BF2S Forums Killing in the Tube

9 shots in the head, they must have thought he was SUPER TALIBAN SOLDIER, sent from god. HAHAHAHA

Last edited by mafia996630 (2006-08-10 13:26:29)

A couple of things you've missed.

Firstly, de Menezes left a house that the undercover officers who watching. They "had reason to believe" that some of the occupants were terrorists (not that the evidence has ever come to light, but there you go). Secondly is was from this journey that he was shot when he attempted to board the Tube as the OC thought that he might be about to carry out a terrorist attack (again, no evidence was presented to show how that fantastic decision was reached).

And a couple of things you missed from the police 'cover up'. Firstly that de Menezes went to board a bus but seemed to become spooked by something where after he made a beeline for the nearest Tube station. And also, the police claimed that de Menezes vaulted the the barrier (like a turn style for the people that haven't seen a London Tube station) and ran for the train leaving one of the platforms. Later, video evidence showed that he didn't jump over anything, wasn't running for the train merely walking quickly and further more the "thick coat" was nothing more than a standard jacket. All pretty damning...

Where i do sympathise with the police is the choice that they faced. For whatever reason (without seeing the evidence/intelligence that the police were acting off) the police thought that de Menezes was a terrorist, you have to look at the choice that they faced; did they try and apprehend the "terrorist" (police later confirmed that de Menezes wasn't but at the time the decision to act was made, thats what they thought) and risk either a bomb going off in the resulting challenge, did they let the "terrorist" proceed and have the possibility of another 7/7 attack, or did they assume the worst and stop him (kill him)?

Now the decision should be easy, you can't go round shooting people because you think they're guilty, but with the 7/7 attacks so fresh in the mind (with the calls of why didn't the police act on the intel that they had on the bombers), the choice was made to shoot him. Wrong yes, without a doubt, but would the British public have been so understanding if the police did nothing and let another attack take place so soon after 7/7?

With regards to the prosecution that followed (or the lack of it), who would you hold accountable? The officers that shot him? The OC that gave the order? The Home Office for giving the police their guidelines? Whichever party you decide is guilty there are very good reasons against a criminal prosecution; for example, if you choose to blame the officers that actually fired, what were they meant to do? As far as they were aware they had been ordered to stop de Menezes at any cost from boarding the train, and prevent any chance of a bomb being detonated. They did that, foiled what they at the time was a terrorist attack and saved the citizens of London... do you still think they're guilty? After all, they did murder someone but I believe there's enough of a mitigating circumstance to warrant their 'wrist slap' over life imprisonment.

Either way, an appalling cock up and something that shouldn't have happened. But once it has, too big a can of worms to try and blame a few people...?

Last edited by Jainus (2006-08-10 13:56:03)

Jainus wrote:

A couple of things you've missed.

Firstly, de Menezes left a house that the undercover officers who watching. They "had reason to believe" that some of the occupants were terrorists (not that the evidence has ever come to light, but there you go). Secondly is was from this journey that he was shot when he attempted to board the Tube as the OC thought that he might be about to carry out a terrorist attack (again, no evidence was presented to show how that fantastic decision was reached).

And a couple of things you missed from the police 'cover up'. Firstly that de Menezes went to board a bus but seemed to become spooked by something where after he made a beeline for the nearest Tube station. And also, the police claimed that de Menezes vaulted the the barrier (like a turn style for the people that haven't seen a London Tube station) and ran for the train leaving one of the platforms. Later, video evidence showed that he didn't jump over anything, wasn't running for the train merely walking quickly and further more the "thick coat" was nothing more than a standard jacket. All pretty damning...

Where i do sympathise with the police is the choice that they faced. For whatever reason (without seeing the evidence/intelligence that the police were acting off) the police thought that de Menezes was a terrorist, you have to look at the choice that they faced; did they try and apprehend the "terrorist" (police later confirmed that de Menezes wasn't but at the time the decision to act was made, thats what they thought) and risk either a bomb going off in the resulting challenge, did they let the "terrorist" proceed and have the possibility of another 7/7 attack, or did they assume the worst and stop him (kill him)?

Now the decision should be easy, you can't go round shooting people because you think they're guilty, but with the 7/7 attacks so fresh in the mind (with the calls of why didn't the police act on the intel that they had on the bombers), the choice was made to shoot him. Wrong yes, without a doubt, but would the British public have been so understanding if the police did nothing and let another attack take place so soon after 7/7?

With regards to the prosecution that followed (or the lack of it), who would you hold accountable? The officers that shot him? The OC that gave the order? The Home Office for giving the police their guidelines? Whichever party you decide is guilty there are very good reasons against a criminal prosecution; for example, if you choose to blame the officers that actually fired, what were they meant to do? As far as they were aware they had been ordered to stop de Menezes at any cost from boarding the train, and prevent any chance of a bomb being detonated. They did that, foiled what they at the time was a terrorist attack and saved the citizens of London... do you still think they're guilty? After all, they did murder someone but I believe there's enough of a mitigating circumstance to warrant their 'wrist slap' over life imprisonment.

Either way, an appalling cock up and something that shouldn't have happened. But once it has, too big a can of worms to try and blame a few people...?

I completely agree with you. The men who pulled the trigger acted accordingly to their orders. The only way to stop a terrorist with a bomb is to shoot him in the head, without warning. But the police intel screwed up much too badly, and worse they then tried to cover it up with lies. The officers who shot Menezes deserve no guilt, but their superiors who lied and ordered the killing of an inocent man should have had harsher punishments. When I mean harsher, I'm not talking about criminal charges. I'm saying disciplinary action or something from the very own police corporation. It was too big a screw up for a slap to the wrist.

EVieira wrote:

The men who pulled the trigger acted accordingly to their orders. The only way to stop a terrorist with a bomb is to shoot him in the head, without warning. But the police intel screwed up much too badly, and worse they then tried to cover it up with lies. The officers who shot Menezes deserve no guilt, but their superiors who lied and ordered the killing of an inocent man should have had harsher punishments. When I mean harsher, I'm not talking about criminal charges. I'm saying disciplinary action or something from the very own police corporation. It was too big a screw up for a slap to the wrist.

And here i half agree with you . The 'cover up' (such as it was, it was far too crap to be called a proper Cover Up) was inexcusable and if anyone deserves to be charged, its whoever thought they could get away with it. The police, I believe, said later that in the ensuing chaos following the shooting and the media calls for information, a statement was made without all the facts and with several mistakes (i.e. the nasty media forced us into speaking before we knew the truth and the lies we sprouted are actually the fault of the Evil Media people. Make up your own minds...). Thats how such a twisted view of the events came into the public domain, but frankly you don't talk to reporters without knowing the facts. The police know that and seemed quite capable of doing this in the wake of 7/7 and the failed attacks of 21/7, strange no that in this instance only they cocked it up.

As of the OC that gave the order to shoot being responsible, I'll ask a similar question to before; what was (i think it was a she) meant to do? Do you let a terrorist attack go ahead on your watch when its in your power to stop them, or do you let him go and hope that all your being told by the intel people is that de Menezes could blow himself up at anytime? With the bus incident, the police already believed that he was acting suspiciously, so... wait until there's a blown up train, 10 people dead, 20 wounded and then say "yep, you were right he was dodgy"?

Home Office instructions to the police at this time was to be alert to any follow up attacks (like those attempted at 21/7) and you've got a suspect thats left a "terrorist" house, the public critic sing the polices' failure to act in the run up to 7/7, a suspect that is 'acting suspiciously' and all the intel you've got say he's guilty... still a nice and easy decision? Especially when de Menezes starts to quicken his pace to get on a train? I don't think so and thats why i believe you can't prosecute the OC. The polices first and foremost duty is to protect the public and thats exactly what the OC tried to do.

Last edited by Jainus (2006-08-10 14:21:30)

they also aim for the head because they are looking for people wearing bomb vests, not a good idea to aim for the c4, every report you read you see something different, and each eyewitness account is different as well, yeah it was a big cluster fornication, but tensions were high and the on scene officers were just following orders, not much to be done about it unless you can figure out where the blame goes in the first place, at worst it was a victory for the terrorists because this type of thing is exactly what they are counting on, had they tried to be all pleasant and talkative and he had detonated a bomb many of you would be critiscizing them for that

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-08-10 14:55:02)

tbh your not going to know why or how he was shot 9 times in the head unless you were actually there. Maybe one guy got carried away with the whole killing another man thing and emptied a clip into him? ( i mean that it upset him not that he enjoyed it) maybe they only had very small caliber weapons maybe maybe what if what if you could go on forever.

I agree that they only got a slap on the wrist as its better to be safe than sorry. Also support who would you punish? and lets be honest now everybody would be saying well why didnt they shoot him before he got on the train and blew it up?

They shouldnt have made such a crappy cover up story and i expect theyve learnt that lesson.

Shooting someone 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder is wrong, and not only that it isn't even a sure fire way to prevent someone detonating explosives as they may have a dead man's switch, in which case shooting them would actually cause the detonation.  And once a shoot-to-kill policy becomes public knowledge, the likelihood of such a mechanism is increased. 

Ignoring the fact that it may have actually increased future risk of terrorism by creating anger and resentment against more government policy, it also highlights a significant bias towards whom protection is given two.  I used to live in Tulse Hill.  I caught the bus he got to stockwell station (the number 2) to college for 2 years, and I know it would have been packed at that time of day especially if Brixton station was closed.  I mean packed.  There would probably have been nearly 100 people on that bus.  One of the bombs detonated on a bus a few weeks ago.  Why did they leave him to travel for 30 minutes on that bus (with some undercover agents) but shoot him within seconds when he got on the tube?  Why did they observe him get off the bus a Brixton and jump back on when he saw the station was closed, yet not put 2+2 together that he was trying to get a tube and would obviously be boarding the next nearest train at Stockwell station 15 minutes later?  Why did they tail him until the point on his journey where there would be the least eye witnesses, (there were virtually none after all) and why did they hide the CCTV?

I think the brutality of his unlawful killing was a kind of revenge against an perceived enemy which conventional security and guns are usually impotent against.  They may have even known he wasn't carrying explosives, but simply thought he was involved in the planning of the other attacks and thought that a life in prison was too good for him.  Who can say what the motives were?  In my opinion they would have done the shooting on the bus before he got anywhere near the tube, as that was when the threat to life would have been the greatest.   The large number of eye witnesses wouldn't have deterred them if they were truly convinced he posed an immediate threat.

And I would have much more sympathy for the problems they face if they faced up to their mistakes immediately, and didn't try to fabricate elaborate cover stories and accounts.  I hope Stockwell 2 gets some answers on that subject.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-08-10 17:48:07)

mafia996630 wrote:

let not compare me to the like of these officers, these people have been trained and are highly skilled at what they do, therfore sayin that "Wot would u have done" is wrong.

dont get me wrong i am not sayin not to shoot him in the head, and shooting someone in the head at point black twice is not a "half measure".  so your sayin every officer has to shoot ? did the other 3 or wot ever not see the guy falling with brains droping out ?

And what, the training of these people makes them immune to all thoughts and feelings? I'm not saying that every officer shot (i don't actually know who did or didn't shoot. I think it was 5 officers present and 9 rounds in de Menezes head), what i am saying is to shoot him 9 times doesn't necessarily show that the police were being blood thirsty killers; they were attempting to ensure that no bomb was going to go off.

9 times is overkill, but when the difference between using overkill and just firing once is the possibility of a bomb going off, which you rather the police used? The guy isn't going to survive a round to the head (well maybe 99% of people won't survive) so if the order comes to stop him (which it did) you know that the guy is going to be dead at the end of it. At which point you may as well make sure that he is dropped.

Did every officer have to shoot? A better question would be, is there one person thats meant to shoot. You can't hold a quick meeting over who shoots if your trying to stop a terrorist. If there was one person preselected to fire then I agree with you; 9 rounds from one officer is beyond overkill.

And finally, how long do you think it took between first round and ninth round? It wouldn't have been long and as we know that head wounds bleed massively any attempt to talk about "brains dropping out" is dense in the extreme. You've probably fired 2 or 3 rounds before you register what it is your actually seeing. If it was only one officer doing the shooting then the other 3 obviously did see it or they might have started shooting. Whichever way you look at it, the officers on the scene did the best that they could do with the information and orders they were given. You will have to do far better than your previous posts to convince many people otherwise.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Shooting someone 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder is wrong, and not only that it isn't even a sure fire way to prevent someone detonating explosives as they may have a dead man's switch, in which case shooting them would actually cause the detonation.  And once a shoot-to-kill policy becomes public knowledge, the likelihood of such a mechanism is increased.

Agree with you entirely, it doesn't stop a dead switch, but its the best (and only) policy that they have when dealing with suicide bombers. If you've got a better idea on what to do, I'm sure the Metropolitan Police and British Police in general would love to hear from you.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Why did they leave him to travel for 30 minutes on that bus (with some undercover agents) but shoot him within seconds when he got on the tube?  Why did they observe him get off the bus a Brixton and jump back on when he saw the station was closed, yet not put 2+2 together that he was trying to get a tube and would obviously be boarding the next nearest train at Stockwell station 15 minutes later?

If you read the original link, it says that the information that "confirmed" de Menezes was a terrorist only came later on. So to answer your question, the police were checking out who it was that had just left a suspected terrorists house. That isn't an instantaneous search. Once the police were "sure" that they had the right person, they acted. To have acted earlier would have been rash and stupid. As it was, the police thought they had a 100% identification on the de Menezes as a terrorist and until they had that identification, they decided to wait. Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me to wait until you think you know who your following.

As it turns out, the police got the wrong person but look at the situation the police had at the time. A man walks out of a "terrorist" house, the police follow him whilst they check out who he is. Once they think they know, they act... whats unreasonable about any of that?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Why did they tail him until the point on his journey where there would be the least eye witnesses, (there were virtually none after all) and why did they hide the CCTV?

The least eye witnesses or were they waiting to confirm who he was? If you honestly believe that the police conspired to kill him then I'm not going to waste time arguing with you.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I think the brutality of his unlawful killing was a kind of revenge against an perceived enemy which conventional security and guns are usually impotent against.  They may have even known he wasn't carrying explosives, but simply thought he was involved in the planning of the other attacks and thought that a life in prison was too good for him.  Who can say what the motives were?  In my opinion they would have done the shooting on the bus before he got anywhere near the tube, as that was when the threat to life would have been the greatest.   The large number of eye witnesses wouldn't have deterred them if they were truly convinced he posed an immediate threat.

And I would have much more sympathy for the problems they face if they faced up to their mistakes immediately, and didn't try to fabricate elaborate cover stories and accounts.  I hope Stockwell 2 gets some answers on that subject.

Agree with most of this except the shooting on the bus. If you don't know who your about to shoot, you shouldn't be shooting. The police thought they knew who he was, and then they acted. The 'cover up' is disgusting and thats the only place i believe you can lay any blame on the police. A complete fuckup of an operation, but no one person to blame for it. The people that tried to cover it up, they should be the ones prosecuted.

How can you not blame the police? The Nuremburg defense does not work here
The cover up afterwards just confirms their guilt.

As it turns out, the police got the wrong person but look at the situation the police had at the time. A man walks out of a "terrorist" house, the police follow him whilst they check out who he is. Once they think they know, they act... whats unreasonable about any of that?

I like this "Terrorist House" line.   seems the most incriminating thing that de Menezes did was to walk out of this  "Terrorist House".   And exactly how many Terrorists where arrested later in this house after the police made this big fuck up ?   I'm thinking absolutely None.

If this happened to a brother or sister of mine I would not stop until the person responsible for Murdering them was punished.

If the attitude is "well He could have had a bomb and better safe that sorry" why not impose a curfew on the basis that some of the population are terrorist and to protect the innocent you can shoot dead anyone out after curfew.

Last edited by buttersIRL (2006-08-11 04:51:45)

Bubbalo wrote:

buttersIRL wrote:

whats unreasonable about any of that?

The part where they shoot him dead

where did this quote come from ? i didn't write that in my post !