End of the first paragraph................
The cops involved in this were caught up in the mass hysteria following the London bombings. When you look at the facts the cops were in the wrong. They lied and twisted the story. If it wasn't bad enough for the guys relatives that he was killed, for days after the MET was spewing out information they knew to be false labeling him as a potential suicide bomber acting suspiciously, when infact all he was trying to do was get to work.
I don't blame the guy who shot him. It was more the breakdown of information and bad communication which lead to his death. Therefore its very hard to place the blame. I don't think this will be the last such case. It is however a good thing to know that the truth came out and that even the Metropolitan police force and that other lying Blair, Sir Ian Blair (top cop in the country) can be unmasked publicly as lier's. My only complaint is that he didn't even get disciplined for his lies.
I don't blame the guy who shot him. It was more the breakdown of information and bad communication which lead to his death. Therefore its very hard to place the blame. I don't think this will be the last such case. It is however a good thing to know that the truth came out and that even the Metropolitan police force and that other lying Blair, Sir Ian Blair (top cop in the country) can be unmasked publicly as lier's. My only complaint is that he didn't even get disciplined for his lies.
Quite true, none one was arrested from the house that de Menezes walked out of and whats more, we haven't ssen anything of why the police were watching the house in the first place. If you actually bother to read my first post on this thread, i've said this before.buttersIRL wrote:
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.
Also, if you look at the link from the start, you'll notice this little bit as well;
"At about the same time [as the shooting], armed officers were provided with positive identification that de Menezes was either Hussain Osman, one of the suspected bombers from the day before, or another suspect, at which point he was shot,"
So again i'll repeat mysef for you as you seem to have trouble reading. The police thought he was a terrorist. Yes they were wrong, but at the time the police had "positive identification" of the man that was getting on that train. Which part of positive identification are you having trouble with? With hindsight, its nice and easy to say "they shouldn't have shot him" and i agree with you. But to sit here and discuss this after its all come out is in no way similar to the situation that the officers faced on the day.
Two things then; firstly actually read the posts on the thread. Secondly hindsights a wonderful thing but as soon as your talking about blame and prosecution you need to keep in mind what info the police were working off (thats the "positive identification" bit)
I agree completely. The actual shooting was a complete cock up, but one that no one person is singularly responsible for. The cover up is unforgivable and those people need to be investigated and chargedJahManRed wrote:
The cops involved in this were caught up in the mass hysteria following the London bombings. When you look at the facts the cops were in the wrong. They lied and twisted the story. If it wasn't bad enough for the guys relatives that he was killed, for days after the MET was spewing out information they knew to be false labeling him as a potential suicide bomber acting suspiciously, when infact all he was trying to do was get to work.
I don't blame the guy who shot him. It was more the breakdown of information and bad communication which lead to his death. Therefore its very hard to place the blame. I don't think this will be the last such case. It is however a good thing to know that the truth came out and that even the Metropolitan police force and that other lying Blair, Sir Ian Blair (top cop in the country) can be unmasked publicly as lier's. My only complaint is that he didn't even get disciplined for his lies.
Oh, right:Jainus wrote:
But to sit here and discuss this after its all come out is in no way similar to the situation that the officers faced on the day.
"That guy is either this guy, or another suspected terrorist. But he couldn't possibly be anyone else. As we suspect he is maybe a terrorist, and he is on a train, we will shoot him, without checking that he has a device with him, or confirming who he actually is. And we'd better shoot him in the head fellas!"
I really admire the people calling the shots that day. Seriously, they shoud get Nobel Peace Prizes or something.
oh yeah sorry. that first paragraph was meant to be in quote marks from one of the posts above (one i actually disagreed with !) damn you punctuation !!!!!!Bubbalo wrote:
End of the first paragraph................
k, mine's been fixed.
So after they had "positive identification" the police should still have not believed that he was a terrorist? Interesting idea i suppose. We don't know the evidence that led them to this decision, but the OC and the officers at the scene were told that de Menezes was a terrorist. What needs to be looked into is how the "positive identification" was made, either way you can't blame the OC for acting off that information; if you distrust your colleagues to that extent, you'll find the police paralysed and unable to do much of anything let alone stop future suicide bombers.Bubbalo wrote:
Oh, right:Jainus wrote:
But to sit here and discuss this after its all come out is in no way similar to the situation that the officers faced on the day.
"That guy is either this guy, or another suspected terrorist. But he couldn't possibly be anyone else. As we suspect he is maybe a terrorist, and he is on a train, we will shoot him
Tell me O Enlightened One, would you have forgiven the police for letting a terrorist commit mass murder when they had been following him for the last half an hour? And even when they we're given "positive identification", they still decided to leave him alone just in case they were wrong? I wouldn't and I don't think many other Londoners would have either.
This is obviously very complicated for you... the officer commanding of the undercover team was told that de Menezes was a terrorist. Do you accept that thats what the OC was told or do you have evidence to the contrary?Bubbalo wrote:
without checking that he has a device with him, or confirming who he actually is. And we'd better shoot him in the head fellas!"
I really admire the people calling the shots that day. Seriously, they shoud get Nobel Peace Prizes or something.
As far as the OC and the officers following de Menezes knew, he was a terrorist. The information that led to the "positive identification" identification was later proven to be false BUT AT THE TIME THE OFFICERS WERE TOLD DE MENEZES WAS A NASTY PERSON... do you understand that bit? Shall we take a rest, or can you handle more information?
How many different ways detonating a bomb are there? Mobile phone, pager, straight signal from a remote (like a TV remote control, yes it can be set to the frequency to set a bomb off), good ole fashioned push button, the list goes on. Did the officers know that a) the bomb was on the person of de Menezes and b) did the police know that a bomb wasn't already in place? The answer to both questions is no... would you have liked the police to take the chance? I can see the news report from later that day;
"Yeah, we thought he was a nasty pasty and we could have stopped him. But then we thought that obviously the guys in the intel business were lying to us on purpose." said a spokesman for the Met Police
"Didn't you think about protecting the public?" asked the news anchor
"Yes the thought crossed our minds but then we thought, we've only been told he is a terrorist and its not like a major terrorist incident has just taken place or anything and the Home Office hasn't mentioned anything about possible attacks so we said fuck it and went and had a beer instead"
An interesting little broadcast that would have made wouldn't it.
And now onto the argument that you haven't made yet, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself so I'll help you out. De Menezes was only wearing a normal jacket and jeans, how could the police have thought that he had a bomb on him?
Now I'm glad that you've thought of that question (I'm sure it was on the tip of your tongue). A quick question for you; how much Semtex does it take to say... blow the roof off a family car? The answer... a ball the size of a garden pea. How much death and explosive force would say a block the size of a mobile phone do, do you think? Just because he isn't carrying a back pack doesn't mean he hasn't got a bomb. You think thats it unreasonable to think that he might have had (he didn't but again police didn't know this) a block of plastic explosive the size of a mobile phone on him?
If you do, you really are thick.
A) We wouldn't have known they were following him if they hadn't told us.Jainus wrote:
Tell me O Enlightened One, would you have forgiven the police for letting a terrorist commit mass murder when they had been following him for the last half an hour? And even when they we're given "positive identification", they still decided to leave him alone just in case they were wrong? I wouldn't and I don't think many other Londoners would have either.
B) Most Londoners accept the fact that it is basically impossible to stop terrorism through on-the-ground policing, I lived with bomb scares and diversions most of my childhood, didn't you?
C) Most Londoners blame the bombers for their actions, not the police for their inaction. At least, I've never met anyone who blamed the police for allowing any of the other bombings or attempted bombings over the last few decades, have you?
If you are going to send people who don't know what the people they are watching look like, then shouldn't the people who they are communicating with know what the people under surveillance look like? If the plainclothes were able to get on the same bus, then why not stop that person before they get on the bus, protecting the public from risk? If there was a credible source of information that a suicide bomber was likely to emerge from that block of flats and commit an act of terrorism, why was he even allowed to get on the bus? If the flats had been in Central London, do you think they would have taken that risk?Jainus wrote:
This is obviously very complicated for you... the officer commanding of the undercover team was told that de Menezes was a terrorist. Do you accept that thats what the OC was told or do you have evidence to the contrary?
As far as the OC and the officers following de Menezes knew, he was a terrorist. The information that led to the "positive identification" identification was later proven to be false BUT AT THE TIME THE OFFICERS WERE TOLD DE MENEZES WAS A NASTY PERSON... do you understand that bit? Shall we take a rest, or can you handle more information?
The 'calculated risk factors' aside: Here's the story on how the identification was made according to wikipedia:
That's right, an officer was taking a piss and didn't even get any pictures or a proper look, yet it apparently got communicated as a positive identification. That's taking the piss if you ask me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charl … e_shooting
wrote:
An officer on duty at Scotia Road compared Menezes to the CCTV photographs of the bombing suspects from the previous day, and felt "it would be worth someone else having a look", but "was in the process of relieving [him]self", and was thus unable to immediately turn on a video camera to transmit images to Gold Command, the Metropolitan Police ("Met") operational headquarters for major incidents. Police thought they had positively identified a suicide bomber.
If it's an acceptable mistake given that they had a tipoff on some of the occupants of the flat, then basically any time someone pisses you off, just phone the cops, say one of their neighbours has a bomb and the next morning when they get on the train for work - *boom* - headshot x 7 -
And as for the bombers using Semtex, that would beg the question why they didn't use it instead of backpacks full of inviable materials as they had used the day before. They had as much reason to suspect that guy had a mobile phone stuffed with plastic explosive as any random person on any tube train anywhere.Jainus wrote:
How many different ways detonating a bomb are there? Mobile phone, pager, straight signal from a remote (like a TV remote control, yes it can be set to the frequency to set a bomb off), good ole fashioned push button, the list goes on. Did the officers know that a) the bomb was on the person of de Menezes and b) did the police know that a bomb wasn't already in place? The answer to both questions is no... would you have liked the police to take the chance? I can see the news report from later that day;
"Yeah, we thought he was a nasty pasty and we could have stopped him. But then we thought that obviously the guys in the intel business were lying to us on purpose." said a spokesman for the Met Police
"Didn't you think about protecting the public?" asked the news anchor
"Yes the thought crossed our minds but then we thought, we've only been told he is a terrorist and its not like a major terrorist incident has just taken place or anything and the Home Office hasn't mentioned anything about possible attacks so we said fuck it and went and had a beer instead"
An interesting little broadcast that would have made wouldn't it.
And now onto the argument that you haven't made yet, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself so I'll help you out. De Menezes was only wearing a normal jacket and jeans, how could the police have thought that he had a bomb on him?
Now I'm glad that you've thought of that question (I'm sure it was on the tip of your tongue). A quick question for you; how much Semtex does it take to say... blow the roof off a family car? The answer... a ball the size of a garden pea. How much death and explosive force would say a block the size of a mobile phone do, do you think? Just because he isn't carrying a back pack doesn't mean he hasn't got a bomb. You think thats it unreasonable to think that he might have had (he didn't but again police didn't know this) a block of plastic explosive the size of a mobile phone on him?
If you do, you really are thick.
Mistakes were made and when you are dealing with peoples lives, then mistakes should be punished. It's called negligence.
Jainus: My point is that if the positive identification was for multiple people, which it was, that leaves a big margin for error. Further, they hadn't confirmed that the suspects were terrorists, or they would have arrested them. Shooting to kill a person who may be a suspected terrorist seems a little.......excessive.