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

[Daminc]

Special Forces are way more clean than that! If he was a SF hit, we wouldn't know about it, don't remeber all the Irish who "vanished" into thin air during the IRA campaigns?

I also remember the Gibraltar shootings.

It is criminally amateurish to allow a terrorist suspect alive into a railway station filled by civilians.
There are only two options:
1) Either accept that the ones in the operation were inept amateurs who should be dismissed immmediately from the forces
2) That they were more thrilled at chasing the fellow than protecting the general public, in which case they also should be dismissed summarily.

This is easy to say and very shallow

Perhaps if we were all gifted with hindsight we would have done things differently.

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

 

[arildno]

There were never any good reasons to regard him as a terrorist.

 

[Daminc]

There were never any good reasons to regard him as a terrorist.

I can't comment on that. All I've got to go on is the press and public statements and I never trust any of them without some sort of collaboration from a neutral source.

 

[arildno]

Yes you do; don't go about lying. You have gobbled up the version given by the police and believes that to be true.

 

[Burnsys]

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

If the victim had turned out to be a terrorist he has been detonated plenty of time before he gets shot

 

[Daminc]

There were never any good reasons to regard him as a terrorist.

Well, I am a good friend of Daminc, and I'm well versed in "security issues".

After an attack like that, against our civilian transport system, you have to think on your feet. If someone was followed for security reasons (who had false documentation) and was stopped and challenged by armed security forces, and then tried to evade them by running directly towards the underground that was previously attacked, then you HAVE to assume that that person is a significant threat to security and should be dealt with accordingly.

They were far from "sloppy" in the way that they dealt with that person, if you consider that IF he had a bomb, they WOULD have stopped him from detonating it.

 

[Daminc]

That was my mate Si :)

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

What just happened?

 

[arildno]

Well, I am a good friend of Daminc, and I'm well versed in "security issues".

After an attack like that, against our civilian transport system, you have to think on your feet.

Which is what did not happen here.

If someone was followed for security reasons

Who should have been stopped way before, precisely due to security reasons.

(who had false documentation)

Yes, I perfectly understand you regard this as adequate reason for execution.

challenged by armed security forces

There is no evidence that he ever was challenged.

They were far from "sloppy" in the way that they dealt with that person, if you consider that IF he had a bomb, they WOULD have stopped him from detonating it.

If he had had a bomb, he would have detonated it way before within the railway station where he simply should not have let him in; there were more than enough officers and time to block his entrance, if their goal had been to protect the general public.
It wasn't, their goal was to experience the thrill of the chase, and gain a promotion.

 

[Daminc]

Yes you do; don't go about lying. You have gobbled up the version given by the police and believes that to be true.

Why are you calling me a liar? I meant exactly what I said. I was in the military once and I've trained in simulations of similar events. Have you had any professional experience?

If the victim had turned out to be a terrorist he has been detonated plenty of time before he gets shot

Maybe, maybe not. 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.

 

[arildno]

Yes, you would dearly like to think that De Menzes deserved what he got, don't you?

 

[Daminc]

Yes, you would dearly like to think that De Menzes deserved what he got, don't you?

No, I never said that. It is very unfortunate that he got killed and I sympathise greatly with his family. I just understand how it could happen and how the stk policy is the necessary tactic to tackle this type of attack.

 

[ray b]

what should be done with killer cops
do they now have a license to kill WITHOUT any care

at a minimum they should be fired least they kill again
better would be for them charged with manslauter or murder
but oops that's the policy just is not acceptable
better their leaders should be charged also
as the policy is WRONG
but some how leaders are never acountable for bad policys

 

[arildno]

Yes, trigger-happy murderers of innocents who lie through their teeth in the aftermath as to what happened have no place within the police force, but they do have a place behind prison bars.

 

[Daminc]

Consider an alternative senario:

Security teams are dotted all over the place and are in touch with a central control area.

One of the teams notices a person leaving a building that they are watching and reports it into control.

Control tasks the team to follow and observe.

The person then gets on a bus and the team follows.

The bus is heading towards the underground and the team report this.

Control issues a pick-up order.

As the person leaves the bus the team moves into apprehend the suspect.

The suspect thinking that these people are after him for and entirely different reason panics and runs. Unfortunatly directly towards the underground.

The team reports this and are issued with the command to prevent the suspect from entering the tube at all costs thinking that the suspect is running because he's a terrorist.

The team intercepts the suspect and kills him in a manner that would prevent him from detonating any explosives should he have any armed.


It's something to think about at least.

 

[Daminc]

what should be done with killer cops
do they now have a license to kill WITHOUT any care

at a minimum they should be fired least they kill again
better would be for them charged with manslauter or murder
but oops that's the policy just is not acceptable
better their leaders should be charged also
as the policy is WRONG
but some how leaders are never acountable for bad policys

Yes, trigger-happy murderers of innocents who lie through their teeth in the aftermath as to what happened have no place within the police force, but they do have a place behind prison bars.

Just how old are you two?

 

[arildno]

Consider an alternative senario:

Security teams are dotted all over the place and are in touch with a central control area.

In a completely disorganized manner, wholly inappropriate to prevent any terrorist from actually entering the subway.

One of the teams notices a person leaving a building that they are watching and reports it into control.

And why had they not been given instructions to approach suspicious persons in order to prevent these to get into crowded areas?

Control tasks the team to follow and observe.

Incompetence on control level.

The person then gets on a bus and the team follows.

Why did not any enter that bus along with the suspect, or if they did, allow him to leave the bus unchallenged?

Control issues a pick-up order.

Incompetently late.
Why were the other forces so incompetently distributed that on the 20-min bus ride, they could converge upon the subway and take up better positions?

The team intercepts the suspect and kills him in a manner that would prevent him from detonating any explosives should he have any armed.

The police jumps on him and pins him to the ground; in their excitedness, they fail to notice that
a) the suspect's face is stark with TERROR, rather than ANGRY FRUSTRATION
b) That he makes no attempt to move his arms towards any suspicious region on his body

and then they ejaculated their bullets into poor De Menzes' head in a frenzied "caught a bad guy"-orgasm.

 

[Daminc]

Obviously, there is no point having a reasonable discussion with you.

You watched some stuff on TV and you've jumped to conclusions without considering any alternatives. I don't know what your problem is but I think you have sqome serious issues to deal with:

then they ejaculated their bullets into poor De Menzes' head in a frenzied "caught a bad guy"-orgasm.

WTF, you've got a sick imagination.

 

[arildno]

WTF, you've got a sick imagination.

No, it was the execution of De Menzes that was sick.
There is no point in trying to regard it as anything else than the thoroughly scandalous end result of extremely shoddy police work.

 

[selfAdjoint]

We've got two, or maybe three threads about this shooting. Did you see that 700 people were killed in India by the monsoons? They suffered and died, their families grieved, parents lost children, children were orphaned, and we're still spouting about something that happened a week ago.

Occasionally police shoot the wrong person. It happens. It shows that police like everyone else are imperfect. Get over it.

 

[Daminc]

Obviously, there is no point having a reasonable discussion with you.

My point still stands.

Your 'Master's degree fluid mechanics ' implies that you are quite smart and have an analytical mind however I see no evidence of this in your previous statements which is a shame.

 

[Daminc]

Did you see that 700 people were killed in India by the monsoons?

I wonder how bad it's going to get...globally I mean. Our weather patterns are getting seriously scr*wed and what we think of as extreme weather is getting more commonplace.

 

[arildno]

Occasionally police shoot the wrong person. It happens. It shows that police like everyone else are imperfect. Get over it.

Why are you so eager, so anxious, to abandon every sort of sound principle of investigation concerning violent deaths if the perpetrator happens to be a member of the police force rather than a "regular bad guy"?

In particular, why do you choose to immediately gobble up as truth the version of events given by those who have the strongest, vested interest in having their version believed to be true?

In this case this is the police; they have extremely strong personal reasons for wanting the public to believe in their version of events.

 

[Daminc]

Why are you so eager, so anxious, to abandon every sort of sound principle of investigation concerning violent deaths if the perpetrator happens to be a member of the police force rather than a "regular bad guy"?

In particular, why do you choose to immediately gobble up as truth the version of events given by those who have the strongest, vested interest in having their version believed to be true?

In this case this is the police; they have extremely strong personal reasons for wanting the public to believe in their version of events.

See what I mean selfAdjoint. Totally unreasonable :(

 

[arildno]

Nope.
You are the ones who want to treat killings by police as something totally different from other forms of killing, without giving any sort of justification for that.

 

[Daminc]

without giving any sort of justification for that.

I gave possible reasons for why it happened, it's not about justifying it it's about trying to understand why it happened and then try and learn from it.

Throwing venom and accusations around helps no-one and is pointless.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Consider an alternative senario:

Security teams are dotted all over the place and are in touch with a central control area.

One of the teams notices a person leaving a building that they are watching and reports it into control.

Control tasks the team to follow and observe.

The person then gets on a bus and the team follows.

The bus is heading towards the underground and the team report this.

Control issues a pick-up order.

As the person leaves the bus the team moves into apprehend the suspect.

The suspect thinking that these people are after him for and entirely different reason panics and runs. Unfortunatly directly towards the underground.

The team reports this and are issued with the command to prevent the suspect from entering the tube at all costs thinking that the suspect is running because he's a terrorist.

The team intercepts the suspect and kills him in a manner that would prevent him from detonating any explosives should he have any armed.


It's something to think about at least.

All well and good, until you raise the question of why some kind of central control would spend resource on an unidentified man and, ultimately, allow terminal action without any evidence of wrongdoing? Your outline suggests what we have already seen: it is a system ripe for failure, abuse and tragedy.

 

[arildno]

Your stated reasons are based upon the basic assumption that the version of the events given by the police is an accurate account.
Several by-standers have contradicted numerous features of the official version; in a standard course of investigation, their version of events would have been regarded as in principle more reliable than that version given by individuals with strong, personal interest in being believed to have given a true account (i.e, the police officers).

Again, why has such a standard, well-used principle been abandoned in this case?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

We've got two, or maybe three threads about this shooting. Did you see that 700 people were killed in India by the monsoons? They suffered and died, their families grieved, parents lost children, children were orphaned, and we're still spouting about something that happened a week ago.

It is tragically upsetting. However, this is a tragedy without blame. This thread is about loss of civil rights, not loss of life in general. You could start a monsoon thread if you like. The length of time that this thread has gone on is a reflection of how important it is to people. It does not mean they've lost perspective. It would be a waste of time to compare every major event to every non-related major event.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

We've got two, or maybe three threads about this shooting. Did you see that 700 people were killed in India by the monsoons? They suffered and died, their families grieved, parents lost children, children were orphaned, and we're still spouting about something that happened a week ago.

Occasionally police shoot the wrong person. It happens. It shows that police like everyone else are imperfect. Get over it.

Also, you don't live here (the UK). Some of us do. Forgive us if we find it slightly harder to 'get over it' than you do.

 

[Spin_Network]

If the victim had turned out to be a terrorist he has been detonated plenty of time before he gets shot

Terrorists are given opportunity to remove their clothes and be visible in only their underpants:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4727975.stm

Today's terrorists know they have 'human', rights.

Something they clearly do not give innocent Humans.

Quite laughable that this terrorist was demanding to remain clothed at the moment of his arrest, does he think being paraded in his underpants is in-human!

 

[brewnog]

We've got two, or maybe three threads about this shooting. Did you see that 700 people were killed in India by the monsoons? They suffered and died, their families grieved, parents lost children, children were orphaned, and we're still spouting about something that happened a week ago.

Oh come on! People will discuss what they want to discuss. If you want to discuss the (terrible casualties) caused by the (horrific) monsoons, nobody's going to stop you. As soon as a topic loses interest, it drops off the bottom of the board anyway, no harm done.



Hombre, where are you at?

 

[Daminc]

Your stated reasons are based upon the basic assumption that the version of the events given by the police is an accurate account.
Several by-standers have contradicted numerous features of the official version; in a standard course of investigation, their version of events would have been regarded as in principle more reliable than that version given by individuals with strong, personal interest in being believed to have given a true account (i.e, the police officers).

That's a fair comment I suppose but a suprised witness is one of the most unreliable witnesses possible. The chances are that if you interviewed every civilian witness a vast majority of them would have something different (or perhaps even contridictory) to say.

However, on the other hand, police are trained observers.

I find this easier to believe than go into an instant conspiracy theory without any cause to. If the circumstances change, new evidence comes to light or whatever then I'm always willing to reevaluate the situation but in the meantime I'll make a logical analysis bases on what I know at this moment in time.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Oh come on! People will discuss what they want to discuss. If you want to discuss the (terrible casualties) caused by the (horrific) monsoons, nobody's going to stop you. As soon as a topic loses interest, it drops off the bottom of the board anyway, no harm done.



Hombre, where are you at?

I live in Durham at the moment, working in Newcastle, but I hail from Shrewsbury.

 

[brewnog]

That's a fair comment I suppose but a suprised witness is one of the most unreliable witnesses possible. The chances are that if you interviewed every civilian witness a vast majority of them would have something different (or perhaps even contridictory) to say.

However, on the other hand, police are trained observers.

The police are also aware that anything they say is subject to intense scrutiny, and is likely to be taken as evidence to be used against them in court in any subsequent police or independent enquiry. It's not in their interests (as single officers) to lie, particularly if there are dozens of eyewitnesses, and the possibility of CCTV. Casual interviews with people claiming to be eyewitnesses don't provide courtworthy evidence.

 

[Anttech]

Occasionally police shoot the wrong person. It happens. It shows that police like everyone else are imperfect. Get over it

very sympathetic! We arent used to Police gunning people down in public in the UK.. Perhaps where your from this is a common happening, but in the UK it aint! Its a good thing that we keep talking about our civil liberties! We need to make sure that this stays an excpetion to the rule, not the other way round

 

[arildno]

However, on the other hand, police are trained observers.

Certainly, but that is not the issue here.
In ordinary violent deaths investigations (say, a woman found strangled in her home), the police officers are 3.persons not directly involved in the death.
The woman's husband's testimony (say that he was out in the garden when she must have been strangled) must in principle be regarded as less reliable than next-door-neighbour Mrs. Watson's testimony that she couldn't hear him in the garden although she ought to have done so.

Although a possibility exists that Mrs.Watson rushed over to her neighbour and strangled the woman when she saw that the husband went out in the garden, the standard attitude would be to regard the husband's testimony with more suspicion than Mrs.Watson's, since he should in principle be the one with most interest in being believed.
(If the police doesn't believe him, they might think he strangled his own wife..).

In the London case, the police officers themselves are the ones whose testimony should be examined with great care, because they face grave personal risks if their actual testimonies are shown to be highly inaccurate.
Not so with the innocent by-stander; there exist for them (typically, that is) few motives other than telling the truth AS THEY SAW IT.
Whether what they saw is credible is of course a matter of further investigation; however, we should not at the outset harbour strong suspicions as to whether their motives for telling their version are more complicated than simply to tell what they honestly believe they saw.

Such suspicions as to the POLICE VERSION cannot be as summarily dismissed at the outset of an investigation.

No "instant" conspiracy theory here; the official version is as riddled with holes as a Swiss cheese.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Home Office slammed over Brazilian's shooting

The Home Office has been strongly criticised by the official leading the inquiry into the shooting of a Brazilian man wrongly thought to have been a suicide bomber.

Nick Hardwick, chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said the department should stop issuing "partial information" after government officials released details about the immigration status of the 27-year-old Brazilian electrician.

He added that people should "shut up" until his independent investigation had established the facts.

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder by plain clothes officers last week at Stockwell tube station. Police had followed him from a block of flats that had been under surveillance in Tulse Hill, south London.

Hardwick's comments follow the Home Office’s decision to confirm that De Menezes' visa had expired and implied he had a forged stamp in his passport.

But this was described as “entirely irrelevant information”, by Nick Hardwick today.

"I'm rather surprised the Home Office should issue it. We won't be releasing partial information until we've independently established the facts.

"I think a lot of people would do better to shut up for the moment until our independent investigation has established the facts. I won't speculate and I won't release partial information and it would be better if other people did the same."

And Asad Rehman, a spokesman for De Menezes' family, said it was "distasteful and disgraceful" that the Home Office should release information about him.

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200507/4a51e799-b8a9-44d0-8b1f-65114087e377.htm

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Here here. Oh, that doesn't include us, does it?

 

[Anttech]

:-) ... Hope not *slaps wrists*

 

[The Smoking Man]

Here here. Oh, that doesn't include us, does it?

Nor them apparently:

SHOOTING OF INNOCENT BRAZILIAN WAS NOT 'CAVALIER OR CAPRICIOUS'
By Roger Blitz
Published: July 29 2005 03:00 | Last updated: July 29 2005 03:00

The police shoot-to-kill operation that led to the death of an innocent Brazilian man at Stockwell Underground station involved nothing that was "cavalier or capricious", the Metropolitan Police commissioner has said, writes Roger Blitz.

Sir Ian Blair continued to defend the actions of his officers even though they are now the subject of an official inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The officers involved "clearly thought they were faced with a suicide bomber and they were running towards him", Sir Ian said. "They were running towards what might have been certain death. Whatever else has happened, that has to be taken into account.''

He said that the Metropolitan Police took full responsibility for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the electrician shot eight times. But he added: "Had that person been a suicide bomber and had the officers not fired and the Tube doors had closed and 25 yards up the track the bomb had exploded with terrible loss of life, the officers would be in a worse situation than they are now."

Sir Ian described the tactic of shooting towards the head of a suspect suicide bomber as not necessarily the right procedure, but "the least-worst option". Advice sought by the Met from Israel's experience is that explosives could still be detonated if a bomber was not immediately incapacitated.

Nick Hardwick, chairman of the IPCC, declined to be drawn on whether Sir Ian's comments breached commission rules. He said only that it was too early for the commission to draw any conclusions about the incident.

The Home Office yesterday indicated that the visa held by Mr de Menezes was out of date. He was granted leave to remain until June 30 2003, but the department had no record of any further application.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cd6350a8-ffcd-11d9-86df-00000e2511c8.html

 

[Spin_Network]

SHHHH..DONT MENTION THE SHOOTING!



He added that people should "shut up" until his independent investigation had established the facts.

And just how are witnesses suppose to communicate what they saw?

http://cms.met.police.uk/news/major...ist_attacks/ipcc_leads_shooting_investigation

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sir Ian described the tactic of shooting towards the head of a suspect suicide bomber as not necessarily the right procedure, but "the least-worst option". Advice sought by the Met from Israel's experience is that explosives could still be detonated if a bomber was not immediately incapacitated.

I must say that this is a strange statement.

 

[ray b]

Just how old are you two?

I am 21 years older then YOU
and far wiser as I DO NOT TRUST THE STATE to tell the truth
or ever hold it's minions accountable for their crimes

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

"But he added: "Had that person been a suicide bomber and had the officers not fired and the Tube doors had closed and 25 yards up the track the bomb had exploded with terrible loss of life, the officers would be in a worse situation than they are now." "

Uhhh... that could be said of... EVERYONE WHO EVER USES THE TUBE! Why not just let the suicide bombers blow the entire Underground up, thus eliminating ALL would be suicide bombers! Jesus!

 

[Andy]

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]

I must say that this is a strange statement.

I'll say. least-worst!? Come on! My 6 year old cousin speaks better english than that!

 

[Daminc]

I am 21 years older then YOU
and far wiser as I DO NOT TRUST THE STATE to tell the truth
or ever hold it's minions accountable for their crimes

These comments:

what should be done with killer cops
do they now have a license to kill WITHOUT any care

at a minimum they should be fired least they kill again
better would be for them charged with manslauter or murder
but oops that's the policy just is not acceptable
better their leaders should be charged also
as the policy is WRONG
but some how leaders are never acountable for bad policys

and those by that other gentleman:

Yes, trigger-happy murderers of innocents who lie through their teeth in the aftermath as to what happened have no place within the police force, but they do have a place behind prison bars.

is something I'd expect from a teenager. If you really are 60 odd then perhaps you should act accordingly and wait until you get all the facts. But then, if you automatically disbelieve anything you hear that's remotely official then you'll just believe anything you want regardless won't you?

and far wiser as I DO NOT TRUST THE STATE

I don't trust the States either :)
As I've mentioned before. I do not take anything at face value but I also don't jump to conclusions.

 

[Andy]

you'll just believe anything you want regardless won't you?

They do that alot.

 

[arildno]

Seems the police were lying a lot after all:
http://www.itv.com/news/index_312121.html