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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian man mistaken for a terrorist in the UK. Participants express their views on the implications of this incident for civil liberties, police conduct, and the broader societal context of security measures following recent terrorist attacks. The conversation touches on various aspects, including the justification for the use of deadly force, the actions of the police, and the reactions of the public and media.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express outrage at the shooting, labeling it as barbarism and questioning the justification for using deadly force against an unarmed individual.
  • Others acknowledge the complexity of the situation, suggesting that police may have felt compelled to act decisively in a high-stakes environment where they believed a suicide bomber could be present.
  • There is a discussion about the circumstances leading to the shooting, including the victim's behavior and attire, with some arguing that his running away was a natural reaction to being pursued by armed individuals who were not in uniform.
  • Participants note the confusion surrounding the police's identification and the victim's actions, with some questioning why he was wearing a heavy coat in warm weather and whether this contributed to the police's perception of him as a threat.
  • Eyewitness accounts are referenced, detailing the chaotic scene and the police's actions during the incident, which some participants find troubling and indicative of a broader issue regarding police authority and civil liberties.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the justification for the police's actions or the implications for civil liberties. Multiple competing views remain regarding the appropriateness of the police response and the context of the shooting.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the police's identification methods, the victim's behavior, and the circumstances leading to the shooting. Participants express uncertainty about the details of the incident and the broader implications for public safety and civil rights.

  • #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.