BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:36 PM

The Amnesty International article sighted eye-witness accounts. It was before the hearing. They also said he was pushed to the ground not that he tripped and fell.

I hope there is a very thorough investigation and some reports have indicated that the family will sue.

I agree with Metchosin. Why would they let him board a bus if they thought he had explosives?

I really have to applaud the people of London. They are handling this very well. Stoic is the the best word I can think of. I hope the people of all the many cultures in London reach out to one another and remain strong.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:23 PM

I wonder how his family stand for compensation now it has emerged he was illegally in Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Metchosin
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:17 PM

Perhaps people on buses are more expendable. Yes, he boarded a bus before he got to the tube, both are public transit in the UK, I believe and your point is?

As some one posted up thread, since he was a suspected terrorist at the outset, what the f#ck were they waiting for? An arrest prior to him getting as far as he did would seem a far more intelligent tactic. Gee, we'll just watch him and see if he blows up anything? Better PR for the police if they do a deadly deed in the the Underground?

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:46 PM

He boarded a bus before he got to the tube...

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:44 PM

The official count is that the Police fired 8 shots into Jean Charles de Menezes.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Metchosin
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:42 PM

My sympathies to the people of London and those that have lost loved ones there recently. Not only do you have to contend with lunatic bombers, but also plain clothes, trigger happy hit squads.

Why was a suspect terrorist not dealt with before he boarded public transit? Were the police looking for a bit of PR by allowing him to get as far as the tube? This incident would have all the hallmarks of the Keystone Cops, if it weren't so tragic. I doubt it would make very many feel more secure.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:15 PM

"google Amnesty International." why?

The man mistaken for a suicide bomber by police was shot eight times, an inquest into his death has heard.

Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, at Stockwell Tube station, south London, on Friday.

Det Insp Elizabeth Baker revealed the details at a hearing in London.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:11 PM

google Amnesty International.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:06 PM

" ...and yes, it was five shots to the head after the victim tripped and fell."

You sound very sure of yourself.

The inquest said 7 in the head and one in the shoulder. What else aur you sure of

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:01 PM

From Amnesty International:

"The organization urges the investigation to examine the full circumstances leading up to the shooting, including what the terms of the current rules of engagement are, including the policy which permits officers to "shoot to kill", i.e. to shoot in the head, suspects believed to be suicide bombers, reportedly codenamed Operation Kratos; how the operation was planned; how the police officers were briefed and what orders they were given; whether a senior officer was contacted before action was taken; whether a sufficient warning was given; and whether the action taken by the officers was fully in compliance with international human rights standards concerning the use of force in the context of law enforcement."

...and yes, it was five shots to the head after the victim tripped and fell.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:14 AM

Dave O

btw, In my 20's I undertook training in propoganda techniques on my own, attracked the attention of the CIA and had a hell of a time getting them off my back. But I have told that story here numerous times already.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:04 AM

Dave O , you are the journalistic editor to the end.


Whether you define this as a murder or a shooting incident I wish to note that this crime/mistake/incident is a (micro) casebook study in the process of authoratative decisions which are IDENTICAL to the (macro) authoratative decisions which govern the release of NUCLEAR WEAPONS and not just low velocity bullets.

Tracking a radar blip coming from a suspicious direction, it can not be ascertained immediately if it is a weather satillite or a meteor.

There have been over 10 such incidents when a nuclear launch has been initiated and on standby due to suspicious data. Some were recalled with seconds to spare.

Ratchet up fear enough and all you are responding to is fear.

Should fear "win" next time,
and if there are people left in authority to respond, I would expect them to say...
"We had NO CHOICE".

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:22 AM

That's a pretty good book.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 01:27 AM

Nice one, Reginald!

That's all we need!

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Reginald Richley
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 01:24 AM

How relevant is Wilmott & Young's 'Family & Class in a London Suburb' to all of this, does one think?

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:49 AM

Very Freudian, Diana

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:27 AM

oops - I mean British public not British publice.

No insult intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:23 AM

This investigation will be a veritable Pandora's Box, I'd wager

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:20 AM

... from one of the internal BBC links on that page...

"In 1999 the Macpherson Report branded London's Metropolitan Police institutionally racist. The report, which followed the Met's failure to successfully prosecute a gang of white youths for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, found ethnic minorities in Britain felt under-protected as victims and over-policed as suspects."

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:11 AM

Thank you Peace.

Steven Lawrence!

That name rings a few bells I'm sure....

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:07 AM

This is the story to which you refer.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:05 AM

I pasted the wrong link in there..., maybe someone else more knowledgeable than myself could remember the programme I was talking about...

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:01 AM

Sorry... it was The Met

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:52 PM

Some English journalist infiltrated the Thames Valley (I'm almost certain) Police Force, some time back and found rascism a major problem.

I would have said 'major, major, problem', but Dave might accuse me of trying to fog the issue.

What was that journalist's name again, anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:48 PM

From the Financial Times:

"A police source said: "The e-mail reminded armed officers they could shoot to the head if the criteria for suspecting a suicide bomber was fulfilled. It [the action] had to be based on intelligence."

Acpo said details of such tactics remained secret "for operational reasons". "The tactics are intended to be used on an intelligence-led basis. They are not implemented at random but as a result of intelligence and backed up by senior decision-making."

So I guess this shooting was, once again, faulty intelligence that was backed up by a senior decision maker.

I'm still curious as to how the cop on the beat interprets this and also if the British publice were warned.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:04 PM

Scholarly, some would say

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:55 PM

With no offense, it's pretty academic after the first one.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:55 PM

To be sure, to be sure, to be sure, to be sure, to be sure...

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:51 PM

and why five shots in the back of the head?

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: number 6
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:45 PM

As in all wars .... it's the innocent that pay the biggest price.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:41 PM

A. Maybe they figured while he was running he couldn't get the wires together.
B. Maybe in the chase they couldn't be sure to get a head shot.
C. Maybe they weren't close enough to him to have satisfied themselves that he had a bomb on his body.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.... As I keep saying, we don't know the facts.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:29 PM

If the fellow had indeed been carrying explosives on his person and the cops had NOt taken the shots, they would be getting the gears for being recaltricent in their response/duty. One thing I do know: I am glad it was not my call. However, the place to stop the guy was in an open area. Whay did they wait until he could bolt into a crowded place?

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Eoghain
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:26 PM

Perception, dear boy....

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:22 PM

They don't like you here, Ciaran

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Eoghain
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:20 PM

Hi there!

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Eoghain
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:19 PM

Ok, I recant...

Beats the shit out of justifying pumping a guy full of lead

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:13 PM

Indeed, Dave.

Tiocfaidh gave the definition a little more clearly than you did, a few posts back, so I'm under no illusions.

Have you not noticed that there are those who have more or less repeated what the news media has said..., in the same chronological sequence; from 'terrorist', to 'innocent'

There is damage limitation being posted on this thread by a number of posters.

You are concentrating on the wrong thing

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:08 PM

Tir Chonaill said, in part:

Beats the shit out of justifying pumping a seriously scared guy full of lead

Here again, a missing of the point or an attempt to fog up the discussion. Whether he was seriously scared or not (and I don't doubt for a minute that he was) has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the shooting, or the criminality or lack thereof on the part of the policeman involved.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:02 PM

Its cold where he is....

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:58 PM

A bit of patronising never hurt anyone.

If it does any good, I'm all for it.

Beats the shit out of justifying pumping a seriously scared guy full of lead

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:52 PM

And that's the second.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST,Tír Chonaill
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:30 PM

Well maybe for you, but judging by the contributions of some of the posters on this forum, it may just be a timely reminder of what this thread is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:07 PM

Just in case we're in danger of forgetting there's a young man lying in a morgue somewhere who was totally innocnet of anything to do with terrorism,

That may be the most patronising contribution to date.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:27 PM

I wonder about what is going through the minds of the police officers who did the shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:22 PM

Just in case we're in danger of forgetting there's a young man lying in a morgue somewhere who was totally innocnet of anything to do with terrorism, here is a piece from the Monday Guardian, with a photo of Jean Charles de Menezes with friends.

"He rang me ... saying that he would be a little late because the tube lines weren't working properly," said Gesio de Avila, a builder and close friend who Mr De Menezes had been due to meet that morning for the fire alarm job. "I said, 'OK, as soon as you get to Kilburn, call me.' That was the last conversation I had with him..."

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Tiocfaidh
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:10 PM

The criminality of the act resides in the 'crime', Kevin.
That's the way I read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:09 PM

mur·der   n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:07 PM

That's quite a cunning definition, because it reads as if it's saying the criminality resides in the killing, so that, if it's killing than it's criminal; but in fact it implies more or less the reverse - that in order to count as murder the killing has to be criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Tiocfaidh
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:23 PM

Definition of MURDER

"the crime of intentionally killing a person"

Subject: RE: BS: Murder of the directly linked terrorist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:07 PM

Lepus Rex and others insist on throwing the word "murder" around, which is either an illegitimate attempt to prejudice the discussion or an expression of ignorance of what the word means.

"Murder" has a specific meaning.

A death is not murder.

A death of an innocent person does not make murder.

A violent death of an innocent person at another person's hands doesn't constitute murder.

A violent death of an innocent person at a policeman's hands does not reach the standard for murder.

"Murder" is a legal term, and can only be assigned if certain criteria are met. Of course there must be the death, and it must be at another person's hands, and the death must be intentional. All those things are clearly here. But to be "murder" there must be the intention to violate the law or at the very least the intent to do wrong.

Whether the policy is a wrong policy is something else, but establishment of that policy (however wrong it might be) doesn't constitute murder.

It appears to me that the MOST that might be said against this killing is manslaughter, and I'm personally doubtful of that, given that the policeman was presumably acting in accordance with his duty as he was trained and instructed.

But the fact is that none of us knows the detailed set of facts that are needed in order to determine degree of blame, or where it may fall.

Those who rush to shout "murder!" or "cold blood!" at this point are clearly indulging their prejudices. When I say "prejudices" I mean just what the word means: applying judgment before the facts can be submitted--in all likelihood, given the content and tone of the inflammatory statements in this thread, prejudices of long standing against the police and/or government in general and/or the government of the UK in particular.

It's possible the policemen involved were wrong in not identifying themselves to the fleeing person as police. It's possible (though not in my opinion likely) that they did not even think the guy had a bomb, and killed him nevertheless in the heat of a chase and struggle with someone they had (wrongly, yes) identified as a terrorist. Those things (and perhaps some others), if they come out, would make them culpable. That last one, if established, I suppose could justify the word "murder", but until we know more facts everybody ought to ratchet down the emotional and propagandistic tone on this.

Dave Oesterreich