London Shooting: What would you have do?

[Art]

That's because you spelled it wrong.
Operation Kratos

Thanks Smurf, buddy Next time I see a Dane I'll stick a (fish)finger in his eye for you

 

[Burnsys]

andy., the problem with this kind of incident is that it set the precedent so the antiterrorist unit now can kill anyone they want and get away with it...

tomorrow may be one of the antiterrorist pals has a debt to someone, he can chase him down, place 5 shots in his head and say he thought he was a terrrorist... simply as that. No wonder if UK government think some people is pissing them off and is in their way. supected terrorist. bang... no more problem. This kind of things require the government to be all benevolent and corruption free, if not. you have no idea the power this things gives the goverment.

 

[Andy]

Tell me when the police would have had the chance to assess whether he was a risk or not?

I agree they should have stopped him a longtime before the station but that was one of their superiors faults for not giving them clearer instructions on what they should do.

 

[vanesch]

None of your facts have any relevance on why he was shot.

He didnt have a bomb, well if he was a suicide bomber and he did have a bomb it would be pretty stupid to ask him wouldn't it.

Terrorists don't need work permits.

He could have been a a saudi construction worker for all they knew.

How could they check his criminal record when they didnt know who he was until after the incident?

In what way does your logic prevent police from just shooting down just every slightly color-skinned person who approaches a railway station ?
"They MIGHT carry a bomb and kill a lot of innocents"
"There's no way to find out until we blow their brains out"
"Cannot check their background: imagine they blow themselves up before"

After all, this IS a policy that might reduce subway bombing. Until now, all bombers were dark-skinned.

 

[arildno]

Tell me when the police would have had the chance to assess whether he was a risk or not?

They had the damn house under surveillance!
What the hell did they do during all that time?

And again, no evidence has surfaced that De Menzes could be the cause for instituting that surveillance in the first place.

 

[Andy]

How does killing an innocent man set a precedent for the governement to kill more innocent people? It actually makes it harder for them now every single action that the police take is going to be screwtinised by the worlds media. They won't be able to get away with anything.

 

[Andy]

Could they see inside the house? And up until a few days after the event did they find out that he wasnt the cause for the surveilance, or that he wasnt a terrorist.

Hindsight is a fantastic thing isn't it.

 

[Joel]

the antiterrorist unit now can kill anyone they want and get away with it...

This is the part where I disagree. I think we ought to see what follows from this incident and only then judge what whom can get away with.

 

[arildno]

DELTA:
1.But it seems you do not understand how crucial these pieces of facts are in giving us insight in De Menzes' character.

2.Furthermore, ONLY by knowing what sort of man De Menzes was, can we make the all-important judgment on WHETHER OR NOT THE STORY OF TOLD BY THE POLICE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE TRUTH OR A LIE.

If De Menzes' reported behaviour pattern simply does not fit what we have learned about the guy, then there must be a flaw somewhere:
1) Either in the info we have on De Menzes
2) In the story told by the police
3) Or in our deductions based on (presumably true) 1), on how De Menzes would react.

It is only by this type of analysis that we can ascertain whether the still relevant issue of 2) is cause for alarm, or that we can say the police did its job.

Therefore, FACTS about De Menzes are crucial in any serious analysis of the tragedy.

Reposting a previous post.

 

[arildno]

Could they see inside the house? And up until a few days after the event did they find out that he wasnt the cause for the surveilance, or that he wasnt a terrorist.

Hindsight is a fantastic thing isn't it.

Andy:
This is called lying. They are lying to you.

 

[Andy]

The facts about de menzes wherent available to the officers at the time when they made their decision. If they knew he wasnt a terrorist then they wouldn't have followed him. But they didnt know that he wasnt a terrorist and with his actions (which where very suspicious under the circumstances) it led the officers into making the decision that they did.

 

[Burnsys]

How does killing an innocent man set a precedent for the governement to kill more innocent people? It actually makes it harder for them now every single action that the police take is going to be screwtinised by the worlds media. They won't be able to get away with anything.

No if the majority of the people is convinced to think they way you do.

 

[Joel]

Reposting a previous post.

Revision is the foundation of all learning.

 

[arildno]

The facts about de menzes wherent available to the officers at the time when they made their decision. If they knew he wasnt a terrorist then they wouldn't have followed him. But they didnt know that he wasnt a terrorist and with his actions (which where very suspicious under the circumstances) it led the officers into making the decision that they did.

Again, you don't appreciate the relevant issues:
We need to find out what type of man De Menzes was, in order to judge whether or not the police is lying about what happened that day.

 

[arildno]

Revision is the foundation of all learning.

I can't see I revised it before reposting it?

 

[Andy]

This is called lying. They are lying to you.

How do you know that they are lying? Show me some evidence that is 100% guarenteed. Until then i see there is no point trying to have a discussion with people that arent prepared to see things from the police perspective. Imagine yourself trying to decide whether this guy was innocent or not remembering that you have absolutely no knowledge of who this guy is.

 

[Andy]

No if the majority of the people is convinced to think they way you do.

What do i think about this then?

 

[Burnsys]

How do you know that they are lying? Show me some evidence that is 100% guarenteed. Until then i see there is no point trying to have a discussion with people that arent prepared to see things from the police perspective. Imagine yourself trying to decide whether this guy was innocent or not remembering that you have absolutely no knowledge of who this guy is.

WHY CANT WE SEE THE VIDEOS FROM THE SECURITY CAMERAS?

 

[arildno]

How do you know that they are lying? Show me some evidence that is 100% guarenteed. Until then i see there is no point trying to have a discussion with people that arent prepared to see things from the police perspective. Imagine yourself trying to decide whether this guy was innocent or not remembering that you have absolutely no knowledge of who this guy is.

That is the crucial issue, isn't it?

So, you agree that first and foremost, we must choose to analyze the situation in such a manner that to the best of our ability, we may determine whether the version given by the police should be regarded as either the truth or as a twisted version filled with half-truths and lies?

 

[Joel]

I can't see I revised it before reposting it?

Oh, no! I meant revision, as in what you do before an exam. That's revision isn't it? And it's good we learn what you said in that post! Now, forget my joke... Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

[Delta]

Facts found out about De Menzes after the event are irrelevant. All the man behind the gun knew was the risk to 100's of passengers, and it wasn't just based on colour but every unfortunate, almost freak, circumstance preceding that. I can't emphasize this enough but you are entitled to your opinions as this is afterall a debate.

Another question that's bugging me is why he started running over the ticket barriers. All the underground stations I've been through (and I've been through quite a few) have the barriers in a large area which then lead round a corner to long escalator with maybe another tunnel beyond. There is no chance of hearing, let alone seeing a tube train from the barriers. From the pics of the Stockwell layout this appears to be the same. And considering how often the tube trains arrive what was going on?

 

[Andy]

So, you agree that first and foremost, we must choose to analyze the situation in such a manner that to the best of our ability, we may regard the version given by the police either as the truth or a concoction of lies?

Yes we do need to analyse why this tragedy happened, but only when the FACTS have come out. As of yet i have seen far too much assumption on what happened.

I am not defending the way the operation was handled, i am only defending the police officers who where on the ground at the time, and as far as I and almost every other brit is concerned the officers did the right thing, but their superiors ****ed up by letting the situation get that far.

 

[arildno]

Facts found out about De Menzes after the event are irrelevant.

Not at all; they are crucial in assessing the veracity of the police's own statements.

All the man behind the gun knew was the risk to 100's of passengers, and it wasn't just based on colour but every unfortunate, almost freak, circumstance preceding that. I can't emphasize this enough but you are entitled to your opinions as this is afterall a debate.

These are merely exonerations given after the event. They cannot be regarded as reliable info.

Another question that's bugging me is why he started running over the ticket barriers.

You would also have done that if you had no idea the ones chasing you were police, but believing them to be a gang of murderous thugs out to get you.
Then you would have run; you would have been TERRIFIED, with good reason.

Again, De Menzes was INNOCENT!
Don't you understand why precisely that little piece of info that's been bugging you simply doesn't rhyme with the official reason given you?

 

[vanesch]

How do you know that they are lying? Show me some evidence that is 100% guarenteed. Until then i see there is no point trying to have a discussion with people that arent prepared to see things from the police perspective. Imagine yourself trying to decide whether this guy was innocent or not remembering that you have absolutely no knowledge of who this guy is.

I think you're missing the point. The discussion is not whether the police, based upon the information they had, made a decision which was wrong but understandable. The point is, given the fact that de Mendez is a normal man with a job, not a criminal etc... it doesn't make sense to claim that he ran away from correctly identified policemen. He ran, but for another reason, which could be one of 2 things: 1) he didn't see the policemen at all, he just ran for his train (so they DIDN'T identify themselves correctly and clearly) ; 2) he SAW the policemen but thought they were thugs with guns (so they DIDN'T identify themselves correctly and clearly).
The other point is that in the first declarations, the man was described as being more suspicious than he actually was: why would they say that he wore a long thick coat if that wasn't actually the case: if it is THE ELEMENT that makes you decide he's a potential bomber, you DON'T make a mistake about it. It is a bit like you said: "he was threatening me with a machine gun, sir, that's why I had to shoot!" and when evidence points out that the man didn't have such a machine gun after all, you say, "oh, well, maybe it was a cigarette". That's not the same thing as saying: "I think he had a moustache", and then it turns out that he didn't. That's understandable. But not if it is one of the main elements that made you make your decision to shoot.

 

[Joel]

Delta, facts the POLICE found about De Mendez is irrelevant. We may have received the facts later, the officer in pursuit may have found out about it later, but the police organization ought to have known a few simple facts about the guy they suspected. Why else did they suspect him?

 

[arildno]

I am not defending the way the operation was handled, i am only defending the police officers who where on the ground at the time, and as far as I and almost every other brit is concerned the officers did the right thing, but their superiors ****ed up by letting the situation get that far.

No, you are defending them on the assumption that they are telling the truth.
We already have more than enough facts and reasonable deductions to regard their telling the truth as highly improbable.

 

[Andy]

Because he was followed from a house under surveilance.

Vanesch, your assuming to much just like everybody else. We are never going to know what de menzes was thinking when he chose to run and we are never going to find out whether the police identified themselves or whether de menzes understood them or not.

 

[Andy]

We already have more than enough facts

What facts? The only fact that is relevant to the action the police took is that he didnt have a bomb, but at the time the police could not know whether he did or didnt have a bomb.

 

[arildno]

Andy:
You and Delta are clinging yourself to the fantasy that the police always tells the truth.

The facts already known, and standard scientific knowledge of human psychology makes it highly improbable that the police is telling the truth.

 

[Joel]

So, why are we having this discussion, Andy? Obviously we cannot know what other people think, but we can argue our way to a more or less probable course of action. That's what this is all about.

 

[arildno]

What facts? The only fact that is relevant to the action the police took is that he didnt have a bomb, but at the time the police could not know whether he did or didnt have a bomb.

These facts shows that we had to do with a normal man with the ability to hold a steady job.
The next step is to apply standard scientific psychological reasoning as to how De Menzes would react if the police's version is true.

 

[Delta]

The facts already known

What facts?

You and Delta are clinging yourself to the fantasy that the police always tells the truth.

I think you're being clung to conspiracy theories. That the marksmen in question was some bent trigger happy copper, protected by corrupt authorities.

I agree with the results of the poll, that if I was in their shoes with the limited information I would of had, the events of july 7 and 21, the risk of 100's of deaths in the tube ahead, a shoot to kill was the only option to that officer.

I repeat however we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch, your assuming to much just like everybody else. We are never going to know what de menzes was thinking when he chose to run and we are never going to find out whether the police identified themselves or whether de menzes understood them or not.

Yes, that's true. However, given the fact that OTHER, verifiable factual information was initially erroneous (the coat), what makes you believe that de menzes' behaviour was different from what you expect from a normal man, just in order to fit the explanations of the police ?
If you know that your wife is a normal woman, you have a good relationship and she has a small green car, and someone comes and tells you that he shot your wife in her red sportscar (we had to, she was driving away soo fast), because she's a prostitute working for the mafia and she was going to kill the Queen, you can say: "****, Carol a prostitute working for the mafia ?? Planning to kill the Queen ? Never thought that of her !"
And later you find out she's killed in her small green car, and you tell that to the policeman, he just says ; ah, yes, true, after all, she didn't have a red sportscar in which she drove away quickly...
And you say: "yeah, we'll never know whether and why she planned to kill the Queen"
...

come on !

 

[arildno]

What facts?




I agree with the results of the poll, that if I was in their shoes with the limited information I would of had, the events of july 7 and 21, the risk of 100's of deaths in the tube ahead, a shoot to kill was the only option to that officer.

I repeat however we are all entitled to our opinions.

Again, you are confusing verified facts with statements to be verified.

The police's report as to what they knew or did is NOT facts; they are statements whose veracity needs to be made probable.

 

[Andy]

Again i ask you to present these so called facts. I may be assuming that the police's version is correct, but for what reason do you have to doubt why they followed him from the flat to the station? It appears to me that your assuming everything the police has said is a lie.

I put it down to piss poor communication between the officers on the ground and their superiors. And the superior officer not knowing what to do until it got too late and they had run out of options.

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.