News The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties: Innocent Man Shot Dead in UK

[Smurf]

So? What's your point?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I don't want to sound callus or anything but is there any reason why Ian Blair should care about how the family feels?

Apparently not, hence he spread and allowed the spreading of lies to make it sound like Menezes had it coming. I'm sure he'd deem you an apt replacement, should calls for his resignation bear fruit.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

How many "leaders of men" could be classed as 'decent'?

Whether in the Force, Politics or Business the leaders are not know to be 'decent' and they are not penelised for it.

Why did you expend so much effort in exonerating them, then?

 

[outsider]

Yeah, I should read from the bottom up, huh. Thanks for your... forgiveness.

haha.. that's ok I do it myself...

 

[Art]

I see Sky News are having an on-line poll as to whether or not Sir Ian Blair should resign. It's running at 66% no at the moment. The police must be out voting in 'force'

 

[The Smoking Man]

I see Sky News are having an on-line poll as to whether or not Sir Ian Blair should resign. It's running at 66% no at the moment. The police must be out voting in 'force'

Yeah, them and the BNP.

 

[The Smoking Man]

How many "leaders of men" could be classed as 'decent'?

Whether in the Force, Politics or Business the leaders are not know to be 'decent' and they are not penelised for it.

Except that in this case, he has sparked an international incident which has seen the foreign minister for Brazil make multiple visits to UK representatives AND the Brazilians are being allowed to bring in their own investigative team to question the 'shooters'.

What you fail to note is that we are 'hearing' one thing from Blair, seeing something contradictory in the evidence and barely a mention is being made of the international government reaction. (Spin control ... Blair is still talking to draw your attention away from the international incident)

de Menezes' family keeps talking to draw your attention back to it.

 

[arildno]

Note also the disgusting form of spin control Blair STILL is doing; namely, consistently linking the death of De Menezes to all those who died in the terrorist attacks.

This is extremely disrespectful of him; not only towards De Menezes and his family, but also towards those who died in these awful bombings.
He is simply using the victims of these atrocities in a game where he hopes to get out scot-free..

 

[arildno]

De Menezes' family refuses blood money:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1742573,00.html

 

[Art]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1742573,00.html

It would appear this is why one of the members of the IPCC leaked the report

There is also certain to be a row over claims last night that it may take years before the IPCC’s findings are published.

Officials there have confirmed to The Times that their files have to go to the coroner and possibly the Crown Prosecution Service and cannot be published until a decision has been taken on an inquest and the possible prosecution of officers involved in the shooting.

On past experience, it could well be 2008 before anyone appears in court, if at all.

 

[arildno]

I am quite certain that the reason why the (now suspended) official chose to disclose this information, is that he sensed by conversations with his superiors and the way in which the various evidence should be weighted that if he didn't choose to disclose this information, the "independent" investigation would degenerate into an exoneration attempt.

It may well be that by his unsanctioned action, this will no longer be the likely outcome.

I applaud his actions; to dispel lies insinuating that De Menezes was probably mentally unstable and therefore ran away, rather than approaching the police with his hands in full view for them is not to be disloyal (or at least, no one wanting to keep these allegations alive has any claim for loyalty from anyone).

 

[arildno]

We also have the disgusting case of drowning the events in patently false witness statements:

10.30am: Witnesses report that up to 20 undercover officers chased him into station and say he was wearing a padded coat and leapt ticket barrier

It was one of the eager "public" witnesses who made this lie.
Yeah, sure!
How should the media know whether this so-called "witness" wasn't in fact a PLAIN-CLOTHES SURVEILLANCE OFFICER?

from what I've gathered, this so-called witness was reputedly a photo shop assistant; I bet you could trawl through every photo shop in the Greater London area and not find this guy.
This piece of misinformation, so blatantly untrue, was planted by the police.

By initiating lots of wild rumours, authorities are able to control what the general public should think, becuse due to the bewildering mass of evidence, there is basically no sure way for the outsider to determine which witness statements is, in fact, reliable; hence, he will wait upon and accept the government version of the truth.


EDIT:
One might think that the witness was a mere attention seeker who got a thrill out of telling a tall tale to the media; but how probable is it that SEVERAL SUCH WACKOS WERE AT STOCKWELL THAT DAY??
For, in addition to the guy mentioned above, you have another guy who tells another, blatantly untrue story:
In this case, De Menezes sprints onto the train looking terrified as a rabbit, and lots of wires and other suspicious bomb-stuff is sticking out of his jacket (not a coat here).
The simplest explanation is that both this witness and the former were plain-clothes surveillance officers cooking up lies to serve the media, not that two wackos were present that day.

 

[The Smoking Man]

We also have the disgusting case of drowning the events in patently false witness statements:


It was one of the eager "public" witnesses who made this lie.
Yeah, sure!
How should the media know whether this so-called "witness" wasn't in fact a PLAIN-CLOTHES SURVEILLANCE OFFICER?

from what I've gathered, this so-called witness was reputedly a photo shop assistant; I bet you could trawl through every photo shop in the Greater London area and not find this guy.
This piece of misinformation, so blatantly untrue, was planted by the police.

By initiating lots of wild rumours, authorities are able to control what the general public should think, becuse due to the bewildering mass of evidence, there is basically no sure way for the outsider to determine which witness statements is, in fact, reliable; hence, he will wait upon and accept the government version of the truth.


EDIT:
One might think that the witness was a mere attention seeker who got a thrill out of telling a tall tale to the media; but how probable is it that SEVERAL SUCH WACKOS WERE AT STOCKWELL THAT DAY??
For, in addition to the guy mentioned above, you have another guy who tells another, blatantly untrue story:
In this case, De Menezes sprints onto the train looking terrified as a rabbit, and lots of wires and other suspicious bomb-stuff is sticking out of his jacket (not a coat here).
The simplest explanation is that both this witness and the former were plain-clothes surveillance officers cooking up lies to serve the media, not that two wackos were present that day.

LOL ...

The theory I heard was that the 'witness' didn't see the suspect at all. What he actually saw was one of the surveilance team who first went over the barrier in persuit.

That answers a lot of questions when you think about it.

 

[arildno]

Since the surveillance team took great care of not revealing themselves to De Menezes at any time before indirectly a few seconds before De Menezes was killed, that explanation of the statement is rather unlikely.
However, there is a possibility that this can be verified as the truth, since the surveillance team should then be visible on the footage from the cameras.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Since the surveillance team took great care of not revealing themselves to De Menezes at any time before indirectly a few seconds before De Menezes was killed, that explanation of the statement is rather unlikely.

Not really. He wasn't the witness. He could have been half way down the escelator by the time the cop jumped the gate and was mistakenly identified by the 'witness'.

However, there is a possibility that this can be verified as the truth, since the surveillance team should then be visible on the footage from the cameras.

Nope. The cameras were disabled the day before because of the other bombers if you read the reports. They took the recording media out for evidence.

 

[arildno]

There was footage of de Menezes' passing the barrier quietly; so why shouldn't the cameras pick up the surveillance team after him?
From what I understood, cameras were lacking where they could have documented the actual shooting.
None of this, however, explains that other guy's testimony who asserted that all sorts of wires were sticking out of de menezes' jacket.

 

[The Smoking Man]

None of this, however, explains that other guy's testimony who asserted that all sorts of wires were sticking out of de menezes' jacket.

Yes it does ... cops are wired with communications gear.

 

[arildno]

Yes it does ... cops are wired with communications gear.

well, that might explain the two witness statements, i guess.

 

[arildno]

Reconstruction of events from The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1744419_1,00.html

 

[arildno]

LOL ...

The theory I heard was that the 'witness' didn't see the suspect at all. What he actually saw was one of the surveilance team who first went over the barrier in persuit.

That answers a lot of questions when you think about it.

Read the blatantly untrue witness statement from "Mark Whitby", then:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article307349.ece

One witness, Mark Whitby, told BBC News he had seen Jean Charles - whom he described as an "Asian guy" - being pursued on to the train by armed officers. He had been sitting in the carriage, and saw the incident at close quarters. "As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified. He sort of tripped but they were hotly pursuing him and couldn't have been more than two or three feet behind him at this time.

"He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor. The policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand, he held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.

"He looked like a Pakistani but he had a baseball cap on, and quite a thickish coat.

Now, this is a neatly sewn together pack of lies, not the kind of jumbled and confused, yet honest, account one might naturally expect from a distraught member of the public.
Perhaps Mr. Whitby was a mere attention seeker who wanted his 15 minutes of fame.
But then again, perhaps he was not.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Read the blatantly untrue witness statement from "Mark Whitby", then:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article307349.ece



Now, this is a neatly sewn together pack of lies, not the kind of jumbled and confused, yet honest, account one might naturally expect from a distraught member of the public.
Perhaps Mr. Whitby was a mere attention seeker who wanted his 15 minutes of fame.
But then again, perhaps he was not.

Yup ... and another witness states that it was the police that put their 'baseball hats on'.

Now ... no doubt this was what happened as he perceived it.

But consider this:

Jean Charles was already on the train and seated.

A cop who looks Asian, with a padded coat and baseball cap enters the train and scans the crowd looking for Jean Charles closely followed by his compatriots.

The witness looks up and sees this individual then get into a scuffle with the real Jean Charles.

He sees a gun drawn and fired into somebody ... there are three of them on the floor and one holding a gun.

Where do you think our witness is at this point? Do you think he is still casually seated across from all this eating popcorn? Where would YOU be?

Maybe the number of bullets fired will give you the answer. Witnesses say that they heard 5 bullets. Maybe that's true. Maybe they were not witnesses to the other 6 bullets being fired!? Maybe he was half way up the escalator preparing his speech for the cameras while that happened and didn't actually see the fact that it wasn't the cop in the baseball hat and padded coat that was shot but the other guy in the denim jacket?​

 

[arildno]

There isn't the slightest mention of an officer screaming at the top of his voice "He's here!" while forcing the closed doors open with those officers outside.
no mention of a guy getting up from his seat advancing towards this group of individuals.

I won't pursue this anymore, another quite likely alternative is that Mr. Whitby didn't see a damn thing, felt that he "ought" to have seen something because he was so close, but wouldn't want to have his inobservantness exposed when interviewed by national media (that would make him seem like a fool, right?).
Hence, he cobbled together some story that sounded okayish.

 

[The Smoking Man]

There isn't the slightest mention of an officer screaming at the top of his voice "He's here!" while forcing the closed doors open with those officers outside.
no mention of a guy getting up from his seat advancing towards this group of individuals.

I won't pursue this anymore, another quite likely alternative is that Mr. Whitby didn't see a damn thing, felt that he "ought" to have seen something because he was so close, but wouldn't want to have his inobservantness exposed when interviewed by national media (that would make him seem like a fool, right?).
Hence, he cobbled together some story that sounded okayish.

You're preaching to the choir here. I feel about this the same as you. Be careful though about what you type. I have never seen any mention of the police forcing the doors to the train either from witnesses or the police.

From your link:

What police said - and what really happened

The police claim: A man of "Asian appearance", behaving suspiciously, is shot dead by police on a Tube train in Stockwell.

The truth: The dead man, Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was Brazilian.

The police claim: His shooting was "directly linked" to the investigation into the London bombings.

The truth: Mr de Menezes was an electrician and had nothing to do with the London bombings.

The police claim: Witnesses described him running into the Tube station, vaulting the barriers.

The truth: He walked into the station and picked up a free newspaper before entering with a travel pass. He made his way to the platform. He started to run only when the train arrived.

The police claim: Witnesses said he was wearing an "unseasonable" heavy coat, and Scotland Yard said his clothing had "added to suspicions".

The truth: Photographs of the body show Mr de Menezes wearing a blue denim jacket.

The police claim: "As I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions" - Sir Ian Blair.

The truth: There was no police challenge.

The police claim: Mr de Menezes ran on to the Tube train, tripped and was shot five times by police as he lay on the floor.

The truth: CCTV footage is said to show Mr de Menezes pausing, looking left and right, and sitting on a seat facing the platform. A police witness says Mr de Menezes stood up when the police arrived. The policeman then pinned his arms to his sides and pushed him back in the seat. Mr de Menezes was then shot 10 times - three of the bullets missed.

I also contend that Mr. Whitby could very well have been from the Unit responsible for the shooting since nobody knows their identities or appearance... A plant in other words to facilitate 'the big lie'.

 

[arildno]

You're preaching to the choir here. I feel about this the same as you. Be careful though about what you type. I have never seen any mention of the police forcing the doors to the train either from witnesses or the police.

That is possibly a misunderstanding on my part:
Agent "Hotel 3" testified that he put his foot between the doors, so that the approaching team could get entrance.
I interpreted this to mean that the train was about to leave, with H3's foot jammed between the door and hence, if trains in London works the same way as in Oslo, preventing the train from leaving. I then assumed that the team and H3 had jointly prised the doors open.

It is, of course possible (probable?) that H3 made a preemptive move against such events, and merely positioned his foot in the opening so that in the event of the doors closing, forcing the doors would be possible.

 

[champ2823]

Ok, this is something that I find strange about this attack and other people that have been killed because police thought they were terrorists...Why did they shoot him in the torso? If this guy or whoever really was a suicide bomber, then why shoot him in the torso where the bomb would most likely be? The manuals that state how to address a suicide bomber state that the individual be shot in the head and specifically not in the torso region as this could possibly cause the bomb to go off. I feel that this is a highly unacceptable tragedy but that question still puzzles me.

 

[Daminc]

Why did you expend so much effort in exonerating them, then?

I'm not. Like I said before, it doesn't really affect me one way or another. It's just that the comments made by yourself and others are one-sided and more than a little biased (again, I'm not saying you are wrong in your opinions, just that you're not being objective)so I thought I'd counter balance your comments by providing alternative senarios.

 

[Daminc]

So? What's your point?

My point is simple. To people like us life is relatively simple. The desisions we have to make rarely have wide effecting consequences. 'Leaders' however have to make desisions that effect the lives of many. It's their responsibility to keep the whole machine running smoothly not placitate individuals.

That type of position can lead to a certain amount of detachment that is necessary to continue the job of leading.

This detachment is seen by the majority as 'not caring' or 'non decent' etc

 

[arildno]

Ok, this is something that I find strange about this attack and other people that have been killed because police thought they were terrorists...Why did they shoot him in the torso? If this guy or whoever really was a suicide bomber, then why shoot him in the torso where the bomb would most likely be? The manuals that state how to address a suicide bomber state that the individual be shot in the head and specifically not in the torso region as this could possibly cause the bomb to go off. I feel that this is a highly unacceptable tragedy but that question still puzzles me.

The DID shoot him in the head; from the pathologist's report, De Menezes had 7 head wounds, and 1 in the shoulder.

 

[champ2823]

Yeah arildno, I wasn't too clear but I'm more so talking about previous incidents.

 

[arildno]

Yeah arildno, I wasn't too clear but I'm more so talking about previous incidents.

As for previous incidents, I couldn't really say.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I'm not. Like I said before, it doesn't really affect me one way or another. It's just that the comments made by yourself and others are one-sided and more than a little biased (again, I'm not saying you are wrong in your opinions, just that you're not being objective)so I thought I'd counter balance your comments by providing alternative senarios.

Eh? Let me figure this one out. An innocent man is shot seven times in the head. The reason we are given is that he was a suspected terrorist, despite the fact that he was not carrying anything that may have concealed a bomb. We soon learned that the British public was being consistently misinformed by the police and by the home office. All of these things advised the opinion of myself and others and as time has progressed our opinions have been proven more and more well-founded. Your 'counter balance' consistently took the view that the police's actions were, while unfortunate, justified under the circumstances. Where was your evidence for this? From facts (e.g. the man was not carrying anything that could have concealed a bomb, or that he did not behave in any way that suggested he was involved in terrorist groups or was planning a terrorist attack), or in fact from invented suppositions on your part? For instance:

IMO there is a greater possibility that the group that killed the suspect was SF rather than police. Our SF have a different set of priorities than our police.

Also, if the group were trailing him they would probably be in constant contact with a command centre relaying information. It is possible that it was them that ordered the group to take the suspect down.

If the victim had turned out to be a terrorist there'd be a different tune playing.

Looking from a pursuers point of view it may have seen like he is trying to get to a designated target point. Also, fear does strange things to a persons thinking. A terrorist might have panicedand ran for it. Personally if an armed sucurity force challenged me I would stick my hands up and do exactly what they told me to do...wouldn't you? Then again if I'd have something to hide I might run.

Your entire angle on this thread has been that whatever reasons the police had, they were justifiable at the time. Why? Could it be because of your endorsement of the STK policy perchance? No, not biased are you?

 

[arildno]

Now, I am not quite certain about the legalistic finery concerning the "shoot-to-kill" policy, however I would like to say that we must grant our police the right to shoot to the point of killing in clear, unequivocal emergency situations (say, a hostage situation, or armed robbers opening fire against police forces).

While I believe that the UK policy here has gotten out of hand, we shouldn't espouse a view that there are never any circumstances in which the police may be justified in killing someone, in the line of duty.

 

[Smurf]

Well duh. That's why we give them guns. But when they cross the line, they better as hell be dealt with accordingly. They are not above the law. And they've bloody well crossed the line.

 

[Smurf]

My point is simple. To people like us life is relatively simple. The desisions we have to make rarely have wide effecting consequences. 'Leaders' however have to make desisions that effect the lives of many. It's their responsibility to keep the whole machine running smoothly not placitate individuals.

That type of position can lead to a certain amount of detachment that is necessary to continue the job of leading.

This detachment is seen by the majority as 'not caring' or 'non decent' etc

Daminc, this isn't about "Detachtment". This is about the CHIEF OF POLICE, one of the highest authorities in london, Flat-out LYING to the people to cover his own arse and the arses of the people who committed a heinous crime. Oh yeah, POOR HIM. He's the real victim here, all that stress from having to choose which fake testimonies to go with.

 

[arildno]

Well duh. That's why we give them guns. But when they cross the line, they better as hell be dealt with accordingly. They are not above the law. And they've bloody well crossed the line.

I think so, too.
However, I do not know the legal ramifications of the so-called STK-policy well enough to know whether the police action against De Menezes crossed the line as drawn up in that policy (which will be a crucial point in determining the legal culpability of the officers involved, however much I regard them as mere executioners of an innocent man).

 

[arildno]

Is this degenerating into crying match?

In the following article from The Times, ample coverage is given to the opinions of a woman that lost her sister in one of the bombings.
She thinks it is awful that the 52 victims are "forgotten" and that the upstanding UK police doesn't deserve this "harassment", even though she feels for De Menezes' family.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1745420_2,00.html

 

[Smurf]

... Is it just me or is there a lapse in logic that she's supporting the same organization that failed to protect her sister for killing an innocent man themselves.

 

[arildno]

I don't think the UK police deserves to be blamed as incompetent because they failed to prevent the initial bombings by some isolated Muslim lunatics whatever their said relationship to the Madrid bombers.

 

[Smurf]

I know, just pointing it out.

 

[arildno]

I think a deeply grieving woman who has lost her sister in this tragic manner may be excused a few lapses of logic.

However, what I do find inexcusable in this matter, is that neither the interviewing journalist, nor the editors had the decency to point out to her this in a compassionate manner (and, basically, refuse to print the story).
Instead, they choose to make a head-liner by exploiting her private suffering.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Now, I am not quite certain about the legalistic finery concerning the "shoot-to-kill" policy, however I would like to say that we must grant our police the right to shoot to the point of killing in clear, unequivocal emergency situations (say, a hostage situation, or armed robbers opening fire against police forces).

While I believe that the UK policy here has gotten out of hand, we shouldn't espouse a view that there are never any circumstances in which the police may be justified in killing someone, in the line of duty.

I don't. As I've stated many times before, where a scenario in which STK would be the only means of resolution were to crop up, I would endorse it. This is a roundabout way of saying I accept the police should have the right to shoot-to-kill. However, it is a policy that should be used with intelligence, not instead of intelligence.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

My point is simple. To people like us life is relatively simple. The desisions we have to make rarely have wide effecting consequences. 'Leaders' however have to make desisions that effect the lives of many. It's their responsibility to keep the whole machine running smoothly not placitate individuals.

That type of position can lead to a certain amount of detachment that is necessary to continue the job of leading.

This detachment is seen by the majority as 'not caring' or 'non decent' etc

To echo Smurf's sentiment in part, no-one is arguing about the need for detachment and objectivity (although seven bullets in the head to stop a suspect does not come across as detached to me). This does not, however, allow Blair to launch what amounts to a character assassination to obfuscate the ineffectiveness and gross negligence of his staff, especially when the information he employs is fabricated. Not caring about the consequences of such an action is not 'detachment', but downright indecent and callous.

 

[outsider]

It appears that the police have clearly overstepped their boundaries in this case... and then tried to cover it up... shame. I will be away from PF for a few days. have fun.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I think so, too.
However, I do not know the legal ramifications of the so-called STK-policy well enough to know whether the police action against De Menezes crossed the line as drawn up in that policy (which will be a crucial point in determining the legal culpability of the officers involved, however much I regard them as mere executioners of an innocent man).

The legal ramifications are basically that if the surveillance team does not back up the CO19 officers responsible, criminal proceedings may (and should) follow. To employ STK, there must be evidence that the target poses an immediate threat. However, when CO19 turned up on the scene, this judgement had been made by one man and one man alone, and he was of the view that he did not pose a threat. The target had already been apprehended, and CO19 had no directives other than to detain the target. The shooting occurred with no intelligence justification, and the surveillence team at present seem reluctant to pretend there was. The main point here is that no intelligence as to the security risk of the target had been disclosed to the shooters, so they had no just cause to use arms. The shooters acted on their own, without directive from their commander (I forget her name) or information from surveillance, thus a crime has been committed.

Just in case anyone's wondering exactly who is requesting support from the surveillance team, it is not the shooters. Both are on holiday, one was pre-planned, the other was fast-tracked by Blair himself after the shooting. Seems an odd time to take unplanned leave, huh? Unless, that is, somebody wants them out of the way. After all, if you're implementing a cover-up, the last thing you want is the people who know the truth getting in the way and opening their big, stupid mouths. No, that's just absurd isn't it. Much less absurd that no-one has anything to hide and just by amazing coincidence Blair felt the shooter needed some well-earned rest, no doubt after a job well done, right when the shooters and Blair are involved in the biggest human rights and police cock-up scandal in many years. Hmmmm, I could get used to this fingers-in-ears, wilfully ignorant, blind,-naive-faith-against-blatent-truth way of thinking.

 

[arildno]

The legal ramifications are basically that if the surveillance team does not back up the CO19 officers responsible, criminal proceedings may (and should) follow. To employ STK, there must be evidence that the target poses an immediate threat. However, when CO19 turned up on the scene, this judgement had been made by one man and one man alone, and he was of the view that he did not pose a threat.

So THAT's why "Hotel3" said that it was because he was fearing for the public's safety that he laid hands upon De Menezes!
That's basically a judgment that he had "evidence" for De Menezes being an immediate threat, right?

 

[Daminc]

All of these things advised the opinion of myself and others and as time has progressed our opinions have been proven more and more well-founded. Your 'counter balance' consistently took the view that the police's actions were, while unfortunate, justified under the circumstances. Where was your evidence for this? From facts (e.g. the man was not carrying anything that could have concealed a bomb, or that he did not behave in any way that suggested he was involved in terrorist groups or was planning a terrorist attack), or in fact from invented suppositions on your part?

The comments I made were valid at the time I made them based on what information I had at the time. As time has progressed more information has come to light which has made things a lot more dodgy.

Daminc, this isn't about "Detachtment". This is about the CHIEF OF POLICE, one of the highest authorities in london, Flat-out LYING to the people to cover his own arse and the arses of the people who committed a heinous crime. Oh yeah, POOR HIM. He's the real victim here, all that stress from having to choose which fake testimonies to go with.

I won't even bother replying to that.

Your entire angle on this thread has been that whatever reasons the police had, they were justifiable at the time. Why? Could it be because of your endorsement of the STK policy perchance? No, not biased are you?

I am aware of the military law with regards to discharging a weapon. Based on the information I had at the time (wrong information as it's turned out) then there would have been justification. However, in the military if a soldier discharges his weapon without express permission they are automatically court-martialed to give an account. If the evidence supports their justification then they are let go.

As far as I'm concerned the person who shoot the victim should be held accountable to try and justify his/her actions. If he cannot then he should be punished.

To echo Smurf's sentiment in part, no-one is arguing about the need for detachment and objectivity (although seven bullets in the head to stop a suspect does not come across as detached to me). This does not, however, allow Blair to launch what amounts to a character assassination to obfuscate the ineffectiveness and gross negligence of his staff, especially when the information he employs is fabricated. Not caring about the consequences of such an action is not 'detachment', but downright indecent and callous.

1) I wasn't referring to the person who shot the victim.
2) Character assassination is pathetic which is probably why I have zero respect for politicians.
3)Callous...probably. Indecent...I'm not so sure. Is it indecent for the leaders of this country to allow the homeless to remain without homes? Was it indecent to send our boys to war? Is it indecent to have alcohol and tabacco legally available considering how many deaths are directly linked to it.

We can discuss morals and ethics if you like

 

[Smurf]

I won't even bother replying to that.

Good. It was a joke and doesn't warrant a reply.

2) Character assassination is pathetic which is probably why I have zero respect for politicians.

Then why are you defending him for doing just that?

 

[arildno]

The comments I made were valid at the time I made them based on what information I had at the time. As time has progressed more information has come to light which has made things a lot more dodgy.

Not really.
You knew that De Menezes was innocent, but deemed that as irrelevant.
However, an innocent man will act differently from a guilty man
(unless you basically assume that De Menezes was mentally unstable).

Thus, when the police description you had at your disposal tried very fervently to portray De Menezes as acting suspiciously, then you essentially concluded that De Menezes must have been insane, rather than that the official report was wrong.

However, you also knew that De Menezes had been capable of holding a job as an electrician; if you think about it, the ability to hold a job makes it improbable that De Menezes had serious mental problems.

That is, from what you knew of De Menezes' character, the whole police story ought to have sounded very fishy.
De Menezes' innocence was never irrelevant here, although many in these threads dismissed it at such at the beginning.

EDIT:
Note that one of the major facets where explicit doubts were raised here at PF was whether the police had in fact challenged him at all.
We could have accepted the chase, but NOT if the police had properly identified themselves!
It simply didn't fit.

At the time, I was at the verge of posting a theory of mine as to why De Menezes would have run if he hadn't been challenged properly:
It is a sad fact that many Latin Americans have worked as drug traffickers in the past, and this was almost certainly well-known to De Menezes.
Hence, if a gang of civilians comes rushing at you, wouldn't your first thought as a Brazilian be "Oh my god! These are mobsters who have misidentified me as a disloyal drug trafficker!"
In such a scenario, I at least, would have sprinted for my life..

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The comments I made were valid at the time I made them based on what information I had at the time. As time has progressed more information has come to light which has made things a lot more dodgy.

I am aware of the military law with regards to discharging a weapon. Based on the information I had at the time (wrong information as it's turned out) then there would have been justification. However, in the military if a soldier discharges his weapon without express permission they are automatically court-martialed to give an account. If the evidence supports their justification then they are let go.

You had the exact same information as the rest of us - de Menezes was not concealing a bomb. The possibility he may have been is the ONLY justification for his killing. However, NOT based on the information you had available, more based on wishful thinking, were your many suppositions that there were behind-the-scenes dialogue and extenuating circumstances unknown to us that justified the shooting. This is WHY, as time has progressed, your assertion has proved invalid - there was no basis for it other than blind faith in the capability of our police force.

1) I wasn't referring to the person who shot the victim.
2) Character assassination is pathetic which is probably why I have zero respect for politicians.
3)Callous...probably. Indecent...I'm not so sure. Is it indecent for the leaders of this country to allow the homeless to remain without homes? Was it indecent to send our boys to war? Is it indecent to have alcohol and tabacco legally available considering how many deaths are directly linked to it.

1. It was an aside comment. Notice the parentheses?
2. Agreed. And that lack of respect for politicians is why I don't swallow every bit of misinformation they cascade.
3. Well, it depends on whether you consider yourself a compassionate person or not. de Menezes' family had just lost a loved one, brutally slain for no reason. That, a compassionate person may think, is bad enough. They then had to suffer Blair's attempts at character assassination of de Menezes. If you don't consider that indecent, then...

We can discuss morals and ethics if you like

... I doubt you are capable.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

So THAT's why "Hotel3" said that it was because he was fearing for the public's safety that he laid hands upon De Menezes!
That's basically a judgment that he had "evidence" for De Menezes being an immediate threat, right?

That would be news to me. In all reprints of his interview I read, he did not say he was fearing for the public's safety. Can you point me to your source?