Jean Charles De Menezes

[Barry Shnikov]

Think their comments more appropraite for class war forum as zeee pigs etc

Police sometimes have to make split second judgements sometime their wrong and if so its investigated

Seems to be its a lynch bob against the police

Of course they have to make split second judgments, and there's a whiff of Monday-morning-quarterbacking to what we are all saying. The simple fact is that persons who have investigated this matter very carefully and who are in a position to make judgments have decided that the Met have a case to answer. Maybe the Met do have an answer, and that will be an end of it.

What has marked this thread is that some people seem to be unaware that nothing marked JCdM out as a potential suicide bomber other than a single, mistaken identification ( - IIRC by an SAS bloke on obbo who said he had to go and take a pee) and nevertheless he ended up 7 times deader than dead. There's a legal expression res ipsa loquitur - 'the thing speaks for itself'. It's used of situations where the facts clearly show that something untoward happened, and puts the defendant in the position of having to explain why it should not be held liable for the consequences. That's the case here, surely?

As to your last sentence - are we not supposed to hold the police accountable for their mistakes? F*ck, I'm accountable for any mistakes I make at work and nobody dies if I screw up.

[Barry Shnikov]

I don’t know if it was reasonable as I wasn’t there

I think an enquiry found it wasn’t ?

I can't recall what happened; no-one was charged, that's for sure; I don't think anyone was disciplined.

And you're quite right, I wasn't there.

But I would take some persuading that anybody's life could have been considered 'endangered' by the not-properly-identified contents of a carrier bag, even by somebody having to make split-second decisions. This isn't a known-perpetrator of violent crime, or somebody with a history of fascination for guns, or a bloke with a Webley pressed agaisnt the temple of a hostage. It was a guy in an open street who popped into a pub on the way back from the furniture workshop and was probably a bit pissed and didn't appreciate the seriousness of his position.

All those things should have been taken into account.

You seem to take the view that the decision, because it was taken in a split-second, is unimpeachable. That must be wrong, surely? We put these people in the position where they exercise power of life and death and they have to make these split-second decisions by weighing up the factors correctly.

[straycat]

Police sometimes have to make split second judgements sometime their wrong and if so its investigated

I couldn't agree more. BUT. If the general public (us) are fed the sheer quantity of distortions and outright lies that we have been over this, how can we possibly be expected to have confidence in the process?

I'm not interested in seeing anyone punished over this. What I want to see is an honest appraisal of what went wrong, and and sufficient assurance that measures are being taken to prevent this kind of thing happening again.

Seems to be its a lynch bob against the police

It sounds like nothing of the kind. It's just a very serious concern that this not be swept under the carpet in the same way as happens with so many official blunders....

[David Franklin]

Of course they have to make split second judgments, and there's a whiff of Monday-morning-quarterbacking to what we are all saying.

And personally, I've said repeatedly that I don't criticise the actions of the people who actually shot him. I even think it's reasonable to accept that police in those situations will make mistakes that get people killed, and it doesn't mean the police involved are necessarily negligent.

But...

After the event, there's all the time in the world to make decisions, and yet we repeatedly find the police accounts seem to bear little resemblence to the facts. That, to me, is what is totally unacceptable. If you're a police officer involved in the shooting, and you say the deceased was "carrying a rucksack", or "vaulted the barriers", then if it's proved you lied, you should go to jail. After all, you're covering up actions that resulted in a death. Surely that's perverting the course of justice?

[Gav]

He could have done any number of things which would have meant that he would not have ended up dead that day.
So to pick on one thing that he didn't do and assign a supreme significance to it due to your own personal views seems a trifle perverse.

It appears that you and DT are inviting us to agree that it was in some sense it was partly his fault for what happened - is that not correct?

How many times! No that is not correct.

One last time for the hard of understanding, I am not saying that it was his fault or that it was deserved because of the fact that he was here illegally. Merely that if he'd returned to his country when his visa ran out, the Police may have killed some other innocent person or even got the right person (stranger things have happened).

[Dreadful Scathe]

Of course they have to make split second judgments, and there's a whiff of Monday-morning-quarterbacking to what we are all saying.

Very true. But certainly the original news reports vary rather dramatically from the inquest reports now. So as DF says, if the original information to the media came from the police 2 years ago - it was nothing more than outright lies as the police involved in the incident have no excuses and no valid justification for shooting an innocent man. i.e. He didn't act suspiciously. They thought he was someone else.

What I find most disturbing is feeble excuses like "he moved his hands in a not normal manner" and the use, at inquest, of a composite photo of the man they were actually looking for and JCdM - which, despite how it is clearly supposed to be taken, shows 2 men that look NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER. Yes the police have to make very difficult decisions but why cover up the fact that this was a glaringly BAD one. Just be honest and make sure it doesn't happen again.

Why some people on this thread are coming up with "but he wasn't in the country legally" as even slightly relevant information - i really don't understand.

[Dreadful Scathe]

One last time for the hard of understanding, I am not saying that it was his fault or that it was deserved because of the fact that he was here illegally. Merely that if he'd returned to his country when his visa ran out....

well, your argument is basically "if he wasn't there he wouldn't be dead" so I don't think its too difficult to understand people trying to assume your argument meant something rather less general than that i.e. he carries some blame because he shouldn't have been there.

We stand corrected, and won't make the same mistake again

[David Franklin]

well, your argument is basically "if he wasn't there he wouldn't be dead" so I don't think its too difficult to understand people trying to assume your argument meant something rather less general than that i.e. he carries some blame because he shouldn't have been there.

Of course, his complaint that an illegal immigrant shouldn't be described as innocent probably does tend to promote that assumption...

[ducasi]

[...] the Police may have killed some other innocent person or even got the right person (stranger things have happened).

Glad you now accept that he was innocent.

[David Bailey]

Police sometimes have to make split second judgements sometime their wrong and if so its investigated

Weeellll..... I think there's a case for making a "heat of the moment, stressful times, better one innocent shot than have 50 bombed" argument for the police action. In fact, that's the case they are making, from what I can see.

And you could even, at a stretch, make a case to say that, for example, some of the problems identifying JCDM could have been "of his making", in that he might have been more difficult to identify being an illegal. And so you could, just barely, make a case to say that this difficulty in identification contributed to the general confusion and poor communications which led to his shooting.

But to go from there to saying that he was in any way cupable is a leap too far - much too far. To quote Lord Vetinari, everyone's guilty of something. And it's uncomfortably close to saying "He was foreign so didn't deserve as much justice as we do".

[Double Trouble]

But to go from there to saying that he was in any way cupable is a leap too far - much too far. To quote Lord Vetinari, everyone's guilty of something. And it's uncomfortably close to saying "He was foreign so didn't deserve as much justice as we do".

I don't think anyone on this forum has suggested anything remotely like this, although you'd think so given the amount of childish abuse dished out.

[David Bailey]

I don't think anyone on this forum has suggested anything remotely like this, although you'd think so given the amount of childish abuse dished out.

Well, you're silly, so ner ner

[Dreadful Scathe]

I don't think anyone on this forum has suggested anything remotely like this

well it WAS "remotely like" that, thus the argument that it was/wasn't

but i think thats cleared up now

or is it ?

i can't decide whether to be decisive about that

[Dreadful Scathe]

Well, you're silly, so ner ner

no thats YOU , you big silly...

(do i sound gay in this reply? )

[David Bailey]

no thats YOU , you big silly...

(do i sound gay in this reply? )

Yeah, you big gay smurf, you.

And you're blue.

So there.

[stewart38]

And personally, I've said repeatedly that I don't criticise the actions of the people who actually shot him. I even think it's reasonable to accept that police in those situations will make mistakes that get people killed, and it doesn't mean the police involved are necessarily negligent.

But...

After the event, there's all the time in the world to make decisions, and yet we repeatedly find the police accounts seem to bear little resemblence to the facts. That, to me, is what is totally unacceptable. If you're a police officer involved in the shooting, and you say the deceased was "carrying a rucksack", or "vaulted the barriers", then if it's proved you lied, you should go to jail. After all, you're covering up actions that resulted in a death. Surely that's perverting the course of justice?

I wouldnt disagree with that

[Barry Shnikov]

How many times! No that is not correct.

One last time for the hard of understanding, I am not saying that it was his fault or that it was deserved because of the fact that he was here illegally. Merely that if he'd returned to his country when his visa ran out, the Police may have killed some other innocent person or even got the right person (stranger things have happened).

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

In that case - since the thread is about determining whether there is blame for his death, and allocating that blame to the right parties - the point you are making is essentially trivial and also irrelevant.

[Double Trouble]

(do i sound gay in this reply? )

I'm surprised you have to ask.

[Barry Shnikov]

Very true. But certainly the original news reports vary rather dramatically from the inquest reports now. So as DF says, if the original information to the media came from the police 2 years ago - it was nothing more than outright lies as the police involved in the incident have no excuses and no valid justification for shooting an innocent man. i.e. He didn't act suspiciously. They thought he was someone else.

I'm not sure the information did come from the police - I'm sure bystanders were interviewed by the first journos on the scene. But they certainly waited for a day or two before correcting those initial impressions.

What I find most disturbing is feeble excuses like "he moved his hands in a not normal manner"

I know, it's bizarre. 'Moved his hands in a not normal manner' - he's sitting on the Tube minding his own business and somebody suddenly shouts "Here he is" and points at him. Why would he act 'not normally' in those circumstances? Used to happen to me all the time...

Why some people on this thread are coming up with "but he wasn't in the country legally" as even slightly relevant information - i really don't understand.

No, it's puzzling. Nothing will bring him back, or make his family feel better (well, not by much). The object of such enquiries and proceedings is to improve things for the future. At it's most dramatic, Londoners ought to feel a little worried by the possiblity that it will be them, next time, mistakenly identified as a suspect and gunned down in a 'split second'.

[Barry Shnikov]

And you could even, at a stretch, make a case to say that, for example, some of the problems identifying JCDM could have been "of his making", in that he might have been more difficult to identify being an illegal. And so you could, just barely, make a case to say that this difficulty in identification contributed to the general confusion and poor communications which led to his shooting.

No, I don't think you can.

This wasn't a failure to work out who JCdM was, which is the situation your comment addresses. It was a failure to work out that he wasn't who they thought he was, which is different. There was no point at which anybody said 'OK, we need to know who this individual is. Let's check' - er what? the council tax list? - 'to find out who it is.'

It doesn't even look like anybody said 'This could be X, the guy we suspect of being a bomber who lives in those flats; but how can we tell whether he really is X'.

Seems like the obbo bloke got back from taking a leak, saw the back of a guy leaving the door under observation, made a tentative (he claims) identification and after that it was just a matter of time before JCdM was dead.

Good job he wasn't a bomber and blew up the bus he got onto or we'd be having a different kind of enquiry.

I believe that a reasonable explanation for why he was allowed to get on the bus is because the ID at that time was tentative; if it had been positive they should have stopped him there and then. Bus was probably more full than the Tube at that time. Quite how they confirmed the (mistaken) ID before he got into Stockwell station remains to be seen.