PDA

View Full Version : Jean Charles de Menezes


Pages : [1] 2

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Sep 2008, 11:27
Blair warning as Jean Charles de Menezes inquest opens - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4801630.ece)

I know that this has been debated here over the last 3 years, however here we are a little over 3 years since this incident in London and yet again more millions are being spent rehashing the events that led up to an unfortunate killing.

That is money, time, resources, and energy that could and should be being invested in important matters that really matter such as knife-crime, combating terrorism, and general public safety. If anyone (in London) can remember back to this period, they will confirm the atmosphere in the air directly after the 7/7 bombs where so many people lost their lives and many more were terribly injured. The Police were in a state of near panic, reacting to intel and reports and rushing around to prevent further atrocities and sadly Mr Menezes was tangled up in a surveillance operation and mis-identified, pursued to the underground where they thought he would explode a bomb on his person and killed.

There are those who blame the police for their 'wild-west' attitude, almost as if they think that the officers in question shot the suspect on purpose. Out of all modern police forces, I would rate the UK Police as one of the most gun-averse in the western-world and the cases of shooting guilty (let alone innocent) suspects are minimal.

This person was illegally in the country and to my mind should not be afforded the same treatment as those who are citizens, residents, EU nationals, visa allowed and so on. Yes he was tragically shot unlawfully BUT in exceptional circumstances and apart from some compensation and an apology that should have been that. However it has gone on and on and to my mind this is about something else and somebody has an agenda. But who i wonder ?


Regards


SHJ

Economics101
22nd Sep 2008, 11:34
Who has an agenda? The lawyers. If there a full tribunal of enquiry set up after the inquest, this will earn them at least £100m over the next few years. Just look at the goldmine which is the Saville euquiry.

Don't get me wrong: certain things may have been done which were unlawful, and lessons should be learned about preventing them from happening again, and so forth. But long enquiries which spend a huge amount of time establishing what is already known have only one beneficiary: the legal profession.

BarbiesBoyfriend
22nd Sep 2008, 12:50
Springheeled jack

Would you feel the same if it had been your son?

Thought not.:ugh:

Dan D'air
22nd Sep 2008, 13:01
Yes he was tragically shot unlawfully BUT in exceptional circumstances and apart from some compensation and an apology that should have been that.

Exceptional circumstances indeed Jack. He was, I believe, running away from the Police and also had traces of drugs in his system, as well as a false stamp in his passport. Sympathy?? It's between Sh1t and syphillis in the dictionary.

Sunray Minor
22nd Sep 2008, 13:20
Dan,

We talking about the same person. I though he was running to catch a tube? Visa out of date and traces of drugs in his system grounds for a magazine load of rounds through the skull?

SHJ,
Considering an inquest is an option in nearly all deaths, why not have one about this one - it is in the public interest and a lot could be learnt about it.

And I think you'll find the police did in fact shoot the man on purpose.

G-CPTN
22nd Sep 2008, 13:22
And I think you'll find the police did in fact shoot the man on purpose.But don't hold your breath waiting for them to admit that in court . . .

Parapunter
22nd Sep 2008, 13:27
And why would they? The atmosphere was febrile in London then. When it was reported on here, people were saying 'good' and worse. The difference is that we are a nation that does - should, whatever, go the distance when something like this happens.

If you want summary executions without judicial recourse or restitution, there are plenty of countries around the world where you can find that.

radeng
22nd Sep 2008, 13:27
The reports I saw said that he was seated in the train, one policeman holding his arms against his body while the other two shot him. hardly 'running away'.

The one who should have taken the blame was the one in charge. She got promoted.

13thDuke
22nd Sep 2008, 13:28
Considering an inquest is an option in nearly all deaths
They had the inquest ages ago.

This is (according to the BBC) now the 6th inquiry into his death. Which is, I believe, the original poster's point.

And I think you'll find the police did in fact shoot the man on purpose

As opposed to accidentally shooting him?

If you want summary executions without judicial recourse or restitution, there are plenty of countries around the world where you can find that
Brazil for one.

Dan D'air
22nd Sep 2008, 13:29
Sunray,

IIRC and as was widely reported at the time, he wasn't just running for a train, he actively leapt over a ticket barrier at a time of what he must have known was one of great unease in London. His visa wasn't just out of date, it was forged and drug use indicates a wider, criminal mentality. Re. the multiple-tap, try acting like that in Brazil, you wouldn't even make it into the station, let alone onto a train carriage, so under the circumstances I think that the Police (if in fact, that is actually who shot him) were incredibly restrained.

I have made my position clear and don't intend to get into a pi$$ing contest with anyone, so won't post again on this thread.

Sunray Minor
22nd Sep 2008, 13:36
Dan,

Jesus, just goes to show what a bit of missinformation does. I suggest you go revisit the case and discover what happened - clearly there is a lot of room for another inquest as people like yourself have been led well down the garden path.

To refresh your memory, he left his house, got on a bus, got off a bus, walked into Stockwell station, put his ticket through the turnstiles, walked down to the train, sat down. He was then pinned to the ground and a magazine emptied in to his head.

If the fact that he smoked pot or snorted a line sometime in the month before, had overstayed his visa, or came from a country where worse happens is grounds to excuse a cock up of monumental proportions then we do indeed inhabit different planets.

The very fact that those details were released about him goes to show the lengths that the police will go to manipulate public opinion and get the easily convinced onside.

What is "restrained" about 7 bullets at point blank range on a tube carraige?

I have made my position clear and don't intend to get into a pi$$ing contest with anyone, so won't post again on this thread. Wise decision.

airship
22nd Sep 2008, 13:42
...almost as if they think that the officers in question shot the suspect on purpose. Very true, some were merely aiming at the funny-bone but most of the shots ended up a bit higher than that (or should that be lower?)... :rolleyes:

Captain Stable
22nd Sep 2008, 13:58
Absolutely correct, Sunray.

He did NOT run - the police lied about that.
He did NOT leap the barrier - the police lied about that as well.

I have seen no evidence that his visa was forged, and Dan's allegation about drugs is the first time I have heard that one as well. "Wider criminal mentality"??? Do me a favour. Stop being so f:mad:ing pompous. "Multiple tap"? Not generally used at close range with a suspect who is being restrained by another officer, and then usually limited to three shots - two to the chest, one to the head.

Sunray, you got one item incorrect. He was not shot seven times, but eight. Seven shots to the head and one that, incredibly, given the range, hit him in the shoulder. So much for trained police marksmen and their abilities. Eight shots, one of which went wide, does not imply to me (someone who has been trained by police firearms officers) that the pistolero was acting coolly and calmly but rather panicking and emotionally, contrary to all training.

The police handling of the affair was incompetent from first to last, from the chaos in the briefings before the operation; to the officer who needed to have a slash leaving only one observer watching the door of the building and therefore no corroboration of the suspect's likely identity; to the absence of firearms officers through most of the operation itself, allowing a potential suicide bomb suspect to board a bus (not wise, given 7/7) and then to enter a tube station full of people (ditto) and board a train. Incredible.

Given also the lies that were told after the event and the fact that nobody saw fit to brief Sir Ian Blair on the circumstances (perhaps they were still trying to assemble some sort of coherent fairytale), I think there are still many questions to be answered.

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Sep 2008, 14:16
Would you feel the same if it had been your son?

I would hope that my son would NOT have illegally entered another country in the first place because he would have learned that that is not the wisest of actions. He apparently purposefully travelled with the intention of illegal behaviour so as to better the life he left in Brazil. His family seemed fairly decent, so it makes you wonder how bad things were for him at home.

The reason he was pinned down and shot point-blank in the head was ironically because of learned tactics from Israeli police against suicide bombers there. Apparently by shooting the suspect in the head, rather than anywhere else in the body (to kill) the chances of the suspect triggering the explosive are greatly minimsed due to disabling the nervous system.

To reiterate, the atmosphere was VERY charged at the time, and rightly so. I myself was stopped at a tube station and searched, much to my displeasure, but it was the right thing to do and I accepted that, as did others. I can remember people being so jumpy, that whenever a lone male with a bag of any size got on a bus or tube there were people getting off asap...... even men wearing coats that were just that bit too bulky for the time of year were seen as possibles...... crazy times.


Regards


SHJ

Sunray Minor
22nd Sep 2008, 14:21
SHJ,

If the atmosphere was so charged, how come he was allowed out of his house, on to a bus, out of a bus, in to a train station and on to a carriage? We seem to be very selective about the Israeli security traits we are taking on board.

It was a cock up. Not only that it was a fatal cock up. It was a cock up that put fellow tube passengers at mortal risk and feasibly put the bus passengers at similar risk.

It doesn't matter if Menezes was an ex-con, a serial killer, or had a history of fare dodging. The claim that his overstayed visa in some way implies he got what he deserved is cynical at best and ultimately utterly irrelevent. If his visa had been correctly stamped do you think the result would have been any different?

My recollection of his death was the blood thirsty jingoists on PPRUNE cheering the news that someone had been shot, while myself and a number of others attempts to inject caution in to this report seemed to prompt claims of traitors or siding with terrorists. We don't seem to have moved on much.

13thDuke
22nd Sep 2008, 14:22
Not generally used at close range with a suspect who is being restrained by another officer, and then usually limited to three shots - two to the chest, one to the head
Can you see the possible problem there with someone who may be wearing an explosive vest?

Are you making this up as you go along or have you been watching too much TV?

Parapunter
22nd Sep 2008, 14:23
Menezes did not illegally enter the UK.

Shack37
22nd Sep 2008, 14:28
DD

The allegations you posted about running and jumping over ticket barriers have been shown to be police fabrication. The mention of traces of drugs in his system I cannot comment on because this is the first time I've heard it. If the officers concerned were indeed in no doubt as to their victim's identity, why the attempted cover up later? You then go on to imply it was not the police who shot him. That's also a new one to me.

Try following the evidence that emerges from this enquiry from eye witnesses not previously questioned and hear what the two officers who (may have) shot him have to say.

If your opinion is altered by this evidence will you come back and say so?
Rejoin the pi**ing contest as you put it?

s37

frostbite
22nd Sep 2008, 14:30
Yet another hugely expensive yawn.

TALLOWAY
22nd Sep 2008, 14:31
To reiterate, the atmosphere was VERY charged at the time, and rightly so. I myself was stopped at a tube station and searched, much to my displeasure, but it was the right thing to do and I accepted that, as did others.

I think they should have just shot you ... DEAD .... and not taken any risks. They could have justified it with something from your past I am sure, such as returning a library book late.

Captain Stable
22nd Sep 2008, 14:39
Can you see the possible problem there with someone who may be wearing an explosive vest?

Are you making this up as you go along or have you been watching too much TV?No, I'm not making it up. I have had just a little training in the area.

At the range from which de Menezes was shot it would have been very clear indeed that he was not wearing such a vest, so the question does not arise at all.

Add to that the fact that multiple taps do not involve emptying your magazine into a suspect. Very bad practice. Leaves you wide open to his putative mate (about whom you were hitherto unaware) standing up while you stare in astonishment, pulling his own weapon and plugging first your mate (whose attention is all on not getting shot by you whilst hanging on to your target) and then you. Which would make it a very bad day for you.

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Sep 2008, 14:43
If the atmosphere was so charged, how come he was allowed out of his house, on to a bus, out of a bus, in to a train station and on to a carriage? We seem to be very selective about the Israeli security traits we are taking on board.

It was a cock up. Not only that it was a fatal cock up. It was a cock up that put fellow tube passengers at mortal risk and feasibly put the bus passengers at similar risk.

It doesn't matter if Menezes was an ex-con, a serial killer, or had a history of fare dodging. The claim that his overstayed visa in some way implies he got what he deserved is cynical at best and ultimately utterly irrelevent. If his visa had been correctly stamped do you think the result would have been any different?

That he was allowed to move around is, as you say, unusual. Perhaps they Police were expecting him to make contact with others (as the previous bombers had done). Maybe they had been expecting him to detonate his (non) bomb on the underground elsewhere, rather than Stockwell, perhaps a few stations further along (Victoria, Waterloo, Oxford Circus) where maximum damage could have been done. The mentioning of Israeli domestic tactics was explained at the time in many newspapers to explain this VERY unusual 'execution style' killing, so far from normal in the UK.

That there were mistakes made is obvious and that the firearms officers were buzzing with adrenaline is no wonder. I remember at the time an SAS officer described them as 'amateurs', but his experience greatly outweighed theirs and (to my knowledge) this was the first type of pursuit and kill in modern times.

I don't personally think that de Menezes 'got what he deserved' who would ? However, he WAS illegally living in the country and as such this situation should not have been afforded such an amount of time and money (tax-payers money) to try to understand what went on in minutae. There have already been several investigations into the case and here we go again. This is time, money and resources that should be invested in other important social problems that are affecting London this very day (knife crime, over 25 teenagers killed this year, hundreds injured for example). It was a tragic error, it was compensated, it should be concluded.


Regards


SHJ

Forkandles
22nd Sep 2008, 14:56
This is getting as bad as the 'Air Accident' threads. Has Microsoft launched 'Anti-Terrorist Officer Simulator for Windows' recently? :hmm:

Der absolute Hammer
22nd Sep 2008, 14:59
Charles de Menezes.
Mark Saunders.

British police are gun averse?
They need to be.
Firearms officers are not fit for purpose!
Well, unless it is the massacre of the innocents!.

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Sep 2008, 15:11
Mark Saunders

In fairness Hammer, this fellow was firing bullets out of his property at his neighbours houses, and seemed to be showing signs of mental instability. That coupled with a firearm meant that he should be dis-abled asap. I would be very suprised, nay shocked if the Police shot him dead just to rap things up and go home as has been suggested.

Perhaps some of our Amerikanski posters would care to comment on the UK Police's behaviour and how the American Police would've handled these two cases.

Regards

SHJ

radeng
22nd Sep 2008, 15:43
I am still amazed that the woman in charge of what has been admitted to be a major cock up got promoted.

dazdaz
22nd Sep 2008, 15:56
If my memory serves me right, I recall the police used 'cross slit' bullets better know as dumb dumb bullets. I thought these were outlawed under the Geneva convention? Or is that just in times of war?

Daz

Sunray Minor
22nd Sep 2008, 16:03
I am still amazed that the woman in charge of what has been admitted to be a major cock up got promoted.

No much different from the city bonus culture really is it.

Roger Sofarover
22nd Sep 2008, 16:06
SHJ

you do not have your facts right, and it is in the public interest to know why an innocent man was shot dead. It is also owed to the family to know why their son was murdered. He overstayed his visa, that was all. An occurrence that occurs several thousand times a day in the UK. Your views are shocking.

Dan D'Air

Your facts are completely incorrect, yet you still fail to return and comment. Having read/enjoyed and agreed with many of your posts in the past, and exchanged pm's under a different guise i have to say that your posts on this thread are worse than shocking, they are disgusting, and not what one would expect from a person from a civilised country.

G-CPTN
22nd Sep 2008, 17:15
Anybody know the circumstances surrounding how this unfortunate chap came to be under surveillance?
Jean Charles de Menezes, was killed by police after being mistaken for Hussain.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Osman_Hussain.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Menezes.jpg/225px-Menezes.jpg
Hamdi Adus Isaac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussain_Osman)
On 22 July 2005, London police were searching for four suspects in four attempted bombings carried out the previous day; three at Underground stations and one on a bus in Hackney. As the perpetrators had not died in the failed suicide bombing, a large police investigation began immediately, with the aim of tracking them down. A written address on a gym membership card had been identified from materials found inside the unexploded bags used by the bombers, located within a three-storey block of nine flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill.
At around 9:30 a.m., surveillance officers observing the address saw Menezes emerge from the communal entrance of the block. The officers were watching three men who they claimed were Somali, Eritrean, or Ethiopian in appearance.

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Sep 2008, 17:37
How long before the hamster makes an appearance on this thread ? :rolleyes:

Roger, perhaps you are putting this person's family interests ahead of all those who are financing it ? There HAS been a police inquiry some time ago, there WAS a very public apology to his family and there WAS a financial compensation paid out which is a hell of a lot more than many citizens of old blighty have been afforded. The millions of pounds that have been expended thus far have been effectively 'stolen' from many other causes that are crying out for help ranging from nursery places for children of working parents through eliminating inner city poverty and crime and out to our soldiers who through lacking proper equipment have lost their lives. Think how many lives could and should have been touched positively (the greater good and all that ?) that have been used up on one person and one who was breaking the law.

I don't wish anyone dead, but enough is enough. If THAT is shocking to you then so be it. He didn't deserve to die, but then again there aren't many that do. I wonder if your personal circumstances come under stress in the next while due to the economy might you rue the vast expense of this (these) inquiries.


Regards


SHJ

SXB
22nd Sep 2008, 17:37
Everyone living in the UK, illegally or not, has the right not to be held down by two police officers whilst another shoots them in the head 8 times. This is not a "grey area" and neither can the killing be justified because "of heightened tension at the time"

The only other case I can remember which was similar to this incident was the killing of IRA members in Gibraltar a few years ago by the SAS. Those individuals were executed when the SAS suspected they were about to detonate a bomb. That case ended up here in the Court in Strasbourg and British Government lost. Whilst few mourned the passing of the IRA members (known terrorists) the killing was clearly illegal. Will the de Menezes case end up in Strasbourg ? Probably.

After de Menezes and his family the people I feel most sorry for are the police officers who actually killed him, one wonders about their rules of engagement, they must have been authorised to use lethal force without issuing the usual warnings.

This is a tragic case and there will be no satisfactory outcome for anyone, least of all for Mr de Menezes and the officers who killed him.

Captain Stable
22nd Sep 2008, 18:05
I got it wrong - they didn't fire eight shots.

They fired eleven. Pointing a gun at the guy's head at point blank range they only managed to hit the target they were aiming at 7 out of 11 times - not a terribly good score, really - 63%.

Wrt the query about the type of round used, they were apparently hollowpoint which are illegal on the battlefield by international convention but are permitted for law-enforcement work.

When the firearms officers boarded the train, according to their claim, they challenged de Menezes. Not one other witness heard such a challenge. Yet another police lie.

Police claimed at one stage that de Menezes had been challenged and ordered to stop outside Stockwell tube station and had subsequently taken to his heels. Another police lie.

Five senior police officers permitted a pathologist five days after the killing to write in his report that de Menezes had vaulted over the barrier at Stockwell. They knew this to be wrong, and did nothing to correct it. A de facto lie.

He was not wearing a bulky jacket - and another police lie, yet again.

Just a few questions that have not been satisfactorily answered yet - and a few people who probably would, but for the barrier of silence and obstruction from the police, face criminal charges.

Roger Sofarover
22nd Sep 2008, 19:19
SHJ

You are wrong. The content of Captain Stables post illustrate exactly why we should finance 20 inquiries if need be, until the truth comes out and is admitted, and those liable and guilty of perjury are held to account. Bye the way, the millions you talk of spent on the inquiry would go no where near any good cause or helping solve street crime.

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Sep 2008, 20:12
Bye the way, the millions you talk of spent on the inquiry would go no where near any good cause or helping solve street crime.

If all the monetary costs were to be added up it would make an impression on something to the positive and that is a scandal. The Police have made a catalogue of errors apparently, which when you take into account the normal general excellence of said force in the capital, then it is surprising.

The errors, or some of them, were admitted before and the Menezes family were paid £535,000 and a public apology given. He was shot at close quarters by 'special units' of the police acting on false intel in a crazy mad moment in London's recent history. If memory serves there had been another attempt to cause mayhem with suicide bombs in the preceding days, which thankfully went wrong and was abandoned.

If those of you who weren't there at the time could try to imagine the panic of trying to find the needles in the haystack, you could well understand the situation that the Met were in. The last time that I can recall the Met shooting an innocent person was 10 years or more before in west London and there was a chap carrying a wooden bannister under his arm who looked like an armed robber at large and..... bang bang (bad mistake). I take my hat off to the generally professional conduct of the police.

This case has taken away the focus from on-going attempts to track and prevent further home-grown acts of terror, from all the people who were killed and maimed in the attacks and from other important issues.

I believe that one of the regulars here has personal experience in these sad events and perhaps might like to comment ?


Regards


SHJ

Captain Stable
22nd Sep 2008, 20:31
SHJ, as you say, there was a certain amount of panic about in those days. People make mistakes and sometimes, sadly, those mistakes get innocent bystanders killed.

Nevertheless, when mistakes are made it helps nobody for the police to lie, to obfuscate, to attempt to obstruct inquiries and deliberately mislead the press and public.

We need to be sure that the police have learned from the mistakes made during Operation Kratos and that certain overly cavalier aspects of the operation in which an innocent man lost his life are considerably less likely to recur. At present I do not have such assurance.

What is more, lies are still being told, and the record has still not been set straight. the de Menezes family are still looking for answers to which most honourable people would say they are entitled.

SpringHeeledJack
22nd Sep 2008, 20:53
Nevertheless, when mistakes are made it helps nobody for the police to lie, to obfuscate, to attempt to obstruct inquiries and deliberately mislead the press and public.

We need to be sure that the police have learned from the mistakes made during Operation Kratos and that certain overly cavalier aspects of the operation in which an innocent man lost his life are considerably less likely to recur. At present I do not have such assurance.

What is more, lies are still being told, and the record has still not been set straight. the de Menezes family are still looking for answers to which most honourable people would say they are entitled.

I agree with all that you say, except the last part. I feel that once the pay-off and apology were made and accepted (perhaps politically motivated ?) then it was over and we should have moved on, with the exception of a police led investigation (internal) using another force to lead it.


Regards


SHJ

Captain Stable
23rd Sep 2008, 08:10
Then we will have to agree to differ. I feel that saying "Sorry - here's a load of dosh. Don't worry - we'll look into it quietly ourselves and not tell you anything further" doesn't cut the mustard - at least it wouldn't if they'd killed my son or brother.

radeng
23rd Sep 2008, 08:16
Allowing the police to confer when they write up their notes on such incidents some days later is obviously a practice which encourages at best mutual inaccuracy, and at worst, downright deceit. It would be a lot fairer all round for a debriefing and statement to be taken by senior officer from each team member individually.

SXB
23rd Sep 2008, 08:19
I agree with all that you say, except the last part. I feel that once the pay-off and apology were made and accepted (perhaps politically motivated ?) then it was over and we should have moved on, with the exception of a police led investigation (internal) using another force to lead it.That isn't how the law works in the UK, it's not possible for the two parties to agree an apology and compensation and then end the matter. The use of lethal force in the UK (and everywhere else in Europe) is clear - "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary"

What happens in the inquest will govern which direction this case will take, if there is a category 3 verdict (unlawful killing) then further proceedings will be taken.

Sunray Minor
23rd Sep 2008, 10:42
SXB,

Will they? After another high profiel police shooting the unlawful killing verdict resulted in the police downing arms and threatening all kinds of dire consequences. Lessons weren't learnt and here we have a similar event in both the reactions of the police/SO19 and the followup.

Wedge
23rd Sep 2008, 10:59
Exceptional circumstances indeed Jack. He was, I believe, running away from the Police and also had traces of drugs in his system, as well as a false stamp in his passport.

The only reasonable inference to draw from this statement is that he deserved to be shot dead for having traces of drugs in his system and a false stamp in his passport. First off, that's a ridiculous statement in itself, but even if you accept it, the police did not and could not possibly have known about either when they shot Jean-Charles.

Running away from the police? I'd suggest a lot of people would run away in similar circumstances, especially if, as is very likely in this case, they didn't fully understand what was going on.

The fact that the Police were in a panic and worried about further suicide bombings does not excuse or even mitigate this appalling series of failures which led to a thoroughly innocent man receiving multiple bullets in the head. The Police are privileged with important powers which must be used fairly and lawfully at all times. When the officers concerned are firearms officers they carry an even greater responsibility to the public, and if they aren't capable of discharging their duties in the correct manner then they should not be doing the job. The officers on the ground who pulled the trigger may not be at fault in this case, although it's likely that they should shoulder some of the blame.

The point is that this inquest will hopefully get to the bottom of what happened on that day, and establish the facts. No internal Police investigation can be expected to do that, especially when you consider that (unlike criminal suspects), the police are able to liase and 'get their story straight' before they submit their statements.

It surprises me that anyone would begrudge the relatively small amount of taxpayers' money being spent on this extremely important inquest into a needless death at the hands of the Police.

max_cont
23rd Sep 2008, 11:08
FWIW.

Personally speaking I don’t care how excited the police were at the time. An innocent man was butchered. They and those in charge should get the same treatment as a certain Pvt Clegg from the Para’s.

If you volunteer to carry and use lethal weapons as part of your duty, then be correct. If you can’t, don’t do it. If you do and get it wrong…take the punishment.

Lying to save your skin after the event is criminal and the fact that it’s done with help from those in charge does not mitigate the fact. I don’t expect the UK police service to lie and pervert the course of justice.

I would rather an armed police officer was worried by the enormity of squeezing the trigger, than running around like wannabe SAS troopers, trying to get that first kill.

parabellum
23rd Sep 2008, 12:05
"same treatment as a certain Pvt Clegg from the Para’s".

Clegg was cleared eventually wasn't he? Released from prison and allowed to continue in the Army and Clegg was shooting at people who were deliberately trying to run a road block, no case of a wrong identification of the situation, they had orders to shoot.

Blacksheep
23rd Sep 2008, 12:32
It is clear that the armed officers had reasonable cause to believe they were shooting a terrorist, in a situation where there was an imminent threat of him detonating an explosion, and that they and the public around them were in immediate danger of death or serious injury. In accordance with the law, the shooting was therefore lawful and the officers are not to blame.

What is not clear is how or why those officers were misled into that erroneous belief. Exactly what were they told? Who told them? Who was responsible for the subsequent false press releases that the suspect had run from the police, or that he had vaulted the barriers, or that he was wearing a bulky jacket? The firearms officers were badly led, poorly informed and worse, after the event there was a deliberate attempt by their superiors to cover up their own shortcomings. One of those most directly responsible for the debacle was actually promoted.

The investigations so far have failed to explain the organizational failures that let these two front-line officers down. Its impossible for we ordinary folk to imagine how they must feel after discovering they had killed a harmless electrician going about his ordinary business. Unless those organizational failures are brought into the open and dealt with, we, the general public, remain in danger of a repeat performance.

BenThere
23rd Sep 2008, 12:39
"Officer, there's a man over there shouting 'Allah Akbar' and he's wearing a heavy vest and he's holding his arms open and has a cord leading from the vest to his fist. He's a suicide bomber! Take him out!"

"Sorry ma'am. Remember what happened in the Mene

max_cont
23rd Sep 2008, 12:42
parabellum, I operated under the same orders as Clegg. I still hold a copy of those orders. I and any one of us could have ended up in prison for following the yellow card.

It matters not that he was finally cleared…he spent time in prison while those that drafted the orders left him to carry the can for their ineptitude. I believe the incriminating round that jailed him was proved to have impacted as the car posed no further threat.

Back on topic. The individual police officers cannot and should not be allowed to get away with murder which is what happened that day. I would have more sympathy for them if they had not cynically tried to mislead/cover up the facts regarding the incident after it was proven to be a tragic mistake.

Wedge
23rd Sep 2008, 12:46
Meanwhile, in a rather unfortunate advertising faux pas........

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2849056132_e14da809a0.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2849055476_916cd45593.jpg

Beatriz Fontana
23rd Sep 2008, 12:54
Eye witnesses. Some of the most unreliable sources of information on the planet (I speak as an ex-journo who had my fair share of "I heard the bang and turned around, but I saw everything leading up to the bang" stories). Noting what you saw and heard and recalling it word for word is a skill most people don't have. And then contextualising it - only a handful of days previously, London was subject to a terrorist attack and then a failed attack. Who in the city wasn't just a little niggled by the situation and suspicious of anything potentially out of the ordinary?

I fear for the jury - any jury - who has to reach a decision on such a high profile and emotive cases. Having to forget all the casserole of fact and speculation and reach a verdict. Best of luck to them.

Oh Wedge, well spotted! Send it to Private Eye...

tallsandwich
23rd Sep 2008, 12:58
- IRA guys were going to blow up a bomb - good riddance, they had it coming, well done SAS.

- Jean Charles de Menezes was not going to blow up a bomb; I don't see the relationship with the IRA/Gib case. It should be investigated properly, but let's put this one sigle case into perspective, do we put the same attention and effort to try and nail the idiot drivers who kill innocent people on the roads? Do those who are passionate on this thread about justice in this case, do you pursue these criminals with the same vigour? I think not. So whilst it is tragic, let's keep it balanced.

max_cont
23rd Sep 2008, 13:07
Tallsandwich, what do you mean?

An accident is one thing…this police shooting was no accident.

We are entitled to hold those placed in authority over us, to a higher standard.

At the moment I feel more threatened by our security forces than by the terrorist.

Flying_Frisbee
23rd Sep 2008, 13:09
Eye witnesses. Some of the most unreliable sources of information on the planet (I speak as an ex-journo who had my fair share of "I heard the bang and turned around, but I saw everything leading up to the bang" stories).
So speaking as an ex-journo, would you have expected any of the witnesses to have heard the police warnings, or are all 17 of them unreliable sources of information?

Roger Sofarover
23rd Sep 2008, 15:16
London was subject to a terrorist attack and then a failed attack. Who in the city wasn't just a little niggled by the situation and suspicious of anything potentially out of the ordinary?

It is no excuse i am afraid. Clegg was in a very permanent jittery situation, yet we still jailed him. There are soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, who everyday are faced with these situations and many things 'out of the ordinary', yet we still put them on trial for murder when they get it wrong. Why should the police be any different. Somebody, however far up the chain should be banged up for the murder of Menezes. If not for his murder, at the very least for perverting the course of justice.

The money spent on this inquest is, on the grand scale of things, the square root of f*** all. It is in a budget designed for such cases and would not be spent on anything else. As a society we cannot afford to repeat this again, and the scaremongering tactics of using terrorists as an excuse, is in line with current governmental policy of 'keep the population scared' (because then we can do whatever we want without justification)

Menezes, was a normal bloke going about his normal day, his more than human 'foibles' were discovered after the event and used as some sort of perverse excuse to justify his murder.

Our police screwed up. The compensation to the family of Menezes is an aside. They (the police) are accountable to the tax payer and we deserve the truth and accountability, regardless of the cost. If i screw up flying an aircraft, the appropriate authorities will spend whatever it takes to find out the truth of what happened, and if necessary hang me out to dry.

Beatriz Fontana
23rd Sep 2008, 15:22
Flying Frisbee,

That's a tough one... I'll talk in general terms because the case is ongoing.

Did you (as a witness) hear anyone shout? What did they say? Who shouted? Were they in uniform or was it some bloke chasing another bloke? Or was it the bloke being chased doing the shouting? Did you merely hear the shout or actually see who was being shouted at / doing the shouting? Can you be absolutely sure it was a policeman doing the shouting? Based on what you know now - as in the consequences you saw play out - who shouted what to whom?

Depends upon what the question is as to what response you'll get. If no one I questioned heard what they thought would have been a police command, then that's a line of journalistic enquiry for me.

radeng
23rd Sep 2008, 16:58
Roger said:

>Clegg was in a very permanent jittery situation, yet we still jailed him. There are soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, who everyday are faced with these situations and many things 'out of the ordinary', yet we still put them on trial for murder when they get it wrong. Why should the police be any different. Somebody, however far up the chain should be banged up for the murder of Menezes. If not for his murder, at the very least for perverting the course of justice.<

I totally agree. But let's not forget that there was a major political angle in the Clegg case - as there usually is with the armed forces. It's always politically useful to hang them out to dry: the opposite applies to the police.

parabellum
24th Sep 2008, 03:55
MAX CONT - yes I am also familiar with the coloured cards, written, if I'm not mistaken, by libertarian civil rights lawyers!;) Certainly were not written by anyone who has been stuck on a road-block at God knows what hour when a vehicle has approached fast and failed to stop.

I think Blacksheep's summation is the best so far on here.

Isn't manslaughter a more likely charge than murder?

max_cont
24th Sep 2008, 07:49
Parabellum, I don’t entirely agree with Blacksheep, but I do agree, one of the best posts so far.

I do not absolve the police officers involved in the shooting either. Since you are familiar with the Yellow Card and what it gives as examples for using lethal force you know that if you applied the wording verbatim, you would be shooting someone every other week. I know that had I not used my discretion over the years and resorted to less than lethal force, I would probably have been a guest at one of HM prisons’

FWIW I have met more than a handful of Police firearms officers in both an off duty setting, and working with them in a former life. The mind set and attitude of some of these officers worried me. I see nothing much to alter that assessment.

This enquiry will hopefully force a full disclosure…warts and all. If charges are brought against certain individuals then so be it. They are there to serve us the citizens, not run around in a state of panic executing civilians’ no matter how good their intentions. If they can’t handle the pressure do some thing else.

To allow this kind of FUBAR performance to continue for political or industrial reasons is not acceptable in the UK or anywhere else where the rule of law is supposed to reign supreme.

jimma
24th Sep 2008, 08:04
Will we ever know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what happened? Probably not. But the officers that fired the shots should not be blamed for what happened.

The decision of the police to take a life is never taken likely, the consequences of doing so and not doing so are heavily weighed up.

Der absolute hammer - do you know any firearms officers personally? Your comment that they are unfit for purpose is incorrect and offensive. These people do a good job in difficult cirumstances. Just like the rest of the police they dont get the support that they should from the people they are trying to protect. Mark Saunders? The moment you pick up a weapon, let alone fire it, (illegally) you should expect the police to shoot you.

Wyler
24th Sep 2008, 08:21
I am all for lethal action against terrorists.

This, however, was incompetence of the highest order. He did not run, he was not properly identified and for that, he was murdered.

I hope the inquest delivers a verdict of unlawful killing so that the idiots, from the so called marksmen to the commanders, can be brought to book and jailed.

British Police, especially the Met, are nothing but a joke. More interested in PC initiatives and keeping their political masters happy. That leads to loss of leadership, focus and discipline. End result? Lawless streets and dead bodies.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

SXB
24th Sep 2008, 09:13
By Blacksheep
It is clear that the armed officers had reasonable cause to believe they were shooting a terrorist, in a situation where there was an imminent threat of him detonating an explosion, and that they and the public around them were in immediate danger of death or serious injury. In accordance with the law, the shooting was therefore lawful and the officers are not to blame.


I'm sorry but that's completely incorrect. They had no solid intelligence that this guy was a terrorist. There is no evidence to suggest that he was armed with either explosives or other weapons, or even that he was acting in a suspicious manner. The fact that this was an unlawful killing is not really debatable, it's an open and shut case. The police killed an unarmed man without giving any warning and without having any evidence to suggest he was about to endanger the lives of the people around him.

By Parabellum
Isn't manslaughter a more likely charge than murder?

Manslaughter ? two police officers held him down whilst another shot him 8 times in the head, I'd say there was clear intent to kill him. The definition of manslaughter and murder is less flexable in the UK than in some other countries, the same is true of the penalty for those convicted of murder, there is only one penalty open to the judge.

SpringHeeledJack
24th Sep 2008, 09:39
I would agree that Blacksheep summed up things in a reasonably balanced way, without taking sides, good post :ok:

The police killed an unarmed man without giving any warning and without having any evidence to suggest he was about to endanger the lives of the people around him.

Yes they did kill him, execution style, but for whatever (false) reason(s) they believed that he WAS armed and if they had 'given him a warning' he would have likely detonated his device, bearing in mind they believed him to be a suicide bomber. Their mission was to take him out plain and simple, he was never going to be arrested. It is oh so easy for us to say that they were murderers from the safety of time. IF these 'incompetents' were so blood thirsty, then a great many more suspects, guilty and innocent would have been dispatched before now surely ? As far as i am aware there hasn't been one.

Regards


SHJ

SXB
24th Sep 2008, 09:47
Jack
Yes they did kill him, execution style, but for whatever (false) reason(s) they believed that he WAS armed and if they had 'given him a warning' he would have likely detonated his device, bearing in mind they believed him to be a suicide bomber

Yes, but they were wrong, there was also a complete lack of evidence to suggest their suspicions were warranted. They made a mistake. Bear in mind the concept of 'Imperfect Self Defence' doesn't exist in the English law....

parabellum
24th Sep 2008, 21:38
"Yes, but they were wrong, there was also a complete lack of evidence to suggest their suspicions were warranted. They made a mistake."

Yes, but who actually made the mistake? Someone much further up the chain than the shooters, I feel. The shooters were alerted to a target, (who was mis-identified to them), they received instructions on what to do and followed them through believing they were dealing with a back pack bomber so the 'Stop and Search' option didn't exist. Yes they deliberately killed him, it was pre-meditated but as custodians of the law they consider, based on the information and instructions they had received up to that time, that their actions were lawful. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.
It was only in the aftermath that it came to light that a number of glaring errors were emerging that could not have been known to the shooters at the time but possibly were to people higher up the chain of command and once they realised there was doubt then the order "Stop, Stop, Stop" should have gone out loud and clear.

So easy to be wise after the event but I still think the shooters would be unlucky to be charged with manslaughter, let alone murder. If you are looking for guilty parties you should be looking at the decision makers who allowed the command, "Go, Go, Go" to go out and then didn't recall it.

G-CPTN
24th Sep 2008, 22:12
Agreed that the 'executives' (ie those who were tasked to carry out the end-game) have to rely on the information given to them and any instructions as to what to do.
The question is, did the 'managers' of these operatives discover the anomalies before the action (did they indeed try to recall them but were unable to contact them because they were underground?) or was it just a disorganised operation that reacted to coincidences of 'evidence'?
Will the promoted female manager be giving evidence?

El Grifo
24th Sep 2008, 22:15
I seem to recall that quite a number of rounds were expended.

Blind panic or supreme insurance ?

Wedge
24th Sep 2008, 22:28
I assume that Commander (now Deputy Assistant Commissioner) Cressida Dick will be giving evidence at the inquest as the 'buck stopped with her' on the day.

Cressida Dick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cressida_Dick)

Interesting CV - you don't get many coppers who are Oxbridge graduates.

Yes, I accept that the officers on the ground were acting on instructions and information which was coming from other sources - and their actions may be vindicated by the evidence at the inquest. I also accept parabellum's point that it's very easy for us to 'be wise after the event' and pontificate from the safety of a computer screen about the actions of officers on the ground who were (so we understand) led to believe they were pursuing a suicide bomber.

Those are exactly the kind of facts that the inquest will hopefully establish - and that's exactly why this inquest is a very important exploration of the events as they unfolded that day. Obviously the thread starter is completely wrong imho to suggest that it's a waste of taxpayers' money.

However - the most distasteful aspect of the Police's conduct in this matter were the appalling attempts they made to smear an innocent dead man's name following the shooting in an attempt to justify his killing. Lies were told (probably by the Commissioner himself) and they used every tactic available to them to smear Jean-Charles - see the irrelevant nonsense about him having drugs in his system and a false stamp in his passport - as if that makes any difference whatsoever.

If this inquest gets to the truth and the individuals responsible are identified, then they should face criminal charges just as any member of the public would for causing an unlawful death.

Roger Sofarover
25th Sep 2008, 00:42
Wedge

Spot on :ok::ok:

I do wonder if the Met are scared to hold Ms Dick accountable and discipline her in case she (as often happens in the Met), pulls the equalities card and say's she is being victimised for being female etc etc (hence her amazing promotion when she was clearly at the top of a serious chain of Human Error during this incident). Watch this space!!

ExGrunt
25th Sep 2008, 11:26
I am not a prolific poster on Pprune, because usually I do not feel I have the expertise to comment. However, with five years service in NI, including coming under fire, I feel able to chip in on this subject.

There is no doubt in my mind that had the army conducted this operation in NI those involved would have been charged with murder, and rightly so in my opinion.

My reasons are based on a study of the IPCC reports into this matter. I would provide links, but they have been removed from the IPCC web site 'for the duration of the inquest' (If you google stockwell1 and stockwell2 you can find them).

First let me start with the operation orders:

To control the premises at SCOTIA ROAD through covert
surveillance, follow any person leaving the premises until it was felt safe to challenge them and then stop them. If the stops identified other residents of the flats then any intelligence opportunity would be maximised. The overall aim was to establish whether the two suspects were present in the flat and if they came out to arrest them safely


At no time were orders given to shoot Menezes.

Equally, I must correct the incorrect view still held by some that Menezes was wearing padded clothing and that he leap the barriers. The report says:


STOCKWELL Underground Station

8.16 The available CCTV evidence shows Jean Charles DE MENEZES walking calmly into STOCKWELL Underground station just after 10:00hrs on Friday 22 July 2005. He was wearing a denim jacket, Tshirt and denim jeans. He was not carrying anything.
8.17 Mr DE MENEZES is seen on the CCTV to select a copy of the Metronewspaper. He then walked to the ticket barrier, used an Oyster cardand walked through the turnstile. He then turned left towards the escalator to the Northern line and walked down on its left hand side.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44168000/jpg/_44168778_menezes4_220cps.jpg

And


As a result of two further examinations of the carriage witness ZAE concludes that Mr DE MENEZES sustained his fatal injuries while sitting in seat two and bent over at the waist to his left such that his head was above seat three with all the shots being fired from his right side. He rules out the possibility that Mr DE MENEZES was on the floor when he was shot. He concluded that the shots had been fired from a range of 1cm to about 8cm.

But for me one of the most telling parts is:


[Despite the belief within Room 1600 that NETTLE TIP had been identified it should be noted that every entry on the Surveillance Running Log refers to the person as being ‘U/I male’, U/I meaning unidentified.


It is stilll a mystery to me how they formed the view that he could be a bomber. All the recent incidents had involved large rucksack bombs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/uk_enl_1121567244/img/1.jpg

When you read the reports it is clear that the ops room was a complete shambles and despite both the firearms team and the ops room listening in to the transmissions, key information was missed.

Through this confusion orders to arrest became instructions to stop which were implemented as a close range execution.

This could have happened to any one of us if we happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

From all my experience I believe passionately that if we are to defeat terrorism we must voluntarily hold ourselves to higher standards that have clear public support. One jury has concluded already that the police action fell well short of what is required.

To say that paying out compo to the Menezes family is enough, does not cover it. Someone has to be held accountable for the p!ss poor command and control so that it does not happen again.

EG

radeng
25th Sep 2008, 11:54
An ex SBS guy who is a friend of my brotehrs had the opportunity to see the Northumberland armed response team turned out. He said that their capability to apparently act rationally with firearms worried him.

A retired ACC froma provicial force told me 'The Met? if their hands can reach their knees and they can grunt, they're in!'

SXB
25th Sep 2008, 12:10
EG
That's the most clear and concise report I've read about this affair, anywhere.

Sunray Minor
25th Sep 2008, 14:16
Radeng,

I have had a form of involvement with SO19 as it was then known. While I couldn't possibly comment on individual officers my exposure leads me to agree wholeheartedly unfortunately.

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2008, 14:21
Never been the same since Bodie and Doyle left IMO . . .

Matari
25th Sep 2008, 19:46
Ex Grunt:

Well stated.

BarbiesBoyfriend
25th Sep 2008, 21:00
Ex Grunt

I think you put that rather well.

If it'd happened in NI.............off to get a striped suntan for sure!

As for the 'febrile atmosphere' we hear was present in the aftermath of the tube bombing........Cool heads are required for this line of work, not the type affected by the 'atmosphere'.

EVEN IF the guy had been the Osman character that they thought he was there seems little reason to assume he was 'on another mission'.

Plainly the guy had no rucksack or baggy clothing which may have concealed a bomb- so why not simply issue the normal challenge and then arrest him? Maybe on the bus or while he was walking to the bus stop?

And as for firing, what was it, 11 shots at him- point blank- and only hitting him with 7??

Not exactly marksmanship, is it?

Panic more like.

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2008, 21:21
Maybe on the bus or while he was walking to the bus stop?I don't think the gun-crew arrived until the 'suspect' had already entered the station . . .

mr fish
25th Sep 2008, 21:21
having watched the events unfold live ( i was in bed with flu, honest),i look forward to seeing the ,ahem, ' member of the public' who went to great lengths to be on camera in front of the station explaining how the deceased man ' ran past him and vaulted the barrier whilst being chased by officers'.
this interview went out live( i saw it), but funnily enough, i've never seen it since, and it was never mentioned again.
the word PLANT springs to mind:hmm::hmm::hmm:

Sunray Minor
25th Sep 2008, 21:53
G-CPTN,

There is somthing disturbing in the fact that the No.2 bus from Tulse Hill to Marylebone managed to deliver Jean Charles at Stockwell Station before the police arrived. You would think they might be cogniscent of the fact that any suicide bomber might attempt to de-bus at the nearest tube station, not to mention that said suicide gent might even want to explode his string vest on the bus itself (perhaps they thought a bomb in Lambeth might be good for the area).

G-CPTN
25th Sep 2008, 22:05
I suspect that the 'lesser mortals' used for the stake-out had to 'call up the troops' when the suspect emerged (after they had finished relieving themselves, apparently).
How long does it take to drive from Scotland Yard to Stockwell?

G-CPTN
15th Oct 2008, 16:00
Firearms officers were prepared to kill a man they thought was one of the failed London bombers without orders from their seniors, an inquest heard.
The inquest heard Brazilian Mr de Menezes, 27, was killed in a "calm and controlled" way as he got on the tube.
When asked if officers were prepared to take the critical shot without word from his bosses, he replied: "Yes."
(From:- BBC NEWS | UK | Police 'could kill without order' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7671787.stm) )

Captain Stable
15th Oct 2008, 18:17
The officers followed Menezes for 5 minutes as he walked to a bus-stop on Tulse Hill for the Number 2 bus routes. As he boarded a bus, several plainclothes police officers boarded, continuing the pursuit.

At Brixton Station de Menezes briefly got off the bus, saw the station was closed, and reboarded the bus to continue to Stockwell. The three surveillance officers later stated that they were satisfied that they had the correct man, noting that he "had Mongolian eyes". Finally the bus arrived at Stockwell Tube station, 3.3km (2 miles) away.Don't think they were in that much of a hurry, were they? He'd been allowed to get on a bus which he could have bombed, got off at one tube station to find it was closed, got back on the bus (had another opportunity to bomb it had he wanted as a Plan B), got off at another tube station, strolled inside picking up a free paper as he went, used his Oyster card to get through the barrier, went down to the platform,According to a "senior police source at Scotland Yard", Police Commander Cressida Dick told the surveillance team that the man was to be "detained as soon as possible", before entering the station.Oops! He was already there. Slight breakdown of communications perhaps. Where were the guys who had been on the bus with him? Dunno, but they were seen running through the station to catch up with him. Perhaps they had stopped off for a coffee and a doughnut. De Menezes boarded a train and sat down. All this without a positive identification of the guy. Why? Because the surveillance team didn't have a picture of the suspect. They were going on their memory of a picture from a CCTV still that they had seen only briefly during the briefing at Scotland Yard.

Cressida Dick and all those police who fabricated evidence, who lied to the various inquiries (including the current inquest) need to be strung up by the toenails. And that includes Sir Ian Blair who is such an incompetent Commissioner that he failed to keep himself abreast of the situation and failed to correct statements he had made when he found out they were incorrect.

G-CPTN
15th Oct 2008, 18:34
Where were the guys who had been on the bus with him?Perhaps they got off the bus at Brixton?

Roger Sofarover
15th Oct 2008, 19:36
Ms Dick also said recently when giving evidence that nobody on their side did 'anything wrong'. This is exactly why we need to spend whatever it takes on as many inquiries as it takes to find out the truth and hold those responsible, accountable for their actions. The whole cover up is a disgrace

GrumpyOldFart
16th Oct 2008, 00:33
I cannot understand why all of the investigations and enquiries seem to be so intent on specifically absolving Dickless Dikkhead Dick from any blame or wrong-doing in this dog's breakfast. Do they have 'plonks' on the square these days?

Many people who aspire to high office, with all the perks and all the trappings, not to mention the big bucks, lose sight of the fact that with the rewards of the rank come responsibility and accountability. I'm not seeing any acknowledgement of responsibility in this case. I have little hope there will be any accountability, either.

ExGrunt
16th Oct 2008, 07:35
The inquest has its own web site on which they are publishing the transcripts and the evidence if you want to get it first hand:

Coroner's inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes (http://www.stockwellinquest.org.uk)

G-CPTN
30th Oct 2008, 18:06
Armed police fired on Jean Charles de Menezes without shouting any warning, witnesses have claimed at an inquest.
Firearms officers have told the inquest there were several warning shouts of "armed police" before shots were fired. Ms Wilson said nothing had been said to alert her that the men were plain-clothes officers and that she initially thought they were just messing around.
Mr Hilliard asked: "Had you heard anything said about police?"
Mr Livock replied: "No, certainly not.
"I remember that specifically because one of the conversations that Rachel and I had afterwards was that we had no idea whether these were police, whether they were terrorists, whether they were somebody else.
"The thing that made me realise it wasn't a group of lads playing around or something else happening was when the first shot was fired."
A firearms officer, codenamed Terry, described to the inquest how he reached the train shortly after the two marksmen who killed the Brazilian.
He said: "As I came into the carriage I could hear verbal challenges. I could hear 'police' and 'armed police' being shouted."
After hearing the evidence, the Brazilian's mother, Maria Otone de Menezes, 63, said outside the inquest: "None of the passengers heard the police give any warning or described Jean's actions as aggressive.
"It has been painful to me when police have implied he acted in a manner that contributed to his death."
(From:- BBC NEWS | UK | Menezes police 'gave no warning' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7699657.stm) )

El Grifo
30th Oct 2008, 19:28
It's the lies and disinformation originating with the Met that I cannot stomach.

Quite simply "a law unto themselves"

green granite
30th Oct 2008, 19:39
"None of the passengers heard the police give any warning

While I consider that this was the most avoidable blunder that the Met have made for a very long time, I'm not certain that shouting out, to a genuine suicide bomber, about being armed police would be a good thing to do, most likely to produce an instant bang I would have though.And then a lot of people would have died as well. It's the mis-information and the lies put out by the Met that really says it all.
But don't ask me what the answer is.

Roger Sofarover
30th Oct 2008, 20:03
green granite.

You have a point, but as said, the police say that they did give shouts and verbal warnings. They seem to be the only people that heard it! Somebody is telling lies!

silverhawk
30th Oct 2008, 20:11
If you think the guy is an armed and primed suicide bomber, you do NOT shout out a verbal warning, especially in the killing zone of an enclosed space like the underground. You DO empty your magazine into his head at close quarters to maximise the chances of that bomb NOT being detonated.

Very sad episode, but do not be diverted from the people who instigated the mindset at this time, the July suicide bombers.


Whilst I have some sympathy for the deceased, he was an illegal immigrant. If he had not been here, he would not have been in the line of fire. Maybe we have inadvertantly discovered a way of dealing with illegals.

Sunray Minor
30th Oct 2008, 21:13
Silver, my lad, I suggest you either take a trip down memory lane to page 1 or perhaps trawl the web for a bit more information (you can start with Wikipedia if you wish). You might find your knowledge of this situation to be woefully inadequate.

Giving the benefit of the doubt however, maybe you are correct in saying a police challenge to a suspected suiceide bomber isn't best practice. But it is apparently still policy and was at the time. Witness the footage of firearms officers challenging, with drawn weapons, a number of other suspected (but innocent) suspects in the days following 7th July as evidence of this...

...In which case, why are the police claiming they did something they apparently didn't? Why did they claim he vaulted the barriers, had traces of cocaine in his system, wore a bulky jacket? A picture seems to be emerging and it points in the direction of monumental-cockup-followed-by-coverup.

"Killing zones"? "Enclosed spaces"? I've watched rounds ricochet off concrete and metal in open spaces and it is fecking scary. 8 or 9 rounds in an enclosed space? I think not.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
30th Oct 2008, 21:37
Where's bjcc when any mention of Menezes is made ? :confused:

If the original inquiry had been a thorough one, with the police held to account for a whole litany of lies and disinformation we wouldn't be back here again with all the cost entailled.

It now appears that eye witness accounts contradict the police version of events surprise surprise. The widely held public perception that the events were a police cock-up from start to finish are now being born out.

Whilst I have the greatest admiration for the police in the main and the job they do, there is the scent of a nasty cover-up here and the Menezes family are more than entitled to the truth about how this young man was executed.

Loose rivets
30th Oct 2008, 22:06
A huge amount of what happens in situations like this, is attributable to the changes that take place in the brain under such extreme circumstances. Perfectly ordinary people can become so modified that their behavior bears no resemblance to the person that they were only minutes before; the person that their family knows and more confusing, to the person that they become again - when the chemistry returns to normal.

The hunters have become the hunted and they no longer have the minds of warriors. Probably, if they can admit it to themselves, they feel the same bewilderment as the public, but now they have to try to justify the unexplainable.

I'm sure that in hindsight, they can see many ways that they might have handled the interception more skillfully. Pulling the arms out, hard, rather than holding them to the body - where a button might still be reached. A skilled assassin would have switched to ‘Fail Dangerous' by this stage: Killing the bomber would have set off such a device.

Let's face it, these officers are in a no-win situation. If they had allowed a real terrorist to destroy a train, they would have had to live with it for the rest of their lives. Now, one way or another, the ‘normalized' minds of these men will likewise never be free of the burden.

419
30th Oct 2008, 22:32
"Killing zones"? "Enclosed spaces"? I've watched rounds ricochet off concrete and metal in open spaces and it is fecking scary. 8 or 9 rounds in an enclosed space? I think not.

I don't know anything about guns or ammunition, but I seem to recall that certain groups of firearm holders (anti terrorist being one of them), are legally allowed to use "dum dum" bullets, and if this was the case here, ricochets probably wouldn't have been an issue.

Sunray Minor
30th Oct 2008, 22:59
Loose Rivets,

Let's face it, these officers are in a no-win situation.

Perhaps the officers saw it as a win-win situation.

The deceased turns out to be innocent? The public will understand, given the circumstances.
He turns out to be guilty? Hailed as a hero, saviour of women and children, fast track promotion.

Of course, this probably wasn't going through the shooters mind at the time, but I don't share the sympathy that they have an impossible task.

Bronx
30th Oct 2008, 23:25
silverhawkWhilst I have some sympathy for the deceased, he was an illegal immigrant. If he had not been here, he would not have been in the line of fire. Maybe we have inadvertantly discovered a way of dealing with illegals.
Do you really mean that?
Would you say it in real life to people who know you?

B.

parabellum
30th Oct 2008, 23:39
"It now appears that eye witness accounts contradict the police version of events surprise surprise." No surprise at all really, regularly a group of witnesses will give vastly different versions of the same event, it is a proven fact that a person will often say what they thought happened but it turns out they never actually saw anything of value.
The police encounter this everyday, as do accident investigators, "I heard an explosion, looked up and saw the burning aircraft falling to the ground"
Turns out that the aircraft was in tact until it hit the ground and then, and only then, caught fire. Other example abound.

G-CPTN
31st Oct 2008, 00:48
They should have stopped him before he entered the station.
Anything else is a 'cop-out' and they goofed-up.

Once they allowed a (strongly) suspected (though unconfirmed) bomber to enter a potential target area they had failed. They should have let him go, melted into the background and nobody would have known (apart from themselves) if he did turn out to be an active bomber.

Then there was the (unarmed) guy shot dead whilst naked in bed . . .


(He was an unconfirmed bomber because they had insufficient information (or evidence) to make a positive ID.)

Roger Sofarover
31st Oct 2008, 01:54
Silverhawk

Whilst I have some sympathy for the deceased, he was an illegal immigrant. If he had not been here, he would not have been in the line of fire. Maybe we have inadvertantly discovered a way of dealing with illegals

I can only hope that looking at your time of posting you have made this disgraceful comment after a few bevvies early evening. He had overstayed his visa, something which occurs thousands of times a day in the UK. It occurs everywhere else in the world.

Whilst abroad once due to a number of changing circumstances I arrived at my departure airport to find I was (unbeknown to me) overdue my visa by two days. I paid the £20 fine and that was it. Thank god you were not on passport control, because as an 'illegal immigrant' it seems you would have been happy to have me executed, and would feel that it was justified.:=:=


Parabellum

"It now appears that eye witness accounts contradict the police version of events surprise surprise." No surprise at all really, regularly a group of witnesses will give vastly different versions of the same event, it is a proven fact that a person will often say what they thought happened but it turns out they never actually saw anything of value.

I couldn't agree more, however the interesting thing in this case, when all the evidence will be considered, is that the two witnesses who say they heard nothing were sat on the tube, opposite Menendez. As you are likely aware, that is very close, so close in fact one of the witnesses had Menendez's blood on her.

it is a proven fact that a person will often say what they thought happened

Agreed, but just who in this case is saying that. The police, with most to lose, or the people sat 1 mtr from the event with nothing to lose or gain. It's going to get interesting.

StaceyF
2nd Dec 2008, 17:44
WTF is the point of a jury if the coroner can dictate the verdict?

ONLY (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7760684.stm) in the UK........we must have less civil liberties now than Iraqis under Saddam.

tony draper
2nd Dec 2008, 17:59
Have oft pondered that meself,doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it,especially in Coroners Court and why are Coroners Court cases invariably opened then immediatelly adjourned?
:confused:

Captain Stable
2nd Dec 2008, 19:43
Bet the Oxford Coroner wouldn't have directed the jury in that way. He appears to be a little more independent-minded, and less minded to follow political diktats.

One suspects the whitewash continues.

ZH875
2nd Dec 2008, 20:19
Whilst abroad once due to a number of changing circumstances I arrived at my departure airport to find I was (unbeknown to me) overdue my visa by two days. I paid the £20 fine and that was it.

There is a difference between accidently overstaying by two days and FOUR YEARS.

If he had exited when he should have (or withing THREE YEARS) then he would still have been alive.


As Spock says: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Police and security services need to do whatever is necessary to maintain the safety and security of the vast majority of this country, even if a few 'mistakes' are made along the way.

Shack37
2nd Dec 2008, 21:53
As Spock says: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Police and security services need to do whatever is necessary to maintain the safety and security of the vast majority of this country, even if a few 'mistakes' are made along the way.



As long as you're not one of the mistakes I imagine, or are you happy to make the sacrifice for the greater good?

Davaar
2nd Dec 2008, 22:47
Police and security services need to do whatever is necessary to maintain the safety and security of the vast majority of this country,

Is that what they do or do they keep order as per the needs of the authorities?

radeng
3rd Dec 2008, 06:09
It's just another whitewash. Like Albert and the lion - 'no-one was really to blame'

G-BMML
3rd Dec 2008, 07:14
Dont care who . Not legal in this country so no legal rights! Get out of my country!!!!

Captain Stable
3rd Dec 2008, 07:46
So, I assume, G-BMML, you would have no qualms at all about rounding up all illegal immigrants, putting them all against a wall and machine-gunning them all?

Or, perhaps, even better still, they could be made to be useful - use them as lab rats for scientific and medical experiments?

After all, since they're here illegally they have no legal rights at all, and they should just take what they deserve...

ZH875
3rd Dec 2008, 08:09
Dont care who . Not legal in this country so no legal rights! Get out of my country!!!!


Gets my vote.

So, I assume, G-BMML, you would have no qualms at all about rounding up all illegal immigrants, putting them all against a wall and machine-gunning them all?

Or, perhaps, even better still, they could be made to be useful - use them as lab rats for scientific and medical experiments?

After all, since they're here illegally they have no legal rights at all, and they should just take what they deserve...

That is just about what they would do to us in their countries.


We visit foreign lands, we live by THEIR rules, they live in our country, they live by THEIR rules. WHY do we let them get away with it.

PPRuNe Radar
3rd Dec 2008, 08:11
Looks like some of the posters here probably appeared on the leaked BNP list.

Incredible class act human beings. :ugh:

Shack37
3rd Dec 2008, 10:08
ZH875

You haven't answered my question. Are you saying you would not mind being one of the "mistakes" as you put it.

I think not!

s37

Blacksheep
3rd Dec 2008, 12:46
That is just about what they would do to us in their countries.Dont care who . Not legal in this country so no legal rights! Get out of my country!!!! When I was in Brunei, the penalty for overstaying a work permit was six strokes of the rotan, a $5,000 fine and deportation on the next flight out. But we are talking about UK here, not some anachronistic absolute monarchy. It isn't civilised to shoot people without being absolutely certain that they are who you think they are.

The poor man's fate was sealed right from when a Police Constable on watch, deserted his post for a call of nature and he was mis-identified as the real suspect by those on the outer cordon.

Storminnorm
3rd Dec 2008, 13:19
WHAT the **** does it matter wether he overstayed his visa?
He was still the VICTIM of overzealous ARMED police.
They got the WRONG guy, and killed him.
An official Police execution. Manslaughter at the very LEAST.
Had it happened to a Brit overseas there would have been
one hell of an outcry here.

Leigh Caudwell
3rd Dec 2008, 16:59
In my experience it is usually opened to allow evidence of identification, once that is established the rest of the legal process can go ahead, then everyone knows for sure who is being 'literally' dissected and discussed.

ZH875
3rd Dec 2008, 18:21
ZH875

You haven't answered my question. Are you saying you would not mind being one of the "mistakes" as you put it.

I think not!

s37

My apologies for not answering earlier, but if it meant my wife and my children were safe, then the answer is YES.

To repeat for you YES if more zealous :mad: were taken out at source.

Captain Stable
3rd Dec 2008, 18:31
ZH875 - to make things clear for you, an innocent man was shot dead. The guilty man was nowhere to be found.

I would prefer that the police were a little more energetic in ensuring their efforts were directed correctly. The more innocent people sent down or killed, the more self-satisfied and lackadaisical the police will become unless they are called to strictly to account for each and every error.

The rightie-haties have tried to make much of de Menezes' apparent lack of a valid visa, attempting to state that he was therefore guilty of the most heinous of offences and therefore was to blame for his own death. What they disregard is that, were de Menezes' visa in perfect order, he would have been shot in just the same manner.

Therefore it follows that his lack of a visa is totally irrelevant and a distraction from the real issue - that the police operation was poorly planned, badly managed, incompetently run and a total liability to the life of anyone who happened to get in the way.

What is further clear is there was a sense of guilt immediately after the shooting in the various attempts at cover-ups and misleading statements that were made and then not corrected until their falsehood was demonstrated by others.

The Coroner is totally incorrect in denying the jury a verdict of "Unlawful Killing". What is more, he is not the arbiter of justice and correct verdicts - that is for the jury to decide. I sincerely hope they disregard his direction.

ZH875
3rd Dec 2008, 18:43
Captain, JCdM was not innocent, he was an illegal immigrant, he was just innocent of the particular crime he was killed for.

Capt.KAOS
3rd Dec 2008, 20:04
Captain, JCdM was not innocent, he was an illegal immigrant, As so many times mentioned already, this has nothing to do with having pumped 7 bullets in the head, so stop dragging this in, or would you like to be shot because you haven't paid your taxes?

Shack37
3rd Dec 2008, 20:45
My apologies for not answering earlier, but if it meant my wife and my children were safe, then the answer is YES.




How does you being misidentified and shot dead make your family safe? The real murderous ba5tard5 are still on the loose.

Sunray Minor
3rd Dec 2008, 23:22
ZH875
If he had exited when he should have (or withing THREE YEARS) then he would still have been alive.

What the actual events of that day, as opposed to the reported events, have shown is that someone would likely have been shot regardless of whether Menezes was in London, Brazil or the Outer Hebrides.

parabellum
4th Dec 2008, 01:08
Death by misadventure I would have thought.

Captain Stable
4th Dec 2008, 08:00
A verdict of misadventure is only applicable where there was a simple accident - e.g. a tree falling on him.

It does not apply in cases where there are armed police running around not bothering to achieve positive identification of the target, out of control and inadequately briefed.

ZH875 - I broke the speed limit yesterday. Does that mean that if I were shot in error by a police marksman it would be my own fault? Do us all a favour and put a sock in it and stop harping on trying to imply it was de Menezes' own fault he was shot and killed in mistake for a suspected bomber. As has already been demonstrated in several different ways, the shooting was an incident waiting to happen.

Blacksheep
4th Dec 2008, 08:07
...not bothering to achieve positive identification of the target, out of control The armed police DID positively identify the target they had been given and they were not out of control.

The problem began when Jean Paul was mis-identifed as the target when he left the building where he lived. This occurred because the constable who was supposed to be watching for the correct suspect was missing from his post when Jean Paul emerged from the front door and the outer cordon began tailing him. The result is that the armed police officers were incorrectly briefed.

A question that will never be answered is what would have happened had the surveillance team identified the correct suspect when he emerged from the front door?

WorkingHard
4th Dec 2008, 08:22
Am I correct in thinking "The problem began when Jean Paul was mis-identifed as the target" this would not have happened had he not been here illegally, i.e. he should not have been here at all. Apologies if the reported "facts" are wrong.

Blacksheep
4th Dec 2008, 08:52
So, would we instead be watching the inquest into the death of a British born terror suspect who was shot and subsequently found to have been unarmed?

...and would that have been any different?

radeng
4th Dec 2008, 09:12
One interesting thing. We have been told that shooting in the head is necessary to prevent a bomb being detonated. Body shots aren't good, because they can detonate the bomb. So how come he got shot in the back as well?

Capt.KAOS
4th Dec 2008, 11:00
As for De Menezes being illegal in the UK, the IPCC Stockwell One Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_07_stockwell1.pdf) states on page 21, footnote 4:

"Evidence emerged during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge that Mr de Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005."

Sunray Minor
4th Dec 2008, 15:33
WorkingHard,

Am I correct in thinking "The problem began when Jean Paul was mis-identifed as the target" this would not have happened had he not been here illegally, i.e. he should not have been here at all.

No you are not correct. It could have been anyone walking out of that block of flats on that day at that time. As long as they had a passing resemblence to the actual intended target, they would have been shot.

This isn't an issue of the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, nor even that the wrong man might have been here illegally. It is why the wrong man, in the wrong place at the wrong time was identified as being the right man, why this "bomber" was then allowed on to two separate busses as he made his way to Stockwell, why he then made his way on to a tube platform and on to a train, why he was wrongly identified as wearing a bulky jacket, running when he was walking, vaulting the barriers when he didn't, and why he then ended up with his head blown off on a crowded carriage with no challenge yelled or no suspicious behaviour other than the fact that he walked out of a building that was being watched at 09:30 on the 22nd of July, 2005.

It makes no difference to this chain of events if he had been here legally or illegally. If Prince Charles had walked out of the flats on Scotia Road at 09:30 that morning it would have been Charlie who was dead and not Jean-Charles. Who the person was and what their paperwork says is completely irrelevent.

Storminnorm
4th Dec 2008, 15:41
I agree totally with all that you say Sunray Minor.
The simple FACT is that the Police murdered a
totally innocent man, Who's biggest mistake was that
he lived in the same block of flats as the intended
target. They got the wrong person. Plain & Simple.

Low Flier
4th Dec 2008, 15:52
If Prince Charles had walked out of the flats on Scotia Road at 09:30 that morning it would have been Charlie who was dead and not Jean-Charles.

Wrong!

Charlie is white, AngloSaxon; and would would not have been mistaken for a 'Paki' by the hitsquad who were tasked with the hit.

Storminnorm
4th Dec 2008, 15:55
Sorry Low Flyer, You forgot Old & Wrinkled.

Sunray Minor
4th Dec 2008, 17:04
Given the that Menezes held only a vague resemblence with Osman Hussein (olive skin I suppose), I wouldn't be half surprised if the officers involved mistook Prince Charlie's greying hair and hooked nose for that of any number of terrorist suspects.

Whiskey Papa
4th Dec 2008, 17:06
Jean Charles de Menezes was killed as a result of the earlier terror attacks triggering off a wave of fear in the Greater London area. The Police aren't immune to this. Whilst it would probably not stand up in a court it could be argued that poor old de Menezes was just as much a victim as the other victims of 7/7, in which case a verdict of unlawful killing should be allowed.

One thing is certain; he would be alive today if the terrorists had not struck on 7/7. This single fact IMHO points to unlawful killing (by the terrorists). The police action in this case is very lamentable and negligent, but is not the prime cause of the guy's death.

WP

StaceyF
4th Dec 2008, 18:10
The police action in this case is very lamentable and negligent, but is not the prime cause of the guy's death.

WP

Surely the police officer who pulled the trigger numerous times is the cause of the guy's death.

Let's not start trying to blur the issue.

Whiskey Papa
4th Dec 2008, 18:32
Of course the police officer caused Jean Charles's death, but this was not the prime cause. I can't believe anyone would accept that he would have died had the terror bombing not occured.

Therefore the terrorists must be culpable to a great extent in this case, and the verdict of unlawful killing should be available to the jury. The proportioning of blame lies between the terrorists and the police. The terrorists actions is without doubt unlawful. The police may have been negligent to such an extent that thier actions too could be unlawful.

Sunray Minor
4th Dec 2008, 19:56
There isn't much we can do about the terrorists. They are either dead or in custody. We certainly should use their portion of the blame to diminish the requirement for finding fault in the police and their commanders.

This surveilance operation shouldn't have been conducted any differently from any other that occurs, oblivious to us, in day-to-day life. While the stress in this instance would have been heightened, there was no reason why reduced standards of care, process and organisation should have applied. Those very standards and processes are there to protect us in times of extreme stress and should not to be given up lightly.

In this case there were clearly numerous failings. They need to be rooted out, acknowledged and prevented in future. A certain amount of blame being aportioned would help ensure such mistakes aren't tacitly accepted, reinforced and repeated.

BlooMoo
4th Dec 2008, 20:47
A certain amount of blame being aportioned would help ensure such mistakes aren't tacitly accepted, reinforced and repeated.

This is about the state sector. Any such capitalist talk like that is in a different universe. Baby P eg?- Shoesmith still on full pay as opposed to being tarred and dragged through the streets to give the opportunity for normal citizens to spit on her sorry arse? Not in the lifetime of this universe without an overdue revolution.

parabellum
5th Dec 2008, 02:57
A verdict of misadventure is only applicable where there was a simple accident - e.g. a tree falling on him.


So what warrants a verdict of Accidental Death?

Roger Sofarover
6th Dec 2008, 01:22
WP

One thing is certain; he would be alive today if the terrorists had not struck on 7/7. This single fact IMHO points to unlawful killing (by the terrorists). The police action in this case is very lamentable and negligent, but is not the prime cause of the guy's death.


Of course the police officer caused Jean Charles's death, but this was not the prime cause. I can't believe anyone would accept that he would have died had the terror bombing not occured.

So just how far back to we go when we wish to move the apportioning of blame? If we start with your idea that it was the terrorists from 7/7 responsible for his death, where do we go from there? Why did they do the bombings on 7/7? Is George Bush and Tony Blair responsible, or the 9/11 culprits. maybe the British government for slicing up Palestine last century, infact, for sure the 7/7 bombings would not have taken place if King Richard the Lionheart had not had such a bloody campaign in the Holy Land 900 years ago, infact if.......

We could go back much further. The overwhelming evidence is that the police f****d up bigtime, appear to have tried to cover it up and effectively murdered an innocent man. They should take responsibility NOT the terrorists of 7/7.

Captain Stable
6th Dec 2008, 13:38
Roger, Richard I would not have been on the throne had William I not invaded with his foreign Froggy hordes in 1066, so it's his fault. :E

Captain Stable
6th Dec 2008, 14:42
I knew it appeared somewhere.

Bushell's Case (1670) establishes the right of a jury to bring in whatever verdict they see fit.

Bushel's Case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushell%27s_Case)

It was this principle which allowed the jury in the Clive Ponting case to acquit him despite directions to the contrary from the judge. The coroner is on sticky legal ground. I wonder whether the family of De Menezes are entitled to appeal a coroner's court verdict? Any of m'learned friends confirm or deny or merely enlighten?

Greek God
6th Dec 2008, 14:49
The single question uppermost in my mind, irrespective of the who, is why a suspected suicide bomber was allowed to even enter a tube station in the first place?

StaceyF
6th Dec 2008, 16:16
The single question uppermost in my mind, irrespective of the who, is why a suspected suicide bomber was allowed to even enter a tube station in the first place?

Indeed; which is why the initial police reports stated he was running and vaulted over a ticket barrier - which would explain how he'd got as far as he did.

Of course, once the lies had been swept away, it emerged he'd been walking and had even stopped to pick up a copy of the Metro newspaper.

After all, if you're going to kill yourself in a few minutes, you're bound to want to read the latest news aren't you?

:confused::confused::confused:

Whiskey Papa
8th Dec 2008, 16:20
Roger Sofarover,

my point, which you've missed, is that there is a possibility that the jury may wish to return an unlawful killing verdict, as there is some strong connection with a prior terrorist act and/or some questionable police action. The coroner has denied the jury the option of doing this, and I'm not clear on why he's done this.

WP

Roger Sofarover
9th Dec 2008, 02:40
WP

Thanks for clarifying. :ok:

sitigeltfel
10th Dec 2008, 10:47
You have to wonder what level of firearms training the police receive.

Police worker shot during safety demonstration sues for £300,000 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3699433/Police-worker-shot-during-safety-demonstration-sues-for-300000.html)

"PC Micklethwaite said he had no idea the handgun was loaded with live ammunition.
He was not charged following the shooting but has been taken off firearms duties.
A second official also told an investigation he believed the weapon was unloaded."

Two of them failed the most elementary checks when first picking up any weapon.

Failing to check that a weapon is loaded is bad enough but pulling the trigger when it is pointing at someone beggars belief. If he was a so-called expert then I would hate to think what level of competence the ordinary firearms officer has.

Storminnorm
10th Dec 2008, 13:06
WHISKEY PAPA, do you think that you would stand up to
what a High Court Judge has directed a jury to discount
as an option in a case like this one? You would have to be
Very brave, or indeed foolish, to do so I think.
The vast majority of the population that have an opinion
about this case would, I have no doubt, find that JCdeM
had, at the very least, been unlawfully killed.
But the Court, in it's wisdom(?) has discounted that option.
Probably on the grounds of "Acting for the greater good".
I know that I would be, probably, in a minority in the same
situation. And would maybe refuse to come to a conclusion
after having been TOLD to not bring in a fitting verdict in this
case, but,of course, that's easy to say from my perspective.
I think that everyone KNOWS what happened. But cannot now
SAY what happened. British justice at it's best?

None of the above
10th Dec 2008, 15:54
sitigeltfel..........

You have to wonder what level of firearms training the police receive.

Gun injuries soar as police 'experts' blast themselves and colleagues by mistake. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-535071/Gun-injuries-soar-police-experts-blast-colleagues-mistake.html)

I'm afraid it's from the Daily Mail:eek:

Whiskey Papa
10th Dec 2008, 16:44
Hello again, norm.

I appreciate your point and no, I don't think I would like to be on that jury. And I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to go against the coroner - would it be contempt?

Why appoint a jury and then direct that an obvious and feasible verdict should be excluded? Any opinions out there?

radeng
10th Dec 2008, 17:43
Whiskey Papa,

I think it's called whitewash.

Bronx
10th Dec 2008, 20:52
I think it's called whitewash.

Silent protest at the Inquest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00444/menezes-385_444405a.jpg

According to the UK Times, court staff and security guards hurriedly ushered the group out of the courtroom through a side door.

Whitewash? Maybe that's what the jury think and why they are taking so long.
Maybe they think it's manslaughter by the cops and the only two choices they've been given don't allow let them to say that.
Beats me why they have a jury if the jury don't have the right to choose what they consider is a true verdict.

B.

El Grifo
10th Dec 2008, 21:40
What was it Robert Nesta Marley said.

"Get up stand up, stand up for your rights. get up stand up don't give up the fight"


Jah Rastafari !

Solar
11th Dec 2008, 03:14
Regarding police fire arms training or lack off.
I purchased a .38 S&W not so long ago and in accordance with the law I was required to hand it to the police (PSNI) so they could carry out a ballistics check.
When I went to retrieve it they told me I would need to take it to a gunsmith as their "expert" could not get it to fire. They did not know how to remove the safety lock although it is clearly marked and I had supplied the correct Allen key!!!!!

Storminnorm
11th Dec 2008, 13:53
El Grifo. All right for Bob Marley. Trouble is he'd get
nicked nowadays for inciting a riot!

Especially for the "I shot the Sheriff",(and the Deputy?).

StaceyF
11th Dec 2008, 17:21
Silent protest at the Inquest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00444/menezes-385_444405a.jpg

Beats me why they have a jury if the jury don't have the right to choose what they consider is a true verdict.


B.


You need to Google Bushell's Case (1670).

A precedent is already established under UK law; "it was held that the jurors were the only judges of facts, even if this went against the opinion of the judge."

So the direction given to the jury is null and void and the family of the deceased will quite properly call for a mistrial.

Unless the jury have cojones and defy the coroner.......one can only hope :D

Davaar
11th Dec 2008, 18:22
Unless the jury have cojones and defy the coroner

Indeed there was a time when English juries would return verdicts of "Not Guilty" even when the facts indicated that there was, beyond any quibble, guilt. Why so? Because they would simply refuse to return a verdict that for a trifling offence would carry the death penalty. If that meant finding "Not Guilty" on the facts, that is what they would do. No verdict of guilt, no hanging. Took courage. Is it still around?

Shack37
11th Dec 2008, 20:27
The question for me now is, are the jury aware of the precedent set by the Bushell Case? If they are not then the size of their combined cojones is irrelevant. It's bound to be illegal now for anyone except the judge to advise them of this option and that is unlikely or he surely would have told them during his summing up before they retired.
I believe his instructions as to the verdict options came when the family lawyers were not present having completed their arguments and were not therefore in a position to comment on those instructions with reference to the Bushell Case.

stagger
12th Dec 2008, 12:50
The inquest verdict....

BBC NEWS | UK | Open verdict at Menezes inquest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764882.stm)

A key finding to note. Having heard the evidence, when asked whether the innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes led to increased suspicion, the jury concluded "NO"

radeng
12th Dec 2008, 13:03
According to the Daily Telegraph, Michael Mansfield (QC for the family) is considering applying for judicial review of the coroner's decision. Apparently the jury didn't believe some of the police evidence either. My suspicion is that there would have been an unlawful killng verdict iof the jury had been given a free hand.

Shack37
12th Dec 2008, 15:25
I entirely agree with Radeng and I hope Mr. Mansfield QC is successful. I am a lifelong supporter of the police and grateful to them for the sometimes very dangerous situations they face on our streets. However this incident and the recent fiasco, with or without government interference, in the arrest of a MP for nothing more than embarrassing an incompetent government department is alienating people like myself and prejuducing public confidence in the police, especially the Met.

I sincerely hope that justice prevails in the end.

s37

Storminnorm
12th Dec 2008, 15:39
Hope that justice prevails in the end?
Don't hold your breath!
It'll be like the Irish vote on the EEC thing.
Everybody thinks one thing, but the powers
that be know what's best! (For them!).

Capt.KAOS
12th Dec 2008, 15:41
The Guardian:
The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes today rejected Scotland Yard's claim that he was lawfully killed as part of an anti-terrorism operation.

Banned by the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, from returning a verdict of unlawful killing, the five men and five women decided on an open verdict – the most critical that was available to them.
In a series of answers to a list of crucial questions, they dismissed the testimony of the senior firearms officer who shot De Menezes – suggesting they did not believe the officer was acting in self-defence.

The jury found that the firearms officer, C12, did not shout "armed police (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/police)" before shooting De Menezes and that the Brazilian did not move towards him aggressively, prompting the fatal shot.

Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the De Menezes family, said the officers who claimed to have shouted warnings should be investigated for possible perjury. "There was certainly evidence of perjury by certain officers and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) should look at it again at this stage and I am sure they will."

In a statement, De Menezes's cousin Patricia Armani da Silva said the jury would have gone further and recorded a verdict of unlawful killing "had they not been gagged by the coroner".
"The jury's verdict is a damning indictment of the multiple failures of the police and the lies they told," she said.
The conclusions of the jury leave Scotland Yard in turmoil. Sir Paul Stephenson, the acting Metropolitan police commissioner, said the force needed time to give "proper consideration" to the verdict.

"In the face of immense challenges faced by officers on that day, we made a terrible mistake – I am sorry," he said. "Our duty then as is now is to ensure that this organisation learns from the events to minimise the chances of it ever happening again."

Despite the criticism of police contained in the verdict, the De Menezes family – who were not in court after last week's protests (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezes-dramatic-scenes) – accused Wright of "presiding over a complete whitewash". They plan to seek a judicial review over the omission of the unlawful killing verdict.
In a stinging attack on the former high court judge, they said he "failed on every count" in the proceedings.
The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, offered her "deepest sympathy" to the family.
"What we have learned from the accounts of the tragic events that day reminds us all of the extremely demanding circumstances under which the police work to protect us from further terrorist attack," she said.
The inquest at the Oval cricket ground, in south London (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/london), heard from 100 witnesses, including the two specialist firearms officers – known in court as C12 and C2 – who shot De Menezes dead at point-blank range on a tube carriage at Stockwell station on July 22 2005.

De Menezes was shot after being mistaken for the failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman.

The inquest was the first time the public received a full account of the shooting from key witnesses who were in the train carriage.
The shooting came two weeks after London was rocked by the July 7 suicide bombings, which killed 52 people. On July 21, a second gang of Islamist extremists triggered homemade rucksack bombs on London's transport system but the devices failed to explode.
As counter-terrorist police searched the city for those responsible, De Menezes was mistaken for Osman and shot dead.
After seven weeks of evidence, the coroner told the jurors to cast aside any emotion over the shooting. They were told to disregard protests from the De Menezes family and supporters.

Wright said today: "It is only right that these proceedings conclude with me expressing sincere condolences to the family of Mr De Menezes. On any view in this case, this was a tragic and terrible event, the killing of an entirely innocent young man."I believe MET needs a proper course of crisis management:
Rule 1: Give accurate and correct information. (trying to manipulate information will seriously backfire if it is discovered, even internally.

There has been so much disinformation. Remember De Menezes running and jumping over toll gates, wearing a ski-jacket. This was claimed even after a pic of the dead Menezes in a denim jacket was publicized.

Roger Sofarover
12th Dec 2008, 15:53
For all of those people who protested at the start of this thread, claiming the hearing was a waste of money and to effectively 'let sleeping dogs lie', I hope you are hanging your heads! The jury has spoken as critically as it was permitted. The decision of the coroner to block a verdict of unlawful killing has to be viewed very seriously indeed. it appears that some form of collusion has taken place somewhere. Regardless of cost to the tax payer if a retrial is needed then it should go ahead. All of the evidence points to a completely innocent man being murdered, or at best if it was carried out by the police in the course of their 'duty' - unlawful killing. There now exists a string of people whose heads should roll over this. de Menzes mother deserves the truth about death of her son.

radeng
12th Dec 2008, 15:58
It seems a case of total incompetence at a management level, with a poor attempt at a cover up. One would have more sympathy with the policemen who did the shooting if they hadn't lied to the inquest - which the jury found they had. But for the senior officers involved to have 'got away with it' to the extent they have is remarkable. Probably should have been expected, though.

After all, it the Home Secretary got too heavy with the Met, they'd just arrest her! (might be a good thing too, in the case of the present incumbent)

But even if Michael Mansfield gets a judicial review, my feeling is that the 'Establishment' will prevail.

Storminnorm
12th Dec 2008, 16:08
Rad eng! That's the word! Establishment.
Heads they win, Tails they win again!

green granite
12th Dec 2008, 18:32
When will they learn?

They are politicians, they never learn, they are too wrapped up in their own self importance .

Capt.Grumpy
13th Dec 2008, 10:13
On one of the news services here in OZ tonight (SBS) they had the respective photos of Mr de Menezes and the terror suspect side by side. I can see how the police made the mistake. These two guys are TWINS. Only their mother could tell them apart just like Arnold Schwarzeneger (sp) and Danny De vito. Jesus H Christ what a fcuk up :ugh:

Storminnorm
13th Dec 2008, 13:13
The officers involved should be sent right round to SpecSavers, NO
DOUBT !!!!!!

old,not bold
13th Dec 2008, 14:39
I cannot even imagine the courage it would need to get close up to someone you have been told could be a suicide bomber, let alone probably is one, in order to try and prevent him from detonating his bomb, himself and of course you. You would also be aware that he can probably do that in less than a second.

It's a pity if those guys lied, because they didn't have to. If they were told that, what happened as a result is not their fault. I salute their bravery in being within 100 yards of the guy.

But as most people have realised, the people further up the chain should have been charged with manslaughter at the very least, because their negligence, stupidity and incompetence led directly to the killing.

StaceyF
13th Dec 2008, 15:01
But as most people have realised, the people further up the chain should have been charged with manslaughter at the very least, because their negligence, stupidity and incompetence led directly to the killing.

Indeed; but that's only a small part of the corruption that passes for the Establishment these days.

the cynically manipulated photographs of De Menezes and a terrorist suspect to make the men appear more similar than they were
the leaked allegations (false by the way) that he was the suspect in a rape case
the deletion of Cressida Dick's instruction that they could allow De Menezes to "run on to Tube as he was not carrying anything"
the deletion of CCTV footage (how convenient) that would have refuted the Police's claims regarding De Menezes' clothing and his behaviour on the day
the stooge "eyewitnesses", particularly one "Mark Whitby" and one "Chris Wells" - patently Police plantsThat's five things off the top of my head, there are dozens more.

Trust me, if you live in the UK, be afraid. Be very afraid.

G-CPTN
13th Dec 2008, 15:22
It'll be OK when they introduce mandatory identity cards. Then all they'd have to do is ask to see his ID card and then they'd have known that they had the wrong man . . .

Roger Sofarover
13th Dec 2008, 16:32
StaceyF
Some very good points there in your post. I am away from UK news at the moment so I am just interested in what the media are saying about the coroners decision to instruct the jury that 'Unlawful Killing' was off the menu so to speak. I find it utterly staggering to be honest, that this has all been allowed to take place and then clearly perjury has been committed, and is blatantly trying to be covered up. There are people at the Met and in the 'Establishment' who should have their throats ripped out over this.

For Mrs de Menezes a quote from the Chinook Thread on the military forum. "Justice has no expiry date"(John Cook), keep going and let Mr Mansfield do his stuff!

GrumpyOldFart
13th Dec 2008, 18:44
My earlier post (#83 (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/344134-jean-charles-de-menezes-3.html#post4463434)) on this thread still stands. Now, Red Ken has come out firmly in support of Cretinous Dick, even going so far as to describe her as 'Commissioner material.'

Good grief.

Can anyone please explain this almost-obscene urge to sanctify the woman? Especially since, apparently, she 'has previous' for being, errm, less than stellar on the management and leadership front.

Bronx
13th Dec 2008, 18:54
Its interesting reading over this old thread now

Man shot by armed police on tube (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/243559-man-shot-armed-police-tube.html)

It's a long thread but worth reading the early pages and the last page.




B.

StaceyF
13th Dec 2008, 19:06
For Mrs de Menezes a quote from the Chinook Thread on the military forum. "Justice has no expiry date"(John Cook), keep going and let Mr Mansfield do his stuff!

The problem with Mansfield is that he's Establishment through and through (witness his knighthood) and is actually a very poor barrister.

He couldn't even get Barry George acquitted first time around even though my pet hamster could have told you the guy was innocent.

IMHO the Establishment rubbed their hands together when they knew Mansfield was acting for the deceased.

Re-run the trial with a proper grown up barrister and see how long it takes to find the true cause of de Menezes' death.

CUNIM
13th Dec 2008, 19:45
It was wrong place, wrong time and wrong country. I am sorry for the police who had to make split second decisions.

Flying Lawyer
13th Dec 2008, 20:03
StaceyF
The problem with Mansfield is that he's Establishment through and through I've never thought of him as such, nor have I ever heard him described in that way - until now.
(witness his knighthood) When did Michael Mansfield get a Knighthood? :confused:
I'll let him know; I assume he'll be interested to hear the news.
and is actually a very poor barrister. He is actually a very good barrister.


CUNIM
You may not be interested, but the jury was asked to answer specific questions based upon the evidence they'd heard.
Link here Q&A (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5333426.ece)

JennyB
13th Dec 2008, 21:50
Reading the original thread, i hope that there are many people who are ashamed of themselves to be honest

Solar
14th Dec 2008, 02:33
Unfortunate as this is it seems to me that it will only encourage the next genuine suicide attempt.Then we will have why did the police not do something outcry. Seems you can't win for losing.

JennyB
14th Dec 2008, 12:02
The thing is, if he had been a genuine suicide bomber, an outcry of "why didn't the police do anything" would have been justified, was allowed to get on a bus and a tube train before getting shot, so more than enough opportunity to cause carnage.

A case of shutting the stable door after they've put 8 bullets in the horses head

Capt.KAOS
14th Dec 2008, 18:37
I am sorry for the police who had to make split second decisions.Split second?

The police followed Menezes for 5 minutes as he walked to a bus-stop on Tulse Hill for the Number 2 bus routes. As he boarded a bus, several plainclothes police officers also boarded. He got off the bus at one station and went back into the bus when he saw it was closed. He got of at Stockwell 2 miles further, all the time with the police on his tail who were convinced he was the suspect because he had "Mongolian eyes". He walked slowly into the station bought a ticket with his CC and took a newspaper.

Split second?

Willi B
15th Dec 2008, 03:06
At the time of this sad incident, there was criticism of the calibre of those engaged in this type of police work

SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article567961.ece)

Does anyone know if this was ever followed up?

BarbiesBoyfriend
15th Dec 2008, 08:32
Willi

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

For sure it will never be followed up, because to do that would reveal the truth.

And, of course, the truth is; these cops panicked. They bottled it.

They know it- We know it.

The SAS knew it before it had happened.

I'm sure these guys were the cream of the crop-the best that they could select.

From a group comprised entirely of policemen.

bar fly
15th Dec 2008, 09:06
Police finally admit they got ot wrong in the Shooting of Jean-Charles de Menez.

It was his naughty brother Denis they were after... :E

El Grifo
15th Dec 2008, 09:26
Actually it was his much nastier brother Mahmoud de Menez that was the desired target :suspect:

jimma
16th Dec 2008, 15:51
I have been hearing lots of people complaining these last few days about the lack of a warning. The police rules of engagement state that a warning should be given were possible (and it stresses where possible), but it is not a mandatory requirement. Suppose for a minute he had of been a suicide bomber, and Mr PC shouts armed police. What would have happened? Well it is quite likely he would have detonated.

Its very easy for joe public to criticise after the fact, but put yourself in their shoes at the time and ask what would you have done? The police acted on the intelligence they had and took the actions they deemed appropriate. An innocent man died and thats a shame, but there actions were taken with the best of intentions. In my opinion, it was a lawful killing, albeit the wrong person. The problem with the verdict is that the people have been influenced by the media, do gooders and personal opinions rather than fact.

BarbiesBoyfriend - what is wrong with policemen?

StaceyF - I am not afraid of the police in the UK. They do a wonderful job with little or no support. Who do you call when you have a problem, the police. The public are quick to criticise until they need them.....

CUNIM
16th Dec 2008, 15:58
jimma :D:ok:

By the way didn't he overstay his visa. His body language may have shown guilt and fear if that was so.

G-CPTN
16th Dec 2008, 16:07
The police rules of engagement state that a warning should be given were possible (and it stresses where possible), but it is not a mandatory requirement. Suppose for a minute he had of been a suicide bomber, and Mr PC shouts armed police. What would have happened? Well it is quite likely he would have detonated.
That's OK, but the Police lied in their testimony in court . . .
If they had genuinely believed that he was about to detonate a bomb (ie if he was wearing a backpack) then they should have said so.
IMO they acted in panic.

Captain Stable
17th Dec 2008, 08:08
Jimma, the problem with the lack of a warning is not that they failed to give a warning but that they lied about it. The trouble is, given the other things they lied about immediately after the shooting, during various inquiries and inquests, the fact that Ian Blair felt able to give press briefings despite being allegedly kept in the dark by his own officers, cover-up, whitewash, lies, quibbles, distractions (e.g. rape allegations against de Menezes, incorrect allegations as to his visa status), evasions and half-truths, that it all erodes trust in a police force, in whom, as you so rightly imply, we need to have total faith.

And I don't, not any longer.

You sayAn innocent man died and thats a shame, but there actions were taken with the best of intentions"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." And therein, you think, lies their defence? Does the incompetence of the way in which the entire operation was planned, briefed and carried out not worry you? That no positive identification took place because the one man with the one picture of the wanted suspect had gone for a piss at the time he was needed? That there was total confusion and no effective management of the briefing process at Scotland Yard? That the "expert firearms officers" appeared so totally out of control that they were gung-ho enough to pump eleven round out at de Menezes? That, even at point blank range, three of those rounds, aimed at his head, missed? No, you say, they acted with the best intentions, so that's all okay. :rolleyes:

You further say .... people have been influenced by the media, do gooders and personal opinions rather than fact.No, most people here are influenced by what the police have told various official bodies and have contrasted that with what other bystanders, expert witnesses and others have said. And they don't tally up.

And next time, can you please try to write in English?a warning should be given were possible
Suppose for a minute he had of been a suicide bomber
but there actions were taken with the best of intentionsJust a hint - writing like that makes your post appear to have been by a badly-educated fourteen-year old, which detracts from any valid point you may have wanted to make and shows immaturity, if such immaturity was not already apparent from the points you choose to argue.

parabellum
17th Dec 2008, 12:08
Reading this thread from start to finish it is fairly obvious that many here have not the slightest concern for the late de Menezes but do seem to have a vested interest in publicising their dislike of the British police force, as often as they can type it. Pretty sad that.

Captain Stable
17th Dec 2008, 12:30
parabellum, I think the reason many people here are concerned about this is precisely because of their concern for the late de Menezes (in part) and also for his family that there is a desire to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen again, and in order to ensure that, people don't just say "Don't knock them, they did their best and were acting from the best intentions" as if that were enough and we should ignore total incompetence, disorder and poor attitude to innocent bystanders.

I feel very sorry indeed that a totally innocent man was not only shot dead while going about his lawful business, but also, adding insult to injury (literally) aspersions were cast on his behaviour at the time, slurs cast alleging sexual offences, insinuations that he was responsible himself for his fate in being in this country at all, and direct charges of visa offences. However, his problems are over. I feel far, far more sorry for his family who have had to endure not only the loss of a son and brother but also the slurs and lies of the police.

Therein lies a great proportion of the disgrace of this entire episode. Therein lies the refutation of the attitude that Jimma so blithely states that they were "acting from the best intentions". If that had been so, and had they been competent at their job, there would have been no need for the lies, slurs, insinuations, half-truths and cover-ups.

And therein lies the danger that this could all happen all over again to some poor unfortunate, that some other poor mother will be left weeping outside a courtroom, not understanding why a son's life has been brutally cut short by a bunch of incompetents without any legal oversight, approval or authority.

And therein lies what should have been the jury's verdict of unlawful killing. Because the law and legality had nothing whatsoever to do with this.

BarbiesBoyfriend
17th Dec 2008, 14:58
Jimma

'What's wrong with policemen?'

Apart from being thick you mean?

Did you read Willi Bs' post then? Detect any possible issues there?:hmm:

Capt.KAOS
17th Dec 2008, 15:17
By the way didn't he overstay his visa. His body language may have shown guilt and fear if that was so.If you would have been better informed (or read this thread (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/344134-jean-charles-de-menezes-7.html#post4571423)more carefully) you would have know that the IPCC stated that: "Evidence emerged during the course of the criminal trial into the Health and Safety charge that Mr de Menezes was lawfully in the country on 22 July 2005." (At the other hand, reading your earlier messages I believe your not interested at all in the facts...)

Also you would have known that his body language didn't show anything different as any other train passengers. I'm afraid you've been stuck in the frist days of MET disinformation.

Please, there's already too much garbage thrown around by the authorities, and maybe that's exactly what the people's dislike, parabellum...

glad rag
17th Dec 2008, 18:41
Indeed CK, days of MET disinformation, sums the comtempt that our public servants hold "MOP'S" in.:(

StaceyF
18th Dec 2008, 04:58
Please, there's already too much garbage thrown around by the authorities, and maybe that's exactly what the people's dislike, parabellum...

Indeed; google Mark Whitby or Chris Wells, the former "eye-witness" is more easily found searching for "who is Mark Whitby?".

Described as a "water installation engineer from Brixton" (what's one of those?) he's the most blatant example of a police plant you'll ever see.

I don't know what's more worrying about 2008 UK, the fact that the Establishment can murder with impunity or the fact that the sheeple swallow their lies hook, line and sinker.

The Comprehensive education system has done it's job well......

jimma
18th Dec 2008, 14:51
Captain Stable - I am just wondering what experience you have in planning and running a police operation, especially an armed operation? It is very easy to criticize how it was done, but a lot harder to actually do. Reminds me of a phrase that I was once told "hindsight is a great thing."

And just for clarification, I am not a 14 year old, my post was written after a very long and tiring day at work.

BarbiesBoyfriend - Do you know many police officers? I can assure you that they do not come from the uneducated masses.

Parabellum - :D

Captain Stable
18th Dec 2008, 15:59
I have no intention whatsoever of letting you know the level of my experience. Suffice it to say it is more than nil. FWIW, it's irrelevant anyway. All we need is for the police to be able to do so. And they have demonstrated they can't, so should therefore not be permitted to do so.

It is not enough for them to "do their best". I would rather have someone thoroughly competent, work well within his capabilities and succeed than someone of limited capacity who is working all out at the outside edge of his competence envelope and screw up.

Sorry, but all my points still stand. This operation was a screw-up from start to finish. The fact that it was conducted in the aftermath of a failed attack does not mitigate the police's actions but rather assists in the prosecution. Put simply, if tempers and and adrenaline are running, if it is intended to put a rather final end to a suspect and you have armed officers running all over the capital, you need all your checks and balances to be doubled up rather than put to one side and you need to be very, very precise in your briefing procedures and suspect identification, simply because of the danger of exactly what happened - causing the death of an innocent bystander. And unless that is admitted by the police, precisely the same will happen again and again.

silverhawk
18th Dec 2008, 18:01
Ask HMRC what tax and NI contributions JCdM made in the previous few years and then conclude whether he was in contravention of his visa conditions.

max_cont
18th Dec 2008, 18:09
Silverhawk, what has that got to do with being shot in error by the police?

silverhawk
18th Dec 2008, 18:25
Like all cash in hand, dodgy tradesmen, who contribute nothing to our economy, he should not have been here.
I regret his demise, be sure of that, a sorry episode.
However, if he were not here, taking the piss out of the UK ' multi cultural bollocks', he would not have been in the line of fire.

Please try to remember who were the real antagonists at this time, the [email protected] who planted and who tried to plant IEDs in the Capital in July 2007. They are the real targets for any venom, not the guys on patrol.

max_cont
18th Dec 2008, 18:45
Complete bollocks silverhawk. You could equally argue that had the bombers been leprechauns’ only short pixie like individuals were at risk.

The bottom line is that this was a first class fcuk up…from start to finish. Good intentions matter not one iota, it’s only the end result that count.

In this case it was the slaughter of an innocent man. Quite frankly I’d rather the police did us all a favor and took themselves out of the equation…we don’t need their kind of protection.

El Grifo
18th Dec 2008, 19:18
The show of great admission and ineptitude continues.


The Met vs. Colin Stagg


How low will they finally go before a valid outcry commences.

An organisation infected with great ineptitude.


There's a started for ten :ugh:

Bronx
18th Dec 2008, 22:00
jimma In my opinion, it was a lawful killing, albeit the wrong person.
The jury rejected that and they heard all the evidence.
What's your opinion based on?

The police lawyers were obviously worried. They are the ones who persuaded the coroner not to leave the jury with even the option of saying UNlawful killing. The police had a big team of lawyers but maybe you should have offered to help them.

The problem with the verdict is that the people have been influenced by the media, do gooders and personal opinions rather than fact.
The people? It's called a jury
The jury that heard all the evidence and then give their opinion? It's called a verdict.
What's your own personal opinion based on? :rolleyes:

Rather than the fact?
You don't know the facts or you wouldnt have made such a stupid comment about the warnings issue. Capt Stable has already explained it to you.


parabellum says Reading this thread from start to finish it is fairly obvious that many here have not the slightest concern for the late de Menezes but do seem to have a vested interest in publicising their dislike of the British police force, as often as they can type it.
Reading this thread from start to finish it is very obvious that some here have not the slightest interest in the facts and are only interested in trying to defend the cops from criticism.

After they'd heard all the facts the jury had to answer a series of questions. The words in brackets about the evidence are from the Times newspaper.

Did officer Charlie 12 shout the words “armed police” at Mr Menezes before firing?
Jury’s answer: No
(Several police officers testified to hearing or giving shouted warnings; passengers on the Tube train said they did not hear the shouts.)

Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear-hug by officer “Ivor”?
Jury’s answer: Yes
(Police and passengers disagreed on whether Mr de Menezes stood up.)

Did Mr de Menezes move towards Charlie 12 before he was grabbed in a bear-hug by officer “Ivor”?
Jury’s answer: No
(The officer said Mr de Menezes had moved aggressively towards him and made him fear he was in mortal danger. Passengers said they did not see any such action.)


Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes: a) The suicide attacks and attempted attacks of July 2005 and the pressure placed upon the Metropolitan Police in responding to the threat? Jury’s answer: Can’t decide (The Met argued that Mr de Menezes was the victim of an unprecedented series of events after the 7/7 and 21/7 attacks in London.)b) A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of the suspect, Hussain Osman, for the surveillance team?Jury’s answer: Yes(The inquest heard that surveillance officers were sent out to look for one of the 21/7 bombers without a photograph, although pictures of the suspect were available.)

c) A failure by the police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport?Jury’s answer: Yes (Although he was a suspected suicide bomber, the police team tailing Mr de Menezes allowed him to board two buses and enter a Tube station.)

d) The general difficulty in providing an identification of the man under surveillance (Mr de Menezes) in the time available and in the circumstances?Jury’s answer: No

(The jurors appeared to reject the evidence of surveillance officers that they had neither the time nor the opportunity to reach a firm decision on Mr de Menezes’s identity.)e) The behaviour of Mr de Menezes which increased the suspicions of some officers?Jury’s answer: No

(Senior officers said that some of Mr de Menezes’s actions increased suspicion of him, especially jumping on and off a bus, which they interpreted as a counter-surveillance manoeuvre. The jury disagreed.)f) The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and the firearms officers?Jury’s answer: Yes

(The surveillance teams were adamant they did not positively conclude that Mr de Menezes was the suspect yet the control room at Scotland Yard was under the impression that a firm identification had been made.)g) The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known to the command team?Jury’s answer: Yes

(Two firearms officers were parked outside the Underground station and could have carried out a “stop” operation before Mr de Menezes entered. The command team was unaware.)h) Any significant shortcomings in the communications system between the various police teams on the ground and with New Scotland Yard?Jury’s answer: Yes

(One firearms officer testified that his Cougar radio was not working properly and he was relying on his mobile phone.)i) A failure to conclude, at the time, that surveillance officers should still be used to carry out the stop of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell station even after it was reported that specialist firearms officers could perform the stop?Jury’s answer: Yes (Surveillance officers were told to stop him, then the order was rescinded, leaving firearms officers in a last-minute dash to stop the suspect.)

The best answer the cops got out of the whole inquest after all those weeks of looking at the facts was 4a, and that was - "Can't decide."

Roger Sofarover
19th Dec 2008, 02:19
SilverHawk

Ask HMRC what tax and NI contributions JCdM made in the previous few years and then conclude whether he was in contravention of his visa conditions

Absolute utter bolleux, and nothing to do with the case, and certainly, in a billion years, no justification (in the slightest) for the incident that occurred.
You are desperately trying to make 'Ground fit Map'!

Like all cash in hand, dodgy tradesmen, who contribute nothing to our economy, he should not have been here.
I regret his demise, be sure of that, a sorry episode.
However, if he were not here, taking the piss out of the UK ' multi cultural bollocks', he would not have been in the line of fire.

Please try to remember who were the real antagonists at this time, the [email protected] who planted and who tried to plant IEDs in the Capital in July 2007. They are the real targets for any venom, not the guys on patrol.

Perhaps you should change your handle to 'Alf Garnett" , another great example of a british racist and bigot

You are either Police yourself, or at least a police apologist. I know many policeman who are scathingly critical of what happened to de Menezes.

Willi B
19th Dec 2008, 02:25
According to an eye witness who gave evidence to the Inquest, the police who killed Mr De Menezes were "out of control".

Firearms team who shot De Menezes were out of control, inquest told - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5073113.ece)

Ms Dunwoodie's version of events (which appears not to have been disputed in the Inquest) suggests a scenario of incompetence, ineptitude and maladroitness.

Given both the evidence given and the jury findings helpfully set out by Bronx, I hope that the De Menezes family will seek judicial review of the Coroner's direction not to return a verdict of unlawful killing.

I also suggest either a Royal Commission or other public inquiry be held into the operation, supervision, ROE (including the use of 'non exiting ammunition' banned by Convention) and command and control of armed police units, including the selection and training of their members and commanders. Its remit should include a term of reference that looks at alternative and better founded sources of armed support for police. The sheer magnitude of the De Menezes bungle deserves nothing less.

parabellum
19th Dec 2008, 22:02
According to an eye witness who gave evidence to the Inquest, the police who killed Mr De Menezes were "out of control".


It would be of interest to know the qualifications of this witness to assess the performance of armed police dealing with what they believed was a back-pack suicide bomber.

Captain Stable
19th Dec 2008, 22:19
Certainly it would be of interest. That, however, does not mean she is unqualified, so no need to pour scorn on her testimony. I think many people here would have a fairly good idea of how someone behaves when "out of control".

What you need instead to examine a little more closely is why the police believed they were dealing with a "back-pack" suicide bomber, given that

He was neither wearing nor carrying a back-pack.
He was not wearing a bulky jacket.
He had not been behaving suspiciously.
He had been permitted to board a bus (twice), enter a tube station and board a tube train.
There had at no time been a positive identification.
In all respects he was behaving normally

Bronx
20th Dec 2008, 00:08
It would be of interest to know the qualifications of this witness to assess the performance of armed police dealing with what they believed was a back-pack suicide bomber.For a start, she had a pair of eyes.

Menezes did NOT have a back-pack.
Menezes did NOT have a back-pack.
Menezes did NOT have a back-pack.
Menezes did NOT have a back-pack.
Menezes did NOT have a back-pack


It's almost incredible, and very sad, that after all this time some folk here are so blinkered that they still basing their opinions on things that even the cops police admitted a long time ago were not true.

Still dont believe it?
Check out this picture.

http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/menezes-death.jpg



Here are the last moments of this guy's life described by a lady who watched him being killed.

“It was sort of a scrum. I remember the man holding the gun out. His [Mr de Menezes’s] eyes were closed and he looked almost calm, although I hesitate to say that. I guess he had a gun pressed to his head and there was not anything he could do about it.
“The first shots came very suddenly and my first thoughts were that it was someone firing a stun gun.
“There was a break and it was my memory that there were more shots.”

Utrinque Apparatus
20th Dec 2008, 10:12
Latest statement from the Met is that "We are very sorry, we were really after his very naughty brother, Dennis..........................................."

What a slide into political subservience and street incompetence under New Labour

Bronx
20th Dec 2008, 10:40
On the bus
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44168000/jpg/_44168775_menezes1_416cps.jpg


Going in to the station
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44168000/jpg/_44168777_menezes3_416cps.jpg


Going through the barriers (after stopping to pick up a newspaper)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01107/De_Menzes_station_1107184c.jpg


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44168000/jpg/_44168778_menezes4_220cps.jpg



Menezes compared with the target Osman Hussain
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/08/17/menezes_osman_wideweb__430x253.jpg


Osman Hussain an Ethiopian got arrested by Italian police in Rome a week after Mr Menezes died.



B.

Captain Stable
20th Dec 2008, 14:03
Politicians attempting to stop truth being revealed about shooting:-

BBC NEWS | Magazine | The inquest that may never be (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7745773.stm)

Willi B
20th Dec 2008, 21:30
I respectfully agree.

In recent times, law enforcement agencies (including both the Metropolitan and Australian Federal Police) have been encouraged by both sweeping anti-terrorist legislation, and the enthousiastic and uncritical support of politicians, to use their authority and resources inappropriately in a 'win at all costs' way.

Little consideration seems to have been given to ensuring that those charged with enforcing the law, do so in accordance with what the law actually says, and not what they think it says.

A judicial inquiry into the De Menenzes case would provide not only a valuable opportunity to review anti-terror laws, but also to conduct an independent, transparent and broad ranging review of civil police law enforcement culture. It would also go some way towards restoring equilibrium between individual rights and general community safety.

skydriller
20th Dec 2008, 21:51
Going through the barriers (after stopping to pick up a newspaper)

Did nobody following him not think to themselves: If you are going to blow yourself up on the tube, why do you stop to buy a newspaper?

Rollingthunder
20th Dec 2008, 21:58
Can't believe this is still going on. Inquest done.
Get his parents out of the country.....send them a cheque.

G-CPTN
20th Dec 2008, 21:59
To be fair, the newspaper was a free one . . .

max_cont
21st Dec 2008, 08:06
Actually Parabellum I’m with Captain Stable with this one. If it’s going to turn into a pi**ing competition, I’ll put my experience on ops against yours any day.

In short, been there, done it and yes I almost killed innocent members of the public…twice. However I engaged my brain before squeezing the trigger. Probably that’s why I’m not in jail.

Nothing is black and white…but that doesn’t mean you excuse and ignore a class one fcuk up. Part of operating in public with lethal weapons is that you maintain your thinking and analytical processes as you deploy lethal force. If you can’t do that then don’t do the job. What you intended to do or your good intentions are no defence if you kill the wrong person.

The Police are very good at doing police work…IMO hard to beat 90% of the time. However if this is the best calibre of person the police service has to offer, and they claim it is, then I and many others say they are proving highly unsatisfactory at anti terror work.

Perhaps it’s time to let some professionals’ do the job.

radeng
21st Dec 2008, 10:38
In all this, the level of management ineptitude seems to have been forgotten. Add that to the downright lies at all levels from the Met, one wonders why no politicians have the guts to demand a public enquiry. But possibly, they figure that they would get arrested...

Roger Sofarover
21st Dec 2008, 16:34
RollingThunder

Can't believe this is still going on. Inquest done.
Get his parents out of the country.....send them a cheque

Possibly one of the most knobish comments on PPRuNe.

Shack37
21st Dec 2008, 17:22
Quote:
Can't believe this is still going on. Inquest done.
Get his parents out of the country.....send them a cheque


Possibly one of the most knobish comments on PPRuNe.


Careful, he's an eight gun fighter:yuk:

s37

parabellum
21st Dec 2008, 22:06
Actually Max_Cont I agree with most of what you say, all I said was it would be of interest to know the qualifications of the witness, (who said the armed police were 'out of control') to assess the performance of armed police dealing with what they believed was a suicide bomber. Pretty harmless I would have thought and certainly not justification for Stable's abusive and rude outburst. (Yes I should not have mentioned the words 'back-packing'). And yes, they should use the professionals for that sort of work.


Been on this BB since March 1997 and never put anyone on an ignore list before, but I have now!:*

Rollingthunder
21st Dec 2008, 22:39
RollingThunder


Quote:
Can't believe this is still going on. Inquest done.
Get his parents out of the country.....send them a cheque

Possibly one of the most knobish comments on PPRuNe.

Thank you, I do try. Let the recriminations continue then. I'll check back in 2021.

Bronx
21st Dec 2008, 22:50
parabellum all I said was it would be of interest to know the qualifications of the witness, (who said the armed police were 'out of control') to assess the performance of armed police dealing with what they believed was a suicide bomber.


Did the police have any sensible and reasonable basis for believing he was a suicide bomber?

"Mr de Menezes was followed from the communal entrance to a block of flats after the address was linked to a suspect in the previous day’s attempt to bomb the London transport system. (The address of the block, not the address of his appartment.)"
"His conduct that morning was no different from the conduct of hundreds of other commuters who come into the city." I don't know if the witness had any qualifications but these quotes might help.

"The police planned and carried out an operation that day so badly that the public were needlessly put at risk and Jean Charles de Menezes was actually killed as a result."
"The operation was badly planned and riddled with fundamental failures."
"There were shocking and catastrophic errors by Metropolitan Police officers."

"The fact that police ended up pointing a gun at another policeman and mistaking a terrified train driver for a bomber gives you a clue as to just how far wrong the operation had gone."
"The disaster was not the result of a fast-moving operation going suddenly and predictably awry. It was the result of fundamental failures to carry out a planned operation in a safe and reasonable way." Anti police?

They are all quotes from the attorney who prosecuted the Metropolitan Police force after an investigation by the independent Police Complaints Commission.

Google is your friend.


B.

Willi B
22nd Dec 2008, 03:39
It would be of interest to know the qualifications of this witness to assess the performance of armed police dealing with what they believed was a back-pack suicide bomber.Are you saying that Ms Dunwoodie's evidence should have been excluded because her opinion was not based on specialised knowledge? If you are, then I respectfully submit that you misunderstand the nature and application of the "Opinion Rule" in the admissibility of evidence.

Simply stated, opinion evidence is inadmissable.

There are two major exceptions to this rule - opinions based on specialist knowledge, and non-expert opinions which are based on what a witness saw, heard or otherwise perceived about a matter or event.

Ms Dunwoodie's evidence falls into the latter category, and is therefore admissable.

You might not be aware of an Antipodean Statement of Principle that seems particularly relevant here to the performance of the police. It's called the P to the Power of Seven Rule.

"P*ss poor preparation produces p*ss poor performance"

max_cont
22nd Dec 2008, 09:13
Parabellum thanks for the explanation. I was referring to I'll back my intelligence against yours any day, I just don't see everything so black and white as you do but that may be down to experience, mine versus your lack of.

FWIW I tend to agree with you about some witnesses statements. Although eye witnesses are very informative, they may not recognize tactics designed to quickly establish control of the situation thereby minimizing the risk to the officers themselves and the public. This might be perceived as being out of control.

I have not dissected this operation as some have. The clothing that JCDM was wearing could have concealed explosives. I was not at the briefing and therefore have no idea what the level of equipment and expertise the bombers had access to. But I can see how this turned into a fiasco…compounded by amateurish command and control and execution.

The lies and misinformation that followed are unacceptable under any circumstances. For that reason alone IMO, those responsible should be brought to justice.

birrddog
22nd Dec 2008, 18:22
max_cont, bringing "those responsible" to justice is fine, as long as it is only on the basis of their lying, and not the operational error(s) they tried to downplay.

There are so many variables in that line of work that forces one, on occasion to throw the rulebook out the window in split second decision making, and mistakes will be made.

If there is something to be learned from an error, learn it, but move on.

When one creates an overly-PC environment, it just invites :mad: ups and creates more room for hesitation, poor decisions and operational errors.

I don't think we should stand by and say "Welcome to Britain Mr Budding Terrorist, here's a passport, some dole money, education and a council flat where you can learn in a safe environment how to hurt the British public with no ramifications, 'coz even if we knew what you are planning we don't have the balls to do anything about it until after you committed the act in which you killed yourself anyway"

Dwelling too much on this particular error will lead to the above (if it has not already)

I'm with Rolling Thunder on this one.

radeng
22nd Dec 2008, 18:39
Surely birddog, the 'operational errors' were really the managerial incompetence, not the guys on the ground. Although one has to question why they shot him in the back if they thought he was a suicide bomber, the whole reason for the killing headshots being to avoid setting off the bomb with a body shot.....

The Met don't seem to be doing verey well recently, with an 'own goal' from Asst Commisioner Quick, added to the Colin Stagg affair and so on. Maybe embarassments just come in threes....

JennyB
22nd Dec 2008, 19:01
"When one creates an overly-PC environment, it just invites http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif ups and creates more room for hesitation, poor decisions and operational errors."

PC environment? Unavoidable i'd have thought

max_cont
22nd Dec 2008, 20:40
Birrddog, I’m all for learning from ones mistakes. It seems to me that the split second decision made never should have needed to be made.

This whole sorry episode stems from their inability to identify the correct target. If it was just a case of mistaken identity they would have acted before he got close to any type of public transport. They knew they didn’t know who JCDM was, which then led to the fiasco with the panicked decision taken when it would have been too late had he been a bomber.

I don’t know what level of technical sophistication these bombers had access to, but if the belt was to small enough to be hidden under a flimsy T shirt, then that would indicate an advanced technical ability. Therefore it is likely that stopping the bombers heart would in all likelihood cause a detonation. If it was a fairly rudimentary affair and was bulky enough to require a backpack, then why didn’t someone notice JCDM wasn’t carrying one for god’s sake?

Anyway it’s easy for us to second guess events but IMO part of learning from mistakes is to admit them. The cover up was not in anyone’s interest and criminal to boot. I care not one iota for an individual’s career. Unfortunately, that seems to be the overriding consideration that led to the lies and misinformation that we witnessed. The sad part is that we are bound to be discussing another tragedy committed with the best intentions by the police. The refusal to dissect and weed out those with shortcomings virtually guarantees another sorry episode.

birrddog
22nd Dec 2008, 21:50
max_cont:

I think we agree on the poor intel/managerial decision :mad: ups....


I don’t know what level of technical sophistication these bombers had access to, but if the belt was to small enough to be hidden under a flimsy T shirt, then that would indicate an advanced technical ability. Therefore it is likely that stopping the bombers heart would in all likelihood cause a detonation. If it was a fairly rudimentary affair and was bulky enough to require a backpack, then why didn’t someone notice JCDM wasn’t carrying one for god’s sake?Based on the current examples of the UK Legal system where terrorists get off (or get off lightly) where they were caught before they were allowed to commit the act, the "security forces" are forced/encouraged to wait until someone is standing inside a train with their finger on the trigger before they have "definitive proof" and can arrest them for a serious enough offense to lock them up and throw away the key.

If that was not the case, they could have intervened sooner, hopefully with less collateral and reputational damage.

Of course, the above is MNSHO....

Bronx
23rd Dec 2008, 06:06
birddog If that was not the case, they could have intervened sooner

If you'd taken the time to read what happened, including the real reason why the cops didn't stop and search him when he walked out of the apartment block, you'd know your rant is completely wrong.

B.

Willi B
23rd Dec 2008, 21:44
It's not only the Metropolitan Police who lack competence in terrorism matters.

Their Antipodean cousins, the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and Commonwealth Prosecuting Authorities have also shown to be wanting.

John Clark QC's report into the detention and deportation of Dr Mohamed Haneef last year, handed down yesterday, criticises both senior bureaucrats and the AFP. The retired New South Wales Supreme Court Judge singled out the AFP's lead investigator as being "unable to see that the evidence he regarded as highly incriminating in fact amounted to very little".

The Oz outcome includes a new statutory authority to review terrorism legislation, parliamentary oversight of the AFP and increased AFP accountability to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Food for thought perhaps for the Home Secretary over the Christmas break?

G-CPTN
13th Feb 2009, 13:30
No police officers will be prosecuted over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Crown Prosecution Service has said.
It follows a review of new evidence which came to light at his inquest.
More at:- BBC NEWS | UK | Family anger over Menezes review (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7888385.stm)

Storminnorm
13th Feb 2009, 13:41
Hang 'em all. From the top DOWN!

radeng
13th Feb 2009, 17:26
Is anyone surprised?

Rollingthunder
13th Feb 2009, 18:50
The de Menezes family said they would now turn their energy to lobbying parliament on the laws surrounding police accountability.



So, still in the UK are they? How are they being supported? I'm sure it's not at their expense. How big is the family? Do they all have to be there? Will they ever leave? There comes a time to call it quits.

CUNIM
13th Feb 2009, 19:54
Yeah Rolling Thunder, it is time to quit. I really am not interested in paying additional tax for this as I am p!ssed off with bailing out the banks.

airship
13th Feb 2009, 20:11
...I'm sure it's not at their expense... Blah blah, blah blah blah etc.?! You ought to be somewhatr ashamed by that outburst. UK taxpayer are you..?!

Notwithstanding, the comparison must be suggested: Imagne that it was merely a group of armed and very concerned UK citizens who terminated Mr. de Menezes. Would they have been afforded similar protection?

All that can be truly learned from this sad episode is that any and all abuses can be excused, provided that you're licenced to kill aka 007...?! Just like any 3rd world nation like Iran or countless others. The UK serves as a great example... :rolleyes:

Lon More
13th Feb 2009, 20:41
Had this occured in any other country it would have been a case of, "Oh my, what a pity, never mind." And totally forgotten about in a month

frostbite
13th Feb 2009, 21:41
You ought to be somewhatr ashamed by that outburst.

Alternatively, quite proud of it.

Seldomfitforpurpose
13th Feb 2009, 22:32
Hindsight and the comfort of an armchair.................:ugh:

airship
13th Feb 2009, 22:41
Alternatively, quite proud of it.

I can understand 'where you're coming from", I guess. In the sense that our 3score and 10 years upon the planet are increasingly meaningless. I'm 48 years old. We don't learn anything anymore mainly because it isn't allowed. All those of us who don't rotate jobs 'within the establishment' can only look forward to ever decreasing horizons. Others are protected by virtue of their jobs.

I feel very sorry for the next generations. Our governments have already sacrificed their futures. Repayments for our past profligacy. Leaving them the problems of Israel and Palestine, global warming and whatever.

In some strange way, I reckon that JC de Menezes got out 'whilst the going was still good'. At least he won't still be alive to see the average UK taxpayer be submerged in debts as a consequence of increasing unemployment and the current state bailout of pribate enterprise. Increasingly, I reckon that the state, backed 'by the popular vote,' will ensure that 'for better or worse', noone in UK will be better off than the average, whatever that means. :zzz:

Rollingthunder
13th Feb 2009, 23:33
You ought to be somewhatr ashamed by that outburst. UK taxpayer are you..?!

I'm not. I don't pay UK taxes other than the usurious LHR departure rip-off, but most of my family does and I expect to be doing so in the future.

We have a similar case here in Canada with a Polish bloke who went violent at the airport, was tasered and died of unknown causes per the autopsy. 40ish, came to Canada as an immigrant having not bothered to learn one word of English during a two year immigration process, with a criminal background, having served prison time, to live with his mother.

It just goes on and on and on and on. Enough is plainly enough in both cases.
The inquests are both over. Put an end to it.

Does anyone know how the De Menezes family are supporting their existance in the UK so that they can now lobby parliament? Are they UK taxpayers?

Captain Stable
14th Feb 2009, 11:57
I gather that the De Menezes family are being provided for by private means and by donation from people with more of a social conscience than you appear to have. AFAIK they are not being supported by public money.

I am 100% in favour of this incident being pursued further. Cressida Dickbrain should never have been promoted since it is quite clear she had no control whatsoever over the operation. The firearms officers never bothered to check whether they were clear to shoot as per the standing orders for Operation Kratos. The surveillance officers were not properly equipped (viz. photographs) to identify the suspect. The tailing operation was a total disaster in that a suspected suicide bomber was permitted to board a bus TWICE and also a tube train. A police officer changed his "contemporaneous account" after he heard his superior's testimony in court. Lies and evasions were told time and time again by the police in what can only be described as a cover-up. In an operation that was pre-announced and "planned" a firearms team only turned up for work too late to attend a briefing at Scotland Yard when everyone else was on shift and ready, and had a separate briefing that further delayed them being available.

And yet nobody is to face charges.

The mind boggles.

Roger Sofarover
14th Feb 2009, 12:03
What Captain Stable said!

Storminnorm
14th Feb 2009, 13:53
Now let's just imagine how things would have gone had JCdeM
been American? Still the same result? I think NOT!

microlight AV8R
14th Feb 2009, 21:40
What a sad episode in the history of British 'justice'.

First we have a command & communications cock-up of monumental proportions. It is hard to comprehend when considering that it was carried out by a police force with considerable experience of managing complex operations such as public order. However, I'd suggest that elitism is at the heart of the problem.
We then seem to see a keystone cops situation with horrific consequences.
People here have asked why the suspect was allowed to board buses and walk freely to a tube station and board a train? That, to me, is evidence of the poor C&C. "send three & fourpence, we're going to a dance"
I cannot comprehend what went through the mind of the officer who emptied his magazine into the innocent man. As for the officer who had the man in a restraining hold, I can't begin to imagine his shock at the outcome.
yes I've used the word 'innocent' That is because he was. At the point a suspect is dealt with by the police he is entitled to the same protection as any other. Previous indiscretions have no bearing on that.

What shocks and saddens me the most is what followed:
1. The lies describing a man running, being challenged, vaulting barriers and running down an escalator then pursued onto a train as if a wild animal being chased by a pack of hounds.
2. The cynical smear campaign of leaks.
3. The manipulation of photographic images!
4. The police acknowledge their terrible mistake, yet have the nerve to defend a health & safety prosecution. I would contend that it was utterly indefensible.
5. The promotion of a senior officer after a monumantal cock-up is a tradition of the service, corporate expression of self confidence.

Now we have the announcement that no prosecutions will be forthcoming.
For a start, I'd suggest that the production of manipulated photographic images amounts to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

As for directing a jury that they could not find a verdict of unlawful killing, I am horrified. It cannot possibly be a lawful killing.
It cannot be an accident as the pulling of the trigger was a deliberate act.
Making a normal journey on the tube is not misadventure
Neither is it suicide
An open verdict is inappropriate as there is sufficient evidence to decide it was a killing and that the killing was not lawful.

I wish I had been a juror.

So it now seems that extra-judicial killing is acceptable in the UK. We have truly joined the third world.

Others have questioned the qualifications of people who have tendered opinions and evidence both here and in the judicial hearings. So, I will state my qualifications: Retired Police Officer with a certificate of service which states 'exemplary'.
My emotional reaction to the whole sorry episode could be described as being disappointed, ashamed and BETRAYED.

Willi B
15th Feb 2009, 07:02
Totally agree.Seems the appropriately named commander has been promoted well above her level of competence, the ill disciplined, incompetent and mendacious have been protected, and state sanctioned killing is the order of the day.

Where's Judge John Deed when you want him?

Roger Sofarover
15th Feb 2009, 08:34
Where's Judge John Deed when you want him?

Actually Willi, I think we need Judge Dread!

Sunray Minor
15th Feb 2009, 09:25
Lon More,

Had this occured in any other country it would have been a case of, "Oh my, what a pity, never mind." And totally forgotten about in a month

In most countries where the police shoot innocents as part of the daily carnage...yes, it would have been forgotten. But in a supposedly advanced, Western nation....no, it wouldn't have dissapeared from the public consciounce. The fact that many here would seemingly like it to is rather sad.

The shooting of Menezes was as important as the bombings themselves. It seems that the political expediency of whitewashing this case, in the assumption it will help armed offices make the decision to fire in the future, is the wrong direction to go - at least to me. We should be using this case and any criminal repercussions to ensure this never happens again and that police in extreme circumstances and lacking in effective coordination exercise greater restraint. The shooting of an innocent man probably did more to put us all at risk and undermine policing in the days following the bombings than over-cautious policing would have.

Lon More
15th Feb 2009, 10:26
We should be using this case and any criminal repercussions to ensure this never happens again and that police in extreme circumstances and lacking in effective coordination exercise greater restraint.

And therefore tie their hands so effectively that every lunatic, irrespective of race or belief, can just wander in and blow the country to Hell?

No thanks, I won't sleep any less soundly if a few more criminals like him get blown away.

Storminnorm
15th Feb 2009, 10:34
Sorry to have to disagree Lon.
I don't think JCdeM was a scrounger off the state.
Just the victim of a MISTAKE by the Filth.
Could've happened to anyone I suppose? :ugh:

I STILL don't understand WHY they let him board 2 buses tho'?