Mistakes led to tube shooting

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: livvie actually thats not typical at all you fool. Usuall when someone is killed you say "oh isn't that terrible i hope they find them and throw away the key" but these are different circumstances. I have faith that the police would not shoot without a good enough reason because when an officer shoots whether they kill the person or not they automatically are put on leave and interrogated, why would they risk their career?

So you're saying that if the cops think someone is a threat, they are justified in shooting him? And then, if he turns out to be innocent, it should be labelled an accident?

[Matt W]

The problem is, livvie, is yes, they shot him, but then it would appear that they then lied about the circumstances they shot him in. Do you not see the issue here?

And do NOT resort to insults. This site does not tolerate them.

[righthand]

... London Inquiry Refutes Police in Their Killing of a Suspect ...An official investigation was reported Tuesday to have directly contradicted the police account of the killing of a young Brazilian man after the bombing attempts in London on July 21, including the assertion that he had been fleeing officers when he was shot. At the time, the police said Mr. Menezes wore a bulky jacket on a hot day, began running from officers despite commands to halt, vaulted the ticket turnstile and ran stumbling onto the subway train. On Tuesday, however, a news report on British television said an inquiry led by the Independent Police Complaints Commission had contradicted every one of those points. The report said that the officers had misidentified Mr. Menezes as one of the failed July 21 attackers and that he was killed even though he walked into the subway station wearing a light denim jacket, did not vault the turnstile and was sitting on the train when the officers moved in. Neither the police nor the Independent Police Complaints Commission heading the inquiry denied the news report, but both declined to comment substantively on it.

Travelling by tube or bus in London would be an 'event' since the bombing. Notable in the deaths were the number of non-UK citizens killed. Are non-white skinned person even more concerned after the killing of a young Brazilian man?

The idea of being pinned down while someone pumps EIGHT rounds into my face still sends shivers down my spine. What point in civilization have we reached that this could be considered as acceptable behaviour.

Should we blame the office who fired those rounds? No, but I'd like to know why if fired eight times. It seems sick to me. Did he exceed the recommended number.

Do you blame those that held him down? A bit like assisted suicide, but no, I'd not blame them.

Do you blame the office in charge who OK-ed the killing? Yes, largely.

Who do I mostly blame? I blame whoever was responsible for authorising state murder!!! That nut has the blood of an innocent man on his hands. Should he face criminal charges? Why not. Will it happen. No way, but it would do more for democracy than any other event. No, some lower ranked officer, doing as ordered will get stitched up.

With the information of the cock-up that has emerged, there should be only one thing done. Remove this state murder option from the books. Failing that, make one name person responsible for authorising this madness. If he authorises it, he immediately resigns his position and is only re-instated after its proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was 75% justified in authorising it. That would be whether his authorising was implemented or not. Novel, but no chance.

Is it still the case that the security persons guarding the president are expected to put their bodies in the way of a bullet. The logic behind the murder is similar. Why not use their bodies to protect the public. If they are right, they are heroes. If they are wrong, no harm done, but no dead innocent travellers.

Last, ban all intelligence interchange with those that peddled this mad solution. No contact with Israel!!!

[Matt W]

Oh, for God's sake, righthand, can we not leave Israel out of this for once????

Just asking!

[Zeebadee]

""There must be serious questions raised about Ian Blair's position," campaigner Rehman added.

Former London police commander John O'Connor said the revelations were "catastrophic" for Blair and would put his job under pressure.

"Whoever has leaked this report has caused him a great deal of embarrassment," he told BBC TV."

http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...RITAIN-DC.html

They aren't even concerned with the death of an innnocent civilian, they are much more worried about the police commisioner keeping his job.

[righthand]

Quote by: Matt W Oh, for God's sake, righthand, can we not leave Israel out of this for once???? Just asking!

I'm sure you knew this already. You are right. I should have quoted chapter and verse. I shouldn't take it for granted that everyone that the London police were following well tested Israeli state policy of MURDER.

London's Shoot-to-kill’ methodology sparks new fears London’s police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, expressed “regret”—and no more—over the death of Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes. That “regret” was accompanied by the remark that there could be more such killing of innocent people. His predecessor, John Stevens, spelled out in bloody detail in an article in The News of the World weekly what his police had learned from the Israeli police. “I sent teams to Israel and other countries hit by suicide bombers where we learned a terrible truth. There is only one sure way to stop a suicide bomber determined to fulfill his mission—destroy his brain instantly, utterly. That means shooting him with devastating power in the head, killing him immediately.”

Police kill Brazilian in bomb probe blunder LONDON (Reuters) - Police hunting London bombers admitted killing a Brazilian electrician by mistake -- a blunder that dealt a blow to their efforts to track down militants they fear could strike again. Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission said the killing was a direct consequence of British police officers being sent to Israel to receive training on how to prevent suicide bombings. "To give license to people to shoot to kill just like that, on the basis of suspicion, is very frightening," Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain said. But the city's former police chief John Stevens defended the tactics. "I sent teams to Israel and other countries hit by suicide bombers where we learned a terrible truth," he wrote in the News of the World.

Shoot To Kill? His predecessor, John Stevens, said it better: “There is only one way to stop a suicide bomber determined to fulfill his mission: to destroy his brain instantly, utterly.” The London police rules of engagement say they will shoot to kill in order to protect against the imminent danger of a suicider detonating his bomb. Stevens had begun the policy after 9-11. Now, with the Menezes shooting, it became public.

Wrong man killed in bomber hunt Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia Former London police chief John Stevens defended the policy. "I sent teams to Israel and other countries hit by suicide bombers where we learned a terrible truth," Mr Stevens wrote in a British newspaper.

You were only teasing me, Matt. Weren't you?

[Matt W]

I knew it righthand, but we have so many anti-Israel threads around already, I'd rather not see this one turn into yet another one. Stay focussed. :rolleyes:

[RickSp]

It will be interesting to see what impact all this will have on Sir Ian Blair, Britain's top police officer, who appears to have opposed any independent investigation of the shooting.

Met chief tried to stop shooting inquiry

[righthand]

Police chief tried to intervene on fatal shooting inquiry
Officers must face murder charge, says family. Suspect was 'pinned down' before being shot
Belfast Telegraph ...18 August 2005

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, tried to halt an independent inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes just hours after the innocent Brazilian's death, it emerged last night. Scotland Yard said Sir Ian wrote to the Home Office permanent secretary, John Gieve, to ensure the terrorist investigation took precedence over any Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation. Later the same day, the Metropolitan Police agreed to hand over the investigation to the IPCC. Scotland Yard said last night that the letter, which was also sent to the IPCC, was "to clarify the role of IPCC if, as it then appeared, the shooting at Stockwell tube station involved a suicide bomber who had been involved in the previous day's incidents".

Sir Ian is gone. He's being shafted. The rug is gone from under him. How long until a 'health problems' resignation.

"It was reported last night that Sir Ian was concerned about the possible security risk posed by an independent inquiry."

What kind of crap is that? He doesn't trust the Inquiry?

Former Cabinet minister Frank Dobson last night said that Sir Ian's position was "very difficult" because he was partly responsible for people being misled, including Prime Minister Tony Blair. "The public and everyone had been misled by the police not correcting the story that first came out," he told BBC2's Newsnight.

Dobson, this is the bastard that should be getting it in the neck. Sir Ian can only do what he's allowed/told to do. Who decided on execution being state policy? Get him or change the policy.

This time we will not mention the acid throwing illegal occupiers, OK Matt.

[righthand]

Met 'resisted Tube death probe'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163568.stm
BBC News ...Thursday, 18 August 2005, 20:04 GMT 21:04 UK

Scotland Yard "initially resisted" the investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has said. On Thursday, Sir Ian told BBC Radio Four's Talking Politics he would not have written the letter had he wanted to "cover something up". "At that stage I and my officers thought the dead man was a suicide bomber and we were in the middle of the biggest counter-terrorist operation," he said. But Sir Ian told Talking Politics those reports had never been confirmed by Metropolitan Police officers, who "do not spin". Mr Menezes' "tragic" death had to be seen in the context of what was "the largest criminal inquiry in English history", Sir Ian told the programme. "It is one death out of 57."

What does this mean "It is one death out of 57." The number refers to the number murder by terrorists in the bombing. It surely cannot mean that if the terrorists kill 56, does it matter if the police kill one? What other meaningful interpretation does it have?

The BBC's interview with Sir Ian Blair will be broadcast in full on Radio 4's Talking Politics programme at 1100 BST on Saturday, 20 August.

[CENTER]======[/CENTER]

Police complaints official is suspended over inquiry leak
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...741475,00.html
TIMES on Line ...By Stewart Tendler and Richard Ford
August 19, 2005

A CLERK at the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was suspended last night for allegedly leaking secret documents about the Stockwell Underground shooting of an innocent man to a television station. The suspension will come as a severe blow to the credibility of the commission, which is handling its first big inquiry since it was opened 18 months ago to replace investigations by police themselves. The clerk, who could face serious charges, is alleged to have links with ITV news staff. On Wednesday Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, privately asked Nick Hardwick, head of the IPCC, to call in an outside police force to investigate the leaking of papers which revealed a series of “catastrophic blunders” over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. Sir Ian yesterday rejected demands for him to resign. He said: “I’m not going to resign — I have a job to do.” Yesterday the IPCC added further fuel to the row when John Wadham, the deputy head of the commission, said that police “initially resisted us taking on the investigation but we overcame that. This dispute has caused delay in us taking over the investigation but we have worked hard to recover the lost ground”.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: righthand What does this mean "It is one death out of 57." The number refers to the number murder by terrorists in the bombing. It surely cannot mean that if the terrorists kill 56, does it matter if the police kill one? What other meaningful interpretation does it have?

I can't think of anything else, righthand. Here's the recipe: you take 56 innocent Londoners killed by rabid muslim suicide bombers, and add in one innocent immigrant executed at close range while in police custody. Then you call it 57 dead. Then the execution by police doesn't sound so bad, right?

[oranged]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yep, it sure seems like the terrorists are less of a threat then the morons empowered to stop them.

I agree, but I still think in some cases the two could be one in the same.

[RickSp]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I can't think of anything else, righthand. Here's the recipe: you take 56 innocent Londoners killed by rabid muslim suicide bombers, and add in one innocent immigrant executed at close range while in police custody. Then you call it 57 dead. Then the execution by police doesn't sound so bad, right?

And hey, they guy sorta looked Palestinian, so that might be close enough, for some anyway.

[Chris]

Police keep 'shoot-to-kill' policy

Saturday, August 20, 2005; Posted: 8:19 a.m. EDT (12:19 GMT) LONDON, England (Reuters) -- London's police force has reviewed its controversial "shoot-to-kill" policy and left it largely unchanged despite the killing of a Brazilian mistaken for a would-be suicide bomber, Scotland Yard said on Saturday. "We have reviewed it and we have made one or two small changes, but the operation remains essentially the same," a Metropolitan police spokeswoman told Reuters.

[righthand]

Tube death: New pressure on police
CNN.com World
Monday, August 22, 2005 Posted: 0805 GMT (1605 HKT)

LONDON, England -- Brazilian officials are due to fly to Britain this week to talk to investigators examining the police shooting death of Jean Charles de Menezes on the London Tube. Two Brazilian government officials plan to meet members of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates and other officials.

[center]
De Menezes is alleged to have been shot at least eight times.
[/center]

It was revealed over the weekend that Commissioner Blair did not know his officers had shot an innocent man -- after mistaking him for one of the failed bombers of July 21 -- until 24 hours after he was killed. Scotland Yard has also come under fire for offering de Menezes' family in Brazil a £15,000 payment in a complex legal letter written in English, when they only speak Portuguese. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott gave his support to the police commissioner but appeared to criticize the way the force offered the compensation, and he refused to rule out a public inquiry. Prescott, in charge of the government while the prime minister is on holiday, said he had not seen the letter but added it would be "terrible" if the reports were true. Deputy Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell said it was "inevitable" that a further inquiry would be needed on top of the IPCC investigation, and criticized the way compensation was offered. Solicitor Gareth Peirce, who represents the family and has already called for a public inquiry into the killing, condemned the way the compensation offer was made as "disturbing".

Initially they denied ABSOLUTELY that compensation had been offered. When the letter was produced making the offer, they tried to say that the mean sum offered was compensation, although that word was used in the letter. It was like pulling teeth getting an admittance that it was compensation and was wrong.

If you could see the 'explanation' given on BBC about the complicated chain of command needed to execute De Menezes then the cock-up of the letter is clearer. It was a cock-up at every point in admitting; if there was a letter; who sent the letter; the sum in the letter; the word compensation. Deny everything until you proof different. The UK is rapidly adapting well tested strategies of sugar daddy bush.

Look an innocent man was killed. Someone(s) must be at fault. What is happening now is bring the entire system into disrepute. Who'd want to be a tourist in London now, certainly if you were not snow white. Would you approach a 'friendly Bobby' now.

With Solicitor Gareth Peirce on the case they have serious problems. She does not lose. I can imagine them needing an underwear change when she came in the case. More power to her.

[righthand]

De Menezes 'shot 11 times during 30 seconds'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html
(Filed: 26/08/2005)

Armed anti-terrorist police shot Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes for more than 30 seconds, a witness is reported to have said. Sue Thomason, a freelance journalist from south London, was at Stockwell Tube station on July 22 when police fired at Mr de Menezes. Police had initially said that Mr de Menezes had refused to respond to police shouts and, dressed in a heavy winter coat, had leapt over the turnstile before running onto a train. It was later revealed that he was wearing a denim jacket and had walked through the turnstile and onto the train. Now the witness statement obtained by The Guardian newspaper, said 11 shots were heard during a 30-second spell. The shots were fired at intervals of three seconds, she added. She also said that the two Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigators who later interviewed her had a map of Stockwell Tube with key features in the wrong place.

5, 8, 11. They certainly have plenty of ammunition. You would wonder was there any head left. I'd be wary of letting him loose with a gun again. Anyone know how many rounds are in the gun he had.

[jose]

The Times reported that the firearms team believed that de Menezes was in fact Hussain Osman, one of the alleged 21/7 bombers. The striking fact is that they deliberately and cold-bloodedly killed the man they believed to be Osman even though they had already determined he could not be carrying a bomb and while he was pinioned and in no position to draw a handgun.

The obvious conclusion is that they were under orders to kill Osman, but why? Why kill him if he could easily be arrested and might, under interrogation, reveal more about the plot and his accomplices?

Either the highly-trained firearms team was actually composed of psychopaths so eager to actually kill somebody that they collectively threw away any opportunity to exercise judgement on whether Osman/de Menezes presented a danger to the public or we must conclude that they were under orders to kill the subject regardless.

And the only logical reason for killing Osman is that whoever arranged the killing knew that whatever Osman might have said under interrogation would lead to the conclusion that the “failed” 21/7 bombings and possibly the 7/7 bombings were false flag operations.

http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_05_...wrong_man.html