Why does he have 80% of the culpability? Because he lived in an apartment complex that he didn't know was under surveillance?
Because he wore a coat? Reports have now stated that he wore a coat because 70 degrees is cold for Brazil and he would have been cold out in that weather without a coat. Because he ran in the train station when someone confronted him telling him something that has not been reported at all and probably brandishing a gun? Because he jumped a turnstile to get away from someone who he thought was trying to kill him? (And he would have been right.) Because he tried to get onto a train which was his only means of escape from someone trying to kill him? The police could have stopped him outside the house and tried to question him. The police could have stopped him at the bus stop and kept him from getting onto a bus. As has already been mentioned, buses have been targets of attack also, so it would have been totally reasonable to stop him before getting on the bus. They could have stopped him from entering the train station. People here has said that if he'd blown himself up outside the train station that they would still be faulted. The loss of life would be much smaller and the cost-benefit analysis would have been very good. Allowing him into the train station did not have a good cost-benefit analysis. It sounds like the police were not properly trained because they allowed the risk to escalate. Once the risk was escalated, they lost options that they otherwise would have had. The police are conducting a "routine investigation" into the shooting, which probably means finding out if the "shoot-to-kill" policy was properly followed, not whether they could have done something to keep the risk from escalating. The government seems intent to not examine that. On 7/25/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jennifer wrote: > > I'd like to see how you would react if 20 armed guys some of them with > > machine guns acted like they were going to kill you. You probably > > wouldn't have run because that's so foreign to you, which it might not > > be to a Brazillian. You probably just would have stood there and > > soiled yourself. > > > > Next you are going to blame rape victims for wearing short skirts and > > blame domestic abuse victims for marrying the wrong person, right? > > > > This guy, while a victim, bears 80% or more of the responsibility. > And I'm sure the police are reviewing their tactics so stop further > incidents like this, but the guy should've known better unless he was > mentally unstable for some reason. -- "You can't destroy EVERYthing. Where would you sit?" The Tick Now blogging.... http://www.blivit.org/blog/index.cfm http://www.blivit.org/mr_urc/index.cfm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:166159 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
