Mistakes led to tube shooting

[Pooeypants]

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1677571.html

Mistakes led to tube shooting ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube. The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network. The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London. Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect. By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body. The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed. He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper. He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police HAD agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran

This is article is very fresh, I shall update it when more details are given.

[PatrickHenry]

This story is sickening. If this is the RESPONSE to terror, I would rather we just do regular police work in apprehending terrorists.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: PatrickHenry This story is sickening. If this is the RESPONSE to terror, I would rather we just do regular police work in apprehending terrorists.

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

[RickSp]

So bottom line, all the initial statements by the police turned out to be wrong. Except for the part about shooting an innocent man eight times in the head.

Jean Charles De Menezes' only crime appears to have been swarthy enough to be mistaken for a Pakistani.

And Nono, it sure appears that my original conclusion wasn't far off the mark.

[livvie]

Well it's very easy to point the finger at these officers. They were doing their job and following instructions. I don't know where your getting your info from but that man did run, there are eye witness reports (not police but other normal people on the tube). Also the police actually had black police caps on at the time, and they shouted "police dont move r we'll shoot".So you'd think anyone with nothing to hide would stop.

[RickSp]

Quote by: livvie Well it's very easy to point the finger at these officers. They were doing their job and following instructions. I don't know where your getting your info from but that man did run, there are eye witness reports (not police but other normal people on the tube). Also the police actually had black police caps on at the time, and they shouted "police dont move r we'll shoot".So you'd think anyone with nothing to hide would stop.

And where are you getting this information? The same source that claimed that he was wearing a baggy coat? Or that he jumped over turnstiles? Apparently it didn't happen.

from the Times of London

The Brazilian electrician mistakenly killed by police in the aftermath of the second London bombings was being restrained by an officer before he was shot eight times as he was sitting on a Tube train, it emerged tonight. Witness statements and photographs from an independent police investigation leaked to ITV News also show that Jean Charles de Menezes did not run away from police at Stockwell Tube station in South London and was wearing only a denim jacket before he was shot dead on July 22. CCTV footage clearly shows that Senhor de Menezes was wearing a thin denim jacket so he could not be concealing a bomb and nor was he carrying any bag. Far from running to avoid police who were tailing him, the electrician did not realise anyone was following him. He used his season ticket and did not vault the barrier. He only began to run when he saw a train pull into the station and as many commuters do he quickened his pace to catch it. At this point a surveillance officer guided four armed police into the same carriage in which Senhor de Menezes took his seat. A man sitting opposite him is quoted as saying: "Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me. "He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man's head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man's head when the first shot was fired."

[livvie]

so what makes you think that this information is any more correct than what the nation was told the day it happened? In all honesty do you think the police would just shoot a man for the fun of it?

[Pooeypants]

Well, for example, they've released photos of the scene of the incident, he was clearly wearing a denim jacket and not a baggy coat. I'll post the photo when it's available online or if anyone else finds it before me.

It's time to stop being so apologetic and admit that there has been a huge mistake made.

[RickSp]

Quote by: livvie so what makes you think that this information is any more correct than what the nation was told the day it happened? In all honesty do you think the police would just shoot a man for the fun of it?

It is not at all unusual for the initial accounts to be wrong. These subsequent reports are the result of further investigation. If you prefer to believe the tooth fairy or any other source for that matter, that is your business.

As I suggested shortly after Menezes was gunned down, the "shoot to gun" policy is reckless and dangerous to innocent citizens. It looks like I was right.

[livvie]

looks like you were right? maby through your tunnel vision it does.

People are too quick to blame the police or government when mistakes are made. Imagine if he had been a real terrorist and they had hesitated? (which they probably will do next time after all this) I t would be "where were the police?" "why didn't they shoot?" only differences there would have been more dead.

The police are there to protect the innocent, they may have made a mistake but it was a genuine mistake and its unfair to blame them no matter what you think you know.

[Matt W]

Errr...no. Mistakes happen, and rightly, people are blamed and often canned for these screw-ups. It's called preventing a repetition. It's perfectly 'fair'.

[RickSp]

Quote by: livvie The police are there to protect the innocent, they may have made a mistake but it was a genuine mistake and its unfair to blame them no matter what you think you know.

Unfair to blame them? Are police above the law? Beyond human error? Look, shooting an innocent man eight times in the head at point blank range is a horrible mistake. When New York City police fired 49 shots at Amadou Diallo and hit him 19 times when he as trying to show them his ID, that was a horrible mistake, as well.

I have friends who are cops but that doesn't make me anymore ready to excuse cops shooting down innocents in a subway tube. The cops in question shouldn't have been so trigger happy and the bosses should never have made the rules which said it was OK to start blasting away at the first hint of a threat.

So if you want to live in your fantasy world fine, but things won't get better if we don't ask hard questions and demand honest answers.

[livvie]

If your job was to catch terrorists and there is an ear piece in your ear saying "ok shoot him right now" then that is what you do It has nothing to do with being gun happy.Also the amount of times he was shot shouldn't even come into it as all police officers are taught that when the descion has been made to kill someone you shoot until they're dead.

I do demand honest answers but i also see this country getting worse by the day and not because police officers who made a mistake but because people like you, do-gooders like you always, no-matter what, trying to oppose everything even a tragedy like this. It was a horrible accident but he shouldn't have run. He shouldn't have given them a reason to shoot.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: livvie the descion has been made to kill someone

This is the real issue. The decision was made to kill an innocent person. People are not to be killed without a court saying so.

[livvie]

well actually people in england arn't suppoesed to be killed at all which is why they obviosly saw him as a threat, they were worried he would kill other people

[RickSp]

Quote by: livvie It was a horrible accident but he shouldn't have run. He shouldn't have given them a reason to shoot.

Please try to pay attention. He didn't run. He didn't give them a reason to shoot.

Pretty typical. Blame the victim. Not the guys who killed him.

[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?

[RickSp]

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?

Sir, I would advise you sir to stop using the slur "fool". I see in another thread you also called another poster a "fool" and then claimed that Pat Tillman was killed by the Taliban. I guess you don't read the newspapers either. As uninformed as you appear to be, it would seem that the term may apply less to your targets than to the user.

[righthand]

Quote by: Pooeypants http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1677571.htmlThis is article is very fresh, I shall update it when more details are given.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body. The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.

Leaving aside the incorrect "positive identification", supposing he was a terrorist what then. Does being identified as a terrorist equal execution. Unless there was reason to believe that he was about to set off a bomb there could be no reason to execute him. He had no bags, as others had, and he had no jacket nor bulky winter coat to cover body bombs as was claimed. The BBC Newsnight tonight claims that the office tasked with videoing the event accounts for no footage by having a leak at that very inopportune time. Cover up.

To be able to make balanced proper judgements about like incidents, we are fortunate that this was an innocent man. If he was a bomber but without a bomb then, would his execution still be OK? How certain must they be before executing him.

If they had good reason to believe that he intended setting off a bomb - the only reason for a justifiable execution - then why on earth allow him board the tube!!! Above ground, any explosion would have dissipated with little effect. Underground, in a metal tube is where the worst damage would be done. There will be enough of a cover up so that the police will 'go on doing their difficult task of protecting the public" for which they are well paid.

The justification for this excessive repressive practice of executing bombers was on the advise of the excessive repressive state-let in the Middle East. NO marks for guessing which.

[Chris]

I was wrong. I was wrong. I admit it. :(