Man shot dead by police on Tube

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono So we know there was a cover-up, but we don't yet know how the cops came to kill a man they're now perfectly willing to describe as an innocent victim, someone who -- according to the Independent source -- they believed to be a suicide bomber. So we can debate ourselves blue in the face -- we still don't know how it happened.

We still don't know what happened? Really?

Most of the facts are out now. Even the attempt at a coverup has been exposed. The video and still survellience photos demonstrates that all the initial claims - the baggy coat that wasn't baggy, the running from police that never happened and so on - were all fabrications. We have the eye witness accounts that Jean Charles de Menezes was sitting quietly in the carriage reading a paper until he was wrestled to the ground and shot eight times in the head and shoulder. We also know that the authorities at various levels tried to cover-up what happened.

The one thing we do know is that an innocent man was gunned down in cold blood. You seem to prefer continued denial over justice.

[ise]

Met chief could face charge over Menezes
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...789936,00.html
The Observer, Mark Townsend, crime correspondent, Sunday June 4, 2006

The Crown Prosecution Service is considering legal charges against Britain's most senior police officer over the fatal shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, mistakenly taken to be a terrorist. The Observer can reveal that the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, and two senior commanders in control of the operation that culminated in de Menezes's death are the focus of the final legal analysis of the shooting by Crown prosecutors. If the CPS goes ahead with the dramatic move, the decision would pile further pressure on the already beleaguered head of Scotland Yard. Legal sources close to the CPS case have revealed that, following a four-month review of a report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, prosecutors are considering whether the command team are ultimately responsible, a decision that could give rise to a charge of gross negligence manslaughter against Blair and two other senior figures.

is there a connection with...

The revelations come as Blair faces fresh questions over a raid in London on Friday in which a young Muslim man was shot. The Independent Police Complaints Commission launched an inquiry into the shooting, the first by anti-terror officers since the death of de Menezes. Solicitors for the shot man, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, last night protested his innocence and alleged that police failed to give warning before opening fire. Lawyer Kate Roxburgh said: 'He was woken up about four in the morning by screams from downstairs, got out of bed in his pyjamas, obviously unarmed, nothing in his hands and hurrying down the stairs. As he came toward a bend in the stairway, not knowing what was going on downstairs, the police turned the bend up towards him and shot him - and that was without any warning.'

Matt W Absolutely. The important thing to note is that this 'summary execution' is obviously a cock-up - the police failed to stop the suspect from getting on a bus, they failed to stop the bus, and it would appear (to judge from the suspects' reaction) that they failed to properly identify themselves. As a result, they had to assume the worst - but it's incredibly important that these things don't go wrong next time.

At least they missed the head this time. Back on the plane for more training in summary execution.

[jose]

The Operation Kratos [shoot-to-kill] policy allows officers to shoot at the head without warning if they believe the suspect may detonate a bomb
Kratos does not require police to see a "suicide jacket" before opening fire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5045104.stm

[PatrickHenry]

Murder by police is unacceptable in a civilized country. Operation Kratos should be scrapped, and those who murdered de Menezes need to face a jury.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Nono If it eventually turns out that the guy in fact wasn't challenged or given an adequate opportunity to comply with police instructions, I'll join you in your condemnation. I suggest we adjourn the discussion and give them a bit more time to come up with a credible account of what did, and what didn't, actually happen.

Menezes was shot on July 22, 2005.

"On March 14, 2006, the IPCC announced that the first part of the inquiry, known as "Stockwell 1" had been completed and recommendations were passed on to the Metropolitan Police Authority and Crown Prosecution Service, but the report "[could not] be made public until all legal processes have concluded."[28]

"Stockwell 2", the second part of the inquiry, is said to focus on the conduct of Sir Ian Blair following the discovery of de Menezes' identity, and is still continuing. " (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...artial_law.htm)

From the quoted article -
"The IPCC is currently investigating the accusations in an inquiry dubbed 'Stockwell II' and which is expected to be published alongside the CPS decision later this month.
However, the officers who shot de Menezes dead are 'highly unlikely' to face criminal charges, according to sources"

Well, it's taken almost a full year to complete this "investigation".
Is it ok now to call this a summary police execution??

[shield772]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Murder by police is unacceptable in a civilized country. Operation Kratos should be scrapped, and those who murdered de Menezes need to face a jury.

Well if the individual officers were simply following an in place policy then they should not be held liable, change the policy (if it's wrong) and then prosecute those who gave the orders or green lighted the policy.

[ise]

PatrickHenry #89 And execution by repeated gunfire to the head of a suspect that is arguably in custody is police murder. You who would excuse this murder are complicit. #90 John Gardner is the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, and occasional Visiting Professor at Yale Law School. Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police’s Mossad-style execution of a ’suspect’ (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one’s friends than by one’s enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority. #144 Murder by police is unacceptable in a civilized country. Operation Kratos should be scrapped, and those who murdered de Menezes need to face a jury.

I cannot attribute blame to those who's task it was to fire bullets into de Menezes fast disappearing face. Thinking about it still gives me the shivers. The question of legal orders should arise.

Those who should face challenge in the courts are the political masters and commanders who agreed upon such a sequence to events. Until they are held accountable in law then there will be more cock-ups.

Is it because the UK has no constitution that allows them to appear to have legitimate state murder. I cannot believe that the majority of fair-minded Brits are in favour of this policy. The infection of the parasite must be far more advanced than previously suspected by the host. Is there any evidence of support for this policy?
.

[PatrickHenry]

Anyone who carries a badge and a gun needs an understanding of what constitutes a legitimate order. Extra-judicial killing is not legal unless there is a clear indication that not doing so would result in GREATER loss of life. In this case, de Menezes was incapacitated, then executed at close range. Woops, wrong guy! just doesn't fly...

Any who carry out an illlegal order may NOT use the excuse that they were "just following orders." Nuremberg 1946 illustrated that.

[Paramonkey]

Any who carry out an illlegal order may NOT use the excuse that they were "just following orders." Nuremberg 1946 illustrated that.

Personally, I think that the gold team C019 unit shouldn’t be charged, however there is a possible to account manslaughter on the grounds of gross negligence to the senior officers on duty, as well as possible obstruction against the IPCC.

To be guilty of a crime in the UK you need to have the 'mens rea' and the 'actus reus' (did the action and had the state of mind). The officers were told there was a definite terrorist entering the tube a day after the second wave of attacks on 21/7. Now the information they had to hand is lawful under the police's obligation to protect the public. However de Menezes was innocent, he was killed because of a combination of bad luck and incompetence amongst senior ranks and the military observation attachment, I do not believe it is fair for the officers on the ground to take the shit which should be directed to others.

[ise]

Quote by: Paramonkey Personally, I think that the gold team C019 unit shouldn’t be charged, however there is a possible to account manslaughter on the grounds of gross negligence to the senior officers on duty, as well as possible obstruction against the IPCC. To be guilty of a crime in the UK you need to have the 'mens rea' and the 'actus reus' (did the action and had the state of mind). The officers were told there was a definite terrorist entering the tube a day after the second wave of attacks on 21/7. Now the information they had to hand is lawful under the police's obligation to protect the public. However de Menezes was innocent, he was killed because of a combination of bad luck and incompetence amongst senior ranks and the military observation attachment, I do not believe it is fair for the officers on the ground to take the shit which should be directed to others.

Excellent!

Suppose he was a terrorist but on a dry run. Should he be executed. The point being, will the policy of execution of bombers lessen their number. If the state has intelligence on a bomber and cannot deal with the threat except live on the day, then the state has failed its citizens. Surely the capture of a bomber is better at every level. Imagine if Nelson Mandela had been executed as intended.


Met officers warned: back chief or get out
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...788669,00.html

Scotland Yard's most senior officers are being warned that they must fall in behind the reforms of Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, if they want to keep their jobs. Sir Ian and his supporters are hoping to establish his grip before the release of two potentially damaging reports from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and its aftermath

The recent changes pose political difficulties because Mr Paddick is the highest ranked openly gay officer in the country while Mr Ghaffur is the most senior ethnic minority officer in the Met.

White straight male police force.

The De Menezes inquiry continues to menace the commissionership of Sir Ian. Yesterday it emerged that assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, the head of anti-terrorism, has been served with a "regulation nine" notice warning him that he is under investigation over the Met's handling of the aftermath of the Stockwell shooting. The IPCC is also expected to interview Sir Ian under criminal caution after serving him with a regulation nine notice.

[Paramonkey]

Suppose he was a terrorist but on a dry run. Should he be executed.

No because he/she doesn’t pose an immediate risk to the lives of passengers around.

If the state has intelligence on a bomber and cannot deal with the threat except live on the day, then the state has failed its citizens.

True, but I don’t see why innocent people should have to die as a result of that failure to pre-empt when it is within police powers to stop the deaths in an immediate setting, its not ideal but it has to be used in certain situations.

Surely the capture of a bomber is better at every level. Imagine if Nelson Mandela had been executed as intended.

Defiantly. However this is not an ideal world, suicide bombers as an immediate threat do pose significant risk, and have to be dealt accordingly.

One other thing, I don’t think Mandela was a suicide bomber....

White straight male police force.

How did you come to this conclusion? These two individuals are Sir Ian's fiercest critics, this exercise of relocation is a simple way of Sir Ian to reassert his authority before the de menezes report comes out so he can somehow retain his job.

And about the whole context of the point, its not a straight white male police force. It takes 2 to 3 years for a white straight male to enter the force because they are simply not wanted. Many forces are closed to recruitment except to officers from minority backgrounds.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Paramonkey ... To be guilty of a crime in the UK you need to have the 'mens rea' and the 'actus reus' (did the action and had the state of mind)....I do not believe it is fair for the officers on the ground to take the shit which should be directed to others.

The one who pulls the trigger on an innocent person must know what the issues are. Your worthless excuse for justice in the UK may exculpate the policemen who did this crime, but they are still guilty of murdering an innocent person...

[Paramonkey]

must know what the issues are.

Without the benefit of hindsight how are they meant to know?

These guys were told there was a terrorist on the train, they therefore believed they knew the issue and acted accordingly.

Your worthless excuse for justice in the UK may exculpate the policemen who did this crime, but they are still guilty of murdering an innocent person...

First that is a blatant contradiction, since my ( :rolleyes: ) "worthless excuse of justice" means they are innocent, that makes them innocent of murder, not guilty...

[PatrickHenry]

Oh, yeah, right, Paramonkey...I forgot that to the truly cynical, murder is just a technical term. It's easy to define it away if you have control of the courts and Police...

Your username. You involved with the Paras?

I like your avatar, too. This is how I see it:

[jose]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Oh, yeah, right, Paramonkey...I forgot that to the truly cynical, murder is just a technical term. It's easy to define it away if you have control of the courts and Police... Your username. You involved with the Paras? I like your avatar, too. This is how I see it:

nah he rides a bike for St. Johns Ambulance first aid

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: jose nah he rides a bike for St. Johns Ambulance first aid

Is that an inside joke?

[Paramonkey]

Actually the avatar came from the poster



Im very uninspired when thinking of names for these things, as a result I have simply used the name I use on the Paramedic forums, hence the para-monkey.
I have nothing to do with the paras.

Its also interesting to see that there’s no actual debate on the issue going on here, what's happening here is simply semantics.

[ise]

Paramonkey One other thing, I don’t think Mandela was a suicide bomber....

He advocated bombing.

Paramonkey Quote by: ise White straight male police force. How did you come to this conclusion? These two individuals are Sir Ian's fiercest critics, this exercise of relocation is a simple way of Sir Ian to reassert his authority before the de menezes report comes out so he can somehow retain his job. And about the whole context of the point, its not a straight white male police force. It takes 2 to 3 years for a white straight male to enter the force because they are simply not wanted. Many forces are closed to recruitment except to officers from minority backgrounds. Quote by: ise The recent changes pose political difficulties because Mr Paddick is the highest ranked openly gay officer in the country while Mr Ghaffur is the most senior ethnic minority officer in the Met.

There is no way Sir Ian can paint this as been in the interest of the Met. That he needs to use this "exercise of relocation is a simple way of Sir Ian to reassert his authority before the de menezes report comes out so he can somehow retain his job" proves his inability to do the job when he cannot claim it to be in the interest of the Met.

Resignation on health/family grounds was the standard option previously. Not a lot for the London public to have confidence in...except their Lord Mayor.

[Paramonkey]

He advocated bombing.

But correct me if im wrong but he wasnt a suicide bomber who posed a immediate risk to public life, therefore a comparsion of the merits of killing/executing him would be flawed in this context.

There is no way Sir Ian can paint this as been in the interest of the Met. That he needs to use this "exercise of relocation is a simple way of Sir Ian to reassert his authority before the de menezes report comes out so he can somehow retain his job" proves his inability to do the job when he cannot claim it to be in the interest of the Met.

I agree.

[Zeebadee]

De Menezes was murdered. Someone should be charged. Good intentions don't excuse people when they commit crimes.