Jump to content

Change Mode

Police Shoot Man dead


Recommended Posts

No.

NO????

 

 

if I am not mistaken there were people killed on a double decker bus from a suicide bomber wasnt there

 

 

how can you honestly say that....

 

 

I am out of here.... They had soooooooo much time to either take him out or apprehend him if he was a suspect that it was not even funny. They risked a bus blowing up.

 

Makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

Night all.... I am not sure how people can continue to make excuses for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Read you rown link:

WHEN an alert flashed to the control room of Operation Kratos at Scotland Yard that a suspected suicide bomber was entering an Underground station

 

Seconds later three plainclothes officers jumped on a man

 

Please read your link. Clearly it is claimed that order went out seconds before they caught up to him. Seconds.

 

They in fact may not have actually received it before it happened. It would be close.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

under threat led to advice to officers at the scene that the man should be "neutralised".

I don't see any order there the man on the spot is still the one to make the final decision

The officer who fired the bullets into Menezes is now facing investigation and possible criminal charges.

 

So too is the "gold commander" - a deputy assistant commissioner or above, according to police sources - who gave the instruction to open fire if it was felt necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO????

 

 

if I am not mistaken there were people killed on a double decker bus from a suicide bomber wasnt there

 

 

how can you honestly say that....

 

 

I am out of here.... They had soooooooo much time to either take him out or apprehend him if he was a suspect that it was not even funny. They risked a bus blowing up.

 

Makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

Night all.... I am not sure how people can continue to make excuses for this.

That's correct. The answer is no.

 

 

If it were not more dangerous, then why did the original bombers bother to get on the subways? Why didn't they put all the bombs on buses...it would be much easier.

 

The reason is two fold.

 

1) A bombing in the Underground is potentially much more devastating.

 

2) The entire London Underground is an icon of Western civilization, a landmark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any order there the man on the spot is still the one to make the final decision

 

The inquiry team is likely to submit a report to the Crown Prosecution Service, which can decide if any charges are to be brought. If not, a coroner will hold an inquest into the death which could return a verdict of unlawful killing.

 

The guidelines on police use of firearms have been in force since 1983 after Stephen Waldorf, a film editor, was shot five times in a police ambush in Kensington, west London, when he was mistaken for a fugitive gunman called David Martin. He survived.

 

One officer was charged with attempted murder and another with attempting to wound Waldorf. Both were cleared at their trial.

 

The guidelines allow for a police commander to direct that shots may be fired in incidents such as those involving suicide bombers, but do not exempt either the senior officer or the man firing the gun from responsibility.

 

"To sum up," say the guidelines, "a police officer should not decide to open fire unless that officer is satisfied that nothing short of opening fire could protect the officer or another person from imminent danger to life or serious injury."

 

I guess it is going to come down to whether or not they were satisfied at the time that there was no ther way to go with it.

 

 

We shall see what the investigation reveals.

 

I think in the end there will be no criminal convictions and the officers involved will have some minor sanctions, possibly even termination. But that is just my guess at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fireball;

I call it "making sure he didn't detonate the device they believed he had on his person'

What undignified nonsense. You might as well say that a suicide bomber is free from guilt because he believes he is blowing up the Spawn of Satan.

The gunman is guilty. No matter what he believed, he killed a restrained and innocent man. The gunman's 'intelligence' link, who wrongly identified de Menezes as a bomber, is also guilty, as is the politician who endorsed a 'shoot-to-kill' policy. Incompetent, all three.

This policy should be rescinded immediately. There is absolute and irrefutable evidence that it is not in the public interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This policy should be rescinded immediately. There is absolute and irrefutable evidence that it is not in the public interest.

Police and Clarke seem to think that its very much in the public interest to keep it ..!
Link to post
Share on other sites

The gunman is guilty. No matter what he believed, he killed a restrained and innocent man.

Guilty of what? Many here are accusing them of being assassins & murderers. One poster even has his own definition of the word 'neutralise' to help justify his train of thought.

 

You anti-authoritarians make me laugh sometimes. No matter what they do, they are the filth; the pigs etc... the same party poopers that restricted your abuse of certain illegal substances in the 60's no doubt. Shed the kaftan, get a hair cut and change the John Lennon glasses. So passe! (I need a french keyboard :P )

 

I am all for the little guy when the authorities overstep the mark. This time it was an unfortunate and very sad mistake. These actions were taken in good faith and with the safety of the public in mind, not to mention at potentially very high risk to the lives of the officers involved. You jump on these brave guys who put their lives on the line for you and me far too easily. They got it wrong for the right reasons. To suggest they did such a thing deliberately is obscene to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which part of 5 bullets to the head at point blank range of a restrained/downed man was a mistake?

 

Which part of shooting innocent people in the head when they are already subdued is dangerous to the officers.

 

Which part of popping 5 caps into the head is not delberate?

 

How do you shoot someone 5 times in the head "by mistake"?

 

Where is the for good of public safety, when it is the public that is in very serious danger from these bozo's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

conjecture= inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved .

 

I'm thinking instead of General Discussion we should call it General Conjecture. :P Failing that I agree with Bruce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

theres what ifs involved to

 

what if these guys werent cops

 

what if this guy wasnt who we think he is, he may have been wanted

 

what if this is a big cover up

 

what if this had nothing to do with terrorists

 

what if the news uncovered an actual government hit

 

what if the witness didnt hear five shots and only heard two because the others where echos

 

what if the witness made all this up, or was forced to say these things

Edited by duanester
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty of what? Many here are accusing them of being assassins & murderers. One poster even has his own definition of the word 'neutralise' to help justify his train of thought.

 

You anti-authoritarians make me laugh sometimes. No matter what they do, they are the filth; the pigs etc... the same party poopers that restricted your abuse of certain illegal substances in the 60's no doubt. Shed the kaftan, get a hair cut and change the John Lennon glasses. So passe! (I need a french keyboard :P )

 

I am all for the little guy when the authorities overstep the mark. This time it was an unfortunate and very sad mistake. These actions were taken in good faith and with the safety of the public in mind, not to mention at potentially very high risk to the lives of the officers involved. You jump on these brave guys who put their lives on the line for you and me far too easily. They got it wrong for the right reasons. To suggest they did such a thing deliberately is obscene to say the least.

Sir T.. Please help me understand where you are coming from by answering these questions

 

1) they saw him leave his house and saw his suspicious clothing. If they were interested in public safety, why not surround him then?

 

2) they saw him walk to a bus stop. Certainly the time has come to stop this suicide bomber before he gets on a bus wasnt it?

 

3) gets on the bus... well the bus didnt blow up thank goodness, they followed the bus the entire route.

 

4) he gets off the bus... now it the chance.. he has not hurt anybody. lets get him now wouldnt that be proper?

 

why wait until he walks into the subway station where he CAN do damage before you attack him.

 

They are inconsistent. If they felt he had explosives they should have stopped him 20 feet from his house. If they did not think he had explosives then they had no right to put 5 bullets in his head while on the ground.

Edited by hftmrock
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the possible exception of Moon, not one of you have been able to suggest any solution or alternative policy that should have been adopted.

Everyone is full of criticism but on-one is prepared to come up with a possible answer. I'm sorry, you're sorry, we're all sorry but how about some constructive answers instead of this constant bleating?

After all you Americans are the experts where guns are concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the possible exception of Moon, not one of you have been able to suggest any solution or alternative policy that should have been adopted.

Everyone is full of criticism but on-one is prepared to come up with a possible answer. I'm sorry, you're sorry, we're all sorry but how about some constructive answers instead of this constant bleating?

After all you Americans are the experts where guns are concerned.

ok, fair enough. how about surrounding him when he left the building. They suspected him right up front and was watching.

 

Order him down while surrounded.

 

 

then if he pulls a weapon or does not comply maybe then you shoot. maybe....

 

 

dont wait until he is in a busy subway to decide to do something

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still not understanding the five shots if the man was subdued and on the ground. :blank:

people here on the pit are questioning whether he was 'subdued' or maybe he was acting out in such a way that they had to neutralize him.

 

IMHO - doesnt matter that he was subdued. They had a order to 'neutralize' him. I believe they decided not to take any chances and blindly listen to the order given.

 

that is my opinion with the info that I have. I am listening for more.

 

Whats more is I suspect that doing it in the subway 'could' have been partially planned. They had many opportunity to 'neutralize' him and didnt until he was in a heavily populated area making them look more like the hero had it turned out that he was a suicide bomber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

people who do not have on uniforms and waving guns around would make me run too...

 

so it takes five shots to kill somebody when they are already on the ground? :unsure:

 

shoot and ask questions later is pretty harsh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like everyone jumped the gun a bit. Its hard to say how I would have acted on either side of the situation. People should be smarter than to run from police, the police should be clear about who they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't shot at while running. He was "executed" on the ground.

 

Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HFT, you asked why he wans't stopped outside the building he left earlier? From the reports it said he was under surveillance, see my post page 7 -

The object of surveillance is to obtain intelligence on a subject, at the point it appears public safety maybe at risk then the surveillance is secondary to the protection of the public

The intelligence must have indicated a threat to the train not buses service?. It has been reported that the attack on 7/7/05 in London were the device exploded on the bus in Tavistock Square was actually intended for the Northern line service. But that whole line had recently been closed for maintenace and replaced with a bus service.

 

The male ran when challenged by police, how do you surround him in a busy city like London? They were dealing with a suspected suicide bombers, who would rather activate their device than be publicly captured. If the person is innocent you would expect them to comply with police instructions, just like what happended outside Downing Street, he wasn't shot because he complied.

 

Why were 5 shots were fired? If it took 5 shots, then it took five shots. Nobody here can say it didn't, only the offcer can say this as he pulled the triggger.People would have a better argument sticking to the main area which I see as "Is a shoot to kill policy necessary in the public interest"

 

Raising questions and making statements like some of Bruces takes away more serious the question that needs to be answered.

 

You anti-authoritarians make me laugh sometimes. No matter what they do, they are the filth; the pigs etc... the same party poopers that restricted your abuse of certain illegal substances in the 60's no doubt. Shed the kaftan, get a hair cut and change the John Lennon glasses

Sit T :beer:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Char,

 

The two officers who captured him, and pinned him to the ground should be commended for a job well done. They obviously were well trained and had the situation under control.

 

The third bozo who came up and shot the man execution style in the base of the skull, should be thrown in prison for the rest of his life for "murder".

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he had been what the intelligence suggested he was, coupled with them seeing him wearing a heavy coat in hot weather, the report of someone seeing a bomb belt on him, him not stopping at their request, him running to a target the intelligence had suggested.

 

Given those factors I would suspect or reasonably believe he was a suicide bomber, who whou disagree with that??

 

It has been reported suicide bombers have many ways of detonating their devices, how do you ensure they don't detonate?? It has already been decided, 'shoot to kill' so thats what the officer did. how can you throw him in jail for following a policy sent down from goverment? answer - you can't

 

The officer was following orders. This was a tragic incident, possibly a mistake. But not the officers fault, it is the people who made the policy.

 

So the best argument is 'is a shoot to kill' policy necessary?

 

There seems to be alot of outcry from the US people but the English and Welsh whose police force it was seem to accept the tragedy.

 

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he had been what the intelligence suggested he was, coupled with them seeing him wearing a heavy coat in hot weather, the report of someone seeing a bomb belt on him, him not stopping at their request, him running to a target the intelligence had suggested.

 

Given those factors I would suspect or reasonably believe he was a suicide bomber, who whou disagree with that??

 

It has been reported suicide bombers have many ways of detonating their devices, how do you ensure they don't detonate??  It has already been decided, 'shoot to kill' so thats what the officer did.  how can you throw him in jail for following a policy sent down from goverment? answer - you can't

 

The officer was following orders.  This was a tragic incident, possibly a mistake.  But not the officers fault, it is the people who made the policy.

 

So the best argument is 'is a shoot to kill' policy necessary?

 

There seems to be alot of outcry from the US people but the English and Welsh whose police force it was seem to accept the tragedy.

 

Jack

:P

 

Guess the real bottom line here is, the UK certainly has a lot more experience than the USA and actually most of the World, possibly excluding the Middle East and Asia, but certainly from Europian Point of view, thanks to the IRA.

 

Who are we to knock that what works, in more ways than one. Mr. Terrorist has got a Message, loud and clear. "We are going to get you before you get the Virgins, Mate!"

 

:beer: :beer:

Edited by Drovers Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...