I don't think there has been justice for the family of Charles de Menezes. I would have thought 'manslaughter'.. though not 'murder'. But the case is closed as far as the British legal system is concerned.
The intel was bad, and I see nothing to gain by shooting an innocent Brazilian electrician deliberately. The shooters genuinely thought he was a terrorist. he was shot several times point blank, I understand... very unfortunate and I do feel for his family, and of course the ramifications for Britain's relationship with Brazil, but those armed police were doing their job. Nothing more. Give an officer a gun, you run that risk. Maybe someone panicked, but they wouldn't have been there if not properly trained.
Surely a murder by mistake insofar as ZaNu Labours Police Farce murdered the wrong person.
What else could putting a gun to someone's head and blowing his brains out with seven bullets at point blank range without giving any warning possibly be?
The even bigger issue here though is all the lies the police, (right from the very top of the food chain all the way down to the very bottom), told, together with the police operational log that was deliberately tampered with and altered. Following this, now very public example, of "institutionalised" police lying, how can any jury in any court ever again be expected to take the word of any police officer at its face value without there being sound corroboration?
The officers who pulled th trigger relieved of their duties, at the very least. Preferably sentenced for 'unlawful killing' or something like that. I agree with lancer that there have been lies and ambiguity. If it was simply the intel, then perhaps the head officer's head should roll? I believe Sir Ian Blair is no longer in the job? It's a tough one... I do think it's just a mistake, but tell that to de Menezes' family.
There's the problem... we weren't there. Of course they gave a warning, unless someone acted in the belief that he was a danger to the public. I think one officer fired, believing that... and then mob rule kicked in. I also think the Met has tried to cover it up due to embarrassment more than anything.
We`ve had this one before; if they GENUINELY believed he was a terrorist intent on blowing himself and as many other people he could up, how can you charge them with unlawful killing? Why should they be relieved of their duties? Although I`m led to believe that some of them have asked to be relieved of that duty. Probably because they feel they couldn`t now do their jobs effectively.
They didn`t have to give a warning under the conditions they believed they were working under. Indeed, giving a warning, if he was who they thought he was, would have been pretty disastrous, would it not?
The judge at the inquest said that he believed that in all probablility no warning was given and that the police were lying when they swore blind otherwise 1am.
He based his finding on the fact that not a single passenger witness in that carriage heard the murderer or his accomplice shout 'armed police' . Indeed several witness beleived they were involved in some sort of gang shoot out and tried to escape onto the platform. If the words 'armed police' had have been shouted then they would have known otherwise wouldn't they.
The reason the jury did not return a verdict of unlawful killing could possibly be because the judge ordered them not to. In my view this all stinks to high heaven again!
It also wasn`t `mob rule`. Under Operation Kratos they would have been trained to act exactly the way they did, in order to neutralise an extremely dangerous target as effectively as possible.
As far as that`s concerned the Met has no reason to be embarrassed.
"What else could putting a gun to someone's head and blowing his brains out with seven bullets at point blank range without giving any warning possibly be? "
The above is a question NBD. You can tell that its a question because one of these things '?' is used to close the sentence. It's always a good clue because it's called a question mark you see.
After a week of deliberations, a majority of eight to two returned an open verdict and said they did not believe officers had shouted "armed police" before opening fire.
Earlier in the inquest the jury was instructed not to return a verdict of unlawful killing.
I disagree. I believe if you do some research on this you will find it is not uncommon for a judge to instruct a jury upon which verdict to return in certain cases.
It was the question that was originally asked that prompted me to do some research and I reccomended others did the same. If they had already done the research then why did they ask the question?
Off the top of my head, I would say that sometimes it is necessary for a judge to act as a judge. In the case of the example I quoted it was actually the prosection who requested that the judge instruct the jury - I don't know if any such request was made in the De Menez inquiry. I'd have to do... more research.
Only when it is clear that one particular verdict or another would not be appropriate, due to the facts that have been presented at the inquest.
That was most certainly not the case in this instance was it! Moreover he ordered the jury what not to find a couple or three days BEFORE all the facts had even been heard. Yet he gave absolutely no reason for his instruction (he just turned up in court first thing one morning and told them) , or at least, if he did give a reason to them then, rather mysteriously, no media organisation thought fit to tell us what it was.
Why not see if you can trawl the internet and find a reason he gave for his order NBD. I assure you that not only did I read the article presented here but also I have been following this story in the media inch by inch as it has developed and I can find no reporter who has even ventured to pose that rather dazzelingly obvious question.
It is not unusual for the most significant fact in these matters to be the one which the media does not present, the one which is singularly conspicuous by its total absence.
Oh yeah, I`m sure you have dude, I`m sure you have.
The reason I`m trawling the internet is so I can see all the facts from all sides. I know you have your little agenda, so I`m pretty sure you`re only interested in the facts that back that agenda up.
`` On 2 December Sir Michael ordered the jury, shortly before it retired to consider its verdict, that they may not return one of "unlawful killing," leaving their options as "lawful killing," or an open verdict. Sir Michael said that the verdict could not be inconsistent with the earlier criminal trial. ``
Responses like your own are not at all uncommon amongst the perfidious liberal elite you know NBD, all based on the philosophy of, if you don't like the message then smear the messenger.
Trawl the net by all means NBD, take as long as you like, it's been almost a week so far hasn't it.
It's not unreasonable of me to assume I think that so far have turned up nothing which contradicts anything I have claimed or I'm sure you would have told me about it instead of being reduced to only being able squeal silly school girlie type persoanl insults.
I wrote that, responses like you own were not uncommon amongst the Liberal elite NBD.
I did not write that I numbered you amongst them though did I, merely that they often performed the same sort of trick as you just had.
No wonder you and Quazzy got on so well together by all accounts, in the light of this it seems doubtful to me that either of you were all that often able to understand what the other was on about.
Tell me whilst you're here NBD, just what caused you to decide on your nickname? I can understand how you arrived at one part of it but what was the reason for putting the 'nice' into it?
Insult? No, just making an observation and asking a question NBD.
Asking a question is always better than just assuming I always think but if you aren't going to tell me then I will just have to assume I suppose. Not to worry.
What points specifically do you find difficult to believe, and why?
The only points you seem to have made is the one about a warning being given (which was answered but you just ignored the response), and some confusion about the way the judge instructed the jury.
The jury are in agreement with me about no warning being given by a ratio of 8:2. Neither you or I were at the inquest but the jury most certainly were. So no opinion holds any water agains that of the juries. - And an opinion is precisely that, an opinion; a fact is something completely different.
One fact is that a perfectly innocent bloke had the most part of his head blown away by 7 dum-dum bullets at point blank range.
Another fact is that doing the above to anyone is in law an act of murder.
All the subsequent lies told my the Met and the tampering with the police log are also established facts and although they are events which took place after the murder in an attempt by the Met to cover the worst of it up, I think there can be little doubt that they will have far reaching and long lasting effects on public confidence in police honesty.
Are you saying you think the police woke up that morning and said "let's shoot an innocent man today"? Are you saying they killed this man with the knowledge that he had committed no wrong?
Not that isn't what I said is it N3B, what I said was that they were facts and I said that because they are fact and facts is what we were talking about were they not?
Yes of course you do N3B but what you say is not extrapolating from those facts at all is it.
You are extrapolating from a completely different fact. The fact that the police had a bad hair day (or however others may wish to put it). That fact is a matter for mitigation though and in no way effects the facts which I have mentioned.
IF the correct procedure had have been followed and an 'armed police' warning had have been given as per their orders AND if the innocent victim had NOT heeded that warning then I would have said manslaughter.
This incident happened on the 22nd July 2005 - let's rewind time and go back to the 7th - the day of the suicide bombings in London. If the police had managed to intercept one of these suicide bombers, do you think a warning should have been given?
Do you think a man with explosives strapped to him, in the middle of a location densely populated by civilians, who was intending to take his own life in the most violent and damaging way possible, should be given this kind of warning?
Yes of course a warning should have been given IF those WERE their orders. Otherwise they would have been disobeying their orders would they not?
Thing is though, I don't know what the police orders were with regards to opening fire on 7/7, so without knowing them that is all I can say.
There is there is a police operation called "Op Cratos"; if Op Cratos is called then the police are NOT required to give a warning. I have no information concerning the position regarding this on 7/7.
I do know however that Op Catos was NOT called on 22/7. At least the police Commander has stated that she did not call it, if she is telling the truth that is, but the fact the police marksman 'claims' that he shouted a warning suggests the he knew that he SHOULD have given a warning and so this supports what the police Commander said at the enquiry. ie. that Op Cratos was NOT called.
Well, since the explosives went off before the police had time to respond, they were presented with a fait accompli.
But why was Op Kratos not invoked the the case of De Menez? Was it not thought this man was a suicide bomber? Part of the gang who attempted the 21/7 attack?
I can only offer an opinion on that one N3B. I think the police commander was not fully satisfied in her own mind that the suspect was indeed the right bloke. - Just as it turned out to be as it happens.
Ok Lancer.................. I`m certainly not saying the Police waltz out of this smelling of roses; on the contrary, the more I`ve read of the report, the more I can say that it was a pretty appalling cock up, from the abysmal briefing of the firearms team to Ms Dick`s inability to use a correct command at a crucial point{in fact her, imo, inabilty to fully get a grasp on the whole situation}. But I genuinely don`t believe that you can target any individuals and therefore the corporate manslaughter charge is the correct one. IMO. And, in fact the IPCC {who take any chance to stick the boot in} came to the conclusion that:
``There can be no doubt that on the morning of 22 July 2005 a combination of circumstances between 0500 and 1006 led to the killing of an entirely innocent man. No material has been seen or assembled by the IPCC to suggest that this tragedy was the result of any deliberate act designed to endanger the life of any innocent third party or indeed to kill such an individual. All those involved at both command and operational level were intent upon protecting the general public from a perceived threat of illegal lethal force.``
They were reminded of the 7/7 incidents and also of the attempts the day before on the 21st, and they were also told to `trust the intelligence` and that surveillence officers had a spot on a possible suspect from the day before. They were told that they may have to use `unusual tactics` and that they may have to be prepared to do something `they`d never had to do before`. And they were issued with hollow point ammunition.
The surveillence team were given a photo to go on that could, quite frankly, have been anyone. There seems to be a lot of confusion over the IDing of De Menezes as one of the suspects from the day beofre but, as far as the firearms team was concerned, they were told that he had been positively identified:
`` DCI C stated that he was at the TA centre when the heard that the man had now been identified as a suspect. OSMAN.``
Again, it seems to be pretty confused, but it looks to me as if she thought he was the right bloke:
`` she states ‘she has checked and rechecked the identification’. When asked who she had checked with, Commander DICK indicated that the surveillance monitor and DCI C had stated that the surveillance team were sure it was him. Commander DICK stated that she believed the surveillance team were following NETTLE TIP. She also heard the words he was ‘nervous’ and ‘twitchy’.``
`` Commander DICK informed Silver that the suspect must not go down the underground. She confirmed that almost immediately she was informed that he had already entered the underground and she very briefly considered that she should stop CO19. She was concerned that this man posed a real and immediate and very serious threat to the public and also felt it would be difficult to pull back CO19. 18.123 Commander DICK’s attention was drawn to a comment by Supt X ‘The male must not be allowed to get on the train at all costs``
She denies saying `at all costs``, although several people have said they heard her say it.
Shouting ` Armed Police` .................... * shrug *, a difficult one. They DID shout `Police` in the concourse of the station and going down the escaltors. It`s just conjecture here, but I believe one of them believed they did shout `Armed Police` {you`ve been around Lancer, so I presume you`ve heard of perceptual distortion `` Most officers reported that just before and as they pulled the trigger on the suspect, they experienced a range of psychological, emotional, and physiological reactions that distorted time, distance, sight, and sound. (See table 1.) Many officers found their recollection of the events of the shooting to be imperfect. In extreme cases, officers could not recall firing their guns `` http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/253/responses.html }`` and the others were backing him up. I believe one person has been disciplined for it.
However, bearing in mind the briefing they`d had and the intelligence they`d heard I think they genuinely believed he was a terrorist intent on detonating a bomb and they had no choice but to do what they did.
`` Concern There was a lack of clarity about the command to ‘stop’ the suspect given the likely mindset of the firearms officers. They were deployed on an anti terrorist operation the day after unsuccessful attempts were made to cause explosions 164 within the underground system. They had been issued with special ammunition. They knew a Designated Senior Officer was in command.``
I don't regard it to be a matter of targeting anyone as such though NBD.
It is simply a case of the police NOT being above the law; and the law is that if someone deliberately blows some perfectly innocent persons brains out at point blank range with 7 dum-dum bullets that is murder, it's as simple and straight forward as that. - Any good intentions of the person committing the murder are a matter for mitigation by the judge AFTER the juries verdict had been given. But good intentions do not change the nature of any crime.
It all hinges, Lancer, on whether they genuinely believed De Menezes was a terrorist. If they did, it wasn`t murder [sorry for the long C & P}:
`` An officer who orders the use of lethal force or who uses such force in the genuine (and reasonable) belief that he is acting to safeguard the life and safety of others will be entitled to rely on the above defences. The standard heat of the moment subjective assessment will be applicable; he can take all measures which he honestly and reasonably believes to be necessary. Any such use of lethal force will have to withstand the analysis of whether there was any non-lethal alternative which was subjectively assessed as being available. To be lawful, a deliberate killing has to be an action of last resort. 19.14 A genuine error will afford a defence if the principles of self defence apply. However, if there is no reasonable basis for the decision to kill a suspect, the intentional act will be unlawful and given that the intention is, by definition, to kill it will amount to murder. 19.15 In an examination of the issue of self defence/defence of others the quality of the intelligence available, the luxury of time in which to make an analysis of the position and any operational safeguards which were in place will be relevant. 19.16 It follows from the above that a properly structured and properly managed operation which borrows ‘KRATOS’ strategy and tactics is not unlawful per se. Those who manage such an operation and those who act on 113 instruction or, in extremis, act instinctively, are not acting unlawfully if they abide by the general principles set out above.``
Yes I know NBD, hilarious isn't it, insufficant evidence indeed! How much evidence do they want then?
But that takes us nicely into my final point, the whole thing stinks to high heaven again! It's all a ZaNu Labour whitewash thing you see and it happens a lot, this one was just a bit more high profile than most.
I just see is how it is NBD, stripped of all the establishments smoke screens and little deceptions, nothing more and nothing less. As for what you see, well, smoke I suppose. :)
Lancer, I wouldn't take any advice you offered me on this, or any related, subject - I'm happy with the verdicts as they stand. I've conceded parts of it were a fuck up; lessons have been learnt, procedures have been changed
From my understanding It was: The For want of a Nail Syndrome aka Lack of Manpower In that The Guy watching the suspect door went for atoilet break without requesting a replacement owing to radio silence rule, whereas there should have been two operatives so a constant surveillance was maintained. everything else followed, owing to a heightened adrenalised Grouping, owing to previous events. It was just a snafu followed by ass covering exercise. Unfortunately A Man Died. A Lack of a Man Killed a Man.
I don't think there has been justice for the family of Charles de Menezes. I would have thought 'manslaughter'.. though not 'murder'. But the case is closed as far as the British legal system is concerned.
AntwortenLöschenThe intel was bad, and I see nothing to gain by shooting an innocent Brazilian electrician deliberately. The shooters genuinely thought he was a terrorist. he was shot several times point blank, I understand... very unfortunate and I do feel for his family, and of course the ramifications for Britain's relationship with Brazil, but those armed police were doing their job. Nothing more. Give an officer a gun, you run that risk. Maybe someone panicked, but they wouldn't have been there if not properly trained.
A very unfortunate mistake.
I don`t think anyone`s saying mistakes weren`t made, the question is: by whom?
AntwortenLöschenWhat sort of justice would you like to see for his family?
Surely a murder by mistake insofar as ZaNu Labours Police Farce murdered the wrong person.
AntwortenLöschenWhat else could putting a gun to someone's head and blowing his brains out with seven bullets at point blank range without giving any warning possibly be?
The even bigger issue here though is all the lies the police, (right from the very top of the food chain all the way down to the very bottom), told, together with the police operational log that was deliberately tampered with and altered. Following this, now very public example, of "institutionalised" police lying, how can any jury in any court ever again be expected to take the word of any police officer at its face value without there being sound corroboration?
You bothered reading the link or are you just spouting your usual anti Police stuff, Lancer?
AntwortenLöschenThe officers who pulled th trigger relieved of their duties, at the very least. Preferably sentenced for 'unlawful killing' or something like that. I agree with lancer that there have been lies and ambiguity. If it was simply the intel, then perhaps the head officer's head should roll? I believe Sir Ian Blair is no longer in the job? It's a tough one... I do think it's just a mistake, but tell that to de Menezes' family.
AntwortenLöschenThere's the problem... we weren't there. Of course they gave a warning, unless someone acted in the belief that he was a danger to the public. I think one officer fired, believing that... and then mob rule kicked in. I also think the Met has tried to cover it up due to embarrassment more than anything.
AntwortenLöschenWe`ve had this one before; if they GENUINELY believed he was a terrorist intent on blowing himself and as many other people he could up, how can you charge them with unlawful killing? Why should they be relieved of their duties? Although I`m led to believe that some of them have asked to be relieved of that duty. Probably because they feel they couldn`t now do their jobs effectively.
AntwortenLöschenI don't suppose you would like to answer the question would you NBD? What I spout is facts, quite a lot of facts in this instance, how about youself?
AntwortenLöschenThey didn`t have to give a warning under the conditions they believed they were working under. Indeed, giving a warning, if he was who they thought he was, would have been pretty disastrous, would it not?
AntwortenLöschenDid you ask a question, Lancer.
AntwortenLöschenFacts, as you see them, eh?
He asked two questions, but both were somewhat rhetorical
AntwortenLöschenThis argument is sound.
AntwortenLöschenThe judge at the inquest said that he believed that in all probablility no warning was given and that the police were lying when they swore blind otherwise 1am.
AntwortenLöschenHe based his finding on the fact that not a single passenger witness in that carriage heard the murderer or his accomplice shout 'armed police' . Indeed several witness beleived they were involved in some sort of gang shoot out and tried to escape onto the platform. If the words 'armed police' had have been shouted then they would have known otherwise wouldn't they.
The reason the jury did not return a verdict of unlawful killing could possibly be because the judge ordered them not to. In my view this all stinks to high heaven again!
Lancer, what is your answer to the point Nicey made about shouting a warning?
AntwortenLöschenIt also wasn`t `mob rule`. Under Operation Kratos they would have been trained to act exactly the way they did, in order to neutralise an extremely dangerous target as effectively as possible.
AntwortenLöschenAs far as that`s concerned the Met has no reason to be embarrassed.
"What else could putting a gun to someone's head and blowing his brains out with seven bullets at point blank range without giving any warning possibly be? "
AntwortenLöschenThe above is a question NBD. You can tell that its a question because one of these things '?' is used to close the sentence. It's always a good clue because it's called a question mark you see.
I`ve already answered that one, dude.
AntwortenLöschenHm. I'm having trouble with my Adobe Acrobat...
AntwortenLöschenThere ya go:-
AntwortenLöschenhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764882.stm
relevant extracts:-
After a week of deliberations, a majority of eight to two returned an open verdict and said they did not believe officers had shouted "armed police" before opening fire.
Earlier in the inquest the jury was instructed not to return a verdict of unlawful killing.
What's the point of having a jury if the judge 'instructs' them?
AntwortenLöschenNow that is indeed a very good question 1am; and one which rather mysteriously no-one in the media has asked to the best of my knowledge.
AntwortenLöschenDo you see why it is that I say the whole thing stinks to high heaven now perhaps?
I disagree. I believe if you do some research on this you will find it is not uncommon for a judge to instruct a jury upon which verdict to return in certain cases.
AntwortenLöschenHere's a recent example...
AntwortenLöschenHENNIG ACQUITTED OF TREASON CHARGE
do you assume research has not already taken place?
AntwortenLöschenDoes that make it ok then?
AntwortenLöschenIt was the question that was originally asked that prompted me to do some research and I reccomended others did the same. If they had already done the research then why did they ask the question?
AntwortenLöschenOff the top of my head, I would say that sometimes it is necessary for a judge to act as a judge. In the case of the example I quoted it was actually the prosection who requested that the judge instruct the jury - I don't know if any such request was made in the De Menez inquiry. I'd have to do... more research.
AntwortenLöschenOnly when it is clear that one particular verdict or another would not be appropriate, due to the facts that have been presented at the inquest.
AntwortenLöschenThat was most certainly not the case in this instance was it! Moreover he ordered the jury what not to find a couple or three days BEFORE all the facts had even been heard. Yet he gave absolutely no reason for his instruction (he just turned up in court first thing one morning and told them) , or at least, if he did give a reason to them then, rather mysteriously, no media organisation thought fit to tell us what it was.
Why not see if you can trawl the internet and find a reason he gave for his order NBD. I assure you that not only did I read the article presented here but also I have been following this story in the media inch by inch as it has developed and I can find no reporter who has even ventured to pose that rather dazzelingly obvious question.
It is not unusual for the most significant fact in these matters to be the one which the media does not present, the one which is singularly conspicuous by its total absence.
Oops sorry, my last was for was for Not3bad
AntwortenLöschenOh yeah, I`m sure you have dude, I`m sure you have.
AntwortenLöschenThe reason I`m trawling the internet is so I can see all the facts from all sides. I know you have your little agenda, so I`m pretty sure you`re only interested in the facts that back that agenda up.
If you`re talking about the INQUEST:
AntwortenLöschen`` On 2 December Sir Michael ordered the jury, shortly before it retired to consider its verdict, that they may not return one of "unlawful killing," leaving their options as "lawful killing," or an open verdict. Sir Michael said that the verdict could not be inconsistent with the earlier criminal trial. ``
Responses like your own are not at all uncommon amongst the perfidious liberal elite you know NBD, all based on the philosophy of, if you don't like the message then smear the messenger.
AntwortenLöschenTrawl the net by all means NBD, take as long as you like, it's been almost a week so far hasn't it.
It's not unreasonable of me to assume I think that so far have turned up nothing which contradicts anything I have claimed or I'm sure you would have told me about it instead of being reduced to only being able squeal silly school girlie type persoanl insults.
I`ve been working, Lancer mate.
AntwortenLöschen`Perfidious liberal elite`............. sounds nice, but it ain`t me.
You`ve not actually claimed anything, have you?
I didn't say that it was you if you take the trouble to read what I wrote NBD.
AntwortenLöschenHuh?
AntwortenLöschenI wrote that, responses like you own were not uncommon amongst the Liberal elite NBD.
AntwortenLöschenI did not write that I numbered you amongst them though did I, merely that they often performed the same sort of trick as you just had.
No wonder you and Quazzy got on so well together by all accounts, in the light of this it seems doubtful to me that either of you were all that often able to understand what the other was on about.
Tell me whilst you're here NBD, just what caused you to decide on your nickname? I can understand how you arrived at one part of it but what was the reason for putting the 'nice' into it?
Now who`s making the personal insults, eh.
AntwortenLöschenAlthough me bringing up your agenda is hardly a PERSONAL insult, but there you go .............
Insult? No, just making an observation and asking a question NBD.
AntwortenLöschenAsking a question is always better than just assuming I always think but if you aren't going to tell me then I will just have to assume I suppose. Not to worry.
You don't watch Harry Enfield then Lancer?
AntwortenLöschenYes I used to NBD. Oh well, I suppose you could have chosen worse couldn't you. I suppose you thought "Tory Boy" was right out.
AntwortenLöschenAnyway, still no evidence then I tke it?
Dude, I think you`re getting confused as to who you`re talking to. N3B brought up Harry Enfield.
AntwortenLöschen`` Anyway, still no evidence then I tke it?``
Evidence of what, Lancer? I`ve countered your points with facts.
Oh with facts have you NBD. That's news to me.
AntwortenLöschenWhat points specifically do you find difficult to believe, and why?
AntwortenLöschenThe only points you seem to have made is the one about a warning being given (which was answered but you just ignored the response), and some confusion about the way the judge instructed the jury.
The jury are in agreement with me about no warning being given by a ratio of 8:2. Neither you or I were at the inquest but the jury most certainly were. So no opinion holds any water agains that of the juries. - And an opinion is precisely that, an opinion; a fact is something completely different.
AntwortenLöschenOne fact is that a perfectly innocent bloke had the most part of his head blown away by 7 dum-dum bullets at point blank range.
Another fact is that doing the above to anyone is in law an act of murder.
All the subsequent lies told my the Met and the tampering with the police log are also established facts and although they are events which took place after the murder in an attempt by the Met to cover the worst of it up, I think there can be little doubt that they will have far reaching and long lasting effects on public confidence in police honesty.
Hows that for starters?
Are you saying you think the police woke up that morning and said "let's shoot an innocent man today"? Are you saying they killed this man with the knowledge that he had committed no wrong?
AntwortenLöschenNot that isn't what I said is it N3B, what I said was that they were facts and I said that because they are fact and facts is what we were talking about were they not?
AntwortenLöschenBut you have to extrapolate conclusions from the facts to make an argument. Otherwise you aren't saying anything.
AntwortenLöschenYes of course you do N3B but what you say is not extrapolating from those facts at all is it.
AntwortenLöschenYou are extrapolating from a completely different fact. The fact that the police had a bad hair day (or however others may wish to put it). That fact is a matter for mitigation though and in no way effects the facts which I have mentioned.
So what ARE your conclusions? Are you saying Murder, or Mistake?
AntwortenLöschenBoth N3B, a murder and a mistake.
AntwortenLöschenIF the correct procedure had have been followed and an 'armed police' warning had have been given as per their orders AND if the innocent victim had NOT heeded that warning then I would have said manslaughter.
This incident happened on the 22nd July 2005 - let's rewind time and go back to the 7th - the day of the suicide bombings in London. If the police had managed to intercept one of these suicide bombers, do you think a warning should have been given?
AntwortenLöschenDo you think a man with explosives strapped to him, in the middle of a location densely populated by civilians, who was intending to take his own life in the most violent and damaging way possible, should be given this kind of warning?
Yes of course a warning should have been given IF those WERE their orders. Otherwise they would have been disobeying their orders would they not?
AntwortenLöschenThing is though, I don't know what the police orders were with regards to opening fire on 7/7, so without knowing them that is all I can say.
There is there is a police operation called "Op Cratos"; if Op Cratos is called then the police are NOT required to give a warning. I have no information concerning the position regarding this on 7/7.
I do know however that Op Catos was NOT called on 22/7. At least the police Commander has stated that she did not call it, if she is telling the truth that is, but the fact the police marksman 'claims' that he shouted a warning suggests the he knew that he SHOULD have given a warning and so this supports what the police Commander said at the enquiry. ie. that Op Cratos was NOT called.
Well, since the explosives went off before the police had time to respond, they were presented with a fait accompli.
AntwortenLöschenBut why was Op Kratos not invoked the the case of De Menez? Was it not thought this man was a suicide bomber? Part of the gang who attempted the 21/7 attack?
I can only offer an opinion on that one N3B. I think the police commander was not fully satisfied in her own mind that the suspect was indeed the right bloke. - Just as it turned out to be as it happens.
AntwortenLöschenOk Lancer.................. I`m certainly not saying the Police waltz out of this smelling of roses; on the contrary, the more I`ve read of the report, the more I can say that it was a pretty appalling cock up, from the abysmal briefing of the firearms team to Ms Dick`s inability to use a correct command at a crucial point{in fact her, imo, inabilty to fully get a grasp on the whole situation}. But I genuinely don`t believe that you can target any individuals and therefore the corporate manslaughter charge is the correct one. IMO. And, in fact the IPCC {who take any chance to stick the boot in} came to the conclusion that:
AntwortenLöschen``There can be no doubt that on the morning of 22 July 2005 a combination
of circumstances between 0500 and 1006 led to the killing of an entirely
innocent man. No material has been seen or assembled by the IPCC to
suggest that this tragedy was the result of any deliberate act designed to
endanger the life of any innocent third party or indeed to kill such an
individual. All those involved at both command and operational level
were intent upon protecting the general public from a perceived threat of
illegal lethal force.``
The briefing that was given to firearms:
AntwortenLöschenThey were reminded of the 7/7 incidents and also of the attempts the day before on the 21st, and they were also told to `trust the intelligence` and that surveillence officers had a spot on a possible suspect from the day before. They were told that they may have to use `unusual tactics` and that they may have to be prepared to do something `they`d never had to do before`. And they were issued with hollow point ammunition.
The surveillence team were given a photo to go on that could, quite frankly, have been anyone. There seems to be a lot of confusion over the IDing of De Menezes as one of the suspects from the day beofre but, as far as the firearms team was concerned, they were told that he had been positively identified:
AntwortenLöschen`` DCI C
stated that he was at the TA centre when the heard that the man had now
been identified as a suspect. OSMAN.``
Again, it seems to be pretty confused, but it looks to me as if she thought he was the right bloke:
AntwortenLöschen`` she states ‘she has checked and rechecked the identification’.
When asked who she had checked with, Commander DICK indicated that
the surveillance monitor and DCI C had stated that the surveillance team
were sure it was him. Commander DICK stated that she believed the
surveillance team were following NETTLE TIP. She also heard the words
he was ‘nervous’ and ‘twitchy’.``
`` Commander DICK
informed Silver that the suspect must not go down the underground. She
confirmed that almost immediately she was informed that he had already
entered the underground and she very briefly considered that she should
stop CO19. She was concerned that this man posed a real and immediate
and very serious threat to the public and also felt it would be difficult to pull
back CO19.
18.123 Commander DICK’s attention was drawn to a comment by Supt X ‘The
male must not be allowed to get on the train at all costs``
She denies saying `at all costs``, although several people have said they heard her say it.
Yes, the log was tampered with, but, in fact the original version of the log backs the Police up more than the the tampered version:
AntwortenLöschen`` The alteration totally changes the context of the entry from ‘I
believed it was NT’ to ‘and I believed it was not NT’.``
Shouting ` Armed Police` .................... * shrug *, a difficult one.
AntwortenLöschenThey DID shout `Police` in the concourse of the station and going down the escaltors. It`s just conjecture here, but I believe one of them believed they did shout `Armed Police`
{you`ve been around Lancer, so I presume you`ve heard of perceptual distortion `` Most officers reported that just before and as they pulled the trigger on the suspect, they experienced a range of psychological, emotional, and physiological reactions that distorted time, distance, sight, and sound. (See table 1.) Many officers found their recollection of the events of the shooting to be imperfect. In extreme cases, officers could not recall firing their guns `` http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/253/responses.html }`` and the others were backing him up. I believe one person has been disciplined for it.
However, bearing in mind the briefing they`d had and the intelligence they`d heard I think they genuinely believed he was a terrorist intent on detonating a bomb and they had no choice but to do what they did.
`` Concern
There was a lack of clarity about the command to ‘stop’ the suspect given the
likely mindset of the firearms officers. They were deployed on an anti terrorist
operation the day after unsuccessful attempts were made to cause explosions
164
within the underground system. They had been issued with special
ammunition. They knew a Designated Senior Officer was in command.``
I don't regard it to be a matter of targeting anyone as such though NBD.
AntwortenLöschenIt is simply a case of the police NOT being above the law; and the law is that if someone deliberately blows some perfectly innocent persons brains out at point blank range with 7 dum-dum bullets that is murder, it's as simple and straight forward as that. - Any good intentions of the person committing the murder are a matter for mitigation by the judge AFTER the juries verdict had been given. But good intentions do not change the nature of any crime.
Well, the CPS decided, in 2006, after studying the IPCC`s report,there was insufficient evidence to charge any individual with anything, Lancer.
AntwortenLöschenIt all hinges, Lancer, on whether they genuinely believed De Menezes was a terrorist. If they did, it wasn`t murder [sorry for the long C & P}:
AntwortenLöschen`` An officer who orders the use of lethal force or who uses such force in the
genuine (and reasonable) belief that he is acting to safeguard the life and
safety of others will be entitled to rely on the above defences. The
standard heat of the moment subjective assessment will be applicable; he
can take all measures which he honestly and reasonably believes to be
necessary. Any such use of lethal force will have to withstand the analysis
of whether there was any non-lethal alternative which was subjectively
assessed as being available. To be lawful, a deliberate killing has to be an
action of last resort.
19.14 A genuine error will afford a defence if the principles of self defence apply.
However, if there is no reasonable basis for the decision to kill a suspect,
the intentional act will be unlawful and given that the intention is, by
definition, to kill it will amount to murder.
19.15 In an examination of the issue of self defence/defence of others the quality
of the intelligence available, the luxury of time in which to make an
analysis of the position and any operational safeguards which were in
place will be relevant.
19.16 It follows from the above that a properly structured and properly managed
operation which borrows ‘KRATOS’ strategy and tactics is not unlawful per
se. Those who manage such an operation and those who act on
113
instruction or, in extremis, act instinctively, are not acting unlawfully if they
abide by the general principles set out above.``
Yes I know NBD, hilarious isn't it, insufficant evidence indeed! How much evidence do they want then?
AntwortenLöschenBut that takes us nicely into my final point, the whole thing stinks to high heaven again! It's all a ZaNu Labour whitewash thing you see and it happens a lot, this one was just a bit more high profile than most.
Mate, you've got your drum to bang, I've got mine. We're never going to agree on this one.
AntwortenLöschenI just see is how it is NBD, stripped of all the establishments smoke screens and little deceptions, nothing more and nothing less. As for what you see, well, smoke I suppose. :)
AntwortenLöschenThat's funny, because I see it how it really is as well just from a different prospective
AntwortenLöschenAs I said, drums to bang ....
Say what you like NBD but don't try to substantiate what you say would be my best advice, because you can't can you.
AntwortenLöschenLancer, I wouldn't take any advice you offered me on this, or any related, subject
AntwortenLöschen-
I'm happy with the verdicts as they stand. I've conceded parts of it were a fuck up; lessons have been learnt, procedures have been changed
Your choice entirely NBD. - I don'r care much either way to be perfectly honest. :)
AntwortenLöschenI rather thought you wouldn't, dude
AntwortenLöschenFrom my understanding It was:
AntwortenLöschenThe For want of a Nail Syndrome aka Lack of Manpower
In that The Guy watching the suspect door went for atoilet break without requesting a replacement owing to radio silence rule, whereas there should have been two operatives so a constant surveillance was maintained.
everything else followed, owing to a heightened adrenalised Grouping, owing to previous events.
It was just a snafu followed by ass covering exercise.
Unfortunately A Man Died.
A Lack of a Man Killed a Man.