News London Shooting: What would you have do?

[The Smoking Man]

Bottom line is, they should have raided the flat. but they didnt. They should have stopped him before he got to the station, but they didnt. After those two options had been missed for whatever reason the only action left was to challenge de menzes. Now for a reason that we will never no and can only ever endlessly speculate upon de menzes decided to run. For the officers on the ground this would have looked like he had something to hide and maybe he did, maybe he thought they where immigration control? or maybe he owed some people some money? The reasons why he ran are pretty endless. But because he ran away it forced the officers into taking the decision to kill him.

He HAD been mugged 2 weeks before by Brits. He also may have not understood they wee challenging HIM and that there was another REAL bomber in the station ... so he ran trying to put distance between himself and an explosion.

Everyone wants to cut the cops some slack ... well, they didn't cut him any.

It all boils down to any person with olive skin is now fair game for UK police.

Even if he had stopped, what would they have done? If he had let rip a fart they would have shot him.

Let's face it. From now on, every suicide bomber is going to have a deadman switch. Shoot him in the head and he detonates when he let's go of the switch.

Now what will your response be?

 

[Art]

An interesting article;

UK News
Fury of shot Brazilian man's family

Wednesday, 27th July 2005, 18:02
Category: Crime and Punishment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - The Brazilian man shot dead at Stockwell Tube Station DID NOT vault the barrier as he fled police NOR was he wearing a 'suspicious' padded jacket, his cousin claimed today.

Vivian Figueiredo, said she had asked police for CCTV footage from the station camera. Although she has not yet seen the footage, she was told that her cousin Jean Charles de Menezes had in fact used a travelcard to pass through the barriers.

Speaking at a London press conference today through an interpreter, she said: "I spoke to police on that day and the police told me that he had used a travelcard.

"On Friday, when all these suspicions were coming out about what exactly had happened, police said several allegations about him having a padded jacket, and that he jumped the barrier. I thought they were finding excuses for what actually happened.

"The coat he was using was a jean [denim] jacket. It wasn't a bulky jacket.

"His actions were completely innocent and the police actions were completely wrong in this case and not just wrong but completely stupid. I don't have it in my power to express in words what their actions have done to us."

She said that she had requested the CCTV tapes from the station, but had been denied access to them.

She said: "We have asked to see CCTV footage and we were told it had been seized."

During the press conference, cousins of Mr de Menezes expressed anger at reports that an officer involved in the shooting had been given a free holiday to recover from the trauma.

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=JH2715857B&news_headline=fury_of_shot_brazilian_mans_family

 

[vanesch]

How do you know that for sure?

ALMOST for sure. Because it doesn't make sense. Occam's razor. If your kid tells you that he didn't do his homework because he was forced to fly the whole evening through the air on the back of a pink elephant, you weight the probability of having a pink elephant forcing your kid on his back, and the probability of the kid making up a story. In this case, I guess you're "almost sure" he's making up a story.

 

[arildno]

It seems that several people believe that there exist two views of equal worth from a rational perspective in this case:
1) Either to a priori have confidence in the veracity in the police reports
2) To have doubts about the veracity in the police reports

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Those ascribing to 1) are taking an irrational perspective which strongly deviates with the standard way in which the investigation of violent deaths in general is done, based on decades on solid experiences:

In any normal violent death episode, the following points are regarded as crucial:
1) Determine who, and what type of person the deceased was.
2) To regard those testimonials as given by persons who can reasonably be assumed to have a strong vested interest in having the investigators believe in the given testimonial as LESS reliable than those testimonials given by persons who cannot be said to have any other motive than simply telling the truth as they saw it, however the investigators are to judge the content of the testimonial.

For example, suppose a guy calls the police after having "found" his wife drowned in the bath-tub. The police arrives, and the guy says he was working in his garage when the accident must have happened.
The police goes around to neighbours; few can be totally certain that the guy couldn't have been in the garage at that time, although they find it odd, because they "ought" to have heard him.

Now, whose story should the police place most reliance upon?
(The case referred to happened where I grew up)

Evidently, the husband is the one with the stongest vested interest here; unless he gets the police to believe him, they might start suspecting him of the murder..



Now, let us get back to the London shooting:
Who are the ones with the strongest vested interests in having their stories believed to be true:
The police officers or by-standers?

That is, the only rational attitude is that if there is a significant difference in the stories told by the police officers and the stories told by by-standers, then we should lend most credence to the stories by the by-standers, rather than the story told by the police.

Thus, to have a priori confidence in police reports in the De Menzes case only shows an inability to apply sound principles of investigation to this particular case, just because the possible perpetrators here are "ordinary cops" rather than "regular bad guys".

 

[The Smoking Man]

It seems that several people believe that there exist two views of equal worth from a rational perspective in this case: ... Thus, to have a priori confidence in police reports in the De Menzes case only shows an inability to apply sound principles of investigation to this particular case, just because the possible perpetrators here are "ordinary cops" rather than "regular bad guys".

Easy approach to take is say.

"Show us the CCTV tape."

 

[arildno]

Easy approach to take is say.

"Show us the CCTV tape."

Quite so.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

An interesting article;

LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - The Brazilian man shot dead at Stockwell Tube Station DID NOT vault the barrier as he fled police NOR was he wearing a 'suspicious' padded jacket, his cousin claimed today.

Vivian Figueiredo, said she had asked police for CCTV footage from the station camera. Although she has not yet seen the footage, she was told that her cousin Jean Charles de Menezes had in fact used a travelcard to pass through the barriers.

Speaking at a London press conference today through an interpreter, she said: "I spoke to police on that day and the police told me that he had used a travelcard.

"On Friday, when all these suspicions were coming out about what exactly had happened, police said several allegations about him having a padded jacket, and that he jumped the barrier. I thought they were finding excuses for what actually happened.

"The coat he was using was a jean [denim] jacket. It wasn't a bulky jacket.

"His actions were completely innocent and the police actions were completely wrong in this case and not just wrong but completely stupid. I don't have it in my power to express in words what their actions have done to us."

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=JH2715857B&news_headline=fury_of_shot_brazilian_mans_family

This just gets worse and worse doesn't it. Can we at least lay to rest the notion that the jacket he was wearing was inappropriate for summer weather? Also, since de Menezes used a travelcard rather than vaulting over the turnstyles, is it likely he was trying to escape? Next we're going to find out he stopped to give money to a busker during his fleeing towards the train. I feel sick.

 

[Art]

This just gets worse and worse doesn't it. Can we at least lay to rest the notion that the jacket he was wearing was inappropriate for summer weather? Also, since de Menezes used a travelcard rather than vaulting over the turnstyles, is it likely he was trying to escape? Next we're going to find out he stopped to give money to a busker during his fleeing towards the train. I feel sick.

Unfortunately as this is no longer front page news in 6 months time I guarantee the average person in the UK if asked will say "oh yes, wasn't he the illegal immigrant with probable terrorist connections who got himself shot for wearing a heavy winter coat on a hot summer's day, ignoring properly identified police who ordered him to stop, jumping a ticket barrier to avoid arrest and running down an escalator onto a tube train. In other words the vast majority of folk will only recall all the deliberate misinformation the police issued in the aftermath of this appalling murder, which they have yet to officially correct.

As with the guy with the table leg shot dead under similarly controversial circumstances by the same group SO19 in 1999, the police having gotten out the message they want will now hide behind the sub judice rule claiming anything they say will prejudice possible future criminal proceedings against the police officers involved. Proceedings which of course will never happen.

Let's face it; sadly there are some people on this forum who even though they have been made aware of the facts and the inconsistancies in the police's account still insist he brought it on himself despite the now overwhelming volume of evidence to the contrary.

 

[alexandra]

He ran from armed police towards a train full of passengers having just left a building under surevliance in a jacket that didn't suit the weather conditions. Again evidence can only be sought after the event.

No, he ran from a group of ARMED MEN IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES:

Outside Stockwell station, police claim that they challenged him and ordered him to stop. Instead, Menezes ran. Eyewitnesses reported that up to twenty police officers in plain clothes pursued Menezes into Stockwell station, where he reportedly jumped over the ticket barrier, ran down an escalator and tried to jump onto a train. According to Menezes' family, however, the police have admitted that Menezes' did not actually jump over the ticket barrier and was not wearing a bulky jacket as initially reported [3]. He was then pushed to the floor of the carriage and shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder with a handgun. He died at the scene.[4]

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Wouldn't YOU run?

 

[ChrisW]

Don't know if it's been posted, but here is a mms://wmscnn.stream.aol.com/cnn/world/2005/07/22/eyewitness.london.shooting.affl.ws.wmv[/URL] with some eye witness acounts.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Don't know if it's been posted, but here is a mms://wmscnn.stream.aol.com/cnn/world/2005/07/22/eyewitness.london.shooting.affl.ws.wmv[/URL] with some eye witness acounts.[/QUOTE]I found myself looking at the people in the background for evidence of coats and sweatshirts.

Did you notice the radio 1 sound man? how about the two black guys? The fat one had on a hefty Jacket.

Behind the oriental interviewee, I saw multiple 'fleece coats', one guy in what appeared to be a brown leather jacket and another in a pair of powder blue jeans who was there all he time in what appeared to be a padded jacket.

Never mind what was said. Believe your own eyes.

'Mike' also said that EVERYONE left with their heads covered. Were they thinking ... maybe I'm next?

 

[brewnog]

Don't know if it's been posted, but here is a mms://wmscnn.stream.aol.com/cnn/world/2005/07/22/eyewitness.london.shooting.affl.ws.wmv[/URL] with some eye witness acounts.[/QUOTE]


404. Anyone else?

 

[Art]

I found myself looking at the people in the background for evidence of coats and sweatshirts.

Did you notice the radio 1 sound man? how about the two black guys? The fat one had on a hefty Jacket.

Behind the oriental interviewee, I saw multiple 'fleece coats', one guy in what appeared to be a brown leather jacket and another in a pair of powder blue jeans who was there all he time in what appeared to be a padded jacket.

Never mind what was said. Believe your own eyes.

'Mike' also said that EVERYONE left with their heads covered. Were they thinking ... maybe I'm next?

Good points! I looked at it again in the light of your observations and during the interview with 'Mike' (@ 00.33 elapsed time) there was a black guy moved forward in front of the police van wearing a heavy jacket and appearing to adjust what looked like the straps to a back pack he was wearing. Definitely a guy living dangerously.

 

[Smurf]

404. Anyone else?

worked for me

 

[Anttech]

404. Anyone else?

open link target in a media player

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Good points! I looked at it again in the light of your observations and during the interview with 'Mike' (@ 00.33 elapsed time) there was a black guy moved forward in front of the police van wearing a heavy jacket and appearing to adjust what looked like the straps to a back pack he was wearing. Definitely a guy living dangerously.

Don't want to be the one to point out the bleeding obvious but the second interviewee was an Asian guy with ruck sack.

 

[brewnog]

Ok, it works now.

So, witness 1 says that he was "an asian guy" wearing "a thick, padded jacket, which I thought was unusual for this kind of weather".

The witness didn't even consider the possibility that he wasn't Asian.

I'm also interested to see that the poll results for "Shoot to kill" outnumber the other three options put together.

 

[Andy]

Just incase anyone missed it.

Origionally posted by some wise guy
The date is september the 12th 2001 and you are on a flying from (lets just say Iran) to Washington. All of a sudden you decide that you want to stretch your legs and go check on the pilot, so you start to walk to the front of the airplane. When you try to open the cockpit door someone shouts "STOP, ARMED POLICE!" Upon hearing this you burst through the door in pannick falling as you do.

Would you be surprised if you got shot in the back of the head?

So people would you be surprised?

P.S. Sorry mum couldn't resist!

 

[Smurf]

Ok, it works now.

So, witness 1 says that he was "an asian guy" wearing "a thick, padded jacket, which I thought was unusual for this kind of weather".

The witness didn't even consider the possibility that he wasn't Asian.

Sounds like that interview was the sole source for all the first reports on the incident.

I'm also interested to see that the poll results for "Shoot to kill" outnumber the other three options put together.

It was 50-50 yesterday

 

[Anttech]

Sounds like that interview was the sole source for all the first reports on the incident.

does it? what do you mean by first reports?

 

[Smurf]

does it? what do you mean by first reports?

The first news stories that went out about it. 5 shots, 'padded jacket', asian guy, 'fell' instead of 'pushed'. All the details that were later changed in other stories.