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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alexandra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Civil Loss Uk
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian man mistakenly identified as a terrorist in London. Witnesses reported that he was pinned down and shot multiple times by plainclothes officers, raising significant concerns about police protocols and civil liberties. The incident has sparked outrage, with family members and the public questioning the justification for the use of deadly force in this case. The discussion highlights the complexities of police engagement with suspected terrorists and the implications for civil rights in the UK.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of UK police use of force policies
  • Familiarity with civil liberties and human rights concepts
  • Knowledge of the context surrounding terrorism threats in urban areas
  • Awareness of the role of eyewitness accounts in legal and public discourse
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Association of Police Officers' manual on firearms deployment
  • Examine case studies of police engagement with suspected terrorists
  • Investigate the impact of public perception on police accountability
  • Explore legal frameworks governing police use of deadly force in the UK
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for civil rights activists, law enforcement professionals, legal scholars, and anyone interested in the intersection of public safety and individual liberties.

  • #631
Daminc said:
I'm sure you are aware that witnessess make bad witnessess. If there was 30 witnessess it would be unlikely that any of them would see the same thing. The trick, I think, is to listen to all of them and find the correlations. It takes a lot of training to observe details in a high stress situation.
But why that part of her statement? After all, she is the only person to have correctly counted the number of shots fired. It seems odd to deem her a credible enough witness to make a statement, then to omit part of the statement she seemed spot-on about.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #632
arildno said:
Since a SINGLE head shot wound is most often immediately incapacitating (and probably fatal), the fact that he was shot a multiple number of times in his head should, by itself, raise grave doubts as to what actually went on within the shooter's heads.
Correction.

The reports saod he was shot at the base of the skull ... the medulla oblongata to sever the brain stem and prevent all voluntary and autonomic functions from taking place.

Even the Mafia only resorts to a 'double tap'.

People keep stating 'remote detonation'. This is the process specifically used to combat this situation. So three guys have taken out your bomber who is now laid on the floor under their combined weight... dead.

A 'remote detonator' is a person who secretes himself within the bystanders but out of the blast range and uses a cell phone or a radio controlled trigger to set off the bomb delibeately taking out the security forces who took him down and any other opportune target.
 
  • #633
I was speaking about 'either/or'. If intel had got 'reliable' information that an individual had a remote detonator on him OR a person was an actual walking bomb then the method of take-down would be the same.

But why that part of her statement? After all, she is the only person to have correctly counted the number of shots fired. It seems odd to deem her a credible enough witness to make a statement, then to omit part of the statement she seemed spot-on about.
That news article said she counted the rounds as she was running away. Is that right?
Also, a previous article said that the surveillance guy, whilst holding the victim, heard one shot and then several more. I don't think he mentioned anything about the timing of the shots. It would be unlikely IMO that the guy would hold onto the victim for very long.

These timing issues seem a bit odd to me.
 
  • #635
Cheers for the heads up arildno :smile:

It'll be interesting to see what conclusions they arrive at.