Menezes - more Keystone Cop moments
- Thread starter maximilian ping
- Start date
Exactly - that is one of the main bits of the communication failure and I'm sure it is something the jury will concentrate on.bluestreak said:
As I understand the evidence reported so far, the surveillance officers didn't think he presented an immediate bomb threat (they were sitting next to him - would you have been if you did?) but the information passed to the firearms officers led them to believe that he was and, due to the circumstances of their arrival at the scene (screech to a halt, leap out, run down the escalators, directed to the platform and carriage, subject pointed out to them straight away), there was no opportunity to revise that belief. Hence the importance of finding out why they were told what they were told and why they were deployed in the way that they were.Jazzz said:
But when you talk about "summary executions" being allowed you are, as usual, wandering off into the realms of hyperbole.
Why? He got off a northbound bus (which stops on the opposite side of the road from the station, some distance short of being opposite it), went about 20m and then doubled back to the bus according to the reports I've seen. That would mean the surveillance officer would have been no more than a few metres from the bus stop, nowhere near the station.WouldBe said:...and that would be while looking in the direction of the station to locate the surveillance guy.
The bottom line is that the officers clearly didn't realise the station was closed. In the context of a surveillance operation, taking place as described in the evidence, I am saying that is not necessarily inexplicable.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
OK i accept that you can't expect people pulling the trigger to be the fall guy beacuse in the end they are just the hang man and you can't kill the hangman for murder even though they are the ones who actualyl do the killing... equally you can't expect the survellence team under that level of pressure at the coal face to face disaplinary action becuase they again were doing their job.detective-boy said:
However, their commanders, the intercommittes or however the interal communciations work, failed. The intelligence gathering and details failed. this is obvious. Therefore, regardless of intent the senior officers responsible should be fired. period. It not saying they are wholly to blame I favour the cock up of monsterious proportions which had ultimately fatal consiquences theroy. That doesn't however change the fact that the police as a group murdered an innocent man. that's the net result. regardless of what outcome they might have been expecting or what good indivudals beleived they were doing or even the intergrity of the officers, a man died who had no reason to die and who was going abou this perfectly legal business at the time.
there were significant failings as anyone will conceed; why is it that you too will not accept these failing occured and cease this continued attempt at defense of the force? The simple facts are a man died who didn't need to. It makes no odds if the officers shot and killed him on good or bad evidence or intelligence, he's dead for no reason. The fact they thought he was a terrorist isn't a reason it's an excuse. and it's not acceptable.
If the MET doesn't volentarily remove these high ranking officers then how will the publci have any faith in the police who are supposed to be public servants and not boot boys for the governent (regardless of the obvious situation).
hell if i had been observing de Menezes as a civvy, and ended up shooting him as a suspected terrorist would i go to jail if i said well i thought he had a bomb and had followed him and observed him using anti survellence techniques?
of course i would i'd be locked up as a nutcase and they'd throw away the key...
now if i then said well see this group and this group and this group also said he was a terrorist would i have been locked up for murder? yup....
see the law ahs to apply equally and whislt as i've said you cannot in this case expect to see the individual officers jailed for this the senior officers who allowed or did nothing to prevent the killing are ultimatley responsible. and if they didn't then this comes down to a break down in the chain of command which then means the officers who pulled the trigger are cullpable or at whatever point in the chain of command that broke down.
Let's face it following orders isn't an excuse ever...
cockneyrebel
New Member
And you're not? You seriously want anyone to believe that if someone had a gun and they shot someone on the basis that they thought they were probably a suicide bombing they wouldn't either go down for a long time or be put down as a nutcase?
From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know that much about the ins and outs of the case), the reason the police thought he was a terrorist was due to:
1) Someone they thought might be a terrorist had used the address
2) He looked a bit dodgy as he wasn't pale enough and fitted a middle eastern appearance
Are you telling me that if I shot someone on that basis I wouldn't get done for murder?
PS What happened to the bloke they thought was a terrorist who used to live there? Did they actually find out if he was or not?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
the honest asnwer is you'd shoot if you were in that postition but with the full knowledge that if it wasn't as you percieved it or had been informed you have just taken a life needlessly and are then culpable for your actions, and in this case actually so are your senior officers who gave the weapons free command...jæd said:
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
cockneyrebel said:
to be fair to the officers there was a marked similarity between de menezes and the person they thought he was so much so that you'd eb hard pressed to tell the difference ... but this changes nothing, an innocent man was killed, senior officers should stand up and be counted...
maximilian ping
Grrrrr
detective-boy said:
i accept your suggestion, but its not very convincing. However you look at it, this operation was a total clusterfuck, of which the 'i suspected he was doing anti-surveillance manouvres' is just one.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
jæd said:
I reckon I'd establish to my own satisfaction that this was true before I pulled the trigger.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
detective-boy said:
WHICH IS WHY THEY SHOULD NEVER USE LETHAL FORCE
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
likesfish said:
A better constructed argument I haven't seen in a long time.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
face it it's better than the one being used by the MET!!!SpookyFrank said:
SpookyFrank said:
How are you going to do that when your commanding officer told you that this is the case...? Going to stop, call him and say
"Look sir, I realise that this chap is heading towards a train full of commuters, but can we have a chin-wag for ten mins while you convince me that he is a suicide bomber, and we debate the ethical conundrum of how to deal with him in a speedy manner".
**** BOOOM ****
"Sir... Looks like you were right along. Can we have 20 coffins down here, please"
cockneyrebel
New Member
Fair enough so this changes the situation to:
1) Someone they thought might be a terrorist had used the address
2) He looked looked like the person who they thought might be a terrorist
Again if I shot someone on that basis then I'd be charged with murder.
cockneyrebel
New Member
But jaed the point is that all their "intelligence" was flawed. And if anyone else but the police acted on the same intelligence that they did and shot someone seven times for it then they'd be up in court on a murder charge, well meaning or otherwise.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
jæd said:
Well if I couldn't then I wouldn't shoot him. Simple. Better that than take the word of someone in a control room somewhere who doesn't actually have a clue what's going on.
He did know what was going on I hear you say? That being the case, why is an innocent man dead?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
of course their intelligence is flawed they joined the police didn't they!!!cockneyrebel said:
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
GarfieldLeChat said:
Its funny coz its true
I'm not aware of him having a bag or any particularly heavy clothing ... but it is possible to conceal significant amounts of explosive under ordinary clothes.Wookster said:
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
detective-boy said:
If someone has explosives concealed under their clothes, how clever is it to shoot at him would you say?
If you actually read my posts, instead of assuming what I think on the basis of your prejudice, you would realise that that is exactly what I do accept. Moron.GarfieldLeChat said:
The time has not yet arrived for that - criminal proceedings always take precedence over disciplinary proceedings so it will be necessary to review what the Court make of the evidence and then the IPCC will be involved in deciding whether or not any individual officers should be disciplined.
Yes. Because you would have the alternative of passing that information, and the responsibility for acting on it, to the police. Unfortunately they don't have the option of passing responsibility to someone else.
And who exactly is saying that it is?
lights.out.london
Black Flag
^
@DB - your point about legal proceedings taking precedent over disciplinary proceedings strikes me as worrying. Or would there be circumstances in which legal proceedings haven't commenced, but the officer(s) invloved are suspended. Else, seems to me, we could have police people wandering about making the same mistakes.
Rogue Copper, anyone?
@DB - your point about legal proceedings taking precedent over disciplinary proceedings strikes me as worrying. Or would there be circumstances in which legal proceedings haven't commenced, but the officer(s) invloved are suspended. Else, seems to me, we could have police people wandering about making the same mistakes.
Rogue Copper, anyone?
Don't you EVER think it may be a good idea to find out what the fuck you are gobbing off about before doing so ...cockneyrebel said:
It was basically:
1. The address turned up at one of the bomb scenes from the previous day
2. The name and / or address when checked linked with some other intelligence about suspected terrorist activity
3. JCdM looked similar to the description they had.
4. A visual check against a photograph could not eliminate him as possibly being the wanted man
5. During the surveillance he got off a bus and straight back on again. That was interpreted as an anti-surveillance tactic though it now appears (with the benefit of hindsight) that it was because the station was closed (I have not heard the actual evidence that that was the case - it has simply been stated in reports as a fact, so it may or may not be correct).
This made the surveillance team believe that he could be the wanted man. Somehow (and it has not yet become clear) the message passed to the armed officers sent to carry out the interception was that there had been a positive identification and the surveillance team believed he posed an immediate bomb threat (which they appear not to have believed at all). We have not yet heard whether anything else happened at the time of challenge to add to the armed officers suspicions - but they were acting very largely on what they had been told and what they honestly believed the surveillance team believed.
He was eventually arrested, charged and convicted. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6284350.stm
Nice to know that you are so outraged that you actually pay attention to what is going on ...
Similar threads
- Poll
