Police shoot to kill ?

[Agile]

It seems pretty clear the order to stop him was given to the armed officers.

For undisclosed reasons no orders to stop him were given to the surveilance team or the uniformed officers at the tube entrance.

It does not take much guesswork that the only intention was to shoot him dead. Since the officers gave him no warning and shot him SEVEN times in the head it seems certain that they thought that they had been given an order to kill him.

Every armed policemen is required to justify his actions when he shoots someone. Common sence would indicate to me that any officer should be totally convinced that the shooting is justified.

I can see no justification for shooting the Brazilian. or the naked man in bed or the man in a Mini in Kensington High Street some while ago who was shot NINE times but amazingly survived and was awarded damages.

Unfortunately the policemen who shoot innocent people are let off with a slapped wrist and the Police just pay compensation to the relatives.

Killing someone is murder if you or I do it. Its just part of the Job if a policeman kills an innocent man.

Tony

 

[Softus]

Hm. Translation needed here:

It seems pretty clear...

I believe...

For undisclosed reasons...

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

It does not take much guesswork...

It takes some guesswork...

it seems certain...

I believe...

I can see no justification...

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

 

[Thermo]

For undisclosed reasons no orders to stop him were given to the surveilance team or the uniformed officers at the tube entrance.

it was believed he had a bomb strapped to him, how would they have stopped him without putting themselves or the public at risk?

Mini in Kensington High Street some while ago who was shot NINE times but amazingly survived and was awarded damages

are you talking about steven waldorf who was shot in 1981 some 24 years earlier?

Killing someone is murder if you or I do it

only if it is premeditated and with the intention to kill. otherwise it is manslaughter, however if sect 3 of the criminal law act applied then it wouldnt be either.

 

[ellal]

So, you didn't like the question, and you've changed it to one that you're more comfortable in answering.

Oh I see...

Any answer that doesn't agree with the killing is invalid then?...

And you obviously aren't comfortable with any considerations that don't fit in with your conclusions as to what happened...where have we heard that before - Oh I know...THE POLICE!!

So, using the mantra of the 'pair of blairs'...what have they got to hide?

 

[joe-90]

Come on then ellal - you tell us what YOU would have done. (he won't)

 

[ellal]

Come on then ellal - you tell us what YOU would have done. (he won't)

I think this was quite specific..(it's in bold so you don't miss it this time.. )

I would also not have executed him AFTER disabling him..

simple really..

 

[joe-90]

Come on then ellal - you tell us what YOU would have done. (he won't)

I think this was quite specific..(it's in bold so you don't miss it this time.. )

I would also not have executed him AFTER disabling him..

simple really..

Yes it is. What if he'd detonated a bomb? Pushing someone back onto a seat and saying 'armed police ' isn't disabling anyone is it?

What if he'd got the detonator in his hand? He could have pressed the button long before you 'disarmed' him couldn't he?

So let's assume he DID have the detonator in his hand. What would YOU have done?

As the old saying goes "You're as brave as a lion when there is no danger present".

 

[ellal]

Yes it is. What if he'd detonated a bomb? Pushing someone back onto a seat and saying 'armed police ' isn't disabling anyone is it?

What if he'd got the detonator in his hand? He could have pressed the button long before you 'disarmed' him couldn't he?

So let's assume he DID have the detonator in his hand. What would YOU have done?

As the old saying goes "You're as brave as a lion when there is no danger present".

When you're asking what I would have done if I knew he had a detonator, that is also simple - stop him using it, and if that involved killing, then so be it..

But I can only base what I say on what facts have actually come out (as opposed to all the discredited lies that were told at the time..).

Assuming they thought there was a detonator, then why did the cops try and disable the victim (we have been told the victim had his arms pinned at his sides, and you yourself have said 'He could have pressed the button long before you 'disarmed' him couldn't he?'), instead of just shooting? . The attempt to disable would surely give a suicide bomber time. It just doesn't add up!

So, given that the cops did disable him, why then the seven shots in the head?

The victim was apparently behaving normally (not vaulting barriers, running away, wearing dodgy clothing etc..), so the decision to shoot was, IMO wrong..All the explanations afterwards have tried to justify the killing, and most of those arguments have, as I said, been discredited. So to not even have an enquiry or a prosecution is something that should alarm anyone! Otherwise, the cops now have 'carte blanche' to do what they like, and just cry 'suspected terrorist' as their justification (not unlike the other 'terrorist legislation' they regularly abuse!!)..

 

[joe-90]

They believed that he had a bomb that he was about to detonate. They probably thought they were going to be blown to bits.
They did what they thought was the right thing to do at the time - and that's all that matters.

Most detonators are wired down the sleeve to the hand, pinning him down wouldn't have helped.

What would YOU have done?

 

[ellal]

They believed that he had a bomb that he was about to detonate. They probably thought they were going to be blown to bits.
They did what they thought was the right thing to do at the time - and that's all that matters.

Most detonators are wired down the sleeve to the hand, pinning him down wouldn't have helped.

What would YOU have done?

You have made an awful lot of assumptions there..based on what?

Your knowledge of detonators?

Your belief that you know what they were thinking at the time?

I have already told you what I would have done under different types of scenarios - one based on what we have been told, and one based on a 'what if'..

Stop repeating yourself, and ignoring a simple reply to a question.

So, in that vein, what would YOU have done if you thought he may have had a bomb, but you had no proof or reliable information? And that you may have an opportunity to not use 'lethal force'...

 

[joe-90]

What's wrong? Can't you answer a simple question?

If I believed he had a bomb and was about to detonate it (as they were informed he had) I'd have probably shot him.

Now answer my question.

 

[ellal]

What's wrong? Can't you answer a simple question?

I can - but you obviously can't see it unless it's the one you want!!

How many times is it ncessary to repeat yourself?

And looking at your last reply:

If I believed he had a bomb and was about to detonate it (as they were informed he had) I'd have probably shot him.

PROBABLY isn't a definitive answer...which is what you keep insisting from others..

And we havn't been 'informed' that he was about to detonate a bomb - merely that he was a suspect - stop changing suppositions into 'truths' when it's convenient to fit your views!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There seems little point in going round in the "what would you have done?" circles - I don't think any of us can put ourselves in the place of those 2 officers, or really know what we would have done, and I have serious doubts about the veracity or degree of thought that has gone into claims of "I would have done the same".

Let us consider what I believe are some of the important facts here.

1) Jean Charles de Menezes was completely innocent of any terrorist activity, or contact with terrorists, or terrorist suspects. He was not dressed suspiciously, he was not acting suspiciously, and he was not given the opportunity to protest his innocence.

He was going about his daily business.

He could have been you. He could have been me. He could have been your brother, your son, your husband, your boyfriend.

He was shot dead by the police.

2) Some people, somewhere, decided that it was OK for the police, or the police + other security agencies, to decide that people could be killed without warning, without a trial, without challenge of the evidence, and without independent confirmation of lack of reasonable doubt.

3) This decision was arrived at without the involvement of parliament, without the involvement of the courts and without any public debate.



I find all of this extremely disquieting.

 

[joe-90]

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

That is a fact.

So what would YOU have done?

 

[joe-90]

OK BAS but let's suppose that he WAS a bomber and he DID detonate the device. Would you still be wringing your hands or saying they should have shot him??

Innocent people get killed by cop cars in high speed chases - does that not worry you? (considering they are just juvinile thugs joy-riding)