I think an important thing for the Government to do is disclose who did the shooting, what occured, and why? The surveillance video backing up their version of events would certainly be a show of faith.

just to let you know that the vigil at stockwell yesterday was organised in about 12 hours flat by text messages among friends in anti-war movement. there was another at the same time by mainly friends and family of the victim at westminster, they too tried to block the road. then I've heard there was another at scotland yard.
there's another vigil planned at stockwell at 6 tonight by the official antiwar coalition and galloway (likely to be bigger), and on wednesday there'll be one at scotland yard at noon.
last night there was an inter-faith meeting at stockwell, I didn't go but assume that they will be planning stuff too.
please, good people from elsewhere, understand that everyone I know in london is in a kind of shock right now, there are demos all over the place and new networks building.
but please also understand that we are in a state of flux movement wise, a lot of people are kind of blasted after organising for up to years for the G8 protests and then the bomb just didnour heads in. and after the goverment ignored the biggest march we ever had back in 2003 and growing police repression on the streets a lot of people are looking for new ways to register their dissent.
so please do not lose sympathy for us, we are people like any, imperfect and angry and confused.
and atill, often, on the streets.
with love

You need to learn to distinguish between the people of London (who are multi-racial and include those who have lived here for 3 years) and their political leaders, police and state. The former deserve sympathy, the latter condemnation.

THUS SPAKE ACTIVISM, LOS ANGELES ==> (NOTE: I wrote this before I read about the vigil at Stockwell Station. Since there were apparently only 50 people there, I stand by what I wrote.)

It was a few thousand people who caused much of the disruption around Edinburgh and Perth earlier this month, compared to the 200 000 + who marched peacefully through Edinburgh. Yet it was the former group which garnered most headlines. Following your reasoning, the mere four dozen at Stockwell Station deserves reporting.

THUS SPAKE PAUL ==> You need to learn to distinguish between the people of London (who are multi-racial and include those who have lived here for 3 years) and their political leaders, police and state.

Sympathy had been felt for London prior to de Menezes' killing despite, presumably, the knowledge that the Tube bombings stemmed from our disgusting involvement in Iraq. Events on the ground in Iraq appear to be far removed from the streets of "multi-racial" London.

THUS SPAKE WONDERING ==> there's another vigil planned at stockwell at 6 tonight by the official antiwar coalition

Groups *officially* opposed to the war, or groups which have muscled-in and push their own creepy agendas?

==> and galloway (likely to be bigger

And certainly louder if Wee Dod is present.

murder is planned and premeditated. That is not what happened. the cops tried to get a suspicious person to stop and he kept running. Since they thought he had a bomb with a triggger and there were lots of innocents around they did what they felt they had to in order to stave all of those innocent lives.

the pre planned actions that lead to the deaths of innocents are what the arab terrorists are specializing in.

Legally speaking, murder isn't always planned or premeditated, and you're the second person on indymedia to make that mistake. The point of murder (or almost any crime) is that it's INTENTIONAL - you were deliberately trying to kill or grievously injure the victim (and that's certainly true of the cops in this case). If you spontaneously decide to beat your wife to death in the middle of a blazing row, then you're likely going down for murder, even though there was no premeditation. (Of course, if the CPS or procurator can show you were planning to kill someone in advance, it's not going to help your case in court.)

That's not to say I think the cops who executed this Brazillian dude will go down for murder. They'll likely be arguing that they had a reasonable or lawful excuse for what they did, and knowing how the Law looks after it's own, chances are, they'll get off scot-free. There is an outside chance that they'll get done for murder, or more likely manslaughter, but I wouldn't bet any money on it.

or am i mixing up bumping off and topping self?
anyway
the stake out was pre-planned. the guys had guns. they could have stopped the man before he got on the bus, no?
or are bus passengers not as at risk as train passengers.
oh bugger this there are very clearly a lot of people about who have no idea of the reality of the shit that is living under a police state, and therefore they supported the war to get rid of a murderous dictator saddam. oh hang on that makes no sense does it.
anyway, that's their ethical problem not mine.
got a simple ethic, me - thou shalt not kill.
oh hang on that's the bible that bloody born again bush bangs on about
not keen on being on his side - they kill people too!
whatever.
do what thou silt and it harm none
that's a nice one
pagain, and makes you have to make complex moral choices.
that rarely result in bombs or bullets in brains.
phew.
there are plenty people still aware that our 'public servants' shooting an unarmed man is WELL out of order and someone needs to go down for it, and we'd better keep meeting, demonstrating, trying to get our city back and our government either to be honest about managing our energy and security future or to fuck off and stop creating this horrible, horrible climate for killing people.

whoops!
a bit over-stressed at present, innit

Ewige Blumenkraft

... well, certainly more sympathy for Iraqis murdered by Terrorist-In-Chief-Europe Blair ...

The London bombs were the equivalent of a really quiet day in Iraq. The people of Iraq, however, neither had any choice in the makeup of their former deposed Government, nor in the unwarranted criminal and murderous invasion of their country - and so bear no responsibility for either. The British, however, (and I am British, FYI) re-elected the state terrorist, liar, coward and hypocrit Blair (but boy, he's up there with Clinton in ability to fake sincerity), even after the wide publication of the "Downing St. Memo". In a nutshell, people in a democracy (well, as alleged, anyway), unlike the Iraqis, surely must bear the responsibility for the actions of their Government, just as the Israelis do for the re-election of man who was "yea or nea" in charge of those that executed the Sabra and Chatilla massacre: Ariel Sharon. As Bush says: "If you harbor (sic) a terrrrist, you are a terrrrist".

Of course, on an individual as opposed to a geopolitical level (the latter being the only concern of people like Blair), sympathy for those killed and maimed, whether in Baghdad under US-UK auspices, or in London, funnily enough, and contrary to the recent lies of Jack The-Ripper Straw (basically that the London bombings were not related to Iraq), also under US-UK auspices, is natural, unavoidable, and, of course, completely desirable - except may be on the part of some of those groups whose people have suffered the same a thousandfold or more as a result of Western "Democracy" State Terrorism - hardly surprising. As I have not a nationalist corpuscle in by bloodstream, however, more of my sympathy goes to those who had the least choice in their fate - the Iraqis - as elucidated in the preceding paragraph. I might have more sympathy, relatively, for the fate of my "fellow countrymen" (though entirely by accident of birth, of course, as also was the birth of the "proud to be American" crowd), IF as much media coverage were given to the equivalent dire effects of each and every dropped bomb by, and each and every outrageous ground action of the Coalition of the Killing. That, of course, would fill and continue to fill the press - which would be just fine (but aggressors learned a lot from "too much" media freedom with Vietnam).

After reading the comments by "Wondering" and "Paul", I think I should apologize for my hasty characterization of Londoners. I apologize especially for Paragraphs 5-8 of my outburst, and the Postscript. I really should be showing greater international solidarity than that, mates, but I suppose I was writing from an angry place at the moment. Being far away, and reading that the Brit press and noted Brit "human rights activists" had all endorsed and justified the killing, I wondered where all the good Brits were. I guess this is a lesson to not let any kind of elite, especially not the liberal elite, speak for the people.

On reading "Wondering's" list of events planned and already accomplished, I realized that that is about the same pace that characterizes the protest movements which develop when the cops shoot someone here in LA. When 19-month-old Susie Lopez and her father were shot to death by LAPD, it did take a few days for the protests to get into the news, but now there is no chance that the killings will fade from the public consciousness, or simply be explained away and accepted by the public.

And "Paul" is correct as well, I need to distinguish. I shouldn't be so quick to ditch my fellow anti-war marchers, since there are always more people at an anti-war demo than at a police brutality protest, in whatever country. I only ask that you not let THIS killing fade from the public consciousness, or let it be explained away and accepted in the public mind. When London unveils its memorial to the Tube dead, I hope there are some people demanding that Jean Charles receive equal status, either on that monument or another one; and I hope somebody keeps dogging the public appearances of formerly "Red" Ken Livingstone, now revealed to be an Israeli-style National Security fascist. A demonstration at some of the apologist London papers would also be appropriate at some point. (However, unlike my arrogant original post, I am not insisting on criteria for Londoners to "prove" that they are committed to justice. These are suggestions, nothing more.) No hard feelings, folks, I really do apologize for my haste.

Historical note: IIRC, it was only in 1985 or so that the US Supreme Court decided that it was wrong for cops to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back. It takes a long time for a country to become civilized, doesn't it???

When is the cretino-Left going to grow up?

HEY, GUESS WHAT??
We dont want your fucking sympathy. The last thing that Londoners want is to be patronised by some jumped up yankee know-it-all. Crawl back under your stone and make sure it's on that side of the Atlantic you tosswipe.

gg, the USAn apologised!
be nice!!!
x

Did someone say to have a "padded coat wearing day" and to "dare the cops to shoot" them day?

IN A FRIGGIN TUBE STATION?????

While you're at it, go ahead and write a hundred word essay on the "best way to get shot dead in London" for all of us to read.

whomever wrote that has to be one of the stupidest human beings on earth.

Let's not forget how such a stupid "protest" (suicide) would complicate matters in the fight against terrorism.

Dumb I'll tell ya, just plain dumb.

Did someone say to have a "Southern voter registration" and to "dare the Klan to shoot" them day?

IN FRIGGIN ALABAMA?????

While you're at it, go ahead and write a hundred word essay on the "best way to get shot dead in Selma" for all of us to read.

whomever wrote that has to be one of the stupidest human beings on earth.

Let's not forget how such a stupid "protest" (suicide) would complicate matters in the fight for Civil Rights legislation.

Dumb I'll tell ya, just plain dumb.

[INSULTING NARROW MINDED BASTARD.]

[The whole point of civil disobedience is to do it publicly, warning the authorities and the press and the media that you're going to do it, and to do it in large numbers. Yes, it is risky, but if you do it properly the authorities will either back down from harming so many people or they will have to perpetrate their violence with the whole world watching. The civil rights marchers in the South took such a risk, which many at the time thought was cowardly, counterproductive and stupid. Some of them were killed, and legislative civil rights were won. The international volunteers in Nicaragua also took such a risk, and some of them were killed, and Reagan never invaded Nicaragua. Some things are worth the risk of bodily harm. Stopping state terror, in my opinion, is one of those things.]

[Or maybe you just don't think this is "worth it" because you agree with Shoot-On-Suspicion. Fine then, you're on the other side.]

[Or maybe, in addition to being arrogant, supercilious, insulting and narrow minded, you're also a COWARDLY bastard. Nuff said.]

by all means, go ahead and put on a padded coat. get a knapsack, and jump a turnstyle.

see what happens. Please do.

That's a lame analogy also. The civil rights march helped progress. And blacks admittedly, put THEMSELVES in harms way, not innocent people just trying to catch a ride to work. If you want to put yourself in harms way, be my guest, but don't make it easier for terrorists to blend right in and murder innocent people.Your idea will hinder stopping terrorism. It is ass backwards, criminal, and irresponsible. But not that you'd care or anything. I only hope terrorists don't read your posts. To them, you would be a useful idiot, and there would not be a better time for them to strike then when they could more easily blend in, and the cops are pre-occupied with a bunch of spoiled, naive, college-aged punks with too much time on their hands. Dressing up in a padded coat like some kind of idiot to provoke officers to shoot will put thousands of lives in jeopardy. People who aren't even a part of your cause. Is that really what you want? And if in fact you do have your little "padded coat party" and terrorists were to use it as a time to attack, the blood of the innocents would be on your hands too. You would have helped enable it. That's the bottom line.

to terrorists, you are a useful idiot. And to the average Brit, you're pretty much the same as a terrorist. So by all means, have a 1 man "padded coat party," grab a bookbag, yell allahu ackbar, and jump a turnstyle. Do society a favor. Take a few bullets in the noggin. Die a martyr, just like your terrorist buddies do.

Honestly, a more appropriate kind of party for people like you would involve a different kind of jacket and a padded room, and some really strong sedatives. Think about that one, jackass.

Listen, you freedom-hating jackass,

Just answer one question. Do you believe that terrorism by a paranoid and repressive State is just as dangerous and scary as terrorism by small, dispersed extragovernmental groups? For me, the answer is obvious, especially when you consider the relative numbers of people who have been killed by both. Why not compare the numbers of people executed by Western "democracies" to the numbers of people killed by terrorists attacking those democracies? I honestly don't know the number, but I have a hunch that the first number outstrips the second. If I am wrong, then please give me the proper cite and I'll concede the point.

The point is, under the "greatest good for the greatest number of people theory", the shooting of an innocent man by the police is just as much a threat to our security, our sense of well-being, our way of life and our happiness as the bombing of an innocent commuter by extragovernmental terrorists.

And nobody said anything about jumping turnstiles, fool. Or running, or rowdy behavior of any kind. A civil disobedience action is peaceful by definition. Participants in an action such as this would make clear to the police, the press and everyone else that they mean no harm to anyone and are making a symbolic gesture.

And by the way -- anybody reading your asinine posts would believe that it is in fact illegal to wear a heavy padded coat in the Tube. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe any such prohibition has been enacted by the police, the government or anybody else.

Symbols are powerful and important. When the New York City cops anally raped Abner Louima with a plumber's helper, demonstrators waved that implement. When they killed Amadou Diallo for reaching for his wallet, demonstrators held up wallets. In this case, heavy padded jackets are a powerful and appropriate symbol.

The whole point of this is that the point-blank execution of Jean Charles de Menezes was unacceptable and barbaric. You don't seem to think so -- none of your posts have expressed any sorrow or sympathy for him. I have to speculate that perhaps you are somebody who doesn't approve of any protests about this tragedy whatsoever, in which case it doesn't matter if the protesters wear heavy padded coats or not. There is no way to get on your good side.

Maybe you think the police should be given free reign and that any tactics are acceptable as long as some of the dead include terrorists, but the rest of us still love our freedom, including freedom from fear. I could endure any number of weeks of a random bombing campaign if I could be sure that the might of the State was wholly on our side, but alas, it proved last week that it was not. And now people have two things to fear instead of just one.

Go suck Ian Blair's d**k, you f'k'n fascist capitulator. Don't tell us where or how to hold demonstrations.

"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little short-term security will jeopardize both, and deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin, in paraphrase.

to answer your first question, yes, i believe that an oppressive government is just as bad. But I don't think this is at all terrorism against it's people by the Brits.

try and grasp this concept. This kid was shot dead because of his own stupidity. There was just a terrorist attack, then a two weeks later there are 4 more bombs that luckily don't detonate. This moron is in a tube station with a padded coat and a knabsack (terrorist garb) and if you've seen the picture of him hes a dead ringer for a person of north african origin. When told to stop by the police, what does he do? Does he comply? No. He hauls ass and jumps a turnstyle to try and get on his ride. That alone is reason enough to shoot to kill. It's sad that an innocent died, but any reasonable person would have shot him also. This is hardly state terrorism. What the hell are you? One of those tinfoil-hat wearing anarchists? If so, then I can understand why you think this way. Understand this, your viewpoint is by far in the minority on this issue. And for god's sake, if you want to protest, fine. But don't do it in a place that would possibly make you into a useful idiot for terrorists and put thousands of lives in jeopardy.

In response to you saying "no one said anything about jumping turnstyles," No, those weren't your exact words, but you did say "dare the cops to shoot," which implies some rowdy behavior. Given the climate in London, you would be a great hindrance and put lives at risk, people who are only trying to go to work, visit a friend, or whatever. They don't even share your cause. Why endanger them? As much as you criticize, I've yet to hear any kind of plan that you have to stop this shit from happening. What do you propose? Nothing? Apologize to terrorists? Leave Iraq? None of this will stop it from happening. Radicals in Britain have been calling for a jihad before they were ever in Iraq. Honestly, I think you are clueless. If you lay off the sedatives for a minute and give me a coherent plan to combat people that want to blow up civilians, i'd like to hear it. Doing nothing isn't an option.

I have a couple of questions for you too. Do you understand that dressing in terrorist garb in a tube station and "daring the cops to shoot us" can potentially endanger innocent people?

And would you consider having your demonstration in a place where you could get your point across (however unpopular) and not endanger people?

That is all I have.

According to more recent threads on this website, Jean Charles Menezes was NOT wearing a heavy padded coat. He also did NOT jump a turnstile, but used his farecard to enter the station. According to some older threads, there are NO witnesses who can recall the pursuing agents identifying themselves. No "Stop, police," no nothing, just boom. According to another recent thread, the cops are openly saying that they will not even issue a verbal warning before killing. That fits the known particulars of this case. Are you going to tell me that this doesn't send chills down your spine? The cops are liars. They have lied about this since day one. (For the cites, simply scroll up.)

It is simply ghoulish of you to blame the victim's "stupidity" for the fact that he vaguely resembled a person of Middle Eastern origin. How stupid he must have been, to be born looking like that, huh? Racial profiling is disgusting, and you are disgusting to defend it.

If the cops shot you, no matter how unjustified the shooting was, some yahoo would no doubt be writing to the blogs claiming you were "stupid" and it was all your fault. And yes, it could happen to you. it could happen to anyone.

"Understand this, your viewpoint is by far in the minority on this issue."

To what opinion poll are you referring? If you are saying that opinion polls show that most Brits oppose the use of symbolic heavy jackets in demonstrations, I doubt there is a poll question as specific as that. Or are you referring to some poll which would show that most people approve of the killing of Jean Charles? Does such a poll exist? If it does, I truly despair for the British people, and can only go back to my original post, "No more sympathy for London."

Since you are so arrogant as to assume you know all about me, my personality and my mental state, it naturally follows that you would arrogantly assume that your own opinion represents majority opinion.

"As much as you criticize, I've yet to hear any kind of plan that you have to stop this shit from happening. What do you propose? Nothing? Apologize to terrorists? Leave Iraq?"

To stop terrorism: Good old-fashioned legwork and investigation. Follow legitimate leads. Put bomb-sniffing dogs in stations. Conduct random searches of passengers and their bags, as the New York police are doing. NONE OF WHICH requires racist profiling or killing on suspicion.

Also, remove some of the root causes of terrorism. Don't commit human rights violations. And yes, get the hell out of Iraq. It is ludicrous to deny the connection between the Iraq War and 7/7.

"I have a couple of questions for you too. Do you understand that dressing in terrorist garb in a tube station and "daring the cops to shoot us" can potentially endanger innocent people?"

Since when is a heavy coat "terrorist garb"? And since when is it illegal? Give me a break.

You are freaking out over an unlikely scenario, a sign of fearful paranoia. I am freaking out over state-sanctioned murder, a sign of righteous anger. Give me one example of terrorists using a protest demonstration as "cover" for their plots. Just one. Can you do that? Why don't you just ask for all demonstrations to be banned? After all, demonstrations are in public places and attract crowds -- perfect conditions for a suicide bomber, right? I think not. I, unlike you, can give a solid example of my fears coming true, and it happened only last week. Therefore, my fears are more justified than yours.

And I would dare the filthy pigs to shoot me by simply pinning a symbolic red and white target on me. That can be a silent, yet powerful form of protest. How exactly would that endanger anyone who's not wearing the target?

BUT -- given recent revelations, I guess I would reconsider the use of heavy padded jackets. Since Jean Charles evidently wasn't wearing one, and the cops are evidently filthy homicidal liars, the symbolism would not be relevant to the protest of his murder. I would wear what Jean Charles was wearing, a thin denim jacket.

"And would you consider having your demonstration in a place where you could get your point across (however unpopular) and not endanger people?"

I would consider holding this demonstration in a great variety of places. Obviously, the tube station would be high on the list of possible sites, since that is where the murder occurred. For certain types of demonstrations, like vigils and memorials, there really is no other location.

That is all you have? Good.

im not the only one that sees profliling as common sense...

check this link out.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4732465.stm

they deleted one of my responses.

i hate that.

basically, i stated how there is no proof that the cop was a lying, homocidal maniac. I get the idea that you are always going to be against the cops, regardless of the info. We'll find out soon enough. It's not like they don't have cameras everywhere In London. And if I end up being wrong, I'll admit it. Cameras don't lie. (at least not to reasonable people. this is of course indymedia, where I've actually seen someone blame the tsunami on Bush and Sharon testing nukes on the ocean floor)

One thing I will say though; it is sad that an innocent person was killed. No one wants that.

But on the flipside, this kid could get a Darwin award for bad judgement.

As far as racial profiling goes, many people think it is just common sense. Come on. Reasonable people see a pattern. And it's not old white women named Ethyl blowing things up. I'm willing to bet you that the next terrorist attack is by a muslim. Would you really want to put $5 on that?

Bomb sniffing dogs, random searches, legwork, letitimate leads, all good ideas as well.

Personally, I'd feel safer with a shoot to kill policy in place. And you can bet your ass, if a cop tells me to "freeze," I'm a huge fucking ice-cube.

If you want to hold a demonstration, go ahead. But why make policing such a high-risk area more difficult. You'd probably just piss everyone off and turn them against you. Have it above ground at the entrance or something? Hell anywhere else but in a place where there is a shoot-to-kill policy in place. You would potentially be endangering people, no matter how righteous you believe your cause is. And lest I say, you could also become a useful idiot for terrorists. There would be no better place to strike than where a few hundred people are distracting officers from affectively performing their job. You said that "no one was talking about rowdy behavior" in an earlier post, but both you and I know there are always a select few that will act like shitheads and ruin everything for the people that are peacefully demonstrating. that is the useful idiot scenario in play. Manpower, in this case the police, can't be utilized properly, thus making it easier for terrorists, or hell, even your average punk to get away with a criminal act. I'm sure you've seen the hell that broke loose in San Fran over the G8? That's a great example. Many of the residents were furious at the protestors for vandalizing ther neighborhood, damaging their property, and generally being a nuisance to the law-abiding public. Some of those kids will go to jail for a looong time. Especially the one that severely injured an officer.

Just think before doing anything rash. The last thing anyone wants is another innocent person, or several being killed while protesting over (ironically) innocent people being killed. If you are seriously planning on something like this, I suggest weeding out the dumbfucks that are simply there to provoke police officers. that's a no-win situation for everyone, and it'll hurt your cause to boot. Man, it's not even been a month since 4 bombs ripped through london, so of course law enforcement is going to crack down.

I will not respond to most of what you said in your last post, because you have started to repeat what you said in earlier posts. Except for two things.

You're defending racial profiling on the grounds that the next bombing is likely to be carried out by a Muslim.

Putting aside for a moment my opposition to profiling Britain's South Asian and Muslim population in the first place, I want you to take notice of something.

Jean Charles was not a Muslim.

He was not a South Asian, or an Arab. He wasn't even from the Eastern Hemisphere.

He was merely dark-haired.

(Yes, I've seen his picture. Big FD. I can see his face every day and everywhere I go in Los Angeles. One would think, by this time, that a Londoner -- if you are one -- would be accustomed enough to dark-haired people to not think "they all look alike.")

Obviously, the wrong profile came into play.

Therefore, based on this case, racial profiling is objectionable not only on moral grounds (because the profiled person was wrongly killed) but also on practical grounds, because IT IS INACCURATE and LEADS TO THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS.

OR,

perhaps you just think it's OK to profile anyone with dark hair. Nice going, you have just profiled the majority of the world's population. Way to make enemies for Britain, dude, but I doubt that's going to make you safer.

I notice you are still blaming Jean Charles for his own death, even though the facts surrounding this case become murkier with each news cycle. Have they released that security tape yet? Hmmm, what are they hiding?

My second point:

Sure, weed out the rowdies from peaceful demos. And while you're at it, weed out the killer cops who practice terrorism on the public, and weed out the morally putrescent politicians like Ken Livingstone and Tony Blair who defend killer cops.

FUCK THA POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we'll agree to disagree

i'll defend the cops

you defend stupid people

good day.

Hope you don't get shot by those homicidal cretins that you love.

I also just wanted to point out how nice it is to see you paint everyone of this profession as a "homocidal cretin." If that isn't an ignorant generalization, then I don't know what is. You come across as a naive, college-aged, wanna-be-hippie by making such foolish statements. Replace the word "cops" with "blacks" and repeat your previous statement to yourself.

Do you get it now?

@ emr: you wrote:

"i'll defend the cops
you defend stupid people"


1) How can you defend the cops for this outrageous wrongdoing?

Even if this was all an 'tragic accident', why not admit it, apologize, and think this whole policy over?
You think the fact that the police - obviously - tried to cover up their 'mistake' (if it weren't for the leak to ITV, we would still made believe that he wore a coat / jumped the turnstile / ran away after being addressed) is worth defending? Scary.

2) What exactly was stupid about J.-C. de Menezes' behavior? That he wore a denim jacket? That he swiped his fare-card? That he got shot by undercover cops in civil garb - by 8 bullets! - after being restrained already?

And you even dare to 'recommend' him for a Darwin Award! You are truly a cynical bastard (pardon my french).


I would really love to see the surveillance videos of the events on that day. Would help clear things up & show, if & to what extend we have been lied to.

but let me guess: They have been accidentally erased. Bad luck, hmmm...


And somewhere in Brazil a mother is still crying for her son - after being offered a £15,000 bribe to stop asking any 'stupid' questions.