Shoot to kill

[Tribesman]

With the details and CCTV footage of the real sequence of events surrounding the British Police shooting dead the Brazilian suspected leaping fleeing suicide bomber at the tube station , has any of the posters who claimed at the time that the police were justified in their actions got any comments to make ?

[Papewaio]

Link please?

[Tribesman]

link

[bmolsson]

Geez..... A real scandal....

[Papewaio]

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]

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

[Adrian II]

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.

[Papewaio]

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?

[Redleg]

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]

Sickening...
Heads should roll for this...

[econ21]

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

Yeah, I wish I had kept my mouth shut. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.?

[Soulforged]

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]

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 .

[Ser Clegane]

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).

[econ21]

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.