Jean Charles De Menezes

[Double Trouble]

As plenty of other people have said, that is entirely beside the point.

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.

[stewart38]

According to the current reports, Charles De Menezes wasn't carrying a rucksack. So why would you have thought that he was? Because the initial reports said so, and the police were careful not to deny it.

Hard to believe they didn't know they were misleading everyone, however, whatever Blair may say about "not having been informed". In his position it's simple: either he knew, and he's lying, or he didn't know, and he's incompetent. In neither case should he keep his job.

Then maybe he looked 'Shifty'

sorry that what went on

God people refused to fly with people who looked 'shifty'

You were not there I wasnt there

Yes it was wrong , yes lessons need to be learnt but come on .......

[stewart38]

As plenty of other people have said, that is entirely beside the point.

Not really as Gav says he would still be alive if he obeyed the law

Maybe he run because he thought the police had caught up with him ?

[Dreadful Scathe]

The McCanns were on holiday, not wondering around London, indefinately, with no Visa.

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

I can tell you from personal experience EVERYONE with a rucksack or who looked 'shifty' was being looked at.

But Jean Charles neither carried a rucksack or looked shifty - it was mistaken identity.

'Solid identification' what after the bomb has gone off ???

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.

whats 'solid identification'

Thats when you execute someone specific rather than a random person on the tube.

you dont know exactly what happen neither do I but ill take into account the circumstances at the time

exactly my point? whats your point though?

[David Franklin]

Assume this scenario it 12th July 2005 (not related Menezes case)

As you say, the scenario is nothing to do with the Menezes case, so what's the point. Just to emphasise that:

You have a man running away from you with a ruck sack on his back about to get on the tube

JCMD had no ruck sack. He wasn't running.

you shout Armed Police stop

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].

No win isnt it ?

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.

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.

[Double Trouble]

Whats that got to do with anything?

Nothing. I was picking up on a pointless notion of Raul's.

[stewart38]

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.


Thats when you execute someone specific rather than a random person on the tube.



exactly my point? whats your point though?

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.
------------------------------

[ducasi]

Assume this scenario it 12th July 2005 (not related Menezes case)

You have a man running away from you with a ruck sack on his back about to get on the tube

you shout Armed Police stop

he doesnt stop

Do you shoot him not shoot him

Do stop the train

Do you try and get him at the next station ?

I might shoot him once – in the leg if I was a good shot. (And if I were a police marksman, I'd hope I'd be a good shot.)

I wouldn't pin him down and shoot him in the head 7 times.

[stewart38]

I might shoot him once – in the leg if I was a good shot. (And if I were a police marksman, I'd hope I'd be a good shot.)

I wouldn't pin him down and shoot him in the head 7 times.

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

[Gav]

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.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I might shoot him once – in the leg if I was a good shot. (And if I were a police marksman, I'd hope I'd be a good shot.)

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.

[David Bailey]

I'm not saying that what happened wasn't wrong, but I do get annoyed by the constant press bullsh1t about the "innocent man".

He was innocent, though, wasn't he?

I'm not saying he deserved to be shot for it,

Well, that's good.

but he was in this country illegally and if he had returned to his own country as the law required, he would still be alive today.
Innocent of terrorism? maybe, innocent? No.

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.

[Dreadful Scathe]

a. I didn't actually say anything of the sort in either case.

I never said you did .

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?

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.

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.

[Gav]

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.

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).

[Stuart M]

However most comments are so removed from what was actually going at the time to be ‘dreamy’

All these folk on this thread going on about JCdM's ruck sack, for instance

[David Bailey]

That's paraphrased from the British Armed Forces Rules of Engagement (also known as the shoot to kill card).

Well, yeah - but I'm just hoping the rules of engagement for a metropolitan police force are a little different to those for soldiers engaged in active combat.

[stewart38]

Also, court reports tend to be rather more accurate for news.

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.

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.
------------------------------

[Gav]

Well, yeah - but I'm just hoping the rules of engagement for a metropolitan police force are a little different to those for soldiers engaged in active combat.

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.

[David Bailey]

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?

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.

[stewart38]

Well, yeah - but I'm just hoping the rules of engagement for a metropolitan police force are a little different to those for soldiers engaged in active combat.

Well im not aware their shooting people on trains every week