I'm sure Ducasi, that you imagine you know more about this case than I do, after all..DT can't read according to you so how could I keep up with what is going on in the newspapers & I obviously never watch the news
Just because my views are not the same as yours, or 'plenty of other people' doesn't make them less valid.
I just stated a fact...he shouldn't have been in the country.
Whats that got to do with anything? they were looking for Hussain Osman who had been in Britain for at least 10 years. I think we should be more concerned with people living in the UK who want to kill people than electricians with no paperwork
But Jean Charles neither carried a rucksack or looked shifty - it was mistaken identity.
Did you actually read any of the news stories? They were looking for someone specific and shot someone who looked nothing like him, who was doing nothing suspicious - it could have been anyone.'Solid identification' what after the bomb has gone off ???
Thats when you execute someone specific rather than a random person on the tube.whats 'solid identification'
exactly my point? whats your point though?you dont know exactly what happen neither do I but ill take into account the circumstances at the time
As you say, the scenario is nothing to do with the Menezes case, so what's the point. Just to emphasise that:
JCMD had no ruck sack. He wasn't running.You have a man running away from you with a ruck sack on his back about to get on the tube
He was sitting down, how was he supposed to stop? [If you've not been following the reports, the police have basically admitted there was probably nothing he could have done that would have stopped him getting shot once the armed police moved in].you shout Armed Police stop
Yes. Which is why you don't get in that situation in the first place. They had lots of time to arrest him before he got anywhere near a tube train. Again, if you're following the case, part of the prosecution case is that the police should have intervened far earlier.No win isnt it ?
As I've said before, I don't actually criticise the police who shot him. As you say, they were in a no-win position. But the people who let it get to that no-win position are very culpable, in my eyes.
yes ive read the whole report , wasnt there of course
More from the BBC website yesterday
-----------------------
'Pinned down'
Pausing to warn family members of the evidence he was about to give, Ivor said he saw Mr Menezes stand and advance.
He judged that he could have been a suicide bomber preparing to detonate a device - and that he needed to restrain him.
Two police officers followed Mr Menezes down to the platform
"I grabbed Mr Menezes by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms against his sides," he said.
------------------------------
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
you shot him in the leg and he gets on the train and kills 29 people
well done
The point here is im not saying there shouldn’t be an investigation im not saying the ‘top people’ shouldn’t be accountable and even those on the ground
However most comments are so removed from what was actually going at the time to be ‘dreamy’
Like saying a officer in Iraq should shout two warning before drawing his gun in front of a hostile crowd etc
What's really funny about this is that I've been accused of setting the world to rights while reading The Sun, flamed by people for saying the JCdM deserved to be shot because he was here illegally, and had my sources questioned for my belief that the police were correct to do what they did.
a. I didn't actually say anything of the sort in either case.
b. Unless you were there, you don't actually have any better sources than I do anyway. Do you really believe everything the media throws at you? or even just believe what agrees with your pre-formed opinions?
Oh, and by the way, I don't think I'm perfect, but I'm good enough to not have to keep looking over my shoulder in case the police are onto me.
That would be fairly pointless, anything other than a kill would not prevent a bomber from being able to blow themselves up. And I believe marksmen are not instructed to "shoot to injure" at all. Its kill or nothing - someone is only ever shot to prevent the deaths of others, so "shoot to kill" it has to be.
however that was in reply to Stewart38s description of what may have happened - all of which was false anyway - theres no report of a "stop armed police" command, and they had no real reason to believe Jean Charles with dangerous at all - they thought he was someone else who was. Its very very bad communication, so bad in fact that the trailing police officer was ALSO threatened with a gun.
He was innocent, though, wasn't he?
Well, that's good.
Blimey, we're all guilty then
OK, fair enough, it's a bit rich for the Brazilian authorities to make a fuss, their police forces routinely kill hundreds of innocent people a year.
But we're not Brazil, we're a rich developed democracy. One police execution is two too many.
I never said you did .
Which is the whole point of this thread, disbelief at how ridiculous the media reports were. Also, court reports tend to be rather more accurate for news.b. Unless you were there, you don't actually have any better sources than I do anyway. Do you really believe everything the media throws at you? or even just believe what agrees with your pre-formed opinions?
a history :
Then: a running man, wearing a bulky jacket and rucksack failed to stop when told to by police.
Now: a man sitting on the tube was accosted and executed by police.
Any kind of warning in the situation where you think you are chasing a suicide bomber are stupid and pointless. Give them any indication that you're onto them and they hit the button.
The fact is that if there is no immediate threat to life you can, indeed must, give several warnings.
Where giving warnings would endanger life, you do not.
That's paraphrased from the British Armed Forces Rules of Engagement (also known as the shoot to kill card).
you must have missed this from the court ??
--------------------------------
'Pinned down'
Pausing to warn family members of the evidence he was about to give, Ivor said he saw Mr Menezes stand and advance.
He judged that he could have been a suicide bomber preparing to detonate a device - and that he needed to restrain him.
Two police officers followed Mr Menezes down to the platform
"I grabbed Mr Menezes by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms against his sides," he said.
------------------------------
Why?
Is a terrorist about to blow up a military barracks any different to a terrorist about to blow up a train full of people?
Sorry, I should've clarified that these rules of engagement are issued to soldiers guarding military installations, manning roadblocks/checkpoints etc, not just in war.
Last edited by Gav; 9th-October-2007 at 02:55 PM. Reason: clarification
The terrorist is the same, sure.
But police aren't military personnel, and they should never, ever, use military ROE, simply because they're two different organisations with different functions.
Police are there to protect citizens, soldiers are there to exert military force. Having soldiers trying to act as police gives you, basically, Northern Ireland in the 1980's, and that was not a pleasant place to live in.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks