Shoot to kill [Archive]

Papewaio

08-17-2005, 07:52

It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:

· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;

· was unaware he was being followed;

· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;

· never ran from the police;

· and did not jump the ticket barrier

So if this is correct and the rest of it, then it had a lot of spin put onto it to try and make it appear good rather then a monumental cock up and murder.

Ja'chyra

08-17-2005, 08:03

As nothing is substantiated anything we say, like the last time this was brought up, is unfounded and only hearsay.

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 09:21

As nothing is substantiated anything we say, like the last time this was brought up, is unfounded and only hearsay.You mean to say that formal testimony by police officers and eyewitnesses is not 'substantial'? If so, then I wouldn't know what is substantial.

Al Khalifah

08-17-2005, 09:47

Oh dear, looks like Clarke's guilty before proven innocent tactics have come back to bite him in the ass.

Papewaio

08-17-2005, 09:55

As nothing is substantiated anything we say, like the last time this was brought up, is unfounded and only hearsay.

Well maybe it would have been a good idea for the government to apply the same logic?

The Stranger

08-17-2005, 10:50

disgusting how could you make such a huge mistake. nothing they said appeared true (atleast the important ones). and he was already mastered.

even if he run, wtf i would run too. the police were in casual, if a guy says to me halt police with a gun pointed at my head i would or run or back him to only take my money.

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 11:54

BRITISH special forces soldiers took part in the operation that led to the shoot-to-kill death of an innocent Brazilian electrician with no connection to the London bombings, defence sources said last week.

Press photographs of members of the armed response team taken in the immediate aftermath of the killing show at least one man carrying a special forces weapon that is not issued to SO19, the Metropolitan police firearms unit.

The man, wearing civilian clothes with a blue cap marked “Police”, was carrying a specially modified Heckler & Koch G3K rifle with a shortened barrel and a butt from a PSG-1 sniper rifle fitted to it — a combination used by the SAS.

The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to de Menezes’s death included men from a secret undercover unit formed for operations in Northern Ireland, defence sources said.

Known then as 14 Int or the Det, it is reported to have formed the basis of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the newly created special forces unit stationed alongside the SAS at Hereford. The men include SAS soldiers serving on attachment and are part of a team of around 50 UK special forces that has operated in London since the July 7 bombings in which 56 people died.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1715880,00.html

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 11:57

I recall reading some stories at the time that suggested, on the basis of the killer's weapon and procedure, that he was not a policeman but an SAS guy let loose by the authorities in a fit of panic. If they really thought this young man was a suicide terrorist who was going to blow himself up through some sort of hidden mechanism in his clothes, then overpowering and detaining him would not have been enough to neutralise the risk. Deadly violence would have been necessary, and that is where the SAS man would fit in. I'm afraid this is the most plausible explanation for the incident. I don't see British police intentionally shooting up tourists, to be honest. Callous they may be, but they are not insane.

EDIT
Well there you go. As I was writing this post, Templar Knight (see above) was already filling in the dots. Diligent chappie, that Templar; pity he spams holes in peoples' socks.

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 12:12

The SAS are trained to kill, how many times they shoot the guy is only academic - the fact is they were told of a 'threat' and they eliminated it. (If infact it was them) Even overpowering him would not be safe enough in the eyes of a Counter Terrorist.

Redleg

08-17-2005, 12:21

So if this is correct and the rest of it, then it had a lot of spin put onto it to try and make it appear good rather then a monumental cock up and murder.

Yep - looks like the police really did mess up - that was one of the reasons I stated we should wait for an investigation to be completed.

Devastatin Dave

08-17-2005, 14:06

Sickening...
Heads should roll for this... :furious3:

Ja'chyra

08-17-2005, 14:09

You mean to say that formal testimony by police officers and eyewitnesses is not 'substantial'? If so, then I wouldn't know what is substantial.

Unsubstantiated as in

leaked documents

and

The documents, seemingly from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into the shooting

link to BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4159310.stm)

Call me naive but I'll wait for the outcome of the investigations before believing the press.

econ21

08-17-2005, 16:59

... has any of the posters who claimed at the time that the police were justified in their actions got any comments to make ? :furious3:

Yeah, I wish I had kept my mouth shut. :embarassed: I believed the police account given at the time and am afraid my posts in retrospect are an example of the computer programmers maxim "garbage in, garbage out".

But I am not sure the lethal shot was fired by the SAS - I thought I heard the officer involved was take off firearm duties. (Here I may be lapsing back into believing the police account mode.)

It seems that somewhere along the line, the police assumed the dead man was a suicide bomber. Mistake number one. Even given that assumption, the reaction appears extreme. It sounds very much as if he could be seen not to have had a bomb and could have been - indeed was - apprehended physically without firing a shot. Mistake number two. Allowing false information to circulate in the aftermath of the shooting was a third mistake, although not so lethal.

Personally, I now think the shooting is a manifestation of a kind of hysteria or panic in London at the time. A friend who visited the city a few days after the second bombing said that it seemed very tense, with police cars racing around and everyone on edge. It kind of reminds me of that Spielberg flop, 1941, which portrayed an overwrought reaction in the US to Pearl Harbour.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-17-2005, 17:12

BRITISH special forces soldiers took part in the operation that led to the shoot-to-kill death of an innocent Brazilian electrician with no connection to the London bombings, defence sources said last week.

Press photographs of members of the armed response team taken in the immediate aftermath of the killing show at least one man carrying a special forces weapon that is not issued to SO19, the Metropolitan police firearms unit.

The man, wearing civilian clothes with a blue cap marked “Police”, was carrying a specially modified Heckler & Koch G3K rifle with a shortened barrel and a butt from a PSG-1 sniper rifle fitted to it — a combination used by the SAS.

The soldiers who took part in the surveillance operation that led to de Menezes’s death included men from a secret undercover unit formed for operations in Northern Ireland, defence sources said.

Known then as 14 Int or the Det, it is reported to have formed the basis of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the newly created special forces unit stationed alongside the SAS at Hereford. The men include SAS soldiers serving on attachment and are part of a team of around 50 UK special forces that has operated in London since the July 7 bombings in which 56 people died.

I didn't know Heckler Und Koch sold their rifles and military weapons to anyone besides Germany and Spain.

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 17:21

I didn't know Heckler Und Koch sold their rifles and military weapons to anyone besides Germany and Spain.

any military and police unit can get them

Evil_Maniac From Mars

08-17-2005, 17:23

I think civilians can order certain pistols too. I'm on their website now, but I'm not bothering with the fine print. ~;)

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 17:34

Personally, I now think the shooting is a manifestation of a kind of hysteria or panic in London at the time.Appearance, appearances. You may very well be right, Simon, but...

For all we know, the procedure followed may have been completely adequate in case the young man had indeed been a suicide terrorist of the kind police were obviously expecting.

Only he wasn't.

Apart from that, it might well have been a highly 'correct' and perfectly cold-blooded police action of the kind we all expect and hope to see in case of an imminent terrorist threat. No panic, no mistakes. Lots of blood but no loose ends and no regrets as far as anyone could help it.

Only it wasn't.

Police mistakes are not crimes. Withholding information and obstructing the course of justice are, however, and if these hitherto unknown testimonies turn out to be 'substantial' heads will inevitably have to roll. That does not necessarily reflect on the competence or honesty of the policemen involved, or even of their direct superiors.

Call me prejudiced, but the idea suggested by some that British police on that fateful day decided to shoot themselves an 'Arab' just for the heck of it simply does not wash with me.

Ser Clegane

08-17-2005, 20:36

Call me prejudiced, but the idea suggested by some that British police on that fateful day decided to shoot themselves an 'Arab' just for the heck of it simply does not wash with me.

I don't think that a lot of people would go so far as to accuse the police of such low motives.

The problem is that - even they you have the best intentions - people just might majorly screw up in life or death situations.

If this really was the major screw-up as is currently appears to be, there will have to be consequences and I am pretty sure that the will be consequences - but these consequences are IMO necessary not primarily to punish people but to make sure that such tragedies will be avoided in the future.

It is very likely that the people who might have screwed up this operation already receive daily punishment from their conscience (which does not change the fact that "official" consequences will be necessary should the facts warrant it).

But in the end - at least IMHO - the people who ultimately have to bear the guilt for this are the ones who created the atmosphere of fear and insecurity in which such a tragedy was possible: the terrorists who made the conscious decision to kill innocent people.

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 20:53

I don't think that a lot of people would go so far as to accuse the police of such low motives.More people than you think, I'm afraid. And even their motives aren't all low, I believe. It seems to be a natural reaction for people when faced by dramatic events, almost a reflex, to suppose that someone somewhere must be responsible for what has happened and that the motives of this genius must be evil. People don't suffer fallibility and contingency gladly.

Tribesman

08-17-2005, 21:07

Unsubstantiated as in
Unsubstatiated as in , the metropolitan police spokesman tonight on the news describing the leaked documents as accurate as far as the investigation of the evidence has progressed so far .
So what is patently clear so far , though of course we shall have to wait for the full findings , is that they lied and lied and then told some more lies to try to cover up their balls-up .

Known then as 14 Int or the Det,
Now that wouldn't be in any way linked to the thouroughly discredited bunch of renegande murdering ******* formally known as the F.R.U.?

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 21:28

Known then as 14 Int or the Det,
Now that wouldn't be in any way linked to the thouroughly discredited bunch of renegande murdering ******* formally known as the F.R.U.?

what do you think...

Seamus Fermanagh

08-17-2005, 21:28

If the allegations noted in the linked article are accurate, and it would seem unlikely that Brazilian authorities will allow any kind of obvious whitewashing, then it would appear that the authorities over-reacted.

I have little to say against the shooter once a decision was taken. Stopping a potential suicide bomber may well require ovewhelming and lethal force. The 12" range thing is a bit misleading here. It is written so as to connote cruelty or vindictiveness on the part of the authorities/shooter. If anything, it was likely a safety measure. The shooter was seeking a quick kill in crowded conditions where any miss was likely to result in a civilian casualty. Point blank was the rational choice for that.

Depending on the veracity of those allegations, the decision TO shoot will come under a good deal of scrutiny...as it should.

SF

Tribesman

08-17-2005, 21:39

BDC

08-17-2005, 21:41

So I stand by my previous comment that British police have just proved again why they can't be trusted with guns.

A.Saturnus

08-17-2005, 22:37

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 22:41

what do you think...
You can guess what I think T.K. , I just wish that they could hurry up and get on with the inquiry into the activities of those murdering scum before too many more vital witnessess have unfortunate fatal accidents .

well, say anything that they don't like and you disappear.

Why do some witnesses to the shooting still claim he had a 'detonator' and had 'padded clothing'???!

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 22:45

Well, say anything that they don't like and you disappear.

Why do some witnesses to the shooting still claim he had a 'detonator' and had 'padded clothing'???!You and President Tribesman seem to have a clear notion of who covered up what in this affair. Care to share your knowledge, gentlemen?

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 22:47

Sorry, that is not a police mistake, that is an assassination.Congratulations, you just made it onto the no-fly list. Anyway, if you are suggesting some policeman's deliberate intent to kill an innocent person, you might want to back that up with some facts.

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 22:49

You and President Tribesman seem to have a clear notion of who covered up what in this affair. Care to share your knowledge, gentlemen?

errrrr...nope ~:)

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 22:51

errrrr...nope ~:)Rrright.. forget my question... ~D

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 22:52

Code of Silence my good man ~:)

However I do not believe that the police did this.....

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 22:54

Code of Silence my good man ~:)

However I do not believe that the police did this.....http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/54_4.gif

A.Saturnus

08-17-2005, 22:55

Congratulations, you just made it onto the no-fly list. Anyway, if you are suggesting some policeman's deliberate intent to kill an innocent person, you might want to back that up with some facts.

Sure:

But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.

So, did that suicide terrorist intend to read his newspaper before or after he blew up himself? All evidence says that he did not behave suspicious in any way. But unfortunately he was dead the moment a SAS-officer was ordered to clear him.
And don´t worry, I guess I was on the no-fly list anyway.

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 22:57

Well the terrorists have been known to blend in.

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 23:00

All evidence says that he did not behave suspicious in any way.Indeed. And no evidence, as yet, says that police intend to kill an innocent man that day. Everything points to a mistake. As to the disinformation on the incident we were fed afterwards, that might be a different story altogether.

Adrian II

08-17-2005, 23:01

Well the terrorists have been known to blend in.I have missed you all those weeks. ~:cool: :balloon2:

Tribesman

08-17-2005, 23:34

Care to share your knowledge, gentlemen?
Adrian , do you know what my last couple of posts in this thread are about ?
Next time you are at work search your media archives for some really nice examples of this units handywork.
edit , actually you might have a little difficulty as there is still a gagging order on most of the media against writing anything about the units actions and the investigations into it , and the last British government inquiry into them collapsed after those witnessess it had who hadn't succumbed to fatal accidents withdrew from the hearings due to threats , oh and the evidence collected by Scotland Yards chief commisioner became an unfortunate victim of a little arson attack on his offices .

Templar Knight

08-17-2005, 23:51

Another story about the DET in Northern Ireland: They celebrate a killing with cake and beer.

I will see if I can find any more stuff on them.

Red Harvest

08-18-2005, 00:02

It looks like someone went off on a macho trip. Try him for murder or manslaughter and cashier him regardless. This needs to be made a clear example of. The cover up is the worst part and is simply inexcusable.

As for "Shoot to Kill." Despite this screw up, the policy is still sound if you think you are dealing with a potential bomb trigger man. Besides, "Shoot to Maim" has never been a policy that I can recall. When you shoot at a person, you go for center mass typically. You don't aim to knee cap or otherwise disable unless that is the only target available. Headshots have typically been reserved for snipers, although at close range and advancing it is rather easy to switch from center mass to a headshot.

Mongoose

08-18-2005, 00:07

So Mr de Menezes has done no mistake, except having a dark skin. He just entered a station and ran after a train. Then suddenly someone graps him and he´s shot 7 times in the head.
Sorry, that is not a police mistake, that is an assassination.

Well, from what i've heard, the police yelled at him to stop and he kept running. He was being chased by both uniformed police and casually dressed police. He was wearing a jacket on a hot day and ran into a train station.

*edit*

Damn it! just read the link and it appears i was wrong. :embarassed:

econ21

08-18-2005, 00:27

Appearance, appearances. You may very well be right, Simon, but...

For all we know, the procedure followed may have been completely adequate in case the young man had indeed been a suicide terrorist of the kind police were obviously expecting.

Maybe, but from what we "know" now, the man was wearing jeans and a light denim jacket. The bombers had pudding bowl size bombs in rucksacks, so he was unlikely to have one of those concealed on his person. In the circumstances, I don't think it was "completely adequate procedure" to shoot him. Especially when his arms were pinioned by a police surveillance officer. Even a suicide bomber is not much of a threat when physically restrained and without a bomb - he's better off in custody, being leant on to give intelligence[1].

Call me prejudiced, but the idea suggested by some that British police on that fateful day decided to shoot themselves an 'Arab' just for the heck of it simply does not wash with me.

Absolutely. I was not suggesting that. But I suspect there was a feverish mood - I used the term "hysteria" - that helps to explain why the police would make such terrible mistakes, leaping from unsupported assumption to overreaction. As other people have said, the police action might not have been questioned if it were done by soldiers in a war zone - I suspect London the day after the second wave of bombings might have felt like a war zone to those at the sharp end of protecting it from further attacks.

[1]For those who think this is a wishy-washy suggestion made from the safety of my armchair, I remember the news footage of Israeli soldiers talking down a young Palestinian suicide bomber. He had a belt of explosives on his person and was at a crowded checkpoint. But he was not shot and, having got cold feet, was disarmed and captured by the Israeli soldiers.

Papewaio

08-18-2005, 00:31

You and President Tribesman seem to have a clear notion of who covered up what in this affair. Care to share your knowledge, gentlemen?

Well the UK government said that there was no shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland.

But according to the same UK government they are stating that their London anti-terrorist methods are tried and tested against the IRA.

Also there was a SAS unit based in Northern Ireland for counter terrorist activities. And I am pretty sure there methodology was not based on bear hugs.

The shoot to kill policy is a huge shift and would normally be publically debated if it is a new policy. As well as it being more deadly the deterrent factor rises with its publication, and it would be a PR move to say the government was serious against terrorism. The lack of debate and ease with which it was put in place indicates that it is a policy that has been around for a long time.

RabidGibbon

08-18-2005, 01:34

Posted by Red Harvest

As for "Shoot to Kill." Despite this screw up, the policy is still sound if you think you are dealing with a potential bomb trigger man. Besides, "Shoot to Maim" has never been a policy that I can recall. When you shoot at a person, you go for center mass typically. You don't aim to knee cap or otherwise disable unless that is the only target available. Headshots have typically been reserved for snipers, although at close range and advancing it is rather easy to switch from center mass to a headshot.

This paragraph sums up quite neatly my views on the phrase "Shoot to Kill". Its a phrase invented by the media for sensationalist purposes.

What do you think is going to happen to someone if you shoot at them? A bullet isn't designed to wrap someone up in cotton wool and stop them doing bad things.

Finally to get onto the point of the innocent man who was shot, from what I've heard it sounds like the biggest error that happened was a lack of communication between the firearms team and the surveillance team that was following the suspect.

One of the surveillance team went to point out Jean Charles de Menezes when he saw a team who he recognized as armed police: is this a point against the 'They were an SAS hit squad' brigade? The suspect stood up and walked towards him, IMHO an all too appropriate response to being pointed and shouted at, the officer then wrestled him to the floor, the firearms team ran onto the train and shot him.

The point being made here is that the firearms team only saw Jean Charles de Menezes for a few moments, it was information that had been fed to them that made them shoot - they had been told they were following a suicide bomber who had boarded a tube train: and upon entering that train they saw a police officer, who they may or may not have recognized, wrestling a man to the floor.

In my mind the blame lays higher up than in the street level police officers.

Papewaio

08-18-2005, 01:48

Congratulations, you just made it onto the no-fly list. Anyway, if you are suggesting some policeman's deliberate intent to kill an innocent person, you might want to back that up with some facts.

If people are put on the no fly list because they are debating government policy then it is the act of a police state.

To stifle public debate by placing restrictions on travel is undemocratic.

What next, all those who are on the no fly list have to wear a cloth airplane on their clothes that measures 15 cm by 15cm?

Soulforged

08-18-2005, 02:23

I don't think that a lot of people would go so far as to accuse the police of such low motives.

The problem is that - even they you have the best intentions - people just might majorly screw up in life or death situations.

If this really was the major screw-up as is currently appears to be, there will have to be consequences and I am pretty sure that the will be consequences - but these consequences are IMO necessary not primarily to punish people but to make sure that such tragedies will be avoided in the future.

It is very likely that the people who might have screwed up this operation already receive daily punishment from their conscience (which does not change the fact that "official" consequences will be necessary should the facts warrant it).

But in the end - at least IMHO - the people who ultimately have to bear the guilt for this are the ones who created the atmosphere of fear and insecurity in which such a tragedy was possible: the terrorists who made the conscious decision to kill innocent people.

First of all nobody is innocent. Second that final comment is incorrect. With that teory you could easily go as far as saying "their fathers have to carry responsability for having them". If this was a mistake or an assasination (and imprudent murder is punished in England) then i suspect there will be some consequences to the responsables. Terrorism is not justified, but also are not justified the causes that iniciate them. Even so it's natural that this things cause paranoia within society, but it's not ok that this paranoia transmits it self to authorities. I would never stop to say this: religion and their preaches leads to tragic ends (talking about middle eats terrorism of course). It's excusable when an individual kills other by mistake, but when the state does it, giving this kind of power to the authorities, it's not acceptable.

Tribesman

08-18-2005, 07:46

Ser Clegane

08-18-2005, 08:35

First of all nobody is innocent.
Is this an attempt to put some kind of collective guilt on the victims of the terrorist attacks in London? Or is it just an attempt to be philosophical?

Second that final comment is incorrect. With that teory you could easily go as far as saying "their fathers have to carry responsability for having them".
Not quite - unless you would like to imply that it was the terrorists' fathers' plan to unleash their children in order to blow up trains.
The goal of the terrorists is to spread fear and dissent - the killing of Mr de Menezes is fully in line with these goals, so if this killing was based on the genuine belief of the police that Mr de Menezes was a terrorist and posed an immediate threat (even if that belief was due to sloppy work) holding the terrorists responsible for this tragedy is indeed justified IMO (note that this does not mean that I think the people who screwed this uo should not face consequences).

Soulforged

08-18-2005, 08:59

Is this an attempt to put some kind of collective guilt on the victims of the terrorist attacks in London? Or is it just an attempt to be philosophical?

Not quite - unless you would like to imply that it was the terrorists' fathers' plan to unleash their children in order to blow up trains.
The goal of the terrorists is to spread fear and dissent - the killing of Mr de Menezes is fully in line with these goals, so if this killing was based on the genuine belief of the police that Mr de Menezes was a terrorist and posed an immediate threat (even if that belief was due to sloppy work) holding the terrorists responsible for this tragedy is indeed justified IMO (note that this does not mean that I think the people who screwed this uo should not face consequences).

I really wouldn't like to sound bad when writing this but... Just philosophical, but it's real, nobody is actually "innocent".
No. The teory on that is a law teory called "causality" capped for other called "of relevancy", it states that it's absurd to make someone responsable of a crime commited after in the chain of events. So holding terrorist responsable (guilty) for this isn't justified, it's not even logical. Responsable and guilty are strong words, used carefully it can lead to justice, but using it without any care could lead to hatred and vengance. I'm not saying that you should not fear terrorism, but making terrorism responsable of all the deaths under "certain" circumstances is a little to far, even if you talk out of the technical sense, it seems paranoic, and if more and more people things like you in any given time you will be seing a law that provides "terrorism paranoia" as a justification to comit a crime.

Templar Knight

08-18-2005, 11:20

The SAS are care bears compared to the DET, Int 14 or the FRU ~:)

Seamus Fermanagh

08-18-2005, 13:47

What do you think is going to happen to someone if you shoot at them? A bullet isn't designed to wrap someone up in cotton wool and stop them doing bad things.

Excellent point. I think too much of the media -- and perhaps the rest of us -- tend to think of the hollywood/video game version of gunfire, wherein the hero can always pick exactly what part of his target to hit. We still get folks here who ask why a police officer didn't shoot at the suspect's legs [general comment, not referring to this incident]. Cops, in a gunfight, rarely hit more than 50% of the time. They're trained to shoot center of mass to minimize the misses (and potential bystander shootings resulting therefrom).

The point being made here is that the firearms team only saw Jean Charles de Menezes for a few moments, it was information that had been fed to them that made them shoot - they had been told they were following a suicide bomber who had boarded a tube train: and upon entering that train they saw a police officer, who they may or may not have recognized, wrestling a man to the floor.

In my mind the blame lays higher up than in the street level police officers.

This summary seems valid to me, fits the known facts. Now, as to why the kill decision had been reached despite the conflicting evidence noted in this discussion so far, I am interested to see what turns up.

SF

Ja'chyra

08-18-2005, 14:14

In my mind the blame lays higher up than in the street level police officers.
Yes , and with this mornings further revelations that the head of Police tried to get the Home Office to block the standard independant inquiry into the shooting , but failed , and stopped the investigators doing their job for another 3 days after his attempt had been overruled does suggest that the blame goes right to the top of the police chain of command .

Tell half the story why don't you, as usual I might add.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair wrote to the Home Office on the morning of Mr de Menezes' death to make sure the terrorist investigation took precedence over any IPCC investigation.

Scotland Yard said Sir Ian had believed the dead man was linked to terrorism when he made the request.

From the BBC website.

I've said it before, try waiting for all the information before condemning people, or maybe that doesn't fit with your biased view of the police and security forces.

A.Saturnus

08-18-2005, 16:13

Indeed. And no evidence, as yet, says that police intend to kill an innocent man that day. Everything points to a mistake. As to the disinformation on the incident we were fed afterwards, that might be a different story altogether.

Yes, I didn´t mean to say that the police intentionally killed an innocent man, but that the suspicion about Mr de Menezes to be a terrorist were not enough to justify violence. What makes it more than a police mistake was that the operation was carried out with extreme prejudice, despite insufficient information. Even if Mr. de Menezes had been a terrorist, it would still be murder.

"This is Inspector Frank Drebin, he was recently awarded for the killing of his 1000th drug dealer."
"To be honest, the last two I overran with the car, fortunately they turned out to be drug dealers."

English assassin

08-18-2005, 16:46

Yes, I didn´t mean to say that the police intentionally killed an innocent man, but that the suspicion about Mr de Menezes to be a terrorist were not enough to justify violence. What makes it more than a police mistake was that the operation was carried out with extreme prejudice, despite insufficient information. Even if Mr. de Menezes had been a terrorist, it would still be murder.

I'm not too sure about this. For murder, we need to know the state of mind of the person doing the killing. Specifically, since there can be no question he intended to kill, we need to know whether what he thought was going on was sufficient to amount to a defence to murder. For example if he thought a bomb was about to be triggered or anyone around was at risk of serious harm, and the shooting was necessary to prevent that, he would have a defence.

It seems, from what has been said, that the team physically intercepting Mr Menezes were not trained to identify the real suspect and had been told the person they were trailing was indeed the terrorist. Very possibly they could know no better.

IMHO it all therefore comes down to the state of mind of the armed officer/soldier entering the train and seeing the suspect wrestling (or as it may be restrained by) the unarmed policeman. It all hinges on those few seconds. Walking up to a man held motionless on the floor and putting bullets in his head, well, that looks bad. Walking up to a man you have been told is a suicide bomber and who is struggling like mad, (as he may have been, I would if some loony grabbed me on the tube) well, who knows.

The fact that, if the police had put all the information they had together, they would have realised Mr Menezes was an innocent passer by, does NOT make the gunman a murderer. Only HIS state of mind is relevant. And I find that hard to judge to put it mildly.

None of this is to say that the police procedures in this case were adequate since they plainly were not. But that is another matter.

Mind you I will be very surprised if there is a proper enquiry into all of this.

Sir Moody

08-18-2005, 16:47

Why do some witnesses to the shooting still claim he had a 'detonator' and had 'padded clothing'???!

simple human nature

they witnessed (some saw more than others) a man shot dead in front of them - later when the memories were not quite so sharp they were told this man was a Suicide Bomber - the mind is a very powerful tool and plays all kinds of tricks with us and one is playing with memories like this - This is why police interview people at the scene as as quickly as they can because the memory is at its freshest and hasn't had time to be shaped by the persons perspective

I can remmeber my friends father (a policeman) telling us a story once about a Woman who was raped - she came in and gave a description of the guy - a week later they brought a man in for questioning and the media reported this along with pictures of the man being brought in. The next day the woman came in to do a line up and she picked the man out of the line - problem was the Police KNEW the man was innocent - his DNA didn't match and he had an Iron clad alibi, but no matter what the evidence the woman was convinced this was the man.

The Mind softens traumatic memories like this by warping the memory into something more palatable - the witnesses saw the Police killing a man on a tube station a day after the bombings people were bound to see things like a padded belt and detonators

Tribesman

08-18-2005, 22:40

Tell half the story why don't you, as usual I might add.
Ja'chyra ;Yes tell half the story ??? why not have the full story , how many senior police officers or politicians had their career wrecked by challenging the "official" version ?
Until Omagh which was the biggest "terrorist" atrocity in the British Isles during the troubles , how many innocent civilians ,British soldiers and British policeman and British agents have this bunch of bastards murdered , yet they are carrying on under new initials because your own countries legal system cannot manage to serve justice against your own governments agents .
But its all OK because they are fighting "terrorists" .

I've said it before, try waiting for all the information before condemning people,
Thats really funny considering my opening statement that started the thread .

or maybe that doesn't fit with your biased view of the police and security forces.
Biased view ? that is absolutely hilarious ..... I tried to take bets down the pub this evening on what my chances are of getting into London tomorrow without the usual Special branch rubbish .
Considering that the pub is next to a bookies and the customers will always take the longest odds if there is any chance at all , can you guess how many were willing to take the odds ......none...is it any wonder that I have a biased view ? The bias is based on reality , if you yourself cannot face reality then pehaps some drugs are in order to help you escape reality .

Don Corleone

08-18-2005, 22:52

Well, Tribesman, no offense, but your initial post did have a bit of a chip on it's shoulder. You were calling out people who believed the initial police accounts, and the fact is, more often then not, the police's offiicial version of events is accurate. Yes, they lie sometimes to cover up their mistakes (apparently, here). But that doesn't mean that the people that believed them are somehow culpable...

Here's what I don't get. Don't get me wrong, the UK is free to set up it's laws as it sees fit, I'm just offering an outsider's point of view....

Why not launch an independent commission to probe & charge everyone involved for what happened? Police abuse their powers all around the globe, but civilized societies have ways of holding them accountable. IMHO, disarming the police, putting them at a decided disadvantage against a large number of criminals of all flavors in the UK, would be a mistake. The answer lies in the problem... go after those responsible for that which they're responsible.

Tribesman

08-18-2005, 23:13

Well, Tribesman, no offense, but your initial post did have a bit of a chip on it's shoulder.
Hey thats Ok , I now threaten all the Brazilians at work with being transfered to London if they don't work hard enough .
Of course I have a chip on my shoulder , I have experienced terrorism and anti terrorism from an early age (my first recollections of shit is from the age of 4) , I saw 9/11 and I lost familly in it (bad holiday), but it is not the first family that I have lost through terrorism , Islamic or otherwise .
But I also have much experience of the anti terror bullshit , and have been a victim of it on more occasions than I wish to remenber .

The issue I have with the subject is the damn lies and misinformation that surround every aspect of it , and peoples willingness to accept those lies .

Don Corleone

08-18-2005, 23:17

Well, I'm very sorry for your loss on 9/11. I lost several people that day as well. And I'm sorry for your other losses as well, both to the terrorists and the g-men sent to clean them out. And no, we shouldn't just sit back and let the government 'protect us' whether we want it or not. But do you really think disarming all police is an appropriate response? I'm not baiting, I'm seriously asking.... Even in Europe, a lot of your criminals are armed, no?

econ21

08-18-2005, 23:24

Why not launch an independent commission to probe & charge everyone involved for what happened?

Isn't that what's happening? In the UK, we have a standing independent police complaints commission that investigates all police shootings, including this case. The disclosures revealed by the leaking of the evidence to that commission prompted this thread.

Tribesman

08-19-2005, 00:06

Don , have I ever mentioned disarming the police ?
Full accountabilty is the issue .
IF the commisioner sought to block the required investigation and allowed/contrived in the spreading of lies and disinformation then he must lose his job , and IF the military intelligence unit are the same bunch of murdering bastards under a new name then they should already be in prison , not running round London with guns .

Papewaio

08-19-2005, 00:30

Isn't that what's happening? In the UK, we have a standing independent police complaints commission that investigates all police shootings, including this case. The disclosures revealed by the leaking of the evidence to that commission prompted this thread.

Didn't the Police Commissioner get the investigation delayed by 3 days and that the police involved were not immediately debriefed?

If so is the Commissioner culpable in covering it up?

Yes, they lie sometimes to cover up their mistakes (apparently, here). But that doesn't mean that the people that believed them are somehow culpable...

I agree if people have at least questioned why something was done and the official events where doctored. If people blindly agree then they are failing their duties as a citizen... no one in the backroom is the type to just sit still and nod their heads however.

Problem is the majority of people in the world just duck and cover and don't ask: why? Or they just jump a few steps to the conculsion that they wish for and select the evidence that agrees. (Aside: Which is another reason people are not truly equal and why communism fails).

econ21

08-19-2005, 01:09

Didn't the Police Commissioner get the investigation delayed by 3 days and that the police involved were not immediately debriefed?

If so is the Commissioner culpable in covering it up?

Personally, I give him the benefit of the doubt. He made the request for a delay in the morning almost immediately after the shooting, presumably still in the belief that the victim was a suicide bomber. I completely understand him wanting his officers energies focussed on tracking the escaped suicide bombers rather than handling inquiries about a tragic, but less urgent case.

Papewaio

08-19-2005, 02:36

I completely understand him wanting his officers energies focussed on tracking the escaped suicide bombers rather than handling inquiries about a tragic, but less urgent case.

Surely given the outcome from now on all police shootings should be investigated immediately. It is ignoring a few steps of the law to execute someone based on the assumption they are a suicide bomber and then going on with that assumption to delay an investigation.

Western justice used to rely on judge, jury and executioner being separate parts of the state. If we are to bypass these steps then when an execution happens we should start the questioning immediately.

As it stands it has gone from Ask Questions, Shoot Later and bypassed Shoot First, Ask Questions Later to Shoot First, And delay as long as possible in asking Questions.

If anyone can be labeled a terrorist (see the no fly lists), and then anyone can be shot as a terrorist and have that investigation delayed what kind of state does that leave one living in? :help:

Soulforged

08-19-2005, 04:28

I'm not too sure about this. For murder, we need to know the state of mind of the person doing the killing.

No need to do this, technically speaking the judicial system (and for instance anybody that wants science) does not need the state of mind of any man to state if this was a murder or not. In principle it was a murder an imprudent one perhaps but it was one. To see if he has the intention of doing it (deceitfully) the system looks at the facts. If he shoots for any reason he knows he can kill the person, for instance it's presumed wanted by the victimary. He it's not different, except that it's so biologicaly obvious that that kind of shooting will end in death, that i don't believe that they spend much time asking themselves if this was deceitful. Anyway if the supect was justified in some way to do what he did then it's a different subject.
Personally i think that giving that kind of power to an authority may end in absurd and terrible results, like for example (even if we're talking about a terrorist) a terrorist that has a bomb but he never opens the jacket (so the policeman could never see it), never runs, well he never does anything suspectful (besides of "looking" like a terrorist). The thing is that by any motive the police kills this man and then they realize (or before, it really doesn't matter for this example) that he has a bomb. Justification: he had a bomb. Was he going to use it? Well he never showed signs for that, the witnesses never saw anything (someones may say that they really saw signs... "The problems of perception"?), in rational law the police was not justified, even more if he never saw the bomb, and more if he never inteviewed the suspect. But this kind of case could happen and the police go unchecked...

English assassin

08-19-2005, 10:04

No need to do this, technically speaking the judicial system (and for instance anybody that wants science) does not need the state of mind of any man to state if this was a murder or not.

No disrespect but in English law unless the killer had the intent to kill or cause really serious harm its not murder. The "mental element" is an essential part of the crime that must be proved. Likewise many defences to murder depend on what the killer thought was happening at the time. I should perhaps explain that "murder" is limited to the most serious crimes where someone is killed, what the Americans call second degree murder we call manslaughter. So there may be some confusion there. My point was only to those who say "its murder" that we don't know and its probably not.

Its not just pedantry. If we all walk about saying it was murder (colloquially), and then no one is prosecuted because legally no crime was committed, it seems as if the police are not subject to the law. Which isn't true (formally anyway).

I still think there would be likely to be considerable difficulties prosecuting this, (although the idea of trying corporate manslaughter has its appeal,) which is why the enquiry that follows every police shooting is a good idea. They can concentrate on what went wrong and how to stop it again which is surely the main issue.

For what its worth and from no direct personal experience I entirely agree with Tribesmans concern about spooks. I've worked with ex-spooks and they are a law unto themselves. At the very least they make sure those in power think there is always a need for spooks, just so no one gets sacked. At at worst they are altogether too keen to play with their toys.

A.Saturnus

08-19-2005, 17:16

Well, if I behead my neighbor, saying "I thought he was going to kill me" wouldn´t be a good defence, would it. I would be charged with murder. The intention to kill was clearly there. What was not there was any reasonable suspicion. Having been told that the man was a terrorist is not enough, every policeman has the duty before using violence, to assess whether it is justified or not. If someone is not able to do that, he should have rejected the authority to use violence. But of course, the policeman is not at fault alone. The authorities that ordered him had also the duty to prevent innocent men from getting hurt. Instead, they gave an order that was not appropriate in the situation.

English assassin

08-19-2005, 17:47

Well, if I behead my neighbor, saying "I thought he was going to kill me" wouldn´t be a good defence, would it.

It would if he was closing on you with a lethal weapon in his hand. It wouldn't if he was sitting in his armchair minding his own business.

We might have to leave this to the court/enquiry. Obviously, telling a policeman "shoot that man" would not give the policeman a defence. The guy with the gun is always responsible for the decision to shoot or not and I believe that is made quite clear to them.

But the fact that he had been told that the person was definitely a suicide bomber may well, IMHO, have contributed to him honestly believing that it was necessary to shoot the guy to avoid him triggering a bomb or drawing a weapon.

We will have to wait and see. We don't even know, for instance, whether or not the gunman saw the victim entering the station slowly and without a rucksack, or if the first thing he saw was him struggling with the officer on the train.

Geoffrey S

08-19-2005, 18:03

Thing is, a special forces person told that a man's a terrorist and must be stopped at all costs is going to do just that, it's his job. He's not the person responsible for the killing; those men have to rely on the fact that the intelligence is correct, and cannot be blamed for acting on faulty intelligence. The person(s) who provided that faulty intelligence through negligence, such as the supposed operative taking a leak at the time, are ultimately the ones responsible for causing the death of an innocent man. If special forces people in the field start doubting the orders given and intelligence behind them they couldn't do a thing; it's simply not their decision to make.

Spetulhu

08-20-2005, 01:37

Thing is, a special forces person told that a man's a terrorist and must be stopped at all costs is going to do just that, it's his job. If special forces people in the field start doubting the orders given and intelligence behind them they couldn't do a thing; it's simply not their decision to make.

Funny thing is, most countries don't even make it legal to use military personnel for internal security. The police should handle that, not guys trained to kill enemies of the realm.

Soulforged

08-20-2005, 04:04

Again English Assassin, the "mental state" as you say in any case is semantically wrong placed in any case. If you're talking about conciousness then you could be right, but judicial system works, when it cans, like an exact science so the decitions are fair. When a guy aims a gun to another it's sufficient to prove "dolus eventualis", that's considered intention for all porposes. If you wanted to know the true "mental state" of the man in the moment you will have to come back to the past and enter his mind, you obviously can't do it (and if you could it would be terribly wrong to do so, but that's another subject), so you base your suspicions on facts and in testimonies, all facts and testimonies talk about a rational state of the mind, for this it's considered that he "acted" because the fact was a result of the manifestation of his personality. That's all, if you want to look for proof of "mental state" you will need to talk to a psicologist, but as the only way to know the mental state is to hear to the testimony of the victimary, because we're talking about past (who obviously can lie) then in this case the analisys will progress (i expect) to the point that they determine if this was deceitful (when we talk about "intention", not before) or if it was imprudent, but again, i ask you, because i want to know, is imprudent murder (manslaughter as you say) punished on England.

Geoffrey S: Ok that would be the case when there were no testimonies and facts that prooves the contrary. When it comes to details, some times the common sense can make wonders, so in this case if the common sense states that the victimary acted like he should act then it's more complicated, but the facts proove that he didn't have enough suspicions to act like he did.
In another subject you can't penaly blame the state, so if there's some sentence like this there will be a lot of problems in relationships beetween nations, so my guess is that even if this was the case to blame the state, it would find a way to blame a man and wash it's hands.

Papewaio

08-20-2005, 08:52

If special forces people in the field start doubting the orders given and intelligence behind them they couldn't do a thing; it's simply not their decision to make.

Wrong, Nuremburg trials threw that defence out.

Geoffrey S

08-20-2005, 13:11

Fair point.

monkian

08-20-2005, 19:00

Wrong, Nuremburg trials threw that defence out.

Surely theres a difference between shotting a suspected terrorist (shortly after a terrorist attack) and rounding up peasants and shooting them into mass graves though ?

Soulforged

08-20-2005, 22:02

If special forces people in the field start doubting the orders given and intelligence behind them they couldn't do a thing; it's simply not their decision to make.

Not at all. The principal teories on that matter say that the subordinate can reject some orders if he see a rational doubt about the situation, specially when the case is out of rutine, and more specially when the life of another human being is at stakes.

Papewaio

08-21-2005, 00:32

Surely theres a difference between shotting a suspected terrorist (shortly after a terrorist attack) and rounding up peasants and shooting them into mass graves though ?

True, but either way you cannot use "It was an order" as a defence against murder.

RabidGibbon

08-21-2005, 01:02

Originally posted by Papewaio

True, but either way you cannot use "It was an order" as a defence against murder.

Originally posted by Soulforged

Not at all. The principal teories on that matter say that the subordinate can reject some orders if he see a rational doubt about the situation, specially when the case is out of rutine, and more specially when the life of another human being is at stakes.

As I understand the situation that ocurred that morning the police (or special forces) team that shot Jean Charles wasn't the team that was following him. The testimony I heard (from the report of one of the surveillance team) on the news indicated that the firearms team entered the train, entering just as the doors were closing. I don't know what their orders were, but as they entered the train they saw one of the surveillance team wrestling with the suspect. The surveillance officer said he recognized the firearms team, so it is possible to assume they recognized him.

So - you've been told your following a suicide bomber, you rush onto a tube train and see a fellow police officer struggling with someone. In those circumstances I can see why they opened fire. I think judging from this what happened was a tragic misunderstanding.

The conduct of the police in not admitting their mistake sooner, and not correcting reports about the suspects suspicous behavior is abhorrent, but from what I've heard of the actual incident I'm not sure that the officers who fired should be charged with murder.

Grey_Fox

08-21-2005, 01:31

The principal teories on that matter say that the subordinate can reject some orders if he see a rational doubt about the situation

In most armies, to disobey a direct order from a superior officer in wartime is punishable by summary execution, or at the very least a general court martial. All you can do in such a situation is obey the order and hope your side wins the war, as justice is decided by the victor. Else a lot of Soviets and other Allies would have been put up against a wall with a handkerchief and a cigarette.

JAG

08-21-2005, 04:02

This sad case, just shows how you cannot trust the police when they close up ranks around a mistake and try and cover up stories. So many people here and in the country bought all their lies even after the many cases we have had before of the police cover ups.

Sad to say I told you so, but it was obvious. Now Ian Blair, the commisioner has to go, he not only lied about the situation, tried to stop the investigation but also did not publish the real happenings to the family when he knew. That is despicable beyond belief, in fact quite sickening. It shows how little our police force has come, it is still a secretive, racist, authoritarian and horrible organisation. I have lost so much respect for the police force after this incident and it will take a lot to get my respect back. I will always respect individual policeman doing their jobs well, but the police force as a whole stinks.

bmolsson

08-21-2005, 04:16

Surely theres a difference between shotting a suspected terrorist (shortly after a terrorist attack) and rounding up peasants and shooting them into mass graves though ?

Not if you have "evidence" that tells you that all the peasants are terrorists...... :balloon2:

monkian

08-21-2005, 09:26

The 'evidence' being your orders are to brutally murder any slavic or Jewish civillians ?

I'm sorry but the two are poles apart. No pun intended....

Papewaio

08-21-2005, 09:35

In most armies, to disobey a direct order from a superior officer in wartime is punishable by summary execution, or at the very least a general court martial. All you can do in such a situation is obey the order and hope your side wins the war, as justice is decided by the victor. Else a lot of Soviets and other Allies would have been put up against a wall with a handkerchief and a cigarette.

And the American Prison scandal in Iraq... have they been cleared once for obeying orders?

bmolsson

08-21-2005, 12:36

The 'evidence' being your orders are to brutally murder any slavic or Jewish civillians ?

I'm sorry but the two are poles apart. No pun intended....

If you get an order to shoot a civilian on an open street in London during rush hours or you get an order to round up peasants in a remote village and shoot them are to me an order you should refuse. It's just silly.
Surely it's a more horrible crime to shoot hundred than shooting one. Never the less both situations are murder to me......

Grey_Fox

08-21-2005, 13:19

And the American Prison scandal in Iraq... have they been cleared once for obeying orders?

Those cases were only brought into a courtroom due to public pressure. If the public had never found out, odds are nothing would have been done, except for maybe a symbolic slap on the wrist.

monkian

08-21-2005, 14:50

If you get an order to shoot a civilian on an open street in London during rush hours or you get an order to round up peasants in a remote village and shoot them are to me an order you should refuse. It's just silly.
Surely it's a more horrible crime to shoot hundred than shooting one. Never the less both situations are murder to me......

The difference being the Waffen SS knew that they were killing civillians, the armed police thought they were neutralising a terrorist target.

Papewaio

08-21-2005, 22:14

The difference being the Waffen SS knew that they were killing civillians, the armed police thought they were neutralising a terrorist target.

If you are going to call a kill (not murder) neutralising, then using the same language set you should refer to the SS bit as collatoral damage.

Adrian II

08-22-2005, 07:01

What makes it more than a police mistake was that the operation was carried out with extreme prejudice, despite insufficient information. Even if Mr. de Menezes had been a terrorist, it would still be murder.It looked as if the operation was carried out with extreme efficiency -- until it turned out they got the wrong guy. What happened then, apparently, was a cover-up of outrageous proportions in which even Ian Blair was kept uninformed of the essentials. It casts a bleak light on British Police and I must admit I was genuinely shocked over the weekend about what came up. Even if half of that were true (and I still believe only half is true), the lack of judgment in some, the prejudice and outright lies of others, the involvement of questionable units, sloppy intelligence etcetera are really appalling. I fear the mutual trust between the British public and its police force will suffer enormously from it. That's a brownie point for the terrorists.

Bartix

08-22-2005, 08:29

2 things discussed: :book:
After killing of innocent Brazilian, lies and decorations of facts. :embarassed:
Is this good or bad? :balloon2:
It turns out it is bad, at least when found out! Of course bad! ~:eek:
Public see police force make poor judgement, and after they try to hide from them facts? As said, make trust little! Would be better to say "we foul up, very sorry". :bow:
What if they get away with lies? Public trust better, think "they make mistake, is understandable because swarty guy act strange and dress heavy". ~:grouphug:

Then it is the same as other thing discussed: Can someone do something "wrong" to achieve perceived grater good? ~:confused:
Utilitarianism yes or no? ~:confused:
Maybe policy make killing of 2 innocent people and prevent 1 suicide bomber who will else kill 15 other. ~:eek:

Most moral philosopher say you are no able to sacrifice an innocent. Police not know at the moment that is what they do. Not thninking "let us kill this harmless fellow to prevent terror"!!! :dizzy2:

Someone see TV serial called 24?
They always try to impress viewer utilitiarianism is best. Allow dying and torture of innocent, sometimes perform it actively, all to serve perceived grater good. :charge:

"It was the right call"!!!

Some give this right only to government, as in this case police. :book:
Only if you know government is allowed to lie and other wrong things at own discretion, how to ever trust them? ~:confused:

bmolsson

08-22-2005, 09:54

If you are going to call a kill (not murder) neutralising, then using the same language set you should refer to the SS bit as collatoral damage.

Discussing this terms in todays world would be to open Pandoras box.... ~;)

English assassin

08-22-2005, 10:20

Sad to say I told you so, but it was obvious. Now Ian Blair, the commisioner has to go, he not only lied about the situation, tried to stop the investigation but also did not publish the real happenings to the family when he knew. That is despicable beyond belief, in fact quite sickening. It shows how little our police force has come, it is still a secretive, racist, authoritarian and horrible organisation. I have lost so much respect for the police force after this incident and it will take a lot to get my respect back. I will always respect individual policeman doing their jobs well, but the police force as a whole stinks.

I think that is a SLIGHT prejudgement? Has it been established that Ian Blair said things he knew were not true? Not according to the news I have seen so far. My prediction is that who knew what when will turn out to be a very complicated picture indeed, and hours or half hours will be all important. So jumping in now with the conclusion that its all racist etc is a little premature IMHO.

@soulforged, I don't quite understand how mens rea works in Argentinian law but it may be slightly different from English law. We too have the rule that you are taken to intend the natural consequences of your actions, but intent will not be the issue here. The issue is whether there is a defence of (my criminal law is rust so lets call it) self defence. My main point, and JAG's fundamental falacy, is that we must not attribute all of the knowledge held within the whole MPS to all officers at all times. Anyway, yes, manslaughter certainly is punished in English law, the main difference is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence whereas manslaughter carried a discretionary sentence, with the maximum being life.

Incidentally the proverbial will be all over the fan if the gunman was in or working for MI5 since IIRC they have immunity from criminal prosecution.

Adrian II

08-22-2005, 14:46

Incidentally the proverbial will be all over the fan if the gunman was in or working for MI5 since IIRC they have immunity from criminal prosecution.That would make the snafu complete.

British (and other) patrons, I've done my best to get a grip on this thing. Here it is, please correct me if I'm wrong.

In April of this year, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon declared that a new unit, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), had been formed 'to meet a growing worldwide demand for special reconnaissance capability. This regiment will provide improved support to expeditionary operations overseas and form part of the Defence contribution to the Government’s comprehensive strategy to counter international terrorism. The SRR will bring together personnel from existing capabilities and become the means of the further development of the capability. Due to the specialist nature of the unit, it will come under the command of the Director Special Forces and be a part of the UK Special Forces group.'

A member of this regiment is suspected to have been involved in the lethal shooting of Menezes (i.e. to have fired the eight deadly shots).

The regiment is made up of remnants of British death squads (such as the 14th Intelligence Unit and the Force Research Unit) that operated in Northern Ireland until the 1990's, where they specialised in eliminating eyewitnesses along with their prime targets. There is a strong suspicion that these men have been involved in the cover-up of the July 22 incident, and may even have intimidated regular police officers and witnesses and forced them into giving 'acceptable' eyewitness accounts of the incident.

The plainclothesmen surrounding Mr Menezes from the moment he left his flat may have been members of said regiment as well. The fact that they allowed him to board a crowded bus in his way to the Stockwell subway station is remarkable, to say the least. Trained policemen wouldn't do that. Why did they wait till he boarded the subway compartment? It would fit in with the standard procedure of such forces to wait until a target can be eliminated with as few witnesses as possible. Could be, therefore, that their procedure gave them away.

Then again..

How am I doing so far? ~:handball:

Redleg

08-22-2005, 14:51

Just a question:

Has anyone heard or read what the offical investigation's conclusions are yet?

English assassin

08-22-2005, 17:58

Just a question:

Has anyone heard or read what the offical investigation's conclusions are yet?

Point.

However, AII's scenario is credible and he doesn't put if forward as anything more. Bits of this don't sound like a police operation (I may be wrong but I can't recall another case where an SO19 officer has shot a suspect 8 times, for instance. In the head. At point blank range.) Surveillance is specifically an MI5 speciality, and it would be funny if they allowed the police to muscle them out of such a wonderful job creation opportunity as this. (Sorry to be cynical, but after NI calmed down MI5 were trying to get in on serious crime as a way to justify their budgets, there is no way on earth a bona fide terrorist threat would be left to special branch).

And some very funny things indeed went on in NI.

And, note, whenever SO19 shoot someone, its absolutely routine that we are told the officers have been suspended from duty pending the investigation. I might well have missed it but I don't remember that announcement this time. Because they were not in fact police maybe?

All in all, quite glad not to be an eye witness to this.

Templar Knight

08-22-2005, 23:41

Also was the video not removed from the train where the shooting took place?

Just a side note, as far as im aware British death squads worked under MI6 not MI5 because any MI6 agent is immune from prosecution for any action or crime they commit in the UK.

Soulforged

08-23-2005, 00:39

I think that is a SLIGHT prejudgement? Has it been established that Ian Blair said things he knew were not true? Not according to the news I have seen so far. My prediction is that who knew what when will turn out to be a very complicated picture indeed, and hours or half hours will be all important. So jumping in now with the conclusion that its all racist etc is a little premature IMHO.

@soulforged, I don't quite understand how mens rea works in Argentinian law but it may be slightly different from English law. We too have the rule that you are taken to intend the natural consequences of your actions, but intent will not be the issue here. The issue is whether there is a defence of (my criminal law is rust so lets call it) self defence. My main point, and JAG's fundamental falacy, is that we must not attribute all of the knowledge held within the whole MPS to all officers at all times. Anyway, yes, manslaughter certainly is punished in English law, the main difference is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence whereas manslaughter carried a discretionary sentence, with the maximum being life.

Incidentally the proverbial will be all over the fan if the gunman was in or working for MI5 since IIRC they have immunity from criminal prosecution.

No the basics of judicial analisys is mostly the same. What i was trying to say is that you're technically confunding terms. But i readed your post again and i notice that you just said what you said to difference between manslaughter and deceitful murder. ~:cheers:
Anyway, i will say you this: if you point your gun to another man an put the finger on the trigger is sufficient factical prove of your intentions (intend), but probably he was justified (doubtful), or the responsability may decrease later in the process. In law there's a type in analisys. The type also includes justification, you have a objective type and a subjective type. The objective type clearly is not in this case (wich are the factical circumstances that surround the moment of the comition, wich begins with the tentative), the subjective type has to be discused, it includes the knowledge (conciousness) of the situation that surrounds the case. It's far more complicated than that, but i think that would work to say this, if objective= false + subjective= true - then almost all teories (wich choice depends on the judge here, i think that there is a jury right) state that the case must be treated in the consecuenses like a manslaughter, if subjective is false too, then if the murder was deceitful (i as asure you it was) it's treated like one. Thanks for the information.

Tribesman

08-28-2005, 20:12

Just a question:
Has anyone heard or read what the offical investigation's conclusions are yet?

Just a delayed answer : ~;)
Wait 3-5years for the first conclusions , then another 5 years for the revised conclusions , then another 5 for the next one , then perhaps another 10 for the new ones including court cases , legal challenges and "missing" paperwork .
Then perhaps a few decades after that they will finally release the real conclusions , thats the way it has always worked in the past .

Adrian II

08-28-2005, 22:55

Then perhaps a few decades after that they will finally release the real conclusions, thats the way it has always worked in the past .That is the way it worked in Ireland, even after the Finucane murder which was as clear a case of collusion as you could wish for. I have done my homework on the 14th Intelligence, the Force Reconnaissance Unit and the Stevens Inquiry right down to the fire in Stevens' Incident Room in the Yard's Seapark, Carrickfergus premises. What a mess. Still, Stevens' 1, 2 and 3 have led to 94 convictions and some politically painful disclosures.

On the other hand, the lame Nelson verdict (10 years, with discharge after 6) and that man's mysterious death in Florida leave serious doubts about the self-cleaning capacity of the British military and police apparatus.

Mr President or Templar Knight or anyone else -- do you know any more deatils of F.R.U. witnesses 'disappearing' or suddenly changing their testimonies?

Tribesman

08-29-2005, 00:56

Adrian , try here ,Pat .F centre. (http://www.serve.com/pfc/index.html) if you havn't already . Of course they have their own agenda(not surprising really) .
The full transcript of the UTV Insight program is in there (some quite nice quotes from senior policemen scared that their own government might try to kill them), plus the UN and EU reports , it also has quite a bit on Stobies murder , though I havn't noticed anything in there about Wrights murder (how exactly do you get a gun into a maximum security prison and gain access to a segregated inmate at the precise time that he is being secretly moved ?) .
The Sunday Herald has quite a big archive on it (and as yet is not subject to the gagging order)
An inquiry that provides a similar pattern for the present one would be the one into Gibraltar (though on that occasion at least they got the right peolpe) or the still stumbling/stalled inquiries into Dublin/Monaghan or Derry (30+years now) .

So further to Redlegs .....Just a question: ....
Unless there are some miraculous breakthroughs with discovering the "Elixir of Life" I don't think any of us are going to still be alive when the final truths are released to the public .

Adrian II

08-29-2005, 07:57