Rant To cheer you all up!

[Scouse]

Oh, sorry. Poor choice of title

Anyway: Menezes' police gave no warning...

Mr Livock described Mr de Menezes' reactions when an officer pointed a pistol at his head.

"He looked as if he was expecting somebody to say something but he didn't look frightened," said Mr Livock.

Just like you'd expect. If you'd not had a warning and the cops turn up and grab you you'd expect them to say something before shooting you seven times in the face eh?


Anyway, I was going to paste this on the back of this thread but figured it would be confusing. Either way, I'm neither surprised nor amused that this is the first time that witnesses were asked to give evidence.

Anyone who's upset by these implications, please ignore, I wouldn't want to disturb your well-cushioned calm

 

[Furr]

The police have been trying to cover this up since day one, they know what they did and are lieing.

I very much doubt they gave any warning whatsoever, they've been informed they have a suicide bomber getting on a train, as they assume he's a bomber ready to detonate, giving him a warning that they are police may allow him to trigger "the bomb" so they follow him, and shoot him. No warning, just point and shoot.

 

[gohan]

The police have been trying to cover this up since day one, they know what they did and are lieing.

I very much doubt they gave any warning whatsoever, they've been informed they have a suicide bomber getting on a train, as they assume he's a bomber ready to detonate, giving him a warning that they are police may allow him to trigger "the bomb" so they follow him, and shoot him. No warning, just point and shoot.

which is fair enought

they fucked up big time.... but is they all get fired or ajield ect then police will be scared to act in future (even more so than they already are now)

its tragic but shit happens they were only doing thier job, on this day they got it wrong.....

 

[Scouse]

its tragic but shit happens they were only doing thier job, on this day they got it wrong.....

You're looking too low on the tree here...

 

[rynnor]

The problem with this is that the same policy is still in place so nothing has been learned and it could happen again.

I thought the most dubious thing was the way the police took then 'lost' a lot of the cctv footage.

Finally, there was also the recent legal challenge to prevent policemen conferring before they give their official reports which failed.

None of it fills you with confidence in those employed to protect us...

 

[nath]

Finally, there was also the recent legal challenge to prevent policemen conferring before they give their official reports which failed.

I'd *LOVE* to hear the explanation as to why that failed. That's clearly a sensible challenge and I can think of no reason it wouldn't be accepted.

 

[gohan]

tey need to check each others spellings ^^

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I think the most disgusting element to the whole things was that they shot him about 7 times, in the head. The policeman who did the first shooting recently stated that after shooting him in the head once and watching him fall to the floor he thought he saw him move so he shot him repeatedly in order to make sure he was "extinct." He said he was scared for his life. How can you be scared for your own life after having shot someone at point blank range in the head? Fucking moron.

 

[rynnor]

I'd *LOVE* to hear the explanation as to why that failed. That's clearly a sensible challenge and I can think of no reason it wouldn't be accepted.

It gets worse - heres the reason that was given during the trial:

'They [the IPCC] feel that if police officers are not allowed the opportunity to confer they will not give evidence at all. '

If it wasnt so shocking it would be hilarious Its off to the Court of appeal now though so still hope.




Source:
A licence to collude? Police's right to confer after shooting questioned by judge in barrister case | Mail Online

 

[nath]

Have you got a source that won't give me AIDS of the soul if I click it?

 

[rynnor]

Have you got a source that won't give me AIDS of the soul if I click it?

Heh - you could try this one 'Unlawful' shooting probe claim dismissed - Home News, UK - The Independent

Still - its scary when even the Daily Mail thinks this infringes civil rights!

 

[nath]

Miss Saunders' lawyers said the judge had found, "after some hesitation", that the IPCC was entitled to go along with the police's current practice of conferring because the IPCC claimed that, if it insisted that officers did not confer, they might refuse to give any account at all.

Yup, that's pretty atrocious. "They might not cooperate so we better let them have their way". I can't really see any other way of readign that quote. :\

 

[Mabs]

problem with this, as fucked up as it is , is:

if they had say "police, stop" or whatever, and he HAD been a jihadi and taken out the tube station, the police would be getting slated for not just shooting him first

they cant win this sadly either way

and not wishing it on anyone, but there is an argument that 1 life lost in accident is better than losing all those people on the tube which was a possibility

 

[rynnor]

problem with this, as fucked up as it is , is:

if they had say "police, stop" or whatever, and he HAD been a jihadi and taken out the tube station, the police would be getting slated for not just shooting him first

they cant win this sadly either way

and not wishing it on anyone, but there is an argument that 1 life lost in accident is better than losing all those people on the tube which was a possibility

It would have to have been a very odd bomb - he didnt even have a bag.

Personally I'd say this kind of thing is more of a threat to our rights n liberties than terrorism itself.

Police with guns cannot really 'prevent' terrorism - so far I see their score card as suicide bombers shot = 0, innocent civilians shot = 1.

The best way to prevent terrorism is to defuse tensions.

 

[Mabs]

It would have to have been a very odd bomb - he didnt even have a bag.

whats your point ?
you can watch CCTV, ask eye witnesses etc

when someone runs past you in a tube station, could you say for sure if they didnt have a bag in the other hand ?

im not saying it was a good call, but its not something that is easy to make in a split second

 

[rynnor]

whats your point ?
you can watch CCTV, ask eye witnesses etc

when someone runs past you in a tube station, could you say for sure if they didnt have a bag in the other hand ?

im not saying it was a good call, but its not something that is easy to make in a split second

Well my first point was that without a bag hes unlikely to be packing sufficient explosives to do much harm so the point becomes moot.

Second the police should not be shooting people on a split second call because it will inevitably lead to this.

Now I'm not calling for the officers involved to stand trial - they had a tough job to do.

But what does concern me is the way the enquiries have been handled and how there seems no desire to try to prevent this happening again by changing their procedures.

 

[Mabs]

Well my first point was that without a bag hes unlikely to be packing sufficient explosives to do much harm so the point becomes moot.

Second the police should not be shooting people on a split second call because it will inevitably lead to this.

Now I'm not calling for the officers involved to stand trial - they had a tough job to do.

But what does concern me is the way the enquiries have been handled and how there seems no desire to try to prevent this happening again by changing their procedures.

im not arguing that
i just think its a bit unfair people seem to be blaming the policemen , rather than the police procedure etc

 

[00dave]

I think the most disgusting element to the whole things was that they shot him about 7 times, in the head. The policeman who did the first shooting recently stated that after shooting him in the head once and watching him fall to the floor he thought he saw him move so he shot him repeatedly in order to make sure he was "extinct." He said he was scared for his life. How can you be scared for your own life after having shot someone at point blank range in the head? Fucking moron.

I think you need to read up on rules of engagment on this one. The area reguarding terrorism is a very grey one unfortunately and the 7 shots at point blank range is understandable if you've been trained in firearms.
Most of us have seen films or read books and know that to stop someone from pressing a button or trigger, one shot through the mouth straight back severs the brain stem, removing any chance of a death reaction. But not all soldiers/police are James Bond and the idea of a one shot kill is unlikely, better to be safe than sorry. So 7 shots is the reality, 1 shot one kill is hollywood or counter strike.
This doesn't excuse the decision made at all, I'm not defending the chain of events leading up to the shooting just the actions of the officer who fired.


If you're interested I'll tell you about how I very nearly shot somebody myself that same week while I was on guard duty at RAF Stafford. I could understand how that officer felt because I remember shitting myself at the thought of kill or be killed.

 

[Kryten]

Plenty of people run rather quickly towards the train.
Plenty of them are not white or otherwise of British origin.
Plenty of them carry bags.

They might as well have shot every fucker in the tube station "just in case they were a terrorist". The woman standing to the right may have had a handbag with enough explosive in to take out the entire west end. They might look small on the outside but we all know they're portable Tardis.

The police involved should be banged up IMO, there's absolutely no excuse for it. They could possibly have saved another atrocity without doubt, but chaos theory does that every day.

A mistake was made. A huge one, that cost a man an innocent life. Consequences should be faced. It's not black and white by any means, but he was no more likely a terrorist than the other million odd people walking, running or jogging round London at that point.

 

[Milkshake]

In my opinion, the guys that did the shooting are not in the wrong in any way - in fact, they behaved like heroes. They ran into a situation where they *knew* they were in great danger, and committed an act to extreme violence on another human being to save everyone else on the train.

It's not like this was an instant decision on shooting Menezes. The gents who did the shooting didn't chance apon this guy and think "Hmm, know what, he looks suspicious...". They didn't even shoot the wrong guy, they tracked down the right guy and got him without hurting anyone else.

The REAL fuckups, the REAL murderers are the people who gave the order based on the intelligence they were given. The intelligence gathering that was on-going, for quite a long time.

A great deal of people focus on the men with guns, but no, they just carried out their orders. You can't be in a situation where you hesitate. If anyone is to get locked up, if anyone is in the wrong, it's the people who put the men into action.

 

[Chilly]

I'm behind the police in this one. Mistakes were made, and I agree trying to cover things up wasnt cool, but in the end what they did appeared to be correct at the time. What more can you ask for ? this is the reality of fighting terrorism. No amount of bag checking in airports and ID cards will stop people taking bombs onto tube stations. If the police cant jump a guy they reasonably believe to be doing so, then we may as well not spend a penny on trying to prevent any of it.

 

[Scouse]

Plenty of people run rather quickly towards the train.
Plenty of them are not white or otherwise of British origin.
Plenty of them carry bags.

...he was no more likely a terrorist than the other million odd people walking, running or jogging round London at that point.

I agree Kryt:

No warnings. Poor procedure. No coat - just a denim jacket, open at all times. No bag. No "running from the cops". No "vaulting the barriers". No "falsification of evidence", from him anyway...

Just a guy, getting a train, like everyone else.

 

[rynnor]

No warnings. Poor procedure. No coat - just a denim jacket, open at all times. No bag. No "running from the cops". No "vaulting the barriers". No "falsification of evidence", from him anyway...

Just a guy, getting a train, like everyone else.

Yes - I remember all the spin that came out from the Metropolitan Police after the incident saying how he had sprinted and vaulted the barriers - all damned lies it turned out.

He walked up the same as everyone else, put his ticket in the barrier and walked through onto a tube where he was then executed and still the police say they did nothing procedurally wrong...

 

[Scouse]

the police say they did nothing procedurally wrong...

Yep! Apart from lie through their teeth, collude with each other before giving evidence, shoot an unarmed, unresistant, innocent train-goer seven times in the face after other officers had already physically restrained him, put out news stories directly after the fact which were outright lies, yadda yadda yadda...

LOVE the cops. They're blameless! It was a "tough job" etc. etc...

 

[Furr]

It's nice to know the Police have a lawful procedure to execute anyone they want if suspected of being a terrorist with no repercussions, apart from a couple health and safety laws...

 

[Calaen]

He was here illegally anyway so he only has himself to blame.

 

[nath]

He was here illegally anyway so he only has himself to blame.

Either that's a bit of a crap joke, or one of the stupidest thing I've ever read.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

If you're interested I'll tell you about how I very nearly shot somebody myself that same week while I was on guard duty at RAF Stafford. I could understand how that officer felt because I remember shitting myself at the thought of kill or be killed.

To be honest, if someone is scared of dying that much they should not be in charge of weapons as it is only going to cloud their judgment. Whatever happened to people who were prepared to die in the line of duty for their country's protection? They're certainly not in the armed police: they shoot everyone with a gun dead these days, and it's not necessary. It seems people need refresher courses on how to disable WITHOUT lethal force.

 

[throdgrain]

Wazz you're talking out of your arse ffs.

And no Im not going to qualify that statement, because it's fucking obvious. Perhaps the police should get lessons in wizardry? Or MAGIC STAFFS!!!

If you think someone is a suicide bomber you SHOOT HIM UNTIL YOU'VE RUN OUT OF BULLETS. Particularly when they are sub sonic as I read were the ones used in this case.

 

[throdgrain]

Actually I was thinking about it, you're right Wazz.


What the police should do is tempt suicide bombers no to blow themselves up. With cake perhaps, or DVDs or something?

They could shout "Stop! Police! I know you been promised 72 virgins and a seat in heaven.... BUT I HAVE A NICE PIECE OF BATTENBURG AND A CUP OF TEA!!!


That would sort em out no worries. I'm suprised we've not tried it in Afghanistan.