Shoot first

I fear we'll never find out what really happened. IMO the Police has already tried to cover up facts when they made statements about how Jean Charles De Menezes was dressed and behaved.

BBC's web site points out some of the differences between original statements and the leaked documents.

 

blimey

i seem to agree with paul birkett

 

Don't be so surprised John!, stranger things have happened, I'm told.

 

What has 'hindsight' got to do with this?!
It is clear from the photograph what he was wearing and one would have thought that the police who caught him and shot him from a foot away could see what he was wearing.

I really would like to get an intelligent explanation as to why police made false claims such as he was wearing heavy clothing, vaulted over the ticket barrier, tripped and fell outside the carriage and so on. Original statements by the police are like panic mutterings of a criminal caught red handed.

 

Hindsight my friend is what you have. Its so much easier to evaluate the situation from the safety and comfort of your own home.

However, for the guy who shot him, he had to contend with following his orders, and shooting someone that he was TOLD was a terrorist. Are you telling me you'd have disobeyed your orders? Are you telling me that you'd maintain such rational thought in the heat of the moment? Without actually being in their shoes, I dont think you can really. A day after a failed bombing. Itself two weeks after a big terrorist attack!!

Apart from anything else, its funny how the evidence from the leaked reports do not exactly match eyewitness reports.

There is a lot that none of us know about this, and that includes you!

 

That photograph was taken immediately after the murder. Nothing to do my 'hindsight' or anyone elses.


Talking about witness reports is a red herring. It does not counter or diminish the photographic evidence in anyway.

 

I've just re-read it, and it does look as if you were only referring to the photo, when you said "blatant lie by police". Even so, some witness accounts are different.

Anyway I didnt mean to have a go if I misunderstood, I apologise.

 

hate to say it, but i told you so, and got jumped on, usually I am right. people make not like it but its true.

 

It seem futile, to me, to jump to conclusions before the investigation has gone through its full assessmemt of the case. Poor guy seems to have been a victim but the bigger picture of the terrorist threat needed to be the main focus of concern and action of the police and ancillary forces. This is more like a war than an isolated incident IMHO. There will therefore be casualities but don't let us ever forget the poor innocent 52 people who died. No wonder the police and other services were on maximum alert to avoid further atrocities of the same nature.

No comparison between the police procedures in Brazil and here - no less than 5 'gangsters' were shot by the police yesterday in Rio. Did that hit the headlines here or in Brazil? The headlines in Brazil are more concerned with the corruption in government than the de Menezes case. The latter doesn't even attract second or third page coverage.

A sad and tragic case.

 

Even soldier in a full war situation in hostile territory are expected to countermand direct orders telling them to shoot innocent civilians. I see absolutely no reason for the police forces in this country to behave any differently. What is more important following an order or doing the "right thing". I'm sorry but the argument about hindsight doesn't wash either, any idiot could have seen that a guy in a lightweight denim jacket without any form of bag couldn't possibly have been about to blow up a train. To top it all off, he was already restrained and was at worst posing a limited threat even if he did have a bomb belt on.

Now we get to the real issue. The one about them all loosing their grip on reality and acting like a bunch of gung ho cowboys in an american western. If they couldn't be trusted to be calm and collected under the circumstances then they shouldn't have been on the job. But that was almost certainly one of the last things on their superiors minds at the time, they were far more interested in getting a "result" than they were in ensuring the safety of ALL innocent lives.


GTM

 

Hi,

Just mooching around after being away from this forum for a while, and found this thread, which seems to have run a similar course to the one over on pfm. Just spotted a couple of things I'd like to reply to:

You don't know that, and neither do I. You are basing that on several things that were not a factor in this case.

Remember that the firearms policy as I knew it gave a shoot to kill to protect ones self or another in immediate fear of being killed etc. This justification will be linked to the Human Rights Act Article 2 'right to life' during the enquiry.

If there has been a change to this policy this will be revealed but I don't see the need to have changed it IME. It covered the situ subject of this thread.

Also remember that religion and creed are not total factors in determining a 'terrorist'.

 

Based upon the published information it does seem that 8 bullets is excessive but such things are not unknown. In the hyper real situation those officers found themselves it can be easy to overreact. On the other hand there are cases reported from the military where people have carried on running etc with several bullet wounds before they fall.

The other difficulty with this many bullets is the large amount of 'civilians' in very close proximity risking injury.

Of course all of this is pure speculation as all the evidence has not been fully presented and I am very glad I do not need to make life and death decisions.