Sunday, July 24, 2005

Brazil Demanding Explanation In London Shooting

Click on the title for the complete AP article.

Brazil's government demanded an explanation Saturday for the fatal police shooting of Brazilian citizen on a London subway car.


Let me see if I can help Brazil out.

- Since London had been under attack twice in the previous two weeks, there was some concern about his intentions. He was wearing a heavy coat, just like suicide bombers normally do, when they want to conceal their bomb. The clincher is, he ran from police, he was ordered to stop, but did not see a reason to.

There you have it.

As corrupt and inept as the Brazilian government is, I am sure they can now better understand that which has been so difficult for them, to comprehend. After all, I am sure that has happened in their country to one of their own citizens, at least once or twice.

Hope that helps.

7 comments:

G_in_AL said...

I have a link on my site to a leftist website called Dailey Dissent. I have been getting beat over the head by them for bringing up this very point on their "post" about England shooting this guy... nice to see another middle of the road type, Mind if I link you?

Anonymous said...

So they shot him because he was wearing a heavy coat.

If you can be detained indefinitely without charge and if you don't know what would happen to you in the hands of these people under custody, I can see why a person's first instict would be to run.

Nope it doesn't help at all to know that innocent commuters have to watch out, not only for terrorists, but also for their own police shooting them for just being stupid.

Anonymous said...

PS: The investigation is still underway so why don't you wait for that to end before giving up your own ill-informed answers.

LA Sunset said...

To the Consigliere,

1. Wearing a heavy coat is only one factor that they figured into the equation, in this tragedy. And unless your country (or better yet, your city) gets attacked in the same despicable manner that London, New York, or even Sharm el Sheik did, you cannot fully understand how you would react if you were a police officer in that same situation.

Be thankful that it hasn't happened, in Sydney.

2. I have a hard time believing that the prospect of being held indefinitely, can be used as a valid reason to run from police, especially after what has transpired in London. Besides that, look how quickly they determined that he was not involved. If he would have stopped, they would have questioned him, searched him, and let him go. Once they had seen there was no bomb on him and his story checked out, he would have been on his way.

It seems you are having the tendency to believe that there is widespread abuse of police power during the course of these investigations. That is not so. Most of the hardworking people that are assigned the difficult task of protecting the public they serve, are interested in getting it right and getting the real bad guys. There have been many, many incidents where people were detained, questioned, and released. But most people don't hear about it because it isn't deemed newsworthy enough, unless it is someone that makes a federal case about it.

3. Thank you for visiting my blog and know that you are welcome to post comments anytime, whether you agree or not. I only ask that you treat the people you engage in this forum with respect and you will be treated the same.

But do not ever assume that I am ill-informed, just because you disagree with my stance. I can assure you that is not the case. I have been around for many years longer than your stated age. But more importantly, you really don't know who I am, where I have been, or what I have seen and/or done in my lifetime, to arrive at the conclusions that I have.

Anonymous said...

Ok my views have changedon this matter and are more inline with yours.

"I only ask that you treat the people you engage in this forum with respect and you will be treated the same."

Have I done otherwise?

LA Sunset said...

"Have I done otherwise?"

Not that I can see.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we were too quick to jump to conclusions on this matter?