BS: Police guilty over Menezes

Subject: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rog Peek
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 03:53 PM

London's Metropolitan Police Force have been found guilty on 19 counts of endangering the public during the operation which resulted in the shooting of the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. It was fined £175,000 and ordered to pay £385,000 in costs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

The Commissioner of The Met' Sir Ian Blair who has refused to resign, has done so on the grounds that the judgement did not indicate any systemic failures in the police service.

So we(the tax payer) have to pay £560,000 and Sir Ian Blair keeps both his job, and the confidence of The Prime Minister. The de Menezes family continue to wait for justice.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 03:56 PM

Nice one. Sorta like the hate filled anti gay church decision over here. Couple mil for the family of a fallen soldier, but the 'church' hasn't got it. Google Rev. Phelps.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,Big Norman Voice
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 03:59 PM

Totally irrelevant, you must not confuse religious lunatics with official murder.
BNV

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Bainbo
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 04:22 PM

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ... er, odd that a group of [I'm guessing] trigger-happy testoserone-high armed cops race into a crowded tube station, scattering commuters, and shoot dead an innocent passenger - and they're prosecuted for health and safety offences?

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Peace
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 04:24 PM

Unfortunately, those who work for the state are mostly immune from prosecution, and when not, certainly from conviction. Works like that here, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: bubblyrat
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 04:56 PM

Sadly, the victim in this case was in the UK ILLEGALLY , as his visa had expired. No wonder he failed to respond in the expected manner!!--- Please stop criticising the poor British police, who are only trying to stop us all from being killed / bombed/ blown up by crazed religious zealots whose ideas of compassion , tolerance, and understanding are clouded by the hatred of Islamic fundamentalism. Fuck political correctness, and GET REAL !!

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:02 PM

Aren`t we all lucky the rat above isn`t in the trigger-happy cops.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Megan L
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:04 PM

The other day on the way into town we saw a man walking with what appeared to be a shotgun. As we drew past him it turned out to be several short lengths of copper pipe about 18 inches long that had been taped together to make them easy to carry. that was in a peaceful island setting had it been a shotgun the few seconds it took us to pass him could have been the difference between life and death. A peaceful setting with time to think not in a city that had just been bombed a day or so previous.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Bainbo
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:08 PM

As far as I'm aware, letting your visa expire still isn't a capital offence.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rog Peek
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:11 PM

This has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness.

It is worth bearing in mind that, the repeated failures to prevent Mr. de Menezes boarding the Tube and resulting in his death would have resulted in a much more horific failure if he had been a suicide bomber and had detonated a bomb on boarding the train. Of course, In this case I doubt we would have leared of the mistakes that were made.


I know the police have a difficult job in combatting terrorism, but this should not mean they are above the law, or should not be taken to task for mistakes they have made. Remember they were found guilty in a court of law of endangering the public, when what they should have been doing was to protect the public.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: folk1e
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:44 PM

Some of the officers involved have been commended (by the judge) for acting bravely. They were just doing their jobs in a very difficult situation!
However
1 There seems to have been little underground communication.
2 The victim was not identified as a target, "He is worth a look" dosn't cut it for me!
3 There was a long delay by the armed response team to arrive on site (after covert survilence at the block of flats).
4 False information was released to the public (Nationality / Clothing )
5 He was not stopped until he was on the underground ( a target area for a bomber)
6 He was shot despite having his hands above his head
7 The Chief Constable of the MET was either a liar or deliberately held "incommunicado" until after his press release.
8 The eronious statement by the CC was not recinded for 2 days.

Most of the above points are failures of the system and can be reasonably be called "Systemic Failure". The CC of the MET undermines his position by arguing that ti is not. Maybe everyone involved was doing their best ..... but not everyone was doing a good enough job for me.
Me? ..... I'm just the guy who pays their wages!

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:45 PM

who are only trying to stop us all from being killed / bombed/ blown up

The police acted the way they did because they thought the public were in danger. Mr. de Menezes acted the way he did because he did have things (small things - not terrorism!) to hide and wouldn't for one moment have thought the police would be thinking he had done anything seriously wrong. He wouldn't have realised that he was in danger. The whole thing has been a terrible tragedy, but following the suicide bombs in London it is not surprising that something like this has happened.

The people who should be blamed for this tragedy are the terrorists -they may not be directly responsible for this death but they most certainly are indirectly responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 05:54 PM

No wonder he failed to respond in the expected manner!!-

There is no evidence whatsoever that "he failed to respond in the expected manner". He was sitting in his seat, when a bunch of big blokes, who weren't wearing anything indicating that they were police, started shouting at him and advancing on him threateningly. He got to his feet, somebody jumped on him and held him down, and another bloke fired seven bullets into his head.

He did absolutely nothing that any other innocent commuter wouldn't have done. And he had no reason to think the people attacking him were police.

He died because of a total cock-up by the police force, and at least this verdict has underlined that self-evident truth. The amazing thing is that the police had the nerve to fight the case on this minimal charge. Still if they hadn't the evidence wouldn't have come out in court.

I tend to assume that with the more serious charges such as murder and manslaughter brushed out of the way in favour of the health and safety charge the expectation was that the Force would put its hands up to that, and so avoid the evidence being presented.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 03:55 AM

The operations officer claimed in court that Menezes showed "anxiousness and nervousness" when challenged by the police and this justified them in thinking he was a terrorist. She didn't explain how she expected an innocent person to react to a robust challenge from bunch of armed men

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 05:29 AM

The officers were told that he was one of the suicide bombers.
Believing that, they put themselves in the killing area of the bomb and went for an instant kill to prevent a detonation.
They acted correctly and bravely, not gung ho or trigger happy.
The fault and incompetence lies with those directing the operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Gurney
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 06:16 AM

Good point, Keith. And the organisation charged was the police force, not the officers on the spot, so it seems that the judiciary took that view too.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Bainbo
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 06:26 AM

Keith, yes, I'll accept that point, too. There was definitely either a panic or screw-up somewhere along the line that resulted in this tragedy.

I think I was just struck by the apparent disproportionate nature of using health and safety legislation when there had been such a horrific incident. But maybe it was the right choice. I don't suppose "corporate manslaughter" would have stuck, largely because of the precedent it would have set?

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Peace
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 11:42 AM

I agree with Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 11:48 AM

There are calls for Sir Ian Blair to resign but he is being supported by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

I do feel the same as Keith that the police officers who did the shooting did act in good faith.

There clearly were mistakes but I'm not sure I would want anybody to resign.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,SINSULL
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 12:56 PM

This was a horrible tragedy but I can understand how it could happen. In the days immediately following the Twin Towers disaster, traffic was backed up everywhere as every van and truck entering Manhattan was searched before being allowed to cross a bridge or enter a tunnel. If any of them had tried to get past the police, I could have shot the driver myself. Terror is an ugly business.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rog Peek
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 01:19 PM

Bainbo, I think you will find that in this country the police cannot be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter.

Eanjay, this is not the first 'mistake' with which Sir Ian Blair has been associated.

Keith, I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 03:21 PM

Setting aside the acvtual shooting - allowing a man who had been identified of being a terrorist bomber to go onto a bus and then to enter a railway statiion and get into a train was quite incredibly irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 08:01 PM

The police also used a type of dum dum bullet and took advice from the Israeli police in how to go about dealing with suspects.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: folk1e
Date: 03 Nov 07 - 06:59 PM

The mayor of London, (Red)Ken Livingston has come out in unequivical support for Ian Blair!
Given his (Ken's) background this is quite unusual to say the least!   Maybe he has information that we are not privy to.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 07 - 08:25 PM

Not so surprising - if he's correct in reading the signs, and the government aren't going to sack Blair it'd make sense for Ken to have him owing him a big favour.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Big Phil
Date: 04 Nov 07 - 12:11 AM

I don't think anyone takes Ken Livingstone seriously do they.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: number 6
Date: 04 Nov 07 - 12:54 AM

He was shot seven (that's 7)times in the head and once in the shoulder, by 2 police officers, despite having his hands above his head.

That is were I question the whole matter.

Trigger happy policie. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong in my perception.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 07 - 01:00 AM

100s if not 1000s of innoncent people get murdered world round evry day..


maybe keep it in perspective..


if i was that shop floor terrified cop..

i guess i would also have desperately emptied evry bullet i had

in such a f@cked up fearfull intense stress fueled split second decision..


too many cynical media whores are now making capital out of this tragic death...


yeah.. in hindsight..


..at the very least 99% of all these whining media/politico f@ckwits weren't there at that last second instant call killing blood ground..


but they all now got the luxury of time and broadcast media

to undermine the courage & integrity of the guys we trust to protect us with our guns......

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 07 - 01:12 AM

..however..

the next time the local police turn up mob handed in riot gear

banging on my front door accusing me of a violent crime

that was reported in a street on the other side of town

with a similar spelling to where i live...


twats !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 07 - 09:32 AM

But once again, the real failing was to allow someone who had been, however falsely, identified as a likely suicide bomber to get into a tube station and onto a tube train. Not someone who had been suddenly spotted there, but someone who had been trailed across London and accompanied by police officers all the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 11:27 AM

Why was he allowed to get so far?
Our police are not routinely armed, and an armed response unit did not get there in time.
Of course, until recently, the unarmed police would have intervened.
It was unarmed policemen who confronted the IRA team that bombed and machine gunned Londoners in the 70s, leading to the Balcombe Street siege.
They have become rather more risk averse nowadays.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 12:49 PM

Or consider that unarmed baggage handler in Glasgow who tackled a would-be suicide bomber.

You'd think one of the police who'd been escorting Jean-Charles on the bus all that way would have just stood in his way when he made to enter the station, and said "Excuse me sir, have you a few miutes to spare", to delay matters. For that matter they apparently did actually have guns, but "only for personal protection" according to the media.

In a way this tragedy happened because they were acting under a system under which the kind of personal initiative which would have been involved in doing that has been frowned upon, in favour of a fantasy about things being better done when coordinated by an operations room miles away.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 08:53 PM

Here in the US no fewer than 3 citizens have been killed by Airport security guards.

The explainations all had one thing in common, the now dead passengers were acting up and may have had drug or mental problems.

To survive the new police state you must fall to the ground with arms out immediately upon being ordered to STOP. I'm not kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 02:07 PM

"upon being ordered to STOP" - that wouldn't have helped Jean-Charles. His fellow passengers, including the lady sitting in the next seat, have said that they didn't hear any warning.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rog Peek
Date: 08 Nov 07 - 01:57 PM

Independant Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) Report

I have not read the report, but these are a couple of issues raised in the BBC News report:

....it says Commissioner Sir Ian Blair tried to prevent its investigation.

17 witnesses (apparently ALL of the passengers in the carriage where Mr. De Menezes was shot) said they had not heard officers shout a clear warning before opening fire.

It also says police radios deployed on the day did not work underground, a problem that was first identified in the 1987 King's Cross fire.

Mr Hardwick (who chaired the commission's investigation)said the IPCC's investigators believed that Sir Ian Blair played a key role in delaying their work.

Part of an interview with an eye witness to the shooting.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,Flatpick
Date: 08 Nov 07 - 07:40 PM

The police couldn't win, whatever and whichever way they reacted. Don't shoot? The suspected suicide bomber kills you and everyone on the train.
Shoot? You are a hero for killing the suicide bomber - "oh, Jesus, that guy wasn't the one, oh, God, I was told he may have been".
You have literally seconds to decide, your adrenalin count is off the scale....not a situation any person would wish to endure. OK. The police get paid to be in this situation. How would you react in this situation? Give it a lot of thought. You have more time than the guys on the scene....
I'm equally appalled an innocent man was killed, I feel every sympathy for his family.
Shit does happen.
I could go on...my son is a policeman, but doesn't carry a firearm.
This was an occurence that should not need the resignation of a senior police officer who has served his area long and well, from all acccounts.
Humble Opinion, open to discussion...

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 07 - 09:03 PM

They thought Jean Charles Menezes was a suicide bonber, followed him across London, and they failed to prevent him from entering into a crowded tibe station and getting on a tube train.

That was the central failing - and that was the cause of the tragedy.

"How would you react in this situation?" I would have stopped him, going into the tube station. By any means.

Once that had been allowed to happen it was probably too late. It was panic stations. The armed police evidently appear not to have realised that the man with Jean Charles, who was in fact holding him immobile while they shot him in the head, was a fellow policeman, but took him for another terrorist. Perhaps they even believe that they did actually call out "Armed Police" as they have claimed, although not a single passenger in the compartment heard them do so.

In the circumstances the killing itself is perhaps understandable. But allowing those circumstances to develop is something else. And as for obstructing the investigation into what happened...And that last failing was wholly Ian Blair's.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: folk1e
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 03:56 AM

Why did Blair state on the following morning that Menesis was wearing a heavy jacket (that could conceal explosives) and other information that was WRONG?
Why did it take the armed response unit FOUR HOURS to respond to the situation developing?
Why did the order to stop and question EVERYBODY leaving the block of flats after they had got a safe distance away NOT HAPPEN?
Why did everybody in the train say they did NOT HEAR the police shout "armed police" but all 8 police state that they did. (maybe they shouted as they got on the platform out of earshot of the passengers)
Why was a "terrorist bomber" allowed to WALK from his flat, use public transport, and walk into a crowded tube station and to get on a train?
Why was Blair allowed to give eronious information to the media the following day? And knowing this why was it not retracted?

There are more questions and few answers!
In my view it was a pannic situation and the police "on the ground" did the best they could. The officers who were responsible for the system they were working under did not do so well and should be reprimanded for this! Justice must be done and be seen to be done!

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Big Phil
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 07:58 AM

Blair should have been fired for allowing Police cars in London to have "vote Labour" on them during the last election, never mind about the debacle that was the de Menezes incident. Any man with honour would have resigned over this tragedy.

The Police are supposed to be independent, not favouring one party over another, a grave mistake to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: folk1e
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 08:22 AM

Changing times eh?
I remember not so long ago they were all in favour of Mrs T.
On the other hand it may be the Liberal Democrat's turn next!

I think the options to sack him are limmited ...... he would apparantly win a vote of (NO)Confidence by the A.C.P. (at the moment)

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 11:05 AM

allowing Police cars in London to have "vote Labour" on them during the last election This appears to be a reference to poolice cars carrying Tony Blair around being decorated in this fashion. I don't know if the same happened with police cars carrying othe party leaders, but I would think it highly likely that it woudl have been.

In other words, tabloid rubbish.

There are enough genuine reason for criticising Ian Blair without flailing around like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rog Peek
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 12:25 PM

It's not just the fact that an innocent man was killed as a result of a catalogue of mistakes, but the attempt to misrepresent what happened. The quotes here are from various news sources, mostly BBC.

"Following the shooting, police sources first claimed that Mr Menezes, 27, had run away from officers, leapt over ticket barriers, and had worn a very bulky jacket - making his armed pursuers suspect that he was a potential suicide bomber."

"While it is true that much of this information came, originally, from witnesses at the scene rather than the police, the Met clearly had an interest in fostering this version of events."

It was later revealed that Mr. Menezes had walked into the station, wearing a light denim jacket, carrying no bag or rucksack, picked up a copy of the Metro newspaper and proceded in an orderly fashion onto the train carriage where he had sat down.

"Security sources had said electrician Mr Menezes was in the UK on an out-of-date student visa.

Mr Straw (then foriegn secretary) said he did not know Mr Menezes' precise immigration status but said it was his "understanding that he was here lawfully".

"Police claim officers shouted a verbal challenge, at which point De Menezes stood up, but an official investigation could find no independent witness (of which there were 17)on the train who heard the police shout any warning or to back up the substance of their account."

Finally, Sir Ian Blair had "sought to prevent the IPCC taking over the inquiry by enlisting the intervention of the Home Office," even though there is a statutory requirement for a police force to refer such a shooting to the IPCC.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 01:41 PM

The quotes here are from various news sources, mostly BBC.
"Following the shooting, police sources first claimed..."

but

"...much of this information came, originally, from witnesses at the scene rather than the police..."

Clearly it wasn't just the police who weren't too worried about telling lies to the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: folk1e
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 06:38 PM

We know the tabloid press lie to us, but not the Police..... at least not so blaitantly.
Does anybody realy think this will just "go away"?


ps
If the Police have inproved their systems to prevent this happening again the systems must have been at fault. If the same people are responsible for the new systems as the old how can we have confidence that they will work any better this time?

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 09:05 PM

Tabloid press yes, but "mostly BBC" is more worrying.

One of the oddest things about all this is the way Ian Blair appears to have been kept out of the loop - long after the truth had become clear to colleagues he was putting his foot in it with his public statements. One explanation is that some of his colleagues may have been deliberately shafting him in the hope of getting shot of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,Dandy in Aspic
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 08:26 AM

Public Inquiry into the murder of Menezes opens today. Why bother, we already know that no trigger happy police officer is going to be found guilty of murder nor will any senior police officer or MI5 operative be asked to leave their position.

Dandy in Aspic

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 10:11 AM

If it goes against the Met (and inquests have been known to return some awkward verdicts) the most senior police officer of them all will surely fall on his sword at long last. He's going to have a torrid time of it anyway, explaining to the family his pejorative remarks in the immediate aftermath of the murder unfortunate accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,Dandy in Aspic
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 10:16 AM

Yes, A couple of bullets in the head at close range can be an "unfortunate accident".

Dandy in Aspic

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,TA Keith
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 01:09 PM

See the jury wouldn't be gagged today, police murdered the guy. Police used "Shoot to kill " tactics just as they did in the North of Ireland in the 1980's. State thugs exposed.

The jury has returned an open verdict at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, whom police mistook for a suicide bomber.

It rejected the police account Mr de Menezes was killed lawfully by two officers who shot him seven times at Stockwell Tube in south London.

His mother, Maria Otone de Menezes, said she was very happy and felt "reborn" after hearing the verdict.

The Metropolitan Police said the Brazilian's death was a tragic mistake.

After the verdict was announced the de Menezes family lawyer said officers should be investigated for perjury - a call immediately rejected by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The inquest jury was given the choice of two possible verdicts, but chose to reject the option that Mr Menezes was killed lawfully by the police.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rasener
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 01:13 PM

Well if we didn't have these mindless gutless terrorist bastards around, this wouldn't have happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,TA Keith
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 01:20 PM

I agree Villan, but why call them "police" and pay them ?

You are right in the names you call them.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Acorn4
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 01:46 PM

If the judge said that the jury could not pass a verdict of "unlawful killing", I would think that this negates the whole point of a jury.

Just out of interest, what is the difference between "unlawful killing" and murder, and what is "lawful killing"?

Just asking!

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rasener
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 01:49 PM

Well I wouldn't like to be a police guy theses days.
No respect, no laws to back them up. Well I won't go on.

If we started backing the police with laws that mean what they mean, and laws that allow citizens to thump these gits, without being put in prison, then and only then, will we get back to a society that respects itself.

I'll get me baton :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 02:37 PM

Of course the police were culpable, of course they lied, of course they backed each other up in those lies. They are policemen aren't they?
Policemen on the whole, suffer from an over inflated sense of their own importance, they get respect and privileges based on the uniform they wear, rather than on the person wearing it.
It makes them think they are different, and special. It takes a person with a lot of personal integrity to survive this unreal situation, and be a 'good copper' They are around, but there is not enough of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 03:31 PM

I suspect that the instruction to the jury restricting the verdict the could come up with was in the last resort a bluff rather than a legally binding injunction.

That was what the Menezes family meant by those T-shirts they wore before walking out in protest, saying "You have the right".

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 08 - 03:35 PM

Here's picture of the family wearing those T-shorts:

"The family's legal team confirmed it had launched a judicial appeal against the exclusion of unlawful killing."

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rog Peek
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 06:03 AM

I do hope the appeal is successful. What in the hell is the use of a jury if the judge 'ties their hands'? Justice seems in very short supply when it comes to the de Menezes family.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 06:31 AM

Justice is short for all of those who are faced with the closed ranks of the machinery of state.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Stu
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 06:40 AM

One rule for coppers, one for the rest of us. Situation normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: goatfell
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 03:27 PM

The Police I belive that they get taught how to get away with murder at their police school.

mind you when have ever heard the police tell the truth

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 04:21 PM

Yes Goatfell, that rings familiar, when did you ever hear the police tell the truth, we know all about that, the many cover-ups are legend in our neck of the woods. John McKenzie says, they are policemen aren`t they, trained to lie and to cover up for their fellow cops.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 06:51 PM

Let's just take a little step back guys, and consider an alternative scenario.

A guy steps into a tube train, followed by a bunch of cops who believe him to be a known terrorist, and further believe that he may be a suicide bomber.

Like good little cops, the call out "Police officers! Stand still!"

BOOM!!!   40 people are dead, including the cops, and another 60 are injured, some permanently.

What do you suppose the survivors would be saying about those cops in court when suing the Met for failing to protect them?

And what would YOU all be saying on here?

Not so black and white as you might think, eh?

The one man responsible for that poor boy's death, was the officer who identified him as the suspect they were observing.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 07:00 PM

I agree, but he shouldn't even have got as far as the tube.
They followed him from his flat to the bus, they followed him when he got off the bus, they followed him down onto the train, where they took out what they thought was a terrorist.
Why was it allowed to go so far?
Why did they collude and tell lies in court?
If they were only following orders, they had nothing to hide, did they?
I feel sorry for them, their jobs were on the line, and all because of a bum decision by someone higher up.
Cressida Dick [daft name] should go!

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 07:38 PM

You are a policeman. You think the man you are travelling with on the bus is a bomb-carrying terrorist. He gets off the bus and walks towards a tube station. You make no effort to stop him. You haven't been given any orders to do so, so you let him walk on into the station unchallenged.

I don't feel too safe with policemen like that around, even when they aren't shooting suspects.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,Comrac
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 07:48 PM

It is black and white, it is cut and dry and it is clear and simple.

These bastards are well paid, well trained and enjoy using the most expensive hi tech gear bought from our pockets.

They thought he was another guy, well he wasn't. And the other guy they were watching still hasn't blew up London.

Four police officers wrapped themselves around a stone bridge in the North of Ireland a few weeks ago doing 116 miles per hour on a sea coast road. I know the road well and how anyone could take it at 40 mph beats me. If they caught me on that road doing 80mph they would have took my papers away and they would have been right to do so. They put out a story they were on a shout, they since changed that.
Another four police officers made the headlines yesterday for pulling guns and joy riding.

So why do they think they are above the law ? The bottom line is they murdered that guy, they murdered 6 young men in the North of Ireland over a period of a few weeks back in 1982 and they got off with it.

In the North of Ireland over the Christmas period last year 23 police officers were caught over the legal drink drive limit. They lost their licence, but NONE lost their job. Does that sound fair ?

Do as I say, not do as I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Megan L
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 05:57 AM

Aye Cormac and ye probably cheared when folk in London were being bombed.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: goatfell
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 06:26 AM

this guy bubblyrat is a nutter, I bet he votes for the B.N.P. and as for the people that support the police in this matter,they mus support murder because you only have a gun to kill and nohing else, I mean why carry a gun unless you're perpared to use it, the same goes with knives.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rog Peek
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 06:28 AM

Don
What about the "19 counts of endangering the public during the operation which resulted in the shooting of the innocent Brazilian Charles de Menezes", for which no one was brought to account.

Take a step back?
I don't think so.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 06:54 AM

How high will the innocent civilian body count have to be, before it is acceptable for police to react with deadly force then Rog?

Or do you advocate allowing terrorists free rein until they get bored, and go away?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 09:41 AM

In what sense were the police "reacting" to anything in this case? They identified Jean Charles as a terrorsis without any reaqsonable justuifcation. Having done this they failed to do anything to stop him going into a tibe station where a terroris could have caused maximum damage. And then they panicked, and butchered him.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,Comrac
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 10:03 AM

Good point McGrath of Harlow. The whole incident in rotten to the core. As for those above who defend them, check under the bed tonight, remember what McCathy told you.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Stu
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 10:14 AM

The crux of the matter is either the police are lying or all the eyewitnesses in the carriage are lying. Given the past form of the police it's not too difficult to come to one conclusion, and the jury clearly realised that.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Rog Peek
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 11:46 AM

What I am advocating Don is that those who were responsible for the incompetance that lead up to the shooting should be made acountable for that incompetance. Also that those resposible for the misinformation that was given out after the event in an attempt at a cover up should be made to account for their actions.

Sir Ian Blair has been quoted recently as saying that Charles de Menezes was killed in the 'fog of war'. Well he would say that wouldn't he? I believe a more appropriate figure of speech than 'fog of war' would have been 'smoke screen'.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Acorn4
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 01:52 PM

I'm surprised no-one has used the phrase "friendly fire".

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 05:32 PM

""The whole incident in rotten to the core. As for those above who defend them, check under the bed tonight, remember what McCathy told you.""

Strange how those who are most paranoid about authority nearly always resort to personal abuse of those who don't share their paranoia.

Sad really.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 06:12 PM

""What I am advocating Don is that those who were responsible for the incompetance that lead up to the shooting should be made acountable for that incompetance. Also that those resposible for the misinformation that was given out after the event in an attempt at a cover up should be made to account for their actions.""

I wouldn't disagree with a word of that, Rog.

That is the part of the whole business which stinks of cover-up.


Having said that, there are aspects of this case that the cop bashers above wilfully ignore, because they do not fit into their "all coppers are bastards" mindset.

1. The police are carrying out observation of premises where a terrorist suspect is known to reside, most probably from a vantage point at least 50 to 75 yards distant. A man leaves the premises, who looks similar in stature and complexion to the suspect, and is wearing the kind of casual clothing, or carrying a bag or rucksack, which is consistent with that worn or carried in recent bomb attacks.

2. This is enough to trigger an identification of the man as their suspect, whereupon they start to follow him, and call for backup from CO19, and/or Special Branch.

3. Backup takes time to arrive (no force has the resources to keep such backup on tap at the scene of an obbo), and the suspect boards a bus. Backup then has to be diverted to the place where the suspect leaves the bus, which is only apparent WHEN he leaves it.

4. Backup arrives as the suspect is entering the tube station, and they have to follow him inside.

Unarmed police officers are trained to wait for backup these days when suspects may be armed with weapons or explosives.

That gives a perfectly feasible explanation for the lack of action prior to entering the tube station.

For the record, I am not suggesting this as fact. I merely point out the possibility with the conclusion that my scenario is neither more, nor less, likely than the cop bashers claims above, which WERE presented as FACT.


Once the situation had reached the stage where the suspect HAD entered the train, I don't see how those officers could have acted differently. Certainly, had their target been a terrorist, and they failed to prevent his detonation of a bomb, a very different argument would now be taking place here, and the people who are yelling about murder would still be blaming the same officers, for NOT shooting him.

If any here think I'm shying at shadows, go tell it to the 2000 plus who died on 9/11, or the 52 in London on 7/7. Do you think THEIR kinfolk would have wanted the cops to refrain from shooting the terrorists, given the chance?

Is there anyone here, stupid enough to believe that we have any police officers in this country who WANT to go out and shoot an innocent man?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,Comrac
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 07:09 PM

Don, I would call that post "Long winded".

Your points

1. The police are carrying out observation of premises where a terrorist suspect is known to reside, most probably from a vantage point at least 50 to 75 yards distant. A man leaves the premises, who looks similar in stature and complexion to the suspect, and is wearing the kind of casual clothing, or carrying a bag or rucksack, which is consistent with that worn or carried in recent bomb attacks.

REPLY. Terrorist suspect ? No one living in that building has since been arrested and charged with an offence, so where is this dangerous guy ?. Who said he was a terrorist, you ? "he was wearing causal clothes and carrying a bag" well fuck me Don, that guy must have really stood out from the crowd.

2. This is enough to trigger an identification of the man as their suspect, whereupon they start to follow him, and call for backup from CO19, and/or Special Branch.

REPLY. Police officers watching the building, never actually saw the guys face as he left the building, they saw the figure, not the face. Do you know why Don ? because Keystone one was away having a piss, Christ knows where Keystone two was. Maybe watching his fellow officer piss !

3. Backup takes time to arrive (no force has the resources to keep such backup on tap at the scene of an obbo), and the suspect boards a bus. Backup then has to be diverted to the place where the suspect leaves the bus, which is only apparent WHEN he leaves it.

REPLY. Yes let me see, umhh, No one knows what the guy looks like as the pissing policeman didn't follow him on foot, nor did his cock watching fellow officer. Don't whack him as he leaves the bus alone, let's wait until he is among hundreds of people on a tube train, after all he could have a bomb with him, Christ after all he is wearing casual clothes and carries a bag. Can see where you are coming from with this one Don.

4. Backup arrives as the suspect is entering the tube station, and they have to follow him inside.

REPLY. Yes, stop that guy, the one wearing casual clothes and carrying a bag, he has a tan tone to his skin, black hair and lives in that building, fuck him, if we shoot him as a bomber we are hero's. If we shoot him and he was only scratching himself we will either set him up or say sorry, either way British justice will allow us to walk.

If you have nothing that makes sense to add, then say nothing Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 07:27 PM

"Unarmed police officers are trained to wait for backup these days when suspects may be armed with weapons or explosives."

That is the crux if it. A policeman in that situation, knowing that should have recognised a duty to set aside such training and attempted to stop Menezes entering the station. There is clearly something badly wrong with any training which stops people behaving intelligently andn appropriately.

As for the shooting itself, Menezes was under restraint at the time he was shot in the head seven times. He had made no threatening movements. The claim that he had disregarded a warnig and moved towards the officers in a way that appeared threatening were seen by the jury as lies, and it seems reasonable to accept their judgement on this matter.

And in any case the assumption that shooting someoen is a reliable way of prveenting them detonatinbg a bob is a sheer assumption - it could easily work the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 07:55 PM

"Unarmed police officers are trained to wait for backup these days when suspects may be armed with weapons or explosives."

That is the crux of it. A policeman in that situation, knowing that the man has been identified as a terrorist on a mission, should have recognised a duty to set aside such training and attempted to stop him entering the station. There is clearly something badly wrong with any training which stops people behaving intelligently and appropriately.

As for the shooting itself, Menezes was under restraint at the time he was shot in the head seven times. He had made no threatening movements. The claim that he had disregarded a warnig and moved towards the officers in a way that appeared threatening were seen by the jury as lies, and it seems reasonable to accept their judgement on this matter.

And in any case the assumption that shooting someone is a reliable way of preventing them detonating a bomb is a sheer assumption - it could easily work the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 05:32 AM

""Certainly, had their target been a terrorist, and they failed to prevent his detonation of a bomb, a very different argument would now be taking place here, and the people who are yelling about murder would still be blaming the same officers, for NOT shooting him.

""If any here think I'm shying at shadows, go tell it to the 2000 plus who died on 9/11, or the 52 in London on 7/7. Do you think THEIR kinfolk would have wanted the cops to refrain from shooting the terrorists, given the chance?

Is there anyone here, stupid enough to believe that we have any police officers in this country who WANT to go out and shoot an innocent man?""

Selective responses noted. No comment on the above?

Obviously following your own advice. When you have nothing to say, say nothing, eh guys?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Stu
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 06:09 AM

The problem is Don, someone's lying and it's either the police or the eyewitnesses.

"If any here think I'm shying at shadows, go tell it to the 2000 plus who died on 9/11, or the 52 in London on 7/7. Do you think THEIR kinfolk would have wanted the cops to refrain from shooting the terrorists, given the chance?"

If our response to these acts is a shoot to kill policy that makes the killing of innocent civilians acceptable then the terrorists will win. No sane person would say those who committed the atrocities you mentioned would suggest action not be taken to stop the bombers, but this man was on his way to fix a fire alarm, not carrying a rucksack of explosives or flying an airliner. On the days of those outrages, should the powers the
at be have been given free reign to shoot down all airliners in the sky or fire upon everyone carrying a rucksack?

""Certainly, had their target been a terrorist, and they failed to prevent his detonation of a bomb, a very different argument would now be taking place here, and the people who are yelling about murder would still be blaming the same officers, for NOT shooting him."

Had the man they were supposedly been watching been a terrorist with a bomb who left after Menenzes he might well have been successful - the police had misidentified him and were pursing an electrician in fatal error.

"Is there anyone here, stupid enough to believe that we have any police officers in this country who WANT to go out and shoot an innocent man?"

Well, either their warnings were insufficient or, as appears the case, they were non-existent and the police have lied in court to protect themselves. They might not have wanted to shoot him, but something's not right about all this and I suspect it might be there was a policy of shoot first and ask questions later. Either way, it's utterly unacceptable these officers are returned to duty after this tragedy. The police must be fully accountable to the society they serve.

Someone's lying in a court of law, and it looks very much like it's the police.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Paul Burke
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 06:33 AM

My reading of the case is that the police didn't think he had a bomb, otherwise they would have shot him from a distance. They believed he was a member of a terrorist organisation, and they wanted revenge for the bombings. They had permission to kill if necessary, and ussed that as an excuse to lynch Menezes. And since discovering he wasn't a terrorist, they have been lying about the whiole affair. He didn't run, vault barriers, threaten, have anything concealed about his body- these are all lies made up to hide the disgraceful fact that once Menezes had left the house, they were always going to shoot him.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: ard mhacha
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 07:07 AM

Paul Burke, with all of the answers, I totally agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 08:41 AM

Re: the police lies.

Did anyone ask the officers why, as they claimed, they shouted "armed police" to someone they suspected might be carrying a bomb on a crowded tube train? Isn't that the last thing you would do?

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 09:27 AM

Because they are legally obliged to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 09:55 AM

So if they didn't issue a legally-required warning, as the jury concluded, then would that not make their shooting of Menezes de facto unlawful?

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 10:30 AM

Apparently the justification for shooting so often, & to the head, was to ensure that he could not trigger the(suspected)bomb.
But, if he HAD been a suicide-bomber, wouldn't shouting a warning ("armed police, don't move") have been likely to cause him to trigger the bomb?
In that scenario, you need to disable hime BEFORE he realises that he has been spotted.
The surest way to instantly disable him is to shoot him dead.

Of course, you might not want to admit that afterwards...

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: Stu
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 10:58 AM

"Apparently the justification for shooting so often, & to the head, was to ensure that he could not trigger the(suspected)bomb."

Wasn't he being restrained when he was shot?

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 04:28 PM

That was seven separate shots, not a burst from an automatic weapon. The witnesses have told of hearing a distinct brief pause between each shot.

And the policeman who has holding Jean Charles during all this has said he was frightened he would get himself shot by his fellow officer who was doing the firing.

Subject: RE: BS: Police guilty over Menezes
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 10:19 AM

The police lie and we know that, that is their job, to cover up for their friends

end of story.