Police shoot to kill ?

[ban-all-sheds]

Hm. Translation needed here:

It seems pretty clear...

I believe...

Do you not think it's a very reasonable belief, reasonable to the point of "seeming pretty clear"?

If not, then doesn't that mean that you think it not reasonable, or not clear, that the officers were ordered to stop him and therefore decided to kill him themselves, there and then?

For undisclosed reasons...

It's not in the public interest to publish the reason...

History tells us that there is a very real chance that information is being withheld in order to cover up incompetence.

It does not take much guesswork...

It takes some guesswork...

Yes - that's what Agile wrote - he did not say "it takes no guesswork".

it seems certain...

I believe...

Do you not think it's a very reasonable belief, reasonable to the point of "seeming certain"?

If not, then doesn't that mean that you think that it could be that the officers decided to kill him without believing that they had been told to?

I can see no justification...

I want to believe that the police were in the wrong...

I don't see how you deduce that that is what Agile wants to believe.

 

[Agile]

He was positively identified as a bomber by the surveilance squad.

That is a fact.

That is totally untrue and is not "a fact"!

He was WRONGLY identified as a suspect bomber. That is not the same as "positively identified as a bomber".

He just happened to live in one of the other flats in the same block of six (?).

The real suspect was apprehended later without shooting him and has not as far as I am aware been found to be anything more than a suspect.

To go to Thermo's comment that stopping him on the street might have caused loss of life. Obviously any explosion in the open air on the street will have less likelyhood of injury than a blast in a restricted place where people are waiting in significant numbers like a tube train.

I would say at this point that my lady friend had an interesting ability to look me straight in the eyes and tell me a total lie. Even if she knew that I would not believe her she would still tell me the lie! I have never encountered such an ability to tell an obvious lie elsewhere.

Tony

 

[jbonding]

He was positively identified as a bomber by the surveilance squad.
That is a fact.

So what would YOU have done?

how do you know this, show me the fact

Ive said what i would of done and its probably what the the armed police done, but to brush it under the carpet
if it was a white English man i guarantee the inquiery would of went ahead.

 

[joe-90]

It was on the TV yesterday.

 

[joe-90]

He was positively identified as a bomber by the surveilance squad.

That is a fact.

That is totally untrue and is not "a fact"!

He was WRONGLY identified as a suspect bomber. That is not the same as "positively identified as a bomber".

He just happened to live in one of the other flats in the same block of six (?).

The real suspect was apprehended later without shooting him and has not as far as I am aware been found to be anything more than a suspect.

To go to Thermo's comment that stopping him on the street might have caused loss of life. Obviously any explosion in the open air on the street will have less likelyhood of injury than a blast in a restricted place where people are waiting in significant numbers like a tube train.



Tony

As far as the armed police offers knew he WAS positvely identified.

Whether he was wrongly identified or not is immaterial.

The armed officers arrived AFTER he had gone down the tunnel. So what choices did they really have?

 

[Agile]

They had the choice to disable him by holding both arms, which is what they did.

They then had the choice NOT TO SHOOT HIM !

The CHOSE to shoot him dead! That was a very poor choice and in most peoples view was murder or manslaughter.

An armed officer is required to have a stable personality and to be able to think under pressure.

To fire SEVEN shots into the head seems to me to imply that he was panicking and acting irrationally.

Tony

 

[joe-90]

Do your research. Suicide bombers usually wire the detonator down their sleeve to a button in their palm (just as you would).

In what way would pinning his arms stop him from pressing the button?

Well?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They had the choice to disable him by holding both arms, which is what they did.

They then had the choice NOT TO SHOOT HIM !

When we consider the reasons that have been given for the need to shoot people dead in that way, I think it is very important that this be questioned. Once they had his arms pinned like that, what scenarios were left in which he could still have detonated a bomb? Once they had him pinned like that, how much need remained to then shoot him?

And now that this policy is public knowledge, we need to examine how useful it remains, and whether future suicide bombers will be fitted with a "dead mans switch" system.

The CHOSE to shoot him dead! That was a very poor choice and in most peoples view was murder or manslaughter.

We can't say for sure how much choice they exercised, and to what extent they were responsible. I think that the CPS were right to decide that if the officers were telling the truth then there would be no chance of a conviction.

I'm not so sure that the CPS should have decided that a prosecution should not have gone ahead. Maybe testing the officers' beliefs and the validity of their orders in court would have been a good thing to do.

Unfortunately what we have now, without a trial, and without a full public disclosure of what happened, is another case where it seems to the public that it goes like this:

"You killed an innocent man"
"Yes, I'm sorry - I made a mistake"
"Oh, that's alright then"

I don't think that a Health & Safety prosecution, where the penalty for a guilty verdict will be to take money from the taxpayer, is the right course of action.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the inquest returns a verdict of Unlawful Killing.

An armed officer is required to have a stable personality and to be able to think under pressure.

There are limits to that, and when the pressures of time and consequences become extreme then it is no longer reasonable to expect anybody, no matter how well selected and trained, to be able to cope.

The reason I think that a trial of the officers might have served a purpose is not to see them "punished", it is to establish who decided what and when, and for that to be done within the framework of the justice system in this country.

Either they were ordered into a situation where they were told to make a decision in circumstances where it was highly likely that they would make a mistake, or they were ordered to go and kill the guy.

I want to know who the person is who gave those orders, and given how long Mr. de Menezes was followed, what his or her justification is.

To fire SEVEN shots into the head seems to me to imply that he was panicking and acting irrationally.

I don't know what their training consisted of. That may well be a procedure which is well drilled and automatic, and not a sign of panic at all.

 

[Softus]

Do you not think it's a very reasonable belief, reasonable to the point of "seeming pretty clear"?

Yes and no, respectively.

If not, then doesn't that mean that you think it not reasonable, or not clear, that the officers were ordered to stop him and therefore decided to kill him themselves, there and then?

I don't know whether or not it means that.

History tells us that there is a very real chance that information is being withheld in order to cover up incompetence.

Time will tell...

It takes some guesswork...

Yes - that's what Agile wrote - he did not say "it takes no guesswork".

Yes - it takes guesswork.

Do you not think it's a very reasonable belief, reasonable to the point of "seeming certain"?

Not when presented as a certainty as seen by others, which is what that particular vernacular revealed. If Agile sees it as a certainty, then it's a mystery why he didn't say so, in the same way that it's a mystery why he doesn't respond to direct questions.

If not, then doesn't that mean that you think that it could be that the officers decided to kill him without believing that they had been told to?

I think the officers could have taken the "initiative" without an order, but I don't yet know whether or not they did that. I expect more facts to emerge in the fullness of time. In the meantime there's only a gaping hole where the facts ought to be, and it's being filled with conjecture.

I don't see how you deduce that that is what Agile wants to believe.

I didn't ask anyone to understand my deduction, or to agree with it. I'm comfortable enough in my belief to not feel the need to justify it, other than to Agile, this time around.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

History tells us that there is a very real chance that information is being withheld in order to cover up incompetence.

Time will tell...

Time will tell whether this is another example.

Do you, or do you not, accept that there is a significant number of instances in the past where excuses like "not in the public interest", or "in the interest of national security" have been used to justify withholding information when the real reason was to hide incompetence, criminality etc?

It takes some guesswork...

Yes - that's what Agile wrote - he did not say "it takes no guesswork".

Yes - it takes guesswork.

I'm at a loss to know if you are agreeing, or disagreeing, with Agile when he said "it does not take much guesswork"

I don't see how you deduce that that is what Agile wants to believe.

I didn't ask anyone to understand my deduction, or to agree with it. I'm comfortable enough in my belief to not feel the need to justify it, other than to Agile, this time around.

Well - I'll leave you do discuss with Agile why you feel it is OK to simultaneously complain about his deductions, and beliefs presented as certainties, and do the same yourself in a way that impugns his character,

 

[Softus]

Do you, or do you not, accept that there is a significant number of instances in the past where excuses like "not in the public interest", or "in the interest of national security" have been used to justify withholding information when the real reason was to hide incompetence, criminality etc?

Fully.

I'm at a loss to know if you are agreeing, or disagreeing, with Agile when he said "it does not take much guesswork"

In that case you'll be bored stiff to find that I'm doing neither; I'm merely pointing out that he's prepared to guess about something so serious.

Well - I'll leave you do discuss with Agile why you feel it is OK to simultaneously complain about his deductions, and beliefs presented as certainties, and do the same yourself in a way that impugns his character,

Many thanks. I take it that you find my post hypocritical, and it might well be so, but your view that I'm complaining is one of interpretation, not fact, and if the act of uncovering motives behind Agile's terminology impugns his character then I don't see it as an act to which blame can be attached.

 

[Slogger]

? wtf are u lot on

the man died due to being identified RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY as a bomber

the police did there job as they should as he could have had a body bomb on him

holding him by his arms doesnt stop you detonation a device if its a palm switch


so 7 shots in the head was justified in the eyes of the officer and he was right


stand by your forces as we will surely need men like him in the future

villify them at your peril and we will end up with squaddies on guard and even more mistaken shootings

 

[ban-all-sheds]

? wtf are u lot on

the man died due to being identified RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY as a bomber

Just how hard do you find it to pay attention, Slogger? Rightly or wrongly? Have you really not spotted that it was wrongly?

the police did there job as they should as he could have had a body bomb on him

The point is he didn't.

The point is that someone, or several someones, screwed up, and as a result an innocent man lost his life at the hands of the forces of law and order.

If you don't think that merits investigation then you are an idiot.

 

[Thermo]

suicide bombs can be wired up in a number of ways. Pinning someone down is Not a way of dealing with it. The detonator can in there hands, it can be on a presure pad between there legs, it can be on a timer, it can be remotl;ey detonated, it can be wired up to be detonated by several switches on one bomber etc etc etc. All of these have been done before.

so you are lucky enough to tackle him to the ground and pin his arms donw, nice and straight away from his body. Have you ever tried to do that? Have you ever tried to unclench someones fist, when they dont want it done. It is virtually impossible. So supposing you have managed to do the above what do you do next, handcuff him and march him away? Bang youve just been blown up as he detonates it with the detonator placed on his waistband at the back of his trousers. Happily he didnt manage to do that so lets march him outside in handcuffs out of the tube station into the street....bang, his mate just remotley blew it up, but its alright were not in the confined space of the tube. We are on a busy street in london, hes carrying a sharpnel bomb, which is specifically designed to kill and maim pople by exploding shards of metal everywhere, still effective in the open air. Have a look at the pictures of the bus in tavistock square. Thats thin metal ripped apart by the bomb.Bit of a problem now isnt it, not quite so easy as you all seem think.


Ok so lets just shoot him once in the arm.....hang on hes got another one so better shoot the other arm... hang on what about his legs.....Bang you dithered to long
One shot to the head that will do it.....except his central nervous system is still working and hes still twicthing...Bang he just managed to press the switch.


I not a die hard supporter of what happened as i clearly have stated on several occasions, what i do get wound up at is that people are ready to jump onto the execution and murder bandwagon without knowing or understanding the facts, legislation or appreciating the position that the firearms officers were in. Someone cocked up and an innocent man died because of it and someone has a responsibillity over this, but it is not the poor bloody sods on the ground who had to make a split second decision based on the facts that they were given at the time. They didnt do it because they were macho, because they thought it would be jolly good fun, they did it because they have been trained based on experiance from around the world of other suicide bombings that this is the only way to be sure of actually dealing with a very dangerous and potential threat.

If you believe police officers want to go out and shoot people for the fun of it, or for political reasons then so be it, i wont change your feelings or your mind, im just trying to put the events of the shooting into context.

 

[markie]

suicide bombs can be wired up in a number of ways. Pinning someone down is Not a way of dealing with it. The detonator can in there hands, it can be on a presure pad between there legs, it can be on a timer, it can be remotl;ey detonated, it can be wired up to be detonated by several switches on one bomber etc etc etc. All of these have been done before.

so you are lucky enough to tackle him to the ground and pin his arms donw, nice and straight away from his body. Have you ever tried to do that? Have you ever tried to unclench someones fist, when they dont want it done. It is virtually impossible. So supposing you have managed to do the above what do you do next, handcuff him and march him away? Bang youve just been blown up as he detonates it with the detonator placed on his waistband at the back of his trousers. Happily he didnt manage to do that so lets march him outside in handcuffs out of the tube station into the street....bang, his mate just remotley blew it up, but its alright were not in the confined space of the tube. We are on a busy street in london, hes carrying a sharpnel bomb, which is specifically designed to kill and maim pople by exploding shards of metal everywhere, still effective in the open air. Have a look at the pictures of the bus in tavistock square. Thats thin metal ripped apart by the bomb.Bit of a problem now isnt it, not quite so easy as you all seem think.


Ok so lets just shoot him once in the arm.....hang on hes got another one so better shoot the other arm... hang on what about his legs.....Bang you dithered to long
One shot to the head that will do it.....except his central nervous system is still working and hes still twicthing...Bang he just managed to press the switch.


I not a die hard supporter of what happened as i clearly have stated on several occasions, what i do get wound up at is that people are ready to jump onto the execution and murder bandwagon without knowing or understanding the facts, legislation or appreciating the position that the firearms officers were in. Someone cocked up and an innocent man died because of it and someone has a responsibillity over this, but it is not the poor b****y s***s on the ground who had to make a split second decision based on the facts that they were given at the time. They didnt do it because they were macho, because they thought it would be jolly good fun, they did it because they have been trained based on experiance from around the world of other suicide bombings that this is the only way to be sure of actually dealing with a very dangerous and potential threat.

If you believe police officers want to go out and shoot people for the fun of it, or for political reasons then so be it, i wont change your feelings or your mind, im just trying to put the events of the shooting into context.

Well said.