Talk:Bus 174 hijacking/Archive 1

Bus 174
According to the television documentary the SWAT team member charged Do Nascimento. The officer fired two shots at point blank range which both missed Do Nascimento. The first shot was believed to have hit Geisa, the hostage. Geisa and Do Nascimento both fell to the ground while other officers tried to wrestle the gun away from Do Nascimento. During the struggle he fired the gun again sending a bullet into into Geisa's side. After a brief riot ensued Do Nascimento was rushed away in a police car with three men on top of him. Soon after he died of asphyxiation


 * SWAT Team? SWAT is a USA term. There is no "SWAT" in Rio de Janeiro. --Pinnecco 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "SWAT" was the translated term used in the Bus 174 documentary. I don't doubt that that's not the exact term used in Brazil, but I think the point of using that designation in the film was just to draw a distinction between typical street police and officers who are recive training in special weapons and tactics (S.W.A.T.) specifically to deal with things like hostage situations.  "SWAT" would therefore be a fairly appropriate translation to an American audience to convey that distinction.  Mwelch 22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To Americans, perhaps. But not here at wikipedia. We call them BOPE (Batalhão de Operações Policiais Especiais) in Brazil. --Pinnecco 12:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's wonderful. Of course, the subject I'm addressing was NOT whether it is appropriate to use the term SWAT here on Wikipedia.  The Wikipedia article does not use that term and it never did and neither I nor anyone else ever said that it should.  So what is your point?


 * The subject was whether it was appropriate to use the term SWAT in the English-language translation of the Bus 174 documentary. An English-langague translation is quite obviously intended for an English-speaking audience.  And an English-speaking audience is a lot more likely to understand the concept by using the term SWAT than by using the term BOPE.  Thus, SWAT is a much more appropriate term to use in that context.


 * Just as if an American documentary featured SWAT officers, and then that documentary was translated into Portuguese for a Brazilian audience, then in that translation it would be perfectly appropriate to refer to them as BOPE officers, even though BOPE is a Brazilian term and there is no BOPE in the United States.


 * It's far more important that one's intended viewer understand what is being conveyed than to worry about which acronym is used in which country. Mwelch 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't see that there would be a problem using "SWAT" for these kinds of articles on the English Wikipedia either. The acronym is pretty universally understood in the English-speaking world thanks to the global proliferation of American movies and TV shows. -- Hux 11:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

new movie
there is a new movie on the subject, i am | linking to it's imdb page. when it hits the torrents, i highly recommend watching it. though it is a fiction work, it introduces the incident for those unaware of it, making way for the actual documentary. - capi, Nov 22 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.106.1.138 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Intentional? Yes
The shots fired by its murderer where all intentional and resulted from a perceived attack from the police force member. Added it was also coward, since all shots hit Geysa in her back.

The shot fired by the police force member was RULED unintentional during the court procedures, so it's not simply ALLEGED. --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that most of the information on this page concerning the sequence of events of the 174 siege is not accurate, I tried to fix it a little bit, but I must do more research in order to make significant changes:


 * The kidnaper DID NOT KILL ANYONE during the hostage crisis inside the bus. He pretended to shoot a woman laying on the floor of the bus (name yet to be confirmed), and he made another hostage simulate her own death.


 * He was killed by the police as amatter of revenge, by asfixiation.


 * The sequence of events can be found (in portuguese) at the Folha online site -- Pinnecco a while ago ;)


 * Disagree! The court ruled out intention in the police officer shot. Of course no police officer will wilfully shot a victim instead of a coward criminal. Three of the shots received by Geisa came, scientifically proven, from the murdererous bandit 38 revolver (in an act of extreme cowardice).


 * Also, the police DO NOT killed the bandit afterwards, since it was TOTALLY ruled out by the justice court, institution that holds constitutional powers to decide whether or not someone is guilty of something. --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. According ot the end of the film, after the police accidentally shot Geisa, Sandro shot her twice more in the back while she was down. Shaggorama 11:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Could be. But the article before was saying he killed a woman inside the bus, which is wrong. He faked her execution. --Pinnecco 12:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct. However, since the article no longer states that wrong information, I'm going to go ahead and remove the "factual accuracy disputed" tag.  Mwelch 04:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)