oops? (london suspect shooting)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 28, 2005, 5:36 pm

masteen wrote:In this crazy spherical world, we have laws. Those who break the laws are criminals. This is a black and white issue.

You racist!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 28, 2005, 5:40 pm

No Sab I don't think you think that

I am not blaming the police, I just think it was a fuck up.

The shoot to kill policy was a secret (as far as I am aware) until this situation took place, at which point, most of the country has been up in arms about it.

I place blame on the government and collectively all of us citizens (that means me too) for allowing our government to put us in this position with their ridiculous overseas adventures and then passing extreme reactionary policies that kill yet more innocent people.

Just because a law is broken doesn't mean it's dishonest to do so Masteen.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » July 28, 2005, 6:01 pm

Nick wrote:I wouldn't class someone as dishonest for "being in a country illegally".

Then again, I believe (absurdly enough) that we live in a spherical world owned by all of us collectively, and not just some random governments that gets something like 10% of the popular vote - ala Britain..

then why are we paying for oil if it just belongs to everyone anyway?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 28, 2005, 6:01 pm

masteen wrote:In this crazy spherical world, we have laws. Those who break the laws are criminals. This is a black and white issue.

While I do recognize that there are degrees of criminality with rape and murder at one end and speeding at the other, trying to say this guy was just a good ole boy, never meanin no harm does not change the fact that he was breaking the law EVERY DAY simply by being there. Clearly, he knew this too, which is why he ran from the cops.

In all honesty, working in a country with an expired visa is pretty low on the 'criminal' scale.

This guy was most likely an honest, law abiding citizen as much as you or I. Because he was not 'known to police' seems to back that up.

In hindsight, running away was probably not the smartest thing to do, but when some guys in street clothes start chasing you, it might have seemed like the right decision at the time.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 28, 2005, 6:04 pm

Sabek wrote:
"My cousin was an honest and hard working person," said Ms Figueiredo
Who just happened to be in the country illegally. That's pretty honest.

I'm tempted to apply that logic to the situation in Iraq.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 28, 2005, 6:12 pm

That's a good question Nobody.

Ask the oil companies.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 28, 2005, 7:58 pm

masteen wrote:In this crazy spherical world, we have laws. Those who break the laws are criminals. This is a black and white issue.

So since I am sure you have at one point in time broken a speed limit or walked on a red light you would deserve being shot as well. Got it.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 28, 2005, 9:09 pm

That's typical of you, Kelshara. Way to keep proving yourself a dipshit.

Regardless of all the other nonsense, the main point is going to be wether or not the cops identified themselves to the guy properly, or if they just ran at him with guns drawn.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 28, 2005, 10:03 pm

kelshara is probably sympathetic because he should have had his ass deported back to that oversized nazi ski resort known as norway half a decade ago.

I'm thinking about an anonymous tip to the INS myself, although "that lame-fisted sanctimonious retard crudding up the vault with his gay" probably isn't enough information for them to go on.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 28, 2005, 10:50 pm

masteen wrote:That's typical of you, Kelshara. Way to keep proving yourself a dipshit.

I'm not the one using the argument that criminels should be shot then get all pissy when it gets turned against me. Typical hypocrit.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 29, 2005, 12:00 am

The reason you are a dumbass is because you missed the point. The entire second part of that post is about expectations of punishment for varying degrees of crime, in an attempt to show how Jean, because of his illegal status, decided that it would be better to run from the police, and put himself in a much worse situation than simple deportation.

p.s. I'm getting my infoz from teh bbc not that piece of trash the guardian.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 29, 2005, 12:28 am

But you are still claiming it is open season on criminels. If being in the country illegally deserves 8 shots to the back of the head, then how about jaywalking? Caning? Or maybe cutting hands off for petty theft?

(Btw I am mostly poking at you here without being serious although part of me seriously wonder about people who defend this shooting blindly).

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 29, 2005, 12:50 am

Um...Kelshara hasn't missed any point Masteen.....you are just pissed because Kelshara highlighted what the point of your post appears to look like.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 29, 2005, 1:46 am

if you run from the police you open yourselves up to bad things happening to you. it doesnt matter. no one is saying he deserved to die, but that is the kind of risk you have to take.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 29, 2005, 2:19 am

My point about the spectrum of crimes was to illustrate that there are points where you obviously don't run from the cops. I get speeding tickets sometimes, but I have never been shot because I don't fucking run from the cops.

What I am saying is that the closer you put yourself on that continuum to capital crimes, and running from the police comes onto the option list(i.e. being in England on an expired visa), the more you should expect more dire consequences.

I do not think this guy deserved to be shot. He did, however, contribute greatly to the circumstance.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » July 29, 2005, 10:37 am

Well, it is obvious that the man contributed to his own demise. He certainly made some poor decision in the final moments of his life. However, it is equally clear that the police grossly over reacted to the situation. It seems to me the whole crux of the argument comes down to whether or not you blame the police for over reacting. The police were clearly under a great deal of stress because of the recent activities, but I'm not sure that excuses them. They are, after all, trained professionals. They have, supposedly, been trained to deal with stressful situations better than your average Joe Schmoe. We also have to consider what intel the police may or may not have had about the person they were watching for, and how dire the perceived threat was. Either way, it is a terrible tragedy. An innocent man is dead, and the officers involved will have to live with that for the rest of their lives. I'm sure that they would change the way things happened if they could. As it stands now, it is pointless to blame the officers until it has been established whether or not they followed proper procedure, what information they had from their superiors, etc.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » July 29, 2005, 11:39 am

speaking of asking the oil companies nick, my base i work at here uses two windmills that power the whole base with with electricity with plenty left over for residents close by. if it works here why can't more places especially here in the valley switch to alternate energy sources? unfortunatly there is too much money to be made off all the worlds problems to do the right thing.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 29, 2005, 12:15 pm

Because the wind is fickle.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 29, 2005, 1:44 pm

2 million people a day use the underground, taking a potshot at some random when you are paranoid he is a terrorist and after you have caught him is completely unjustifiable, no matter what anyone happens to say here.

Yeah.. Because he was just some random guy walking down the sidewalk. The cops all shouted 'Brown man!', jumped on him and shot him in the head. Just for fun of course.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 29, 2005, 2:02 pm

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 29, 2005, 4:36 pm

But his relative, their lawyer, and Bianca Jagger, the professional attention whore, they are all giving us the straight infoz, right Teeny? No spin at all from them. Could you be more naive?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 29, 2005, 4:51 pm

What the fuck do you take me for? Who mentioned that dickhead Bianca Jagger?

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » July 29, 2005, 6:27 pm

I failed to read past the 10th post on the first page, but why did they shoot him AFTER they caught him?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 29, 2005, 6:30 pm

This thread sucks hardcore but props to the Brits for catching all four bombers. Nice work. They weren't shot 8 times so I guess they cooperated like you're supposed to.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 29, 2005, 6:39 pm

which is kind of funny since last week they were willing to kill themselves.

Wiever · Post by **Wiever** » July 29, 2005, 10:07 pm

Voronwë wrote:which is kind of funny since last week they were willing to kill themselves.

Their failed attempts were clearly a cry for help.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 29, 2005, 11:15 pm

Wiever wrote:Their failed attempts were clearly a cry for help.

Let's give them free medical and psychological care!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 1, 2005, 2:56 pm

Niffoni wrote:
Wiever wrote:Their failed attempts were clearly a cry for help.
Let's give them free medical and psychological care!

In Gitmo

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 4, 2005, 10:11 pm

http://smh.com.au/news/world/aim-for-th ... 52852.html

The organisation that represents police chiefs around the world has issued guidelines saying that officers who confront a suicide bomber should shoot the suspect in the head.

The recommendations from the International Association of Chiefs of Police take a more aggressive posture than typical lethal-force guidelines.

In other news, suicide bombers advised to install dead-man switches.

Lisandre · Post by **Lisandre** » August 16, 2005, 11:16 pm

I'm not really familiar with how reliable the source is, but the details they give are interesting.

Article link.

Blunders led to police killing of an innocent man

ALASTAIR JAMIESON AND CRAIG BROWN

Key points
• Leaked documents claim suspect was not running away when shot
• Earlier claims on suspect's dress and vaulting of barrier also challenged
• Revelations will add to embarrassment of Met Police over killing

Key quote
"As he walked out of my line of vision I checked the photographs and transmitted that it would be worth someone else having a look. I should point out that, as I observed this male exiting the block, I was in the process of relieving myself." - SURVEILLANCE OFFICER

Story in full AN INNOCENT man shot dead by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber was not running away from armed officers, was grabbed by them before being killed and was never adequately identified as a suspect, according to leaked police documents revealed last night.

Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician, stopped to pick up a newspaper and used a travelcard to pass through the ticket barrier of a London Tube station, according to witness statements obtained by ITV News - contradicting earlier claims that he had vaulted the barriers and sprinted down the escalators.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shown wearing a blue denim jacket in forensic photographs obtained by the channel, as opposed to earlier claims that he was wearing a bulky winter coat before he was shot on board a Tube train. And one officer earlier failed to identify Mr de Menezes because he was "relieving himself" during the surveillance operation.

The extraordinary revelations will add to the embarrassment of the Metropolitan Police, which is already expected to have to pay more than £500,000 in compensation to the victim's family, and came as the force announced an expansion of its firearms unit to cope with the terrorism threat.

The leaked documents give a startling insight into blunders made during the surveillance operation on 22 July, the day after four attempted transport bombings in London.

Both surveillance and firearms officers had been using photos of suspects taken from a gym membership card found in one of the bombers' flats.

One surveillance officer admitted he could not identify Mr de Menezes because he was relieving himself as the Brazilian left his home - a block of flats in Tulse Hill where it was thought one of the bombers, Hussain Osman, lived.

"As he walked out of my line of vision I checked the photographs and transmitted that it would be worth someone else having a look. I should point out that, as I observed this male exiting the block, I was in the process of relieving myself.

"At this time I was not able to transmit my observations and switch on the video camera at the same time. There is therefore no video footage of this male."

A second officer also failed to give a positive identification but claimed the suspect had "distinctive Mongolian eyes".

While none of the officers was sure he was the suspect, they followed him as he caught a bus towards Stockwell. By this time, the officers became convinced he was the terrorist suspect and senior commanders declared a "Code Red" - handing the operation over to officers at the Metropolitan Police SO19 tactical firearms unit, who were given the task of apprehending Mr de Menezes - with permission to shoot if necessary.

SO19 was told he must not be allowed to enter a station, but the delay in identification meant Mr de Menezes had already gone into Stockwell Tube station when officers arrived. CCTV captured Mr de Menezes entering the station at a "normal walking pace", even collecting a free Metro newspaper, and slowly descending on an escalator.

"At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse ... and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat. Almost simultaneously armed officers ... were provided with positive identification," the document says.

One eyewitness on the train said: "[Mr de Menezes] paused, looked right, looked left and then selected an empty seat."

But this contradicts earlier claims he ran all the way on to the train and refused to stop when officers shouted.

A man sitting opposite him on the Tube is quoted as saying: "Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me. He pointed the gun at the right-hand side of the man's head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man's head when the first shot was fired."

But a member of the surveillance team said in the report: "I heard shouting which included the word 'police', and turned to face the male in the denim jacket. He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the SO19 officers ... I grabbed the male by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.

"I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gunshot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."

The report also said a post-mortem examination showed Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but three other bullets missed, with the casings left lying in the Tube carriage.

Evidence of the incident should have been provided by CCTV footage from dozens of cameras covering the Stockwell ticket hall, escalators, platforms and train carriages, but police say most of the cameras were not working.

The botched operation is already the subject of an Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation. The commission is assessing whether rules for dealing with suspected suicide bombers were complied with, and whether Mr de Menezes was killed lawfully.

An inquest will also be held into the death, which has raised widespread concerns about the police's "shoot-to-kill policy".

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "It is not appropriate to comment while there is an ongoing investigation."

Harriet Wistrich, a lawyer for the de Menezes family, said: "I think it is absolutely shocking and terrifying. Shocking certainly in the sense that we now know that the information that was being put out at the start is false in many respects."

"For the family, they can now be absolutely assured that not only was he entirely innocent, but that he was doing nothing that should have warranted the police reaction. It's further shocking that even if he was the suspect, the police allowed him to travel on a bus.

"He was carrying nothing; he was wearing nothing that would suggest that he was hiding explosives. He was enabled to travel all the way down the escalators and get on to a Tube, and he was shot with the intention of killing him."

Scotland Yard said it could not comment while the IPCC investigation was ongoing.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 17, 2005, 9:15 am

More info on CNN as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08 ... index.html

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 17, 2005, 9:32 am

Front cover of the "Daily Mail" (hard right wing paper over here) shows a picture of this guy lying dead on the train shortly after he was shot.

He is not wearing a heavy coat.

I think we covered what I think of this fuck up already so I'll leave it at that.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 17, 2005, 2:47 pm

So let me get this straight:

He wasn't wearing a heavy winter coat.
He wasn't running away.
He didn't jump the turnstyle in the tube.
He wasn't warned.

Did I miss anything?

miir · Post by **miir** » August 17, 2005, 2:56 pm

I guess the 'terrorists' can mark this one up as a win.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 17, 2005, 2:58 pm

miir wrote:So let me get this straight:

He wasn't wearing a heavy winter coat.
He wasn't running away.
He didn't jump the turnstyle in the tube.
He wasn't warned.

Did I miss anything?

If that's the case then I'd be pissed.

Otherwise what does it take to kill this thread? 5 bullets?

miir · Post by **miir** » August 17, 2005, 3:03 pm

8 actually.. and you get 3 mulligans.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 18, 2005, 12:46 pm

Forthe wrote:You are crazy to give police the latitude to be so incompetent.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 18, 2005, 2:22 pm

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 18, 2005, 5:09 pm

I still don't see anything official AT ALL saying anything one way or another. All that CNN article has is second hand information from something called ITV, which I have never heard of.

ITV News based its report on secret documents and photographs the network said it obtained about the death of Jean Charles de Menezes

Yeah, we got some great infoz going on here.

I bet those seekrit documents also detail who shot Kennedy, where Elvis is living today, and exactly how the moon landing was faked.

Officially, all we know is that he's dead, the cops shot him, and his family and their lawyers are pissing and moaning.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 18, 2005, 5:47 pm

I still don't see anything official AT ALL saying anything one way or another

The only 'official' story is that he was wearing a heavy coat, ran away, jumped the turnstyle and ran into a subway train.

Actually....

There were pictures of him wearing not a heavy coat, but a very ordinary denim jacket.

There are several eyewitness accounts corroberating the story that he walked (not ran) into the subway train.

There are several eyewitness accounts stating that he picked up a metro newspaper and used a transit pass to enter the tube station (he didn't jump the turnstyle)

And then we have the rather strange story about the CCTV not working in the tube station on that particular morning, when it was apparently working fine the day before and the day after.

If you don;t think that sounds pretty suspicious, I have some Iraqi WMDs for sale that I think you might be interested in.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 18, 2005, 9:42 pm

miir wrote: And then we have the rather strange story about the CCTV not working in the tube station on that particular morning, when it was apparently working fine the day before and the day after.

I'm not that keen on conspiracy theories, but magical disappearing footage (especially when it's private footage collected by security agencies) really does work well at providing the faithful with the seed of doubt to wrap their hopes around.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 19, 2005, 2:22 am

I guess the police line will come out sooner or later.

All I know is that I have seen with my own eyes pictures of the guy lying on the train, he is wearing a light blue jacket, one that is more like a zip jumper than a jacket even, and could never EVER have been mistaken for a winter coat, and could NEVER hide bombs under it.

ITV is a british news channel (that I tend to find is a government whore) Masteen.

It's all coming out in the wash.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 19, 2005, 2:29 am

Forthe wrote:
Forthe wrote:You are crazy to give police the latitude to be so incompetent.

that is so utterly out of context that it is beneath you.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 19, 2005, 2:14 pm

miir, aside of the bullshit in the Guardian, which cited ONE eyewitness who was outside the terminal, all the other witness accounts reported by reputable news sources (ie the BBC) back up the cops' story. So what else you got?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 19, 2005, 2:23 pm

Sources link please.

The bbc accounts on the day on the television stated the exact opposite of what you just said.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 19, 2005, 3:21 pm

It also seems odd that the chief of police tried to block an independent inquiry on the incident.

If it really has happened as they claimed, there would be no need to hide anything.

all the other witness accounts reported by reputable news sources (ie the BBC) back up the cops' story.

As nick said, that is completely false.
Can you quote any eyewitness account from any 'reputable' news source that backs up the police 'press release'?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 19, 2005, 4:17 pm

miir wrote:As nick said, that is completely false.
Can you quote any eyewitness account from any 'reputable' news source that backs up the police 'press release'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
Thick coat, baseball hat, running away from the cops. Any other questions?

miir · Post by **miir** » August 19, 2005, 5:32 pm

That's hillarious...

It's like everything he said was complete bullshit.

I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train

He was largely built, he was quite a chubby sort of guy

was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket

Hope these img links work:

Looks like a denim jacket to me... and he also looks pretty damn skinny... hard to tell because he probably lost a few litres of blood from those 8 bullets.

Asian... uhhh I dont think so.

Regardless, it pretty difficult to check the accuracy of an on-the-spot eyewitness' story. In hindsight, it's pretty obvious this eyewitness wasn't anywhere near what happened and was just regurgitating rumors that he had heard.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 19, 2005, 6:41 pm

Yeah, he wasn't sitting in the car when this happened. That's clearly why the BBC dedicated an eitire article to him.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 19, 2005, 6:53 pm

masteen wrote:Yeah, he wasn't sitting in the car when this happened. That's clearly why the BBC dedicated an eitire article to him.

Did you even listen to the interview?
In light of the evidence that has come out since that interview, it's pretty obvious he wasn't.

Just take a look at the corpse laying there in the subway, then take a look at his face. Does that look like a chubby pakistani guy wearing a heavy padded coat?