Zebb Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 That was known yesterday Avey, maybe they have just decided to release it formally today, it doesnt change a thing in my book, in the current climate if someone wants to take their chances that they wont be shot by not complying with the Police then let them try, i just hope that this doesnt stop the Police doing exactly the same thing again in the same situation.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avey Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 That was known yesterday Avey, maybe they have just decided to release it formally today, it doesnt change a thing in my book, in the current climate if someone wants to take their chances that they wont be shot by not complying with the Police then let them try, i just hope that this doesnt stop the Police doing exactly the same thing again in the same situation.. ← Couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pz3 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babydave Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 you still have to ask what would have made him run. he mustve understood the word "stop". if i was in brazil and police challenged me with guns i sure wouldnt run. its sad it happened but in the end the polices aggressiveness should pay dividends. if the officers are prosecuted over this then its a disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Yeah the officers did what they had to do. He jumped ticket barriers, ran from them, ignored them telling him to stop, and then ran into a train. What else were they to do? If he did blow another train up, the cops would have been eaten alive for not stopping the terror. I think this goes to show that people need to stop ######ing around and start taking this thing seriously. One thing i have noticed at work is on the UK WAP chat alot of idiots are happy these bombings occured. Countless have said that they bombed london, and even more are saying how blowing up the whites is a great idea etc etc etc. Even other muslim people get angry at them. As soon as i see the messages they get a nice block, and when that gets reviewed after 24-48 hours, they often get extended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 (edited) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711639.stm There is nothing "knee jerk" or "paranoid" about an armed officer shooting a suspect, all the information relating to the incident is out in the public domain i suggest you take some time to read about it properly before making such a statement. - heres the proof i was talking about. see link above & please dont assume I sit in a dark room and spout blindly thanks mate. Im sure if it was one your family you wouldnt just say "well, he shouldnt run then should he". The old Muslims are to blame mantra is also tiring as again, no PROOF has been on the table, just a bunch of pictures of people walking into a station. Maybe they dont want to co-operate becuase they are sick of the assumed label they have been tagged with, i know I would be a tad reluctant. If we all Acept that this should be an everyday thing and that more laws should come into effect regarding this then slowly without realising we wouldnt be able to disupte anything. Theres taking things seriously and also taking things far too much on board. Everyone having a slanging match on who should bomb who etc are just mindless idiots thats for sure (ref Dans post). When the IRA bombed we had none of this, now the Terror mantra has been ratcheted up more laws have been passed to stop basic freedoms than you can shake a stick at, now this ... why is it so different to last time hmmm, i wonder. I feel we shouldnt take the pee, but we also shouldnt become dribbling paranoid sheep taking everything as gospal and not questioning anything, thats for damn sure. I have a sense this thread may become a bit like "one of them the moderators keep an eye on" ... - I say all this with a smile (so people dont take it personal). Edited July 24, 2005 by calius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_1 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 When the IRA bombed we had none of this, ← PIRA never used Suicide bombing as a tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 There's no "proof" of anything "knee jerk" or "paranoid" in that link Calius, and i'm not going to get into a slanging match with someone who wants to bury his head in the sand, you obviously have no idea of what is involved as a firearms officer in the Police or else you would know that they dont open fire without good reason, this guy left them no choice and that was his mistake... If your happy to think that these bombings are just random acts by unknown persons because they feel a little grouchy about some unknown grievance that we currently dont know about then thats fine by me.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 (edited) When the IRA bombed we had none of this, ← PIRA never used Suicide bombing as a tactic. ← Thats because they were too yellow. The only good terrorist is a dead one. Dont get me started. Edited July 24, 2005 by =SEALZ=Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 (edited) You dont want a "slanging match" (which i am not having anyway ), but also put words in my mouth and assume you MUST know everythig there is to know so you are right and im totaly wrong.... ??? We can agree to differ, thats no problem with me. The point was, the guy wasnt linked, but because he ran - he must be so shoot him. My main concern is where that kind of view might lead to in the future. I also read a report that someone saw this guy had "wires coming from a belt" (this was on BBC site) ... if you look for it hard enough you will find it eh. Edited July 24, 2005 by calius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chems Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 It was definatly the own guys fault for running off when challeneged, just made him look guilty. If he had run on an blown himself up, the public would be like why didnt you shoot him. Its a loose loose situation but on the other hand, if he had been a bomber these police guys would have been the world heros. It was obvious when they didnt remove one of the pictures that the guy they shot wasnt a bomber, if he had they would have said instantly to scare the crap outta the others and make london look like the place not to mess about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 What this has done is to take the focus away from the original bombings, the bombings where cracks were showing in the "suicide bombers" story that even mainstream media were finding "hard to swallow". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 What this has done is to take the focus away from the original bombings, the bombings where cracks were showing in the "suicide bombers" story that even mainstream media were finding "hard to swallow". ← hang on are you saying that the original attacks werent suicide bombings? What about the 4 men whose bodies, and in one case severed head, were found at the bomb sights, and were seen on the tapes together, with huge bags? Im fairly sure the police didnt make up the fact that these guys were the bombers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 (edited) The main question thats floating around is the fact that all of them had return tickets on cars in car parks at station / full ID on them, all from decent enough backgrounds (hence the family's complete and utter shock that they would do such a thing) .. nothing to show it was a one way ticket to killing themselves or intensions of themselves getting killed in the process. The limp tag of Al qaeda links are also sketchy (most of the time) and even T. Blair has said that its a name used for that type of investigation work internaly, not that its a group under that name doing all of these things. Infact Al Qaeda as a group doesnt exist its a media name tag. My point is, the main news media has 1 side and many other areas of the media have questioned this area of "suicide" bombers. Im open to both ideas, but still have questions rather than - case closed - offical story view. Dont get me wrong you may not & fair enough, but I dont just buy the first story that ends up in the news / papers etc. Edited July 24, 2005 by calius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 well one idea is that the leader made sure the bombs went off early, killing anyone that could expose him. The fact that suidice bombers do exist, and have targeted western countries before (spain) means it is a very real threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 True indeed. Sometimes its to find out or take on an open view of who the "leader" realy is, or infact is it the leader your being told it maybe. just keep an entirely open view in my book no matter what way its told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleaneasy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I’m not sure if I’m gob smacked or hell I don’t know but jeez why is it when something like a homeland bombing happens prejudice galore shows its face Now before I go any further no I’m not a PC kinda gal, in fact I hate the whole PC culture but at the same time I don’t accept/ believe everything I’m told without questioning the bits that just don’t make any sense. In this case you have a guy who by official press release from the police was followed because he was seen to leave a house they had under surveillance. A house which they ‘suspect’ is linked to the bombers, so again even him being linked to this house doesn’t mean much because no one is actually sure the house even has anything to do with it. So then they follow him and at some point decide to stop him, they apparently called out (I’m not suggesting they didn’t) he didn’t stop and after X number of times calling out, he still didn’t stop so they shot him at point blank range 5 times. Just to clarify the train was NOT packed, there were only 2 witnesses in the actual carriage this happened in and that’s by no means a packed train. While that doesn’t mean it’s ok to let someone you ‘think’ has a bomb onto it, it’s still not a packed train as some believe, and is more mis information. People keep saying when an armed police man calls out to stop you should, and I agree. But consider this; the police were not in uniform so for a none English (UK) person how do they know its police? Is there any evidence this guy even understood English? I don’t know myself which is why I ask. He didn’t have a bomb on him so what we have is a man who ran and got shot for it. Now I know if someone had been shoplifting and the police called out chances are they would run like mary hell, the idea they wouldn’t because of the bombings and the chance someone would think they were a bomber is sorry but imo daft. When a criminal of any degree is told to stop by police (armed or otherwise) their immediate thought is their screwed, complete selfish thoughts of how much trouble they are in, dependant on age probably thinking there going to get their ass kicked at home even but they are not stopping and thinking oh they might think I’m a bomber therefore I better not run in case they shot me. Now after this shooting it’s possible they would but they wouldn’t have before it happened. Now there’s much more to say but I realise I’m rambling now so I will get to my point. If this guy was a bomber I have no care or thoughts for his death. What bothers me more than anything about this whole situation is the overwhelming number of people prepared to swallow everything without questioning a single thing. Jumping on the ‘they all deserve to die’ bandwagon without a second thought. We have a freedom of speech and we have the freedom to question what our leaders/ protectors do. The minute you give up wondering or questioning why certain things happen you might as well hand over all your civil liberties because that’s basically what you would have done. Quote Calis: just keep an entirely open view in my book no matter what way its told. I would agree wholeheartedly, as hard as it might be we shouldn’t let emotion get the better of us and allow ourselves to act no better than those who create the problem to begin with. Now I get the feeling I’m going to get some strong responses lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_1 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Hopefully you've mulled over the events of friday for a considerable longer time than the Armed officers who had to make the decision to shoot him had. I'd be interested to see the link to the 'Offical Press Release' I've only seen what's been in the media, so you have better info than I, and I would guess 99% of the UK population. The only thing on the Met Police Pages is about the incidents on the 21 July 2005, and a couple of Paragrahs about the Stockwell St Shooting, but none of the info which you quote above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spearhead Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 (edited) personaly im getting sick of all these ppl winging bout the police shooting an innocent person (on tv and other various forums). He ignored police challenges, and was running towards a train ignoring them. Guidelines on armed police officers state that you must shout at the suspect to remain where they are, if they ignore this request you are permitted to shoot and immobilise the suspect, usually by shot to the legs or a non vital area of the torso. However; guidlines on suicide bombers clearly state "shoot to kill", for example, if a bomber is wearing the bomb around their torso you can not risk shooting it, the most effective way of preventing detonation is to kill the bomber which is best done through a headshot. therefor wiv all the evidence they had at that split second, they followed the guidlines and performed their job well. the suspect, in this case the brazilian man, was at fault and to blame for the incedent. Edited July 24, 2005 by spearhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chems Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I still want to know, what about the people they have arrested are these the people from the CCTV footage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleaneasy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 BBC News < thats the most recent article. I dont have the others to hand but im sure that will cover it for you. Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair has apologised to the family of the Brazilian man shot dead by police in south London on Friday. He said the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was a "tragedy", but admitted more people could be shot as police hunt suspected suicide bombers. Mr Menezes, who lived in Tulse Hill, south London, was completely unconnected to Thursday's attempted bombings on three Tube trains and a bus, Scotland Yard have confirmed. I would just like to clarify i have no ill feeling towards the police in this issue. assuming they did follow protocol which i have no doubt they would have done its not there fault. Im not in anyway saying it is. But that doesnt mean we should accept the situation at face value and make assumptions either imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_1 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Whilst it is a statement from the Met's most senior officer, it is still reported. The facts of this will not be reported in the media in the next weeks or months. The PCA will report on the shooting and then there is the possibility of an Inquest or other legal proceedings. Any public statement would jepordise those proceedings. Until then anything will be rumour and speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 (edited) He told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "These very brave officers, on behalf of the citizens of London, were pursuing somebody they had good reason to believe was involved in this terrorist outrage." Ok fair enough to the officers, but, ummm ... just one thing here, if they had "good reasons to believe" - then why didnt they bundle him in the car far before he got to the station? Its noted on a talk to his cousin he was on a bus before he got to the station and they were following? Its made to look like he got asked to stop at the tube station and only then ran inside ... what about his journey before getting to the station? Why would plain clothed armed officers suddenly arrive at the station and then think to ask him to stop? They must have been following him. If he was a bomber/or connected or assumed enough to have something on him that they end up chasing him and shooting then why wait to stop him at the station anyway? Surely thats worse? Remember the clips the other day of the man at gunpoint told to lay on floor and remove his back pack, now he wasnt near any stations but they were on him very fast indeed because "he looked suspicous" ... but this guy they "believe" was actualy "connected" they let get to the station .... Also if its all that dodgy with a bomb why didnt they shoot him outside the station in the head right away, after all "they believed he was INVOLVED" so that would justify it, right? No .. they run all-the-way onto a train and pummel him point blank with bullets, if he had a bomb or trigger he could have just let it go off while running surely? The old "shoot-to-kill policy" or - wait a long time then run after them into a tube station underground after everything thats heppened let them fall over then, ummm shoot to kill point blank. "There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be," he said. "There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it." - ummm, he fell down and tripped (fell down) after you ran after him ONTO A FULL TRAIN OF PEOPLE - IN THE TUBE .. and you fired into him not worying about his "chest" then. We are not talking just hap hazard spur of the moment average bobby on the beat stuff here, this was armed plain clothed officers working on tip offs, but they let him get as far as he did from his entire journey. Its a distraction thats for sure but from where im seeing it a very large ######-up indeed either way. He acknowledged "somebody else could be shot" as the hunt continued, but added "everything is done to make it right". - lets hope so then mate eh . Edited July 24, 2005 by calius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I'll admit to only having skimmed this thread, but I have seen a bit of a realization... This is one vast difference in the US and UK. Here, in the US, people die on accident, as a result of police shootings. It's a reality of having armed Law Enforcement agents. People are people, and they make mistakes. Children have been shot because they had toy guns officers thought to be real. Innocent bystandards are shot in gun fights between gang members and police. In the UK, a fair majority of your local LE are unarmed correct? They just carry batons and non-lethal weapons? Someone being wrongly killed by an officer is a fairly "new" thing for you all... am I wrong? We've been dealing with it for years, to the point it's no longer reported in the news. But, with the Brazillian man, he was tagged as a "suspected terrorist", a tag NO ONE wants this day and age. With the recent attacks in London by terrorists, I'm sure that tensions ran high, and no one wanted a repeat attack, especially after the detanators that were set off, what Thursday? Officers saw a chance to thwart a suspected terrorist attack and took it. Granted they may have gone about it wrong. I hope this comes out right, I have a lot of thoughts going through my head and I don't want to offend. Just something to ponder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleaneasy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Whilst it is a statement from the Met's most senior officer, it is still reported. The facts of this will not be reported in the media in the next weeks or months. The PCA will report on the shooting and then there is the possibility of an Inquest or other legal proceedings. Any public statement would jepordise those proceedings. Until then anything will be rumour and speculation. ← As with most things we wont ever know the full facts. We will eventually here one side of the story but the other side is dead, and while i wouldnt suggest anyone would lie we all know people percieve situations very differently. Ask a witness to any situation what happened even if they all saw the exact same thing and there version will be different. But yes we wont here the full met office facts for some time, but the head of the met has already acknowledged a mistake so we can safely assume the guy clearly didnt have any bomb equipement on him or anything else to suggest his guilt. else they wouldnt be admiting to the 'mistake' to begin with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.