Whitewash - de Menezes shooting?

civdef

The 'eyewitness' accounts as told in that linked BBC article above are now known to be false for the most part.

Nothing new there. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inconsistent and unreliable. Have a look at statements resulting from any traffic accident for examples of this. Stretching this into evidence of a grand conspiracy is a bit much.

Where the cops can just shoot anybody they like in the head in the name of the 'war on terror' (which is a complete load of BS anyway).

Whatever your views on the "WoT", you have to admit that a series of bombs killing around 50 people on the London public transport system shortly before this incident meant that the perceved threat was very real.


It should also be borne in mind that different people were conducting the surveillance and the "take down". This was not the result of any one police officer screwing up a surveillance, but still personally pulling the trigger.

Command and control of the incident clearly broke down, but the officers who fired the shots were acting in good faith, as it turned out based on faulty information, which resulted in the tragedy of an innocent man being killed.

It is clear that there were serious deficiencies in the surveillance and overall command of the operation, as evidenced by the decision to go ahead with a Health & Safety prosecution. I'd say there is little doubt the family of the dead man will win their civil case, and deservedly so, in my opinion.

Hobbes

biko wrote:

Here's hoping the family wins a law suit against the cops for unlawful killing.

If they did the UK government would probably charge them for the bullets. After all they made the Birminham 6 pay for thier stay in jail.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Command and control of the incident clearly broke down, but the officers who fired the shots were acting in good faith, as it turned out based on faulty information, which resulted in the tragedy of an innocent man being killed.

It's this part that I'm flabbergasted at. Seven shots at close range into a restrained man's head? That's not training, that's panic and overreaction. One shot or two would be training - but seven?

HelterSkelter

Manic Moran wrote:

The difference between this event and the manslaughter charges referred to earlier about the bus driver is that in the De Menezes case we're talking about a conscious decision correctly made on information that was bad due to a fault not of their own, vs an unconscious action made as a result of personal carelessness.

NTM

So who exactly do YOU THINK is responsible for the 7 bulllets in Menezes's head then?

Diogenes

It happened in Miami aswell. Cops shot an innocent guy who ran off a plane. They said he claimed to have a bomb.

That man in question was later found out to have been drinking and have a history of serious mental problem. He was, as well, claiming he had bomb.

I'm not saying that his shooting was right, I'm just saying the police following and then shooting an innocent man minding his own business should not be equated to the incident in miami

Passengers on the plane contradicted that version of events. Turned out he was mildly mentally unwell and on medication, but was of no threat to anyone. They shot him anyway, in the head (why not shoot him in the leg and take him down?)

Because if he does have a bomb shooting him in the leg, mean he's probably capable of setting it off. Furthermore the bomb could be attached to the leg.

Look this has been hashed over, over pints, in forums across the country, in the end of the day if someone claims they have a bomb, then you must assume they are willing to set it off, furthermore the only apendage that you can assume its safe to hit is the head.

I'm not saying its right anymore than its right that most anti terrorist swat teams are trained to take out women terrorists first, its the world we live in.

The police used the correct tactics for the situation they thought they were in the questions and accusations should be made at the people who gave them the orders, and the failed intelligence that lead to them doing this dreadful thing.

I also hope De Menezes' family win a civil case against the Met Police. I wouldn't bet on it though.

You're kidding right? The Met as a force is incredibly guilty. And will be found so. The burden of proof is far easier to prove in civil case. However a civil case can't be taken aganist individual officers. Its a question of whether the family will be satisfied with a guilty verdict from a civil case and they are willing to put a price on their pain and loss.

Hobbes

Diogenes wrote:

That man in question was later found out to have been drinking and have a history of serious mental problem. He was, as well, claiming he had bomb.

Yea, you could argue that his wife screaming at the cops while this was going on that he wasn't all right in the head might of meant something, but he was given multiple warnings to give himself up.

Compare that with Menezes who got jumped on by cops on the tube and shot 7 times after being followed there for some time.

TBH, all a terrorist has to do now these days is ring some random strangers and then let the cops kill them.

HelterSkelter

This page makes interesting reading, it gives details of some "discrepancies" between what the police were saying originally and what they said in evidence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4158832.stm

Diogenes

Hobbes wrote:

Yea, you could argue that his wife screaming at the cops while this was going on that he wasn't all right in the head might of meant something, but he was given multiple warnings to give himself up.

And did he? C'mon seriously, the cops arrive on the plan, everybody is screaming, how are they even supposed to hear the wife, never mind the question is, is she in on it? Is she trying to trick them?

Compare that with Menezes who got jumped on by cops on the tube and shot 7 times after being followed there for some time.

The seven time thing bothers me. To call it over zealous, is euphemistic at best. Now I don't try to pretend I have any knowledge of such a unit's training, but I suspect, there training seeing as it is shoot to kill, was to make absolute certain that a suspect is killed.

TBH, all a terrorist has to do now these days is ring some random strangers and then let the cops kill them.

What? How?

Manic Moran

HelterSkelter wrote:

So who exactly do YOU THINK is responsible for the 7 bulllets in Menezes's head then?

Exactly the same body that the CPS is currently charging: The Metropolitan Police Department. I'm not saying that nobody is at fault, just that it appears that no one individual screwed up to any culpable amount.

Seven shots at close range into a restrained man's head? That's not training, that's panic and overreaction. One shot or two would be training - but seven?

Would one or two make him any less dead? No? In that case, no difference except media perception. The break-line is the shoot/no-shoot decision, not how many times.

Ultimately, one never knows how one is going to react in a lethal situation until one is in it. The natural inclination is usually to want to not kill, and training needs to 'break' that. On the other hand, there are cases where the stress is so high that after the 'line' has been crossed to kill, the shooter goes into a sort of trance. There are multiple incidents of people continuing to pull a trigger long after their pistol's slide is locked back on an empty magazine, and they don't realise it. A good read on the subject is 'On Killing' by a military psychologist named Grossman. Indeed, if you have any interest in the subject of intentionally shooting someone (for professional reasons, preferably!), it's pretty much mandatory reading. He has a sequel book, called 'On Combat' which I haven't read yet.

NTM

banaman

oscarBravo wrote:

I take issue with this idea, if for no other reason than it devalues the concept of murder.

This situation was a gigantic clusterf*ck. It was a tragedy. It was a horrible example of a bad reaction by authorities to a high-pressure situation. All possible steps should be taken to prevent a recurrence. The Met should (and will) face sanction for the huge lapses that allowed it to happen.

But to call it "murder" implies a premeditated decision to unlawfully kill. For all that went horribly wrong in this case, to call it murder is simply inaccurate, and simply compounds the wrongs and errors of that tragic day.

I enclose these two definitions of murder from Dictionary.com
# To kill (another human) unlawfully.
# To kill brutally or inhumanly.
He was held immobile in a headlock if this act was carried out on the Luas by three guys in hoodies(one to hold him, two to shoot him in the head) there would be outrage(and rightly so).
He was shot because he looked "middle-eastern" substitute "looked Irish", "looked Jewish" etc and you see the true racism involved. The Met< like other British police forces is deeply racist and to effectively condone this racism by not prosecuting anyone, or even having a public inquiry only ensures that this will not be the last such event.

civdef

It's this part that I'm flabbergasted at. Seven shots at close range into a restrained man's head? That's not training, that's panic and overreaction. One shot or two would be training - but seven?

Sparks, like me you're a shooting enthusiast, but I'm fairly certain neither of us have had any training on how to deal with suicide bombers. From what I have read of such tactics, though, I understand the objective the overriding concern is to make sure the suspect can't trigger a detonator after being shot, which means overwhelming force to destroy the central nervous system is needed. I understand multiple shots are indeed SOP for such events.

civdef

I enclose these two definitions of murder from Dictionary.com

I think you'll find the common law definition of murder in English law (or here for that matter) is a little more complicated than just looking up dictionary.com.

biko

Hobbes wrote:

If they did the UK government would probably charge them for the bullets.

Didn't the chinese do this?

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Sparks, like me you're a shooting enthusiast, but I'm fairly certain neither of us have had any training on how to deal with suicide bombers. From what I have read of such tactics, though, I understand the objective the overriding concern is to make sure the suspect can't trigger a detonator after being shot, which means overwhelming force to destroy the central nervous system is needed. I understand multiple shots are indeed SOP for such events.

From the SAS who trained the police involved:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1785932,00.html

TWO senior SAS soldiers who trained many of the firearms teams now serving in Britain’s police forces have warned of their concerns about the officers’ skills and psychological suitability for the job.

The two SAS officers, who have left active service, claim the police they trained had not been subjected to adequate psychological and physical tests to establish whether or not they were suitable to use firearms. The police officers were often “gung ho” and unfit.

One of the soldiers said: “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.”

The second soldier said: “We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking ‘gung ho’, rather than their professional capabilities. I’m not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years.

“There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It’s a major problem.”

The statement also describes a police training exercise run by the SAS in which an armed terrorist group was threatening to kill a hostage. The police team were to rescue the hostage using minimum force.

“I was playing the leader of the armed group and instructed the other members of my group to surrender peacefully once the final assault was initiated. Therefore there was no need for the police to open fire.

“But as the police assault group entered the room they began firing at everything. No one had moved; we were all stood with our hands on our heads.

“The response would have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of all the make- believe terrorists and the hostage alike. So much for the rule of minimum force.”

Also, don't forget - he was shot 7 times, but 11 rounds were fired. At point-blank range on a restrained target. Where did those rounds go? Was there any concern at hitting innocent bystanders? To me, someone firing off all 11 rounds in such a situation is indicative of someone who's paniced - missing with 4 rounds at a range of less than six feet? That's not well-trained. It's not even competent.

MrPudding

Sparks wrote:

It's this part that I'm flabbergasted at. Seven shots at close range into a restrained man's head? That's not training, that's panic and overreaction. One shot or two would be training - but seven?

I don't know but I presume they were attempting to hit the medulla oblongata. A bullet here and the person drops and will not even twitch, this is what you really want if you think they have a bomb. It is kind of small, if it was me doing the shooting I would put a few extra in as well, just to make sure.

Personally I don't think the armed police should face any punishment. From my understanding of it they acted in good faith. You may not like the fact that they killed a man but at the end of the day that is their job. That said, i think there should be charges brought against someone. Who? I don't know.

MrP

aidan24326

civdef wrote:

Nothing new there. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inconsistent and unreliable. Have a look at statements resulting from any traffic accident for examples of this. Stretching this into evidence of a grand conspiracy is a bit much.

Whatever your views on the "WoT", you have to admit that a series of bombs killing around 50 people on the London public transport system shortly before this incident meant that the perceved threat was very real.

It should also be borne in mind that different people were conducting the surveillance and the "take down". This was not the result of any one police officer screwing up a surveillance, but still personally pulling the trigger.

Command and control of the incident clearly broke down, but the officers who fired the shots were acting in good faith, as it turned out based on faulty information, which resulted in the tragedy of an innocent man being killed.

I agree that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and I alluded to as much in my previous post. And while I wasn't trying to stretch that out into some grand conspiracy, it is known that police and other officials did lie about the events of that day in the aftermath, and so it hardly requires that much of a leap into the wild to suggest that maybe, just maybe they might have conjured up an 'eyewitness' account or two to help their side of their story. Not saying they did, just that it's by no means outside the scope of what they would/might do in such circumstances.

I take your point about the gravity of the situation given that bombs had just killed 50-odd people on buses and trains. But there are still elements of this whole of chain of events that just don't add up. To say that it was incompetence is an understatement.

I mean if you're potentially dealing with a bomb-wielding terrorist who might be intent on slaughtering a whole lot of people on a bus/train or otherwise, then first off you'd better make bloody sure you've got the right guy. Now ok, let's just say that when they began tailing De Menezes they actually were following a real bomber. They let him get on a bus! And then allowed him all the way into the tube station. Had he been a real suicide bomber he would have had ample time to detonate his bomb before they got near him, considering that to trigger a bomb like that usually only requires a split second.

All I'd say is, this guy was ultimately just an ordinary Joe Soap who was no more a terorrist than I am. So if it could happen to him it could happen to anyone.

sovtek

MrPudding wrote:

You may not like the fact that they killed a man but at the end of the day that is their job.

Killing people is their job?

HelterSkelter

aidan24326 wrote:

All I'd say is, this guy was ultimately just an ordinary Joe Soap who was no more a terorrist than I am. So if it could happen to him it could happen to anyone.

He was a Joe Soap with dark skin, that was his only crime.

civdef

These days when former SAS personnel talk to the press, you have to suspect they're more worried about potential future book deals. I'm not sure the ones quoted are talking about suicide bomber tactics in general - which as stated, I understand involve an SOP of multiple shots to the head.

HelterSkelter

Two police firearms officers involved in the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes are to resume "full operational duties", Scotland Yard has said...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1229139,00.html

banaman

Yeah I saw this and it worries me.
Here we have guys who are supposed to be highly trained and who will shoot only as a last resort (at least that's what we were assured when the whole issue of armed officers was sold to the British public), except that these two overreacted and murdered an innocent man.
Not only do they walk away scot-free. They get to return to the same job in which they F...ed up in the first place.
I understand the point about not wanting to risk a potential suicide bomber detonating his bomb but he was in a headlock and his arms were being held, so how is shooting him seven times in the head justified.

Manic Moran

Actually, I have an entirely different issue with the decision:

Now that they've killed an innocent man, and know it, they may well hesitate at some critical point in the future (maybe even a very similar situation with a suicide bomb) and thus by inaction allow someone else (or themselves) to be harmed.

Oh well, I'm sure the pshrinks know what they're doing.

I understand the point about not wanting to risk a potential suicide bomber detonating his bomb but he was in a headlock and his arms were being held, so how is shooting him seven times in the head justified.

If he was still struggling, there was a chance he could wrestle an arm free and push a detonator.

NTM