Anyone still willing to defend the British police?

[James the Persian]

After the following revelations from last night:

• The Brazillian they shot was not wearing a thick coat but a denim jacket.
• He had no bag.
• He did not run from police or vault a barrier, but walked calmly and stopped to pick up a paper.
• He entered the train and sat down to read the paper.
• Police then entered screaming something unintelligible - 'police' was the only word a witness understood - and one of the passengers held him, apparently without struggle.
• The police then proceeded to shoot at him 11 times, the first shot from closer than 12 inches, 7 rounds striking the head, one the shoulder and 3 missing.

These are not the speculations of the media but come from leaked documents from the police investigation. It is clear from these that not only was the shooting itself unjustifiable but the police then tried to mislead the public as part of some cover up. It seems like the only people who were telling the truth was the de Menezes family.

Well, can anyone justify this? Personally, I believe those directly involved with the killing should be charged with at the bare minimum manslaughter, maybe murder. And those responsible for the misinformation should likewise be punished (though exactly how I'm not sure). What does anyone else think?

James

 

[Jaymes]

Unless evidence turns up that he was connected to a terrorist ring, totally unjustifiable.

 

[James the Persian]

So, nobody is willing to defend their actions any more? I thought that might be the case but most people here seemed to want to give them the benefit of the doubt at the time. I, personally, always thought there was something fishy seeing as police claims and witness accounts never did tally up.

Personally, I always thought it was unjustifiable to shoot an unarmed man dead with no attempt to arrest him (and it's turned out today that their commander had ordered them to take suspects alive!) but I would have excused the police if what they had been saying was true. Unfortunately, it's turned out to have been one great lie from start to finish.

James

 

[Original Freak]

I remember a lot of posts saying basically, 'let's wait to see what the evidence shows, let's not condem the police for what we don't know.' Now the facts are out and obviously it was in intolerable act.

 

[Mike182]

I remember a lot of posts saying basically, 'let's wait to see what the evidence shows, let's not condem the police for what we don't know.' Now the facts are out and obviously it was in intolerable act.

agreed

i think it is horrifyind that the police have a "shoot to kill" policy, and this was not justified at all - but without the police we would be screwed, it is unfortunate that even in the police force we have such hatred

C_P

 

[michel]

http://www.ntlworld.com/news/story_uk.php?page_zone=150.5.1&storyid=4520001

Met chief denies cover up
18/08/2005 19:55

Scotland Yard chief Sir Ian Blair has denied there was any cover up over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) deputy chief John Wadham had announced the Metropolitan Police "initially resisted" an investigation but Sir Ian denied that.

He said: "These allegations strike to the heart of the integrity of the police and integrity of the Met and I fundamentally reject them. There is no cover-up."

Scotland Yard has said Sir Ian wrote to Sir John Gieve at the Home Office in the immediate aftermath of the shooting "to clarify the role of IPCC".

Baroness Shirley Williams, former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, has warned against "prejudging" Sir Ian's actions but called for an end to the shoot-to-kill policy.

She said: "In light of the Jean Charles de Menezes case the Metropolitan Police's shoot-to-kill policy must be reconsidered.

"It's unfair to prejudge Sir Ian Blair, but whatever the result of the IPCC inquiry, it's the Metropolitan Commissioner's duty to examine other means short of killing and serious injury that have been used successfully by other forces and in other countries to restrain and if necessary subdue those suspected of serious crimes."

Kate Hoey, Mr de Menezes' local Labour MP in Vauxhall said: "We need real answers and as quickly as possible.

"He could tell us when he knew that some of these things that were being accepted by the community as having happened, weren't true."

I don't think it is so much a case of 'defending' the British police; it is the entire strategy behind this that went wrong. Whatever this article says, there are some awful answers to be given; I am loath to believe that the police would have tried to do such a blatantly flawed cover-up. It is almost as if there is something that we don't know about.

 

[Ori]

It was an outright execution, even had the person been a terrorist, I absoloutely condemn that sort of behaviour.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am not yet convinced it was the "police" It bore all the hallmarks of the SAS But oficially they are never used in civil actions.
They rarely get it wrong, but they always get what the go after.

Terry
_____________________________
Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

 

[BUDDY]

After the following revelations from last night:

• The Brazillian they shot was not wearing a thick coat but a denim jacket.
• He had no bag.
• He did not run from police or vault a barrier, but walked calmly and stopped to pick up a paper.
• He entered the train and sat down to read the paper.
• Police then entered screaming something unintelligible - 'police' was the only word a witness understood - and one of the passengers held him, apparently without struggle.
• The police then proceeded to shoot at him 11 times, the first shot from closer than 12 inches, 7 rounds striking the head, one the shoulder and 3 missing.

These are not the speculations of the media but come from leaked documents from the police investigation. It is clear from these that not only was the shooting itself unjustifiable but the police then tried to mislead the public as part of some cover up. It seems like the only people who were telling the truth was the de Menezes family.

Well, can anyone justify this? Personally, I believe those directly involved with the killing should be charged with at the bare minimum manslaughter, maybe murder. And those responsible for the misinformation should likewise be punished (though exactly how I'm not sure). What does anyone else think?

James

Can you tell me where you found this information? Honestly, I find it very hard to believe. I am not opposed to believing it, but it seems totally abhorent action. Something that is totally unexpected from the London Police. If you could site some sources for me, that would be appreciated.

 

[Jaymes]

It's readily available if you type a few keywords in Google, EEWRED.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601456.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, nobody is willing to defend their actions any more? ...

Nope. I was clearly wrong.

 

[James the Persian]

Can you tell me where you found this information? Honestly, I find it very hard to believe. I am not opposed to believing it, but it seems totally abhorent action. Something that is totally unexpected from the London Police. If you could site some sources for me, that would be appreciated.

My source was ITN (British Independent Television news). They were leeked documents from the Idependent Police Complaints Commission investigation into the killing. It's also turned out since I first posted that the IPCC investigation was delayed for 5 days by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who is also the one from whom the misleading statements about bulky jackets, a bag full of electrical equipment and running from the police came. Yet he's still saying there was no attempt at a cover up and he won't resign. An IPCC spokesman I saw interviewed this morning was clearly suspicious and said that it was unbelievable that they were prevented from collecting evidence for so long. I'm pretty sure, then, that the documents are credible - and I know he was wearing a denim jacket and without a bag because they showed pictures of the poor man's body in the tube in British media.

I'm not convinced by Michel's belief that it was the SAS. I come from a military family and know quite a few SAS soldiers (most no longer serving, mind) and a fair bit about the way they operate. It just doesn't seem much like an SAS operation to me. If it wasn't the police I'd be more willing to believe it was MI5 as they are used against domestic threats. I still find it more likely that it was indeed the police, though.

James

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...I thought that might be the case but most people here seemed to want to give them the benefit of the doubt at the time...

You posted that you thought 'always thought there was something fishy', while I heard some people say they always thought the guy might have been dangerous.:banghead3 Kudos to you for your instincts on this one.

So many times we hear a news report that inflames people, so I think the correct approach is to question and examine the evidence before condemning either 'side'. Despite their protestations to the contrary, people in the media often, IMHO, skew a story to get people fired up because excitement over the news sells papers and brings viewers to the telly.

I remember a lot of posts saying basically, 'let's wait to see what the evidence shows, let's not condem the police for what we don't know.' Now the facts are out and obviously it was in intolerable act.

I concur and think this point needs to be brought to the forefront.

 

[Jaymes]

I feel rather ignorant here; what's the SAS? Is it the UK version of the FBI?

 

[James the Persian]

I feel rather ignorant here; what's the SAS? Is it the UK version of the FBI?

The SAS is the Special Air Service. It's British army special forces, made up of recruits from the various army regiments and corps. In addition, we have the SBS (Special Boat Service) which is the Navy equivalent, being predominantly made up of Royal Marines. Both do more or less the same job, though the SAS is larger, but the SAS formerly specialised in aerial insertions, hence the name, and the SBS in water-bourne insertions. The closest equivalents in the states would probably be the Green Berets or Delta Force for the SAS and Navy Seals for the SBS (though my SAS acquaintances would be less than plesed by the comparison).

James