|
British police murder innocent Brazialian (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
More truth comes to the story...
| quote: |
Police-Shot Brazilian Had Expired Visa
Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, shot dead in London, may have run from police because of his visa situation. Police killed the man during the hunt for the subway bombers. Photo by news.bbc.co.uk
Politics: 25 July 2005, Monday.
The Brazilian man shot dead by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber in south London had been in Britain on an out-of-date visa, officials say.
Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, may have run from police because of his visa situation, BBC reported.
The electrician had come to the UK on a student visa, which allows people to work for a small number of hours.
Relatives of Menezes deny his visa had expired and are considering suing over the Stockwell Tube shooting.
Meanwhile, detectives are still hunting for the men who attempted to blow up three London Tube trains and a bus last Thursday.
Three men have been arrested so far, but it is thought the four would-be bombers are still free and may have access to more explosives.
There is also speculation about a fifth bomber, following the discovery of a backpack containing a device in a west London park on Saturday.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
clearly your an idiot and a racist.and you love calling everyone terrorist if they dont agree with you.why dont you feel sorry for the Iraqis that get blown up daily there?but it is ok to you because those are muslims dying and it is no concern to you.so stfu and get lost you racist pig. |
the suicide bombers in Iraq are Muslim... it just so happens that most of the victims are as well |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
More truth comes to the story...
>>Source<< |
Sad... |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Have any of you seen the film The Interpreter yet?
There is a scene there where Sean Penns' character debriefs subordinates on the proper tactic for subduing a suicide bomber by aiming for the base of the skull. It's about 40 plus minutes into the film.
Just thought I'd throw that in there for you people to think about. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
So you believe a police officers word over someone elses? Sure a cop has to be a trained observer but think about one thing.
If you were a cop and your job was on the line over a shooting death wouldn't you try to come up with some kind of story to CYA? After all we still don't know who did the shooting. That alone is suspect of something amiss.
|
No I wouldn't necessarily believe their word over the word of others. At the same time, I'm not entirely dismissing it either. It's very possible that either the police officers are wrong, or the witness is wrong. It would be helpful to have more than one account from a witness.
| quote: |
I went back on your posts and something went by way of miscommunication. You were right in getting the facts first. It's just that peeps are trying to gang up one me and I didn't see you standing there trying to break it up a bit. My bad.
|
No worries.
| quote: |
This sounds like either a lengthy criminal trial or a short civil trial on behalf of the bereaved.
To let a suspect ride the bus on his way to whatever he takes them to just smells fishy.
The spin doctors are hard at work here trying to make this a justified shooting. I'd like to see Scotland Yard explain the EIGHT holes in the guys head whilst he was pushed down to kiss the floor. |
Well I would hope that there is some kind of investigative review of the event. It would be a good step for transparency and it may correct any procedural errors. However, either which way, I don't think there is enough evidence right now to convict the officers of murder. They were given a blank check to shoot to kill if they reasonably thought an individual was a suicide bomber. Apparentely they though he was going to detonate his bombs (after all, why take the chance to jump on the guy, why not shoot him while you're away from any kind of blast damage?), and unfortunate circumstances led an unfortunate conclusion. I can definetely envision reprimands and people losing their jobs, but I'm not too sure criminal charges are warranted. |
|
|
| biodigit |
You don't suspect someone of being a suicide bomber just because you happened to live in the apartment complex of one of the bombers.
Clearly, there was in intelligence failure as to how they handled the information and assumed as to what his intentions were.
So the blame lies on the law enforcement side. If they had their straight and not go after the wrong guy, the situation would've never escalated to the point where an innnocent man's life is now have been lost with five bullets in his head. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
He BOARDED A BUS before he went to the UNDERGROUND. To say that he was more of a threat in the underground instead of the bus only raises more questions. |
Look this is getting gay, they didn't ask him to stop at gun point before he got on the bus did they?
You are just making up all this pish "but what if they didn't ask him to stop...." well what if they wern't even cops what if they were actually terroists and what if he was a special agent that they killed and "the man" is trying to hide the fact to protect other agents...........
no wait that makes no sense..... |
|
|
| est |
The intelligence was all completely wrong which was the root of the problem. The policeman was just following orders. Nobody blames the soldiers in Iraq for what is happeneing there because they are just following orders, as was the policeman who made the shootings. And who on earth decided on a shoot-to-kill policy in the first place?
God I hate this. This country is headed for being a police state and the whole world is headed for one catastrophic mess. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by est
God I hate this. This country is headed for being a police state and the whole world is headed for one catastrophic mess. |
Sure they are the world will be like 1984 |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Look this is getting gay, they didn't ask him to stop at gun point before he got on the bus did they? |
Oddly enough no. Keep in mind he did skip past Brixton to get on at Stockwell which strangely enough is further down the underground line from his flat.
| quote: | | You are just making up all this pish "but what if they didn't ask him to stop...." well what if they wern't even cops what if they were actually terroists and what if he was a special agent that they killed and "the man" is trying to hide the fact to protect other agents...........no wait that makes no sense..... |
I am saying why didn't they just pick him up the moment the saw him step through the door. After all that's where they started tailing him from. You can always pick someone up off the street and whisk them away so you can put him under the hot lamp. If what he says doesn't pan out you can just let him go. But NOOOOO no one wants that, they want summary execution of people because they LOOK LIKE a suspect. You look like a suspect should we be killing you on the street while you go to work?
| quote: | Originally posted by est
The policeman was just following orders. |
This statement does not excuse anyone to violate human rights.
What policeman by the way?
Who is he or she?
There's blindfolds going around for everybody. Make sure you pick yours up. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD
Urgent Release For All Press
Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following
points should be emphasised in your reports:
* The dead man is to be referred to as the "suspect" and never the "victim". The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.
* He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.
* Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.
* Remind the reader what would (never say "might") have happened if the suspect "had" been a suicide bomber and the police had "not" shot him. Exaggerate.
* Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.
* Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.
* When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the real bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.
* Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.
* Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.
* It should not be written that he "failed" to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stoping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as "refused" or "resisted".
* Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.
* One witness thought he saw a "bomb-belt" on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was). Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.
* The police began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the bombers (by describing the apartment block as a "house", for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.
* Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.
* Avoid mention of the suspect's family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like "regret" and "tragic".
* Assert that the way in which the suspect "dived or fell to ground" was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to "get down" as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.
* Report it as if "the regulations" required the police to shoot him.
* Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.
* Don't mention the war.
* Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.
* If the suspect turns out to be non-muslim you should still continue to question muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.
* If the suspect does turn out to be muslim connect muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.
* Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect's character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, "If he hadn't have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today..."
* Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.
TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD |
|
|
| est |
| quote: | | This statement does not excuse anyone to violate human rights. |
OK, but these violations began higher up in the system than the officer. The officer pulled the trigger, but would never have done so if not for the orders from above: a) to treat Menezes as a suspect and b) the shoot-to-kill policy. The more airing the officer gets, the more attention is distracted from whoever authorized a shoot-to-kill policy in the first place (is this even legal?) and the fatally wrong intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
