NationStates Jolt Archive

And even if they make a mistake, it's regrettable, but no one will be prosecuted for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6646537.stm

A good piece of advice at this point: when the officers tell you to show your hands, you've got about a second to comply, before they start perforating you.

No furtive gestures, either. Unless you're looking for ways to shorten your longevity.

Save your outrage for later, when you can call a lawyer and make a formal complaint. At least you'll be alive to complain.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing ordinary citizens can't have guns in London? Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm right, isn't that a bit worrying?

Ahh, so London takes one more step towards becoming the LA of Europe. Good job.

Oh for god's sake, this guy RAN AWAY from armed police right after the July 7th bombings.

And even if they make a mistake, it's regrettable, but no one will be prosecuted for it.


From the article you posted

Decisions have not been made on the four most senior officers investigated.
Jumping the gun just a tad.

Regardless of whether the officers would be prosecuted or not, this shouldn't happen again.

Ahh, so London takes one more step towards becoming the LA of Europe. Good job.
Nope, in LA [Los Angeles, not Lower Alabama] they persecute officers that participate in 'regrettable' incidents. In London, they appear to encourage them to enforce laws -- much like that other LA.

From the article you posted


Jumping the gun just a tad.

The question is, were the senior officers the ones who shot, or were they just the supervisors of the men who shot.

Looks like it's unlikely they'll be charged though. Read down in the article and you'll see what I mean.

Oh for god's sake, this guy RAN AWAY from armed police right after the July 7th bombings.

Not true. He did not run away from them.

The question is, were the senior officers the ones who shot, or were they just the supervisors of the men who shot.

Looks like it's unlikely they'll be charged though. Read down in the article and you'll see what I mean.

You mean this part:

However, Scotland Yard is facing prosecution under health and safety laws over the incident. The trial is due to start in October.

Or this part:

The Menezes family said they believed there were grounds for gross negligence manslaughter criminal charges against the four senior officers.

Even if the individuals don't get reprimanded, the Yard is still in trouble for this incident. The other four officers still under investigation also may end up in trouble, as well.

yet another reason not to go to london.

Oh no! The illuminati will take advantage of the CPS's common sense by shooting us all in the street!

etc.

Not true. He did not run away from them.

Well, they are not sure, some people say he did, some say he was running for the train and some say that he may even have vaulted the barrier. It was a terrible mistake, but the officers were terribly pressured and mistakes were made. I am sure that does not make his family feel any better.

You mean this part:

Or this part:

Even if the individuals don't get reprimanded, the Yard is still in trouble for this incident. The other four officers still under investigation also may end up in trouble, as well.

I guess you deliberately ignored this:

But he said although Mr Menezes was "entirely innocent" there was "no realistic prospect" of disciplinary charges being upheld against the firearms or surveillance officers involved, including the two officers directly responsible for the fatal shooting .

Oh for god's sake, this guy RAN AWAY from armed police right after the July 7th bombings.

he ran away from un-uniformed armed men who were shouting at him at a time of heightened tensions and paranoia. not quite the same thing.

he ran away from un-uniformed armed men who were shouting at him at a time of heightened tensions and paranoia. not quite the same thing.

True

he ran away from un-uniformed armed men who were shouting at him at a time of heightened tensions and paranoia. not quite the same thing.

They didn't identify themselves as police officers when chasing him?

I guess you deliberately ignored this:

firearms and survillance officers cleared, the operational commanders are the people who's charges are still being discussed. because basically whilst the firearms officers were left in an impossible situation, it could well have been the commanders fault.

and he didn't run, witnesses saw a plain clothes officer running, when asked afterwards if they saw anyone running or acting suspiciously the replied truthfullly, "yes".

Well, they are not sure, some people say he did, some say he was running for the train and some say that he may even have vaulted the barrier. It was a terrible mistake, but the officers were terribly pressured and mistakes were made. I am sure that does not make his family feel any better.

If I recall correctly CCTV cameras recorded Mr. Menezes paying for his ticket, stopping to pick up a newspaper and then walking calmly to the platform. He was not even aware of the police until they were actively restraining him. However, I do believe that the police on the subway were making the best decision they could at the time with the information they had. Unfortunately, they had the wrong information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

The title of this thread is misleading, to say the least. 'It was apparently legal for police to shoot you in the few days after the terror attacks in London, if you looked vaguely middle-eastern' would be a more honest title. A little long, though...

I guess you deliberately ignored this:

No, I took the IPCC Chairman's statement with the official statement from the commission:

It said a decision on whether the four commanders and tactical advisers investigated should be disciplined would be made after the end of court proceedings.

In other words, the fate of those officers is still unknown. They are by no means as safe from the consequences of the shooting as your first post suggests, and certainly Scotland Yard is still being prosecuted for this incident.

mistakes were made. aww the ultimate Reaganesque excuse.

http://www.futurama-area.de/LiH/OComics/1.gif :D

Ahh, so London takes one more step towards becoming the LA of Europe. Good job.

You know I've never been to LA, maybe I'll visit London instead. :p

hmmm..
Why would the London Police refuse to show the full/unedited video Footages?

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=LJ2515737D&news_headline=family_demand_to_see_cctv

I mean London has "a few" cameras around the Subway stations.. rite? ;)

They didn't identify themselves as police officers when chasing him?

they might have but apparently not clearly or he wouldn't have run. he had no reason to run other than the fact that armed men started shouting at him. (you can be sure that possible alternative reasons for running were investigated, so far none have been reported)

they might have but apparently not clearly or he wouldn't have run. he had no reason to run other than the fact that armed men started shouting at him. (you can be sure that possible alternative reasons for running were investigated, so far none have been reported)

Hadn't his visa to stay in Britain expired?

hmmm..
Why would the London Police refuse to show the full/unedited video Footages?

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=LJ2515737D&news_headline=family_demand_to_see_cctv

I mean London has "a few" cameras around the Subway stations.. rite? ;)

because it had all been taken out and had yet to be replaced because of the attacks prior?

because it had all been taken out and had yet to be replaced because of the attacks prior?is that

#1 Your personal guess.. or
#2 Information.
??

Hadn't his visa to stay in Britain expired?

could be, not that i'd heard though.

He entered the UK on a tourist visa in 2002, and later obtained a student visa valid until June 2003. According to a statement by the British Home Office, he did not apply for any extension, and, thus, was living illegally in the UK after that time.
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Pursuit_and_shooting)

It was a communication error, the police have admitted to it. Nothing intentional.

they might have but apparently not clearly or he wouldn't have run. he had no reason to run other than the fact that armed men started shouting at him. (you can be sure that possible alternative reasons for running were investigated, so far none have been reported)

I would guess this would all be guessing though. We really don't know what happened it seems. If they didn't identify themselves and just started shooting than they should be held accountable. If they did and he ran anyway than there is nothing to debate about. But we don't know what occurred, if he had some other reason he didn't want to be stopped by police, just how reckless the cops were acting... it seems many just want to jump to a conclusion based on a bias that all cops have the tendency to shoot first and then demand a surrender. I have to assume this is inaccurate or else police training in London is sorely inadequate.

is that

#1 Your personal guess.. or
#2 Information.
??

i read it, in a newspaper though i'm not convinced its true so i added a question mark to make it a statement of possibility rather than of fact.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing ordinary citizens can't have guns in London? Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm right, isn't that a bit worrying?

Why is it worrying? The police don't normally have guns either.

This is stupid.

If you saw two gun weilding men shouting "Met Police" after a bomb when off, you'er choice is to:
A) Run towards an underground train with your backpack.
B) Let them arrest you as you have nothing to hide (allegedly).

The guy who was shot braght it upon himself, you don't run towards a train when gun weilding police are yelling at you to stop thinking that you'er goal is to blow one up.

(Edit: He should not have been in the country anyway, I am laughing at his pethetic corps now. The police are finaly doing their job.)

that would be true only when the "IF" statement was valid

since he wasn't confronted by armed police till he was on the train and since he didn't run. whats your point?

This is stupid.

If you saw two gun weilding men shouting "Met Police" after a bomb when off, you'er choice is to:
A) Run towards an underground train with your backpack.
B) Let them arrest you as you have nothing to hide (allegedly).

The guy who was shot braght it upon himself, you don't run towards a train when gun weilding police are yelling at you to stop thinking that you'er goal is to blow one up.

Don't forget the whole plain clothes police aspect to your scenario

i read it, in a newspaper though i'm not convinced its true so i added a question mark to make it a statement of possibility rather than of fact.fair enough..

The platform CCTV system is maintained by the Tube Lines consortium... unofficial sources from inside the company insisted that the cameras were in working order. It was also reported that London Underground sources insisted that at least three of the four cameras trained on the Stockwell Tube platform were in full working order.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=360051&in_page_id=1770

Police watchdog has 'crucial' Stockwell tube footage
Wednesday August 24, 2005

The police watchdog confirmed tonight that "crucial" CCTV footage had been recovered from the scene of the fatal police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

There have been confused reports in recent days about whether or not the cameras were working at south London's Stockwell tube station, where the innocent Brazilian was killed, and speculation that tapes may have been removed.

But Nick Hardwick, chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which is conducting the inquiry into the killing by the Metropolitan police, said tonight that his team had important footage in their possession.

He said there would be further verification but he was confident the inquiry now had all the relevant CCTV film and that there was "no reason" to believe any had been deliberately withheld.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1555563,00.html

fair enough..


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=360051&in_page_id=1770

ahh. the daily mail, the last true bastion of the british free press.

This is stupid.

If you saw two gun weilding men shouting "Met Police" after a bomb when off, you'er choice is to:
A) Run towards an underground train with your backpack.
B) Let them arrest you as you have nothing to hide (allegedly).

The guy who was shot braght it upon himself, you don't run towards a train when gun weilding police are yelling at you to stop thinking that you'er goal is to blow one up.

Yes you are right. Your post is stupid.

He did not run. The police did not ID themselves to De Menizes until they were on the train and had him constrained or in the process of constraining him.

Really do try and learn about what happened before spouting this utter crap.

ahh. the daily mail, the last true bastion of the british free press.

I love the title of the article, "Was there a coverup?". Makes me feel so certain of partiality in the information provided.

*nods confidently*

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Pursuit_and_shooting)

So, not getting visa extension = getting killed by cops is okay?

He did not run. The police did not ID themselves to De Menizes until they were on the train and had him constrained or in the process of constraining him.


Source?

DK if you want to bait us Brits into yet another pointless gun control thread then try using a story that isn't nearly 2 years old and been discussed and talked over a thousand times already.:rolleyes:

Yes you are right. Your post is stupid.

He did not run. The police did not ID themselves to De Menizes until they were on the train and had him constrained or in the process of constraining him.

Really do try and learn about what happened before spouting this utter crap.

IIRC, they thought he was one of the bombers, and mistakenly believed he had a suicide bomb, and while trying to restrain him, they then (for some reason) shot him seven times in the head - that being the standard thing to do to suspected suicide bombers.

And they were wrong - he wasn't one of the bombers, didn't have a bomb, etc.

One might argue that this was poor judgment under strenuous circumstances (following a series of bomb attacks).

DK if you want to bait us Brits into yet another pointless gun control thread then try using a story that isn't nearly 2 years old and been discussed and talked over a thousand times already.:rolleyes:

The story link is new.

One might argue that this was poor judgment under strenuous circumstances (following a series of bomb attacks).

Of course that is what it was, one would have to be insane to actually believe it was some crazy conspiracy.

The story link is new.

Yet the story is still years old isn't it?

And it has been discussed many times before hasn't it? Bored today were you?

Of course that is what it was, one would have to be insane to actually believe it was some crazy conspiracy.

It does sound like the higher ups tried to conceal the mistake.

It does sound like the higher ups tried to conceal the mistake.

I don't think you are alowed to release vital video footage to the public during a court case.

Source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/tube_shooting/html/default.stm

The link brings you to the first page in a series that summarises the latest information about the supposedly disputed points. It is very clear that Menezes was not aware of the police until he was seated on the subway. There was no running or chasing at all.

Yet the story is still years old isn't it?

And it has been discussed many times before hasn't it? Bored today were you?

It's a new development in the story. And this isn't a gun control thread. :rolleyes:

Source?

There is plenty. You can have a look at the various documents and the testimony of passengers and the guys who did the shooting.

No disrespect to you but this has been gone over umpteen times and I really cannot be arsed to link to sources in this case.

And I have to split in a few minutes...no time.

IIRC, they thought he was one of the bombers, and mistakenly believed he had a suicide bomb, and while trying to restrain him, they then (for some reason) shot him seven times in the head - that being the standard thing to do to suspected suicide bombers.

And they were wrong - he wasn't one of the bombers, didn't have a bomb, etc.

One might argue that this was poor judgment under strenuous circumstances (following a series of bomb attacks).

argh!! They were not survailling 'one of the bombers' .... the were survailling a suspected terrorist. It was an ongoing op from before 7/7. With no link to the Leeds mob. Of course 7/7 itself changed things.

The entire op on the day of the shooting was a total fuck up from the bad ID of DeMenizes given from the SAS observer to the use of officers not trained in trailing suspects.

Gold Commander made some very poor judgements and the ultimate bad judgement by giving the order to use deadly force even though they did not have a 100% ID of the suspect.

It was a cluster fuck. However those involved in the op were negligent by not following the proper procedure (besides using head shots).

minor point but its SRR not the SAS, special reconnaissance regiment

SRR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Reconnaissance_Regiment)

Nope, in LA [Los Angeles, not Lower Alabama] they persecute officers that participate in 'regrettable' incidents.

I do hope you mean "prosecute"

They didn't identify themselves as police officers when chasing him?

Only a real police officer can identify himself as a police officer. All others, including armed criminals, are physically incapable of uttering the word.

IIRC, they thought he was one of the bombers, and mistakenly believed he had a suicide bomb, and while trying to restrain him, they then (for some reason) shot him seven times in the head - that being the standard thing to do to suspected suicide bombers.

And they were wrong - he wasn't one of the bombers, didn't have a bomb, etc.

One might argue that this was poor judgment under strenuous circumstances (following a series of bomb attacks).

One might also argue that shooting someone seven times at essentially point blank point range in the head is just a tad bit overboard. From what I recall, it was practically execution-style.

I do hope you mean "prosecute"
Nope, it stands as written.

And even if they make a mistake, it's regrettable, but no one will be prosecuted for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6646537.stm

A good piece of advice at this point: when the officers tell you to show your hands, you've got about a second to comply, before they start perforating you.

No furtive gestures, either. Unless you're looking for ways to shorten your longevity.

Save your outrage for later, when you can call a lawyer and make a formal complaint. At least you'll be alive to complain.
Everything I see you post about guns makes me feel safer and more positive about letting everyone own one, especially you.

minor point but its SRR not the SAS, special reconnaissance regiment

SRR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Reconnaissance_Regiment)

Yeah...my mistake....cheers!

Either way he was not Met.

One might also argue that shooting someone seven times at essentially point blank point range in the head is just a tad bit overboard. From what I recall, it was practically execution-style.

I believe that's standard operating procedure when dealing with suspected suicide bombers. If they're wearing an explosive vest then shooting them in the torso could set off the bomb, and if the suspect isn't taken out instantly then they have the opportunity to detonate the bomb.

I don't think the officers who carried out the shooting should be prosecuted, as they were following (what would have seemed to be) reasonable orders. The high-ups who tried to cover up for their own incompetence should be brought to justice though.

Nope, in LA [Los Angeles, not Lower Alabama] they persecute officers that participate in 'regrettable' incidents. In London, they appear to encourage them to enforce laws -- much like that other LA.

Yep.

I believe that's standard operating procedure when dealing with suspected suicide bombers. If they're wearing an explosive vest then shooting them in the torso could set off the bomb, and if the suspect isn't taken out instantly then they have the opportunity to detonate the bomb.

I don't think the officers who carried out the shooting should be prosecuted, as they were following (what would have seemed to be) reasonable orders. The high-ups who tried to cover up for their own incompetence should be brought to justice though.

Thats right. The so called Operation Kratos.

Now, this is just a rough estimate of how the increasing powers of police and the government cameras will result...

By 2010, cameras will shoot people who look suspicious, with no human intervention.

Now, this is just a rough estimate of how the increasing powers of police and the government cameras will result...

By 2010, cameras will shoot people who look suspicious, with no human intervention.

Ahhh....you forgot the intermediate stage....the 'talking' cameras LOL!

Booooo, guns are boring. They should have sent a legion of specially trained boxing kangaroos instead. Those buggers really can kick some arse.

And in Soviet London, shoot can now police you.

Booooo, guns are boring. They should have sent a legion of specially trained boxing kangaroos instead. Those buggers really can kick some arse.

They most definately kick arse, though since you would be facing them they are more likely to either crack your ribs (and in general crush your chest) or disembowel you.

he ran away from un-uniformed armed men who were shouting at him at a time of heightened tensions and paranoia. not quite the same thing.

If I see an armed man who doesn't look very clearly like a policeman (that is, if he doesn't wear an uniform), and this man is toting a gun around and shouts, I'm running like crazy, because I'd think that he's some sort of criminal.

I hope that, at the very least, the commanding officers will be punished for homicide - no, manslaughter isn't enough. When you fire a gun at a person that is running away is a very intentional killing, and unnecessary to boot.

Ah, the good ol' times, when bobbies didn't have guns.

If I see an armed man who doesn't look very clearly like a policeman (that is, if he doesn't wear an uniform), and this man is toting a gun around and shouts, I'm running like crazy, because I'd think that he's some sort of criminal.

I hope that, at the very least, the commanding officers will be punished for homicide - no, manslaughter isn't enough. When you fire a gun at a person that is running away is a very intentional killing, and unnecessary to boot.

Ah, the good ol' times, when bobbies didn't have guns.

You should come here. Our cops wouldn't be able to find a gun in an armoury.

I believe that's standard operating procedure when dealing with suspected suicide bombers. If they're wearing an explosive vest then shooting them in the torso could set off the bomb, and if the suspect isn't taken out instantly then they have the opportunity to detonate the bomb.

Yeah, that's why intelligent suicide bombers use triggers that will make the bomb explode when the button is released.

I don't think the officers who carried out the shooting should be prosecuted, as they were following (what would have seemed to be) reasonable orders. The high-ups who tried to cover up for their own incompetence should be brought to justice though.

I don't think that their orders were very reasonable if they lead to attacking and killing an innocent. But, of course, the high-ups are more responsible for the killing than those who materially killed the man.

You should come here. Our cops wouldn't be able to find a gun in an armoury.

Nice.

In Novara, a city near Milan, the carabinieri received an explicit order from a judge: they are NEVER to use firearms inside a town, even if they're being fired at. (This is also because the carabinieri, being military, have military-grade weapons.)