de Menezes - open verdict

[Predictable Bob]

My rather badly phrased point was that the officers concerned were told that the man concerned was a terrorist and had a device or control over a device. In those circumstances what would you do - hesitate and risk letting a carriage full of innocents die ?

I've got to admit that I've not taken any interest in the case as the information supplied by the news media is bound to be in error (Whether by accident or design) and the authorities wouldn't tell their story until forced to.

Please remember that my viewpoint is more than a little biased - after 22 years in the Army I know what effect hesitation can have in a terrorist situation

[MattF]

My rather badly phrased point was that the officers concerned were told that the man concerned was a terrorist and had a device or control over a device. In those circumstances what would you do - hesitate and risk letting a carriage full of innocents die ?

In all honesty, I can't say. I've never been in that situation, so I cannot speak from experience, and presumption is the mother of all sins. If I had to supply an answer that I thought most truthful, I would say that it would depend upon my analysis at that moment in time. I can't prove that point, however, so it's fairly moot.

[Predictable Bob]

That's why I don't blame the guys with the guns .....

And on the subject of armed coppers - they are actually required to do more firearms training than serving soldiers. I can't comment on the effectiveness of that training though !

[MattF]

And on the subject of armed coppers - they are actually required to do more firearms training than serving soldiers. I can't comment on the effectiveness of that training though !

A nob without a gun is still a nob when he has a gun. They may have good control of their firearm, but the person remains the same.

[Predictable Bob]

A nob without a gun is still a nob when he has a gun. They may have good control of their firearm, but the person remains the same.

That's the bit I can't comment on .......

Before they banned pistols I used to shoot with quite a few coppers and one of them told me that a lot of Police forces wouldn't let coppers that had an interest in firearms do the firearms training - which may go some way to explaining a few things ......

[PC-Surf]

We would all like them to hesitate and reconsider before they shot us but would you want them to if the person their aiming at does have a bomb and he's sat next to your kids or your misses, they were damned if they shot him and equally if they didn't.
I think everyone is also forgetting they thought the bomb was likely to go off anyway, when they rushed on that train they thought they were giving their lives to stop more people getting killed. The shooters didn't make the decision that he had a bomb they were told that and they were willing to get on that train anyway and try to stop him in the only way they have been told will work. I don't think they should be held to blame.

Remember the Police Officer/s being criticised could also have been your brother child father etc etc. You honestly think that that person didn't give a shit? Millions are spent training and even before that picking the chosen few who are willing to do that job. They also know the possible outcome every time they pick up a weapon. Not any bobby on the street can just sign up to Firearms Dept, especially not one like SO19.

The only way this effects me is that colleagues of mine have quit firearms teams due to this one incident and the media surrounding it. You could say "well you should think about that sort of thing before applying for a department like that" which is true, but trust me that is the one thing one their mind every time they pick up a weapon and walk out of the armoury. Some decide to take the risk. Most for purely humane honest and admirable reasons.

I personally have more of a problem with people who decide to drink drive. They have a choice and there should only ever be one choice made. It is a black and white decision. But they still kill people.
I know I am worse off with at least two of my work mates who now don't appear beside me on the range. That's because they changed their mind about putting their health and even family after the job.

Despite all the above I don't have an opinion on what happened that day or the outcome. How could I when I wasn't there.Unfortunately with terrorism it is a war on our own door steps. It wasn't the first and won't be the last.

What if, . .what if the guy/s that pulled the trigger on that day weren't actually maniac, racist, biggotted evil scum bags? What if they or he or she was a person just like yourself?

If that is the case then I feel more sorrow for them than I could explain.
Then again, maybe they were just a bunch of gun slinging ass holes?



Thank-you Darren.

[BioHazard]

Well said

[Apache]

Unfortunately with terrorism it is a war on our own door steps. It wasn't the first and won't be the last.

WHAT war on terrorism??? Where is the huge amount of slaughter??? Why do people use the americanism 'the war on terror'????

WHAT ferkin war on terror????

Like I said earlier, quote me the UK deaths due to terrorism in the last 10 years, then tell me the amount of people who die avoidable deaths (like you said yourself) due to drink-driving, or due to poor diet, or even falling over their underwear?? Its higher than death by terrorism! We are being turned into a nation scared of our own shadow - well, no, not our OWN shadow, but that of 'johnny foreigner'.

There IS no war on terror. Its a con! Initially a supposed justification for our governments taking it up the arse from uncle sam, and joining their meddling in Iraq (wih the continuing and shameful loss of a lot of our loyal forces) and now a convenient reason to erode freedom of movement and privacy in our own country.

We've been suckered.

This is aside from the shooting, and I've digressed, but those coppers were as hoodwinked into paranoia like the rest of us. They may have been given duff intelligence (for which intelligence heads should roll - SOMEONE f*cked up obviously!) but they neglected to assess the situation themselves, and it seems overreacted, despite the evidence their own eyes gave them when they caught up with him.

I do hope the courts decision doesn't lead to a continuation of the complacency which seems to have been rife. They need to take stock and at the very least examine the reasons for the many many failures throughout the chain that led to the killing of an innocent for no good reason.

[Bogus]

Despite all the above I don't have an opinion on what happened that day or the outcome. How could I when I wasn't there.


Thank-you Darren.

You dont have to be there to form an opinion, Id hazard a guess that you are in fact a policeman and as such you must be well aware of that. Juries, judges, prosecutors are all required to form opinions as to someones innonence or guilt but none of them are ever there when a crime is committed. Policemen are required to form an opinion as to who committed crimes without having been present at the time. All of this is done based on "evidence" and I think theres enough of that available in this case to allow us all to form an opinion. I am neither an armed policeman or a Brazilian electrician and therefore I have formed the unbiased opinion that Jean Charles was killed unlawfully or murdered if you like. I have stopped short of putting the blame on the cops who pulled the trigger 6 times although I recognise the possibility that due to hype, fear, adrenalin, they maybe failed to assess the evidence before them. They however will be aware of that themselves and will carry that burden for ever which may be punishment enough. Our whole society operates on " crime and punishment" but in this case , where it is blindingly obvious that someone was killed for no reason at all, the concept of it being a crime was excluded from the outset. That cant be right. You make the analogy with drunk driving, but its not a great analogy because that is a crime and it is punishable, Im no big fan of drink drivers myself but at least I know that they can be caught and punished, so the deterrent exists. It seems that there is to be no deterrent for shooting commuters dead in the name of this "war on terror" and that we are all supposed to accept it as "one of those things"

Bogus

[div3r]

I may have got this wrong, but when Menezes left his flat in Tulse Hill he was followed by officers that weren’t armed, it seems odd that he was not arrested even when he got on a bus, (which had been a previous target).

He was identified from CCTV footage as worth a closer look and that he was to be prevented from entering the tube system. Their then seems to be a transfer of command and the term "Operation Kratos" gets thrown into the mix.

From then on it looks to me as if we have one team who are intent on arresting Menezes with assistance of armed officers and a second team who have no such intentions, their instructions are to remove the threat.

I may be being naive here but I find it difficult to believe that a police officer would have the training to fire into a targets head in that manner, especially whilst he is being restrained by an officer (Hotel 3), but a gentleman from Hereford would.

[Apache]

I live just down the road from the chaps in Hereford. I've worked with them and for them in the past (technie, nothing more than that) and would suggest that despite the books and TV 'documentaries' they are less likely to kill without the proper evidence / without assessment of the situation than an ordinary copper.

No, I think what's happened is everything the police had been told that menezes was a terrorist and may have a bomb by their intelligence people. It's hard to second guess your intelligence in the heat of the moment, so they did not give enough weight to the evidence from their own eyes and made the mistake of shooting hime. As regards the shooting of him lots of times, they were probably pumped up due to the adrenalin of fear for their own lives.

As others have said, they are not cowboys, or nutters, they are just human and as such will have to live with the fact that they killed an innocent man.

However, if we as a society hadn't been primed by our government and media to fear everyone with a beard, then this probably wouldn't have arisen.

[div3r]

Apache, I could not agree more with your assessment of the chaps, or how the mind set was caused by the Government/Media. But if at some point the men were given intelligence that they believed to be true, that Jean Charles de Menezes had been identified on CCTV from the aborted attempt the day before, and orders to use lethal force to stop him had been issued, would police officers have been used.

It’s the part where the police officer who was pining de Menezes down said the first shot was fired beside his head, he was then dragged out of the carriage shouting police to identify himself and as I have said it’s the manner of the shooting that makes me think that other were involved. If it had of been a terrorist, it was a job well done.

On balance, the chaps as you describe them would not kill without proper assessment/evidence, it’s the shots to the head that makes me suspicious. The trouble is none of us were there, were not being told the truth, and hindsight has 20/20 vision.

You may well be right, that they (The Police) were just pumped and made a terrible mistake.

My feelings are that Jean Charles de Menezes is a victim of 7/7 just like the others that were killed and injured that day.

[Apache]

[SIZE=2]My feelings are that Jean Charles de Menezes is a victim of 7/7 just like the others that were killed and injured that day.

You're right there, but I still think a huge amount of blame rests on the shoulders of the media and government for overreacting to what is still a relatively tiny threat.

[fatfires]

whatever happened that day I feel the main point for disscussion is the fact that the jury were 'handcuffed' into not giving full concideration of all options, I thought trial by 12 good (men) and true was at the centre of our legal system, I thought it was for them to come up with the decision - not to be given the only options that some wanted to impose so that they got to hear what they wanted. Isnt this the true meaning of trial being warped, what comes next 'a little bit guilty, there, there' so that scroats dont have to go to jail - Oops sorry thats allready happening!
Sceptic but realistic ...thats me! (I think)

[PC-Surf]

I may have got this wrong, but when Menezes left his flat in Tulse Hill he was followed by officers that weren’t armed, it seems odd that he was not arrested even when he got on a bus, (which had been a previous target).

He was identified from CCTV footage as worth a closer look and that he was to be prevented from entering the tube system. Their then seems to be a transfer of command and the term "Operation Kratos" gets thrown into the mix.

From then on it looks to me as if we have one team who are intent on arresting Menezes with assistance of armed officers and a second team who have no such intentions, their instructions are to remove the threat.

I may be being naive here but I find it difficult to believe that a police officer would have the training to fire into a targets head in that manner, especially whilst he is being restrained by an officer (Hotel 3), but a gentleman from Hereford would.

This is very true and I wonder if we would be told if it was an SAS member.