De Menezes Police Trial

[SeanMacGabhann]

it's an aside from my other job as a "piece-maker" - you dig? ;-)

[dave]

Let's face it, the Met have always been a shambles. At least now they're not as corrupt as they were in the late 60's and through the 1970's.

These people - the firearms officers - are not professionals in the truest sense of the word - they're grunts. But there is a culture within the police service in England which tends to glorify them. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want their jobs.

The situation was a bad one. Suddenly the Met was being expected to do something which they had only read about and both at the top the management failed to step up, and lower down the structure failed and there was a combination of bad luck and incompetence along with some seriously gung-ho antics on the street. While it could be argued that you have to make your own luck, the fact is that the individual officers got it wrong, and both at an individual and at a corporate level they ought to be held responsible.

Coming from Belfast, I am finding it all a bit strange. Lee Clegg did something similar when he thought that his life was in danger, had a similarly ham-fisted attempt to cover it up and ended up in jail. Blame was kept at the lowest level - at least this time there has been an open discussion about the issues.

For me the serious things are the cover-up, the conduct of the trial and the fact that the Met *was* operating with the "Kratos" codeword shoot-to-kill policy and that this was sanctioned by the Chief Constable and the Home Secretary - I cannot see how this can be reconciled with the implementation of the Human Rights Act ("state shall not kill unless it really needs to"?)

As for the compensation/Brazil-police-death-squads/cocaine tangents, that's all they are - this is a fairly simple issue. Should people be held responsible for taking life, or are the police above the law? I am intrigued following the outcome of the HSE prosecution on whether the Met will be prosecuted for Corporate Manslaughter (as Railtrack was, IIRC) and whether it will do any good in the long term.

[atila the gooner]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> WTF atila? Talk about putting words into my

> mouth!!!

>

> No, no different if it had been one of our own,

> whatever the heck that means, my being a spaniard,

> where it was state policy briefly to hire moroccan

> mercenaries to gun down 'basque separatists' (read

> innocent people), a shameful stain on that country

> the should have toppled the government when it

> came to light.

>

> This was a shitty operation that went wrong and an

> attempted cover up ensued. I've said that was

> wrong and the man should go, what more do you

> want? I'd pick fights when they occur mate, don't

> make them up.

>

> "he looked nervous, apparently." and by god you're

> swallowing the lies that was part of the cover

> story!!

This the problem with the written word, it's how you interpret it. I meant that the police used the "looking nervous" thing as pretty lame excuse for plugging him with 7 bullets, in other words he looked nervous so he must have been guilty of something. Does that make my point any clearer? As for "one of our own", I'd still be interested to know what the public/press/media reaction would have been if the person gunned down had been a brit. Does that make things clearer. I think that the police screwed up royally, and have paid a very small price for it ( I guess the tax payer will be picking up the tab for this shambles!!)

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not sure what the point of the fine is either. A plc or a football club whose raison d-?tre is to make money might suffer from a fine but a police resource funded by the public purse??

Young Cressida has been laying low for the last couple of days hasn't she?

[mockney piers]

Sounds like we're pretty much all singing from the same hymn sheet. Although I can rarely hold a note ;)

[spadetownboy]

what if he did look nervous,shifty or any thing else for that matter the police messed up but obviously thought they had a suspect, and yeh he could have been stopped outside the station on several occasions,but the reason he wasnt was because the firearms team wasnt in place, i have no doubt there was a shoot to kill policy in place and i may be a discenting voice on this but what was the option if he had have been a terrorist, let him detonate a device. the failure came at source when the officer who was doing the surveillance messed up,from then on the spiral had started and the guys who came on scene with the weapons and facing a probable armed terrorist had seconds to make a decision fire or risk a device being set of, no choice as far as im concerned.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

So the guy is meant to be running and acting nervous, and the good man shot him? if he was a sucide bomber dont you think the nervous act and the running away would have made him blow himself and everyone up?

Ohhh I am so allergic to Bullshi#t!

[spadetownboy]

you,re missing the point hi-de-hi, these guys had seconds to make a decision not only to protect the public but themselves, in that they failed by not protecting the public, but given the circumstances,the scant information they had and the fact that they thought they were dealing with an armed terrorist they had no choice but to fire and be it in or outside the station the outcome would have been the same.

[atila the gooner]

spadetownboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> you,re missing the point hi-de-hi, these guys had

> seconds to make a decision not only to protect the

> public but themselves, in that they failed by not

> protecting the public, but given the

> circumstances,the scant information they had and

> the fact that they thought they were dealing with

> an armed terrorist they had no choice but to fire

> and be it in or outside the station the outcome

> would have been the same.

They had no choice but to fire - sorry, but they did have a choice and it was the wrong one. And the "what if" argument doesn't wash. This kind of approach leaves the way open for this sorry episode to repeat itself, on the basis that the suspect looked nervous, is suspected of being a terrorist, is giving the police nasty looks, doesn't dress as the police would like, is the wrong colour, where does it stop. The police screwed up royally, and that pratt Blair should have enough balls to step down. Jesus, the buck stops with hima and rightly so. Lets not lose sight of the fact that a human being lost his life on the grounds of "what if he had been a terrorist". He wasn't, END OF STORY.

[SeanMacGabhann]

that's how I like my armed police to be operating

[spadetownboy]

yeh they did screw up no one is denying that, but unfortunately the "what if" is a huge part of this argument. we know he was innocent, but what if he wasnt,what if he did have a bomb,what if he was apprehended and managed to set off a device,what if he was,t apprehended and then set off a device,what if he was stopped and found to be innocent,what if the bloke on surveillance duty had,nt went for a slash,what if,what if,what if, i could go on and on. its a tragedy what happened but given the circumstances of the day and preceding weeks then his death must be taken in the context of what was happening in london at that time,its a tragedy but is it any greater or less a tragedy than what happened on 7/7 when it could be argued that the police again failed in their duty to protect the public.

as an aside i just wonder what the reaction would have been if the 7/7 bombers had been taken out before they detonated their devices, would they be villians or heroes?

[atila the gooner]

spadetownboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> yeh they did screw up no one is denying that, but

> unfortunately the "what if" is a huge part of this

> argument. we know he was innocent, but what if he

> wasnt,what if he did have a bomb,what if he was

> apprehended and managed to set off a device,what

> if he was,t apprehended and then set off a

> device,what if he was stopped and found to be

> innocent,what if the bloke on surveillance duty

> had,nt went for a slash,what if,what if,what if, i

> could go on and on. its a tragedy what happened

> but given the circumstances of the day and

> preceding weeks then his death must be taken in

> the context of what was happening in london at

> that time,its a tragedy but is it any greater or

> less a tragedy than what happened on 7/7 when it

> could be argued that the police again failed in

> their duty to protect the public.

> as an aside i just wonder what the reaction would

> have been if the 7/7 bombers had been taken out

> before they detonated their devices, would they be

> villians or heroes?

The what if thing is bollocks. Just like the time they gunned down a drunken guy who was armed with a chair leg. Remember that one? Was he also deemed to be a terrorist? If these guys are professioanl sharpshooters, which I'm sure they must be, how come they didn't shoot to disable him? Again, the police screwed up royally by shooting dead a guy who had too much to drink. Watch yourslef on a night out in case the boys in blue think you are behaving suspicously and decide to take you out because you might be a threat to society, when all you've done is have too much to drink. Scary eh!!!

[Annasfield]

.

[SeanMacGabhann]

isn't the whole point that that was the story initially put out by the police which was proved to be fabricated?

As I've said, a mistaken shooting would be tragic and a cause for alarm anyway. It's the fact that the people charged with protecting us are happy to lie to our faces to save their own - that's the issue of concern

A lot of Irish people, including I imagine Spadetownboy, understands the need to question the English police version of the truth. An unanswerable police force is the hallmark of a police state. And I'm not saying that's what we are. But if we weren't allowed to question, criticise and flush out the truth we would be

[Michael Palaeologus]

I agree Anna. However, I do think that there was a major cock-up with their Intelligence. The senior Police echelons should have known who he actually was - we live in the ultimate surveillance society after all.

The policemen who tackled somebody who they truly believed was an armed terrorist were incredbly brave. The incident management system that led to them gunning down an innocent man was fundamentally flawed. The buck therefore stops with the Officer at the very top of the Met. He should go.

[downsouth]

Michael - you make a good point as does Anna and Sean. Your point re the ultimate police society is so true. What is the point of all these cameras if all they do is deal with the past and not preventing crime? Will ID cards get us any closer, I think not.

I am sure there have been some foiled attempts but perhaps not as many as the police/government would like us to believe.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

7 times in the head at point blank is STILL excessive.

And they SHOULD have done their investigations PROPERLY, PRIOR to going out and shooting an innocent man.

BTW Everyone is suspicious to someone! That is not an excuse to use what ifs because everything is an a what if, we could ALL be terrorists, criminals, murderers etc, no one knows what we all are doing behind close doors..hence having investigators who are supposed to check evidences, keep a watch on us and only act beyond all reasonable doubts.

And to have police LYING? hmmmph! How very honourable!

[East Dulwich Angst]

HeidiHi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 7 times in the head at point blank is STILL excessive.

I believe the reason for the amount of times he was shot, is so that the target doesn't get the chance to detonate his explosives.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

So it takes exactly SEVEN shots to the HEAD to ensure a suspect doesn't get the chance to detonate a device? not 1, 2, 3 but SEVEN? nice.

I think from when the suspect RAN, he could have easily let it off then has he been a suspect...suicide bombers dont usually run away do they? and being told to STOP by the police? hmmm, yeah I can that being very effective with suicide bombers, since they aim to take down everyone and anyone. I don't think giving chase, or shouting "stop" is the right way to handle a suspect suicide bomber.

Like I said before, it is a loads of BS,they cocked up BIG time. The end.

Sorry Angst, i was meant to post it on here but somehow I pressed the wrong button and sent it as PM to you!! sorry!

[Michael Palaeologus]

They have to give due warning before they shoot, even if it is 7 times. Two coppers, two guns, one fired 3 times, one 4 times - would have taken about 2 seconds in all with automatics. If UK Police shoot, it is always to kill - they are only allowed to shoot if they believe that the lives of others or themselves are in imminent danger, thus they shoot to kill, the idea that they can shoot to wound or disable is TV show fantasy.

One shot to the head does not guarantee a kill and so could mean that a bomb could be detonated. 7 shots is grim but understandable.

Besides 7 shots or 1 shot, the poor sod is still dead. The precise number of bullets expended is a bit of a sideshow.

[vanillanewts]

just wondering how many people slagging off the police officers' actions that morning reckon they could do that job in those circumstances when lets face it, the majority of people in London were too scared to get on the tubes/buses/let alone put themselves on the front line to protect london against such atrocities.

to re-iterate a previous post; the security services have to be lucky every time, terrosists just once. I dont think it will ever be revealed just how many operations have stopped planned attacks and further mass murder- i don't think i'd like to know!

and the issue with suicide bombers-heidi your input is ludicrous- do you realise how easy it is to manufacture an improvised explosive device and walk into a cafe/bar/tube...and how difficult it is to stop once that person once they are a mobile bomb.

having said that, blair should go. john stevens seemed like a decent bloke.

[SeanMacGabhann]

once again, it's NOT just about the shooting on the morning - it's the subsequent lies and face-saving operation

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

vanillanewts Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> just wondering how many people slagging off the

> police officers' actions that morning reckon they

> could do that job in those circumstances when lets

> face it, the majority of people in London were too

> scared to get on the tubes/buses/let alone put

> themselves on the front line to protect london

> against such atrocities.

> to re-iterate a previous post; the security

> services have to be lucky every time, terrosists

> just once. I dont think it will ever be revealed

> just how many operations have stopped planned

> attacks and further mass murder- i don't think i'd

> like to know!

> and the issue with suicide bombers-heidi your

> input is ludicrous- do you realise how easy it is

> to manufacture an improvised explosive device and

> walk into a cafe/bar/tube...and how difficult it

> is to stop once that person once they are a mobile

> bomb.

> having said that, blair should go. john stevens

> seemed like a decent bloke.

That is what i am saying, ANYONE one of us could be a terrorist and carrying a bomb, could we not? suicide bombers can only really be stopped if they are making the bombs at home, in some factory or whatever and the police raid them before they strap it to themselves and go off to be so called Heroes by blowing themselves and everyone up.

My point is, that if someone has a bomb on them, shouting out "stop" or running after them, in a public place is NOT going to stop a suicide bomber, because after all they are NOT afraid of death, hence why they are willing to kill themselves and others for the cause.

I think common sense would say you cannot chase or tell a suicide bomber to "stop", and in a public place? the investigations they did should have been that they arrested him at home, even if they found nothing on him and he was released without charge, it would have been better to bust in on him at home, where he would have been strapping the device onto himself and not in public!

As i keep saying over and over, I am not going to be grateful that I have police men who lie to the back of their teeth for doing a job that they have been trained to do properly.

When I make mistakes, I say so, I dont cover up and BS, and since they are supposed to be upright, law enforcement officers, they do not show a good side of themselves with this incident. They just showed how corrupted they are.

And no, I was never scared to jump on the bus, because the reality was that any bombs we were going to have were never going to be as bad as Turkey , or what is happening in the Middle Eastern Countries, and they have to deal with the threats of bombs every single day, just like during the world war, life goes on, you cannot let people beat you, so you still have to get on the bus, tubes etc and just carry on the best you can.

[atila the gooner]

"never going to be as bad as bad as Turkey", please expand on your statement, I'm not sure what you mean. Turkey as far as terrorist atrocicities are concerned are no worse or better off than here, are saying that thier police force is also as guilty the UK police of screwing up?

[mockney piers]

Heidihi probably mentioned Turkey because it and the PKK are in the news at the moment. Another side issue really ... like the brazil one.