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

[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?
:yuck:

 

[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?
:yuck:

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?

 

[arildno]

It's in this link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

Here's the relevant passage:

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the SO19 officers. He appeared agitated and I noticed that his hands were held below his waist and slightly in front of him. The man did not stand still and advanced to within about three or four feet of myself and the SO19 officers. Assessing that I may be dealing with a terrorist subject and fearing for the safety of the public on the carriage the SO19 officers and myself, I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had previously been sitting with right hand side of my head pressed against the right hand side of his torso.

 

[Daminc]

I thought we'd sorted most of this out about 10 pages ago but obviously not:

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).

No I didn't. One side was saying he's innocent the other side guilty. I didn't know for sure.

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.

As far as I knew at the time, he had ran. I think I referred to fear not insanity.

However, you also knew that De Menezes had been capable of holding a job as an electrician;

I didn't know he was an electrician at the time.

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

The lack of challenge and the size of the team was what first made me think about the SAS.

You had the exact same information as the rest of us - de Menezes was not concealing a bomb.

No, I didn't. I don't have time to watch TV a lot of the time so I haven't had access to all the stuff you people had.

... I doubt you are capable.

You don't know me.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

No, I didn't. I don't have time to watch TV a lot of the time so I haven't had access to all the stuff you people had.

Ah, so you were calling for us to await the evidence that you yourself were unaware of? And at the same time hypothesising invented scenarios to justify the killing. I see. Yes, we need to be more like you. :tongue:

You don't know me.

I don't need to, or want to. If that constitutes decent behaviour in your book then I'm glad PF is the extent of our social interaction. I didn't know Fred West... I still judge him.

 

[arildno]

I thought we'd sorted most of this out about 10 pages ago but obviously not:

No I didn't. One side was saying he's innocent the other side guilty. I didn't know for sure.


I didn't know he was an electrician at the time.

What time are you speaking of here, Daminc?
The police went out the day after the incident and declared the shot-down man as having no links.
You (and others) have asserted your view that De Menezes' innocence was irrelevant long after this became public, also beyond the next day after that or so, when the dead man was identified as the Brazilian electrician De Menezes.

As far as I knew at the time, he had ran. I think I referred to fear not insanity.

A fear that a sane, mentally stable, innocent man capable of holding a job would not have felt, if he had been PROPERLY challenged by the police.
Hence, by implication, your statement is supportive of the statement that De Menezes was mentally unstable.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It's in this link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

Here's the relevant passage:

Yes, I recall. No, that does not mean there was "evidence", merely that the officer was aware of why he had been asked to follow de Menezes "he may be a terrorist suspect". That was not a conclusion of his surveillence, but the reason for it - you are misrepresenting the facts. That he was a suspected terrorist wasn't a judgement of Hotel 3.

 

[arildno]

Yes, I recall. No, that does not mean there was "evidence", merely that the officer was aware of why he had been asked to follow de Menezes "he may be a terrorist suspect". That was not a conclusion of his surveillence, but the reason for it - you are misrepresenting the facts. That he was a suspected terrorist wasn't a judgement of Hotel 3.

What I meant, is that by inserting that assertion (about fearing for the safety of the public) in his testimonial, he has basically created a loop-hole through which the killers of De Menezes might wriggle themselves out of.
It is a loyalist statement, that might be used to declare the killers not guilty of murder.

If he had testified that he didn't really regard De Menezes as an immediate threat, he would basically have said that he regarded the shoot-down as wrong.

Note that I wrote "evidence", rather than evidence.

 

[Daminc]

You people should listen to yourself.

I've tried to be rational and give comments to how I understood things at the time. Because my opinions differ from yours you want to attack me and my credibility. Why is that?

Ah, so you were calling for us to await the evidence that you yourself were unaware of? And at the same time hypothesising invented scenarios to justify the killing. I see. Yes, we need to be more like you.

Do you find this funny? At any time that I made a comment I did so using the information I had at that time. Assertions were made that, as far as I was aware, didn't have any facts to back it up only circumstantial evidence and a certain amount of prejudice. I proposed circumstances that may have explained what occurred based on what I knew at the time.

I don't need to, or want to. If that constitutes decent behaviour in your book then I'm glad PF is the extent of our social interaction

Perhaps you're right. I don't take too kindly to people with no manners.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

What I meant, is that by inserting that assertion (about fearing for the safety of the public) in his testimonial, he has basically created a loop-hole through which the killers of De Menezes might wriggle themselves out of.
It is a loyalist statement, that might be used to declare the killers not guilty of murder.

If he had testified that he didn't really regard De Menezes as an immediate threat, he would basically have said that he regarded the shoot-down as wrong.

Note that I wrote "evidence", rather than evidence.

Ahhhh, the penny drops. Sorry, I have a migraine and wasn't registering irony. I guess I'm grumpy today. Yes, it does smack of not wanting to rock the boat somewhat, and the 'fearing' for safety comment sounds like he was playing up his own heroism.

To nip any schadenfreude in the bud, though, by "and he was of the view that he did not pose a threat" ought to read "and he did not survey evidence that the target posed a threat."

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

You people should listen to yourself.

I've tried to be rational and give comments to how I understood things at the time. Because my opinions differ from yours you want to attack me and my credibility. Why is that?

Perhaps you should listen to yourself. You admit you didn't have all the information before forging your opinion, and yet insist that we all should. And you haven't been above the occassional snide or rude comment yourself, even before our run-in. You've been a tad hypocritical.

Do you find this funny? At any time that I made a comment I did so using the information I had at that time. Assertions were made that, as far as I was aware, didn't have any facts to back it up only circumstantial evidence and a certain amount of prejudice. I proposed circumstances that may have explained what occurred based on what I knew at the time.

And we did the same, but with more information. The difference is, when your 'proposals' did not yield fruit, you came along to tell us we wrongly prejudged anyway, that we should have waited for facts that you, clearly, did not. You can't defend your ignorance and attack ours when yours was the greater. That's the point. It's not that you were wrong, it's that you've been pontificating about bias, prejudice and ignorance but not applying it to yourself. That's all I was saying when I told you to back off with the holier than thou BS. And, no, I don't find this funny.

Perhaps you're right. I don't take too kindly to people with no manners.

What can I say? Your opinions bring out the worst in me.

 

[Daminc]

You admit you didn't have all the information before forging your opinion, and yet insist that we all should. And you haven't been above the occassional snide or rude comment yourself, even before our run-in. You've been a tad hypocritical.

When I came up with alternative senarios it was because a few people here came out and stated there opinions as facts. I never said that my senarios were correct only that the alternative scenario was possible (based on what was know at the time).

As for snide comments...maybe. I get exasperated when people seem to be bigoted and that also brings out the worst in me.

you came along to tell us we wrongly prejudged anyway, that we should have waited for facts that you, clearly, did not.

I have waited for the facts...I'm still waiting for the rest of them.

It's not that you were wrong, it's that you've been pontificating about bias, prejudice and ignorance but not applying it to yourself. That's all I was saying when I told you to back off with the holier than thou BS.

In what manner did I not apply it to myself?