and in the split second he had to decide what to do, he decided to run. I suspect once he'd made that decision he didn't hear much else at all.

The other thing is, a lot of other people on the train and in the station also reacted to armed police being in the station by running away. The difference is that none of them were suspects under surveillance. Unfortunately the guy who was shot didn't know he was a suspect either.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by badidea

As you posted before, you yourself didn't think that Spliff wished death on anyone!
It's up to you and Spliff now to see my post as you want to understand it...

(Oh, and it should have been you're not your!)

Deny it all you want. Your post speaks clearly. You wanted him to be harmed or shot by police for wearing the wrong clothes at the wrong time. How lame.

What else could possibly be inferred by this statement?

For this post I hope your the next one wearing the wrong clothes in front of the police!

That the police would buy him ice cream? They'd help him move the next time he sold his house? No, you meant that he would get shot.

[von Wrangell]

Apparantly he called his co-worker just outside the underground to tell him he was late for work*. Any chance he could have been running before the police told him to stop because he wanted to catch the train?


*Swedish media has been reporting that. Haven't heard it elsewhere.

[yakkiebah]

From the BBC

Menezes was said to be on his way to fit a fire alarm

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Deny it all you want. Your post speaks clearly.

I didn't deny anything and my post doesn't speak clearly (at least not more than Spliffdaddys)!

But you are right, if Spliffdaddy thinks that it was a good thing that this innocent man was shot (because this sends a "good message to teh terrorists") than I stand by my words and suggest that he should volunteer to be the next message sender (he seems to like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!)

What's so bad about wishing someone things he does like?!?


P.S.: Why do you guys only have a problem with my post??????????????????????????????? I really love MacNN's political lounge........NOT!

[Doofy]

Heard a report yesterday that he was challenged by plod outside the subway before he ran away. That's "challenged" as in "a couple of feet away and facing them".

[HawgJawl]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Heard a report yesterday that he was challenged by plod outside the subway before he ran away. That's "challenged" as in "a couple of feet away and facing them".

I still don't know why he ran from the police.

No matter when that is stupid thing to do.

Right after a terrorists attack, even stupider.

Maybe Darwin had his way in this one.

[red rocket]

1. I could run after someone and shout, "Stop! Police!" Would you stop?

2. There are different levels of crime. There's filesharing, there's ripping DVD's, there's forgetting to pay your TV license, there's jaywalking, there's removing wheel clamps, (...). Are all the "criminals" to be lumped together in one lot?

3. The Police in England was not formed to "fight" crime. It was formed to discourage criminals via a visible unarmed police presence in the streets. This presence, where it would be appreciated, e.g. in deprived council estates terrorised by gangs of yobs, is no longer there. Instead we have ordinary coppers tied up in idiotic paperwork, cruising by in the distance, and an increasing number of increasingly armed officers in metropolitan areas, too terrifying for ordinary citizens to approach. What sort of person joins the police service so he can be that kind of policeman? I suggest that people joining the police for such reasons are dangerous, violent bullies who should have joined the army instead and who have no place in the streets of a freedom-loving, democratic society. Germans or French may be willing to put up with such a police force, but it's certainly not very British.

4. What's a terrorist look like, anyway? It's not as if London, or any other metropolis, could lay claim to some kind of typically safe-looking standard to compare with. Take that one guy whose pic they posted on the telly, the one with the New York sweater. How much more average-looking can you get? And running around in the Underground. I mean, really. It's all good and well to say that one shouldn't do it, but most people have done it, and continue doing it, for perfectly legal reasons.

5. A lot of people don't seem to realise how easy it is for someone innocent to end up on a suspects list, be placed under surveillance, get arrested, and now get accidentally executed because of it.

I've noticed that significant numbers of posters, MacNN and otherwise, fail to take the most basic precautions regarding anonymity. Taking photographs of their street, their house, themselves and their family members. Telling strangers their real names, their addresses, their phone numbers. Scanning in their passports, divulging their credit card details to untrusted sources, taking pics of their weed growing projects and posting them online. I could go on and on.

This is not smart, this is not safe. In fact, it makes it ridiculously easy for other people to find out who and where exactly you are, and then launch all sorts of attacks on their victims, mainly because the latter were so effing negligent about protecting themselves in the first place. For instance, there are hundreds if not thousands of exceptionally idiotic people out there whose homes one could invade, whose families one could destroy with a just a few calculated phone calls, should they make the mistake of pissing one off enough.

Example scenario: [email protected] has told Teh Interweb where he lives, what he does for a living and where, all his phone numbers and bank account numbers. He then talks a whole lot of crap and wrongfully accuses [email protected] of being a crackwhore, who gets understandably upset and PM's the board admin, Jack, about it. Because John has previously pissed off Jack by idiotically criticising his workout routine, Jack takes the opportunity to report John to the police for being a paedophile, and provides the police with (forged) evidence of John having attempted to groom Sandy into meeting him for sex, and planting cp on John's computer. Jack is now in prison.

What with the police thinking they can now shoot suspects, Jack would be dead and his family disgraced.

For being a tard? I could think of at least twenty people I could frame like that. Today, no effort at all.

6. Here's a thought: How about bringing in a law banning clothing, accessories and bags in public, in addition to lots of X-ray machines making sure someone hasn't got a bomb up his or her arse? I believe this may be the best way to fight terrorism, after all, how can you be an effective suicide-bomber when there's no way to avoid immediate detection? Besides, it just may encourage people to get fit, I don't think that'd be such a bad thing, either.

[HawgJawl]

Originally Posted by red rocket

1. I could run after someone and shout, "Stop! Police!" Would you stop?

I sure as hell would.

He would probably be alive today had he.

I bet if he could come back, and you asked him if he would stop for the police from now on he would say "Well duh"

[christ]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Deny it all you want. Your post speaks clearly. You wanted him to be harmed or shot by police for wearing the wrong clothes at the wrong time. How lame ... What else could possibly be inferred by this statement? ...

My inference (as an uninvolved bystander) would be that if Spliff thinks that examples based solely on dress/skin colour are a good idea, then he should perhaps volunteer to be such an example.

[☺]

Originally Posted by christ

My inference (as an uninvolved bystander) would be that if Spliff thinks that examples based solely on dress/skin colour are a good idea, then he should perhaps volunteer to be such an example.

Well that makes no sense. No one is volunteering to be an example.

If anything this should teach people when a cop tells you to stop, multiple times. Ya better do it.

[moodymonster]

impersonating a police officer is an offence, as is calling in bomb threats etc

btw I've been stopped and searched by armed officers and unarmed officers (in the UK). The experience I've had wasn't that they were bullies or unprofessional. They are very matter of fact and want you to do exactly as they tell you. They also seemed ok guys to be honest - the last thing I would describe them as bullies etc.

Maybe I'm dumb but I never felt threatened by them either

[☺]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

impersonating a police officer is an offence, as is calling in bomb threats etc

btw I've been stopped and searched by armed officers and unarmed officers (in the UK). The experience I've had wasn't that they were bullies or unprofessional. They are very matter of fact and want you to do exactly as they tell you. They also seemed ok guys to be honest - the last thing I would describe them as bullies etc.

Maybe I'm dumb but I never felt threatened by them either

If you feel threatened by them, more than likely you have something to hide.

I've never felt threatened by a cop. Annoyed? Yes. Threatened no.

And yes cops are a "matter of fact" I think it stems from hearing SO MUCH ******** day after day.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ☺

If you feel threatened by them, more than likely you have something to hide.

I'm getting unverified reports in that he was in the UK illegally. If these reports are true, he did have something to hide.

[Y3a]

If you're RUNNING AWAY you've got something to HIDE!

The political leftists with the signs and banners are there for the PR against the police. Agenda time.
NONE of them were there, but they will tell stories like they were.

[Thorin]

Maybe he did have something to hide. Up until now, running from the police in the UK (whether you had something to hide or otherwise) was not a crime punishable by death, with no trial. Personally I preferred it that way.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm getting unverified reports in that he was in the UK illegally. If these reports are true, he did have something to hide.

Confirmed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

So give the man a Darwin Award.

[Athens]

beat me to it, i was just about to post the link about the expired Visa