Menezes
02 November 2007, 07:19 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
so they followed him from his apartment, to a bus, to a station, back to bus, to station and on train........ 45 minute snap decision.... lol
Yes, if he was a terrorist they may of saved lifes, but as he wasn't, all they did was shoot dead a innocent guy..... yep... the MET need a lot of praise for that one ....
Yes, if he was a terrorist they may of saved lifes, but as he wasn't, all they did was shoot dead a innocent guy..... yep... the MET need a lot of praise for that one ....
02 November 2007, 07:24 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no proof that there are bent plod in liverpool. i come form broadway norris green. if i can walk around and deduce that the amount of Tougreg, cayennes and X5's are being driven by 20 year olds why can't the police? i agree a percentage will be purchased by honest money, no way all of them are though. i know what goes on around that area. RE in practice i would like to see how long the police protect the person who names Rhys Jones killer. i hope they catch them. i wished my views to be heard just like yourself we're all entitled to our opinion. menezes was shot seven times in the head, i think once would have been sufficient do you? any policeman who acts outwith their guidelines should be held accountable. in our nanny state everyone else is, are you? all the best, Chris.
The idea is to destroy the brainstem and stop all functions including convusling a and even twitching as he could still trigger a device if the ignotor/detonator was in his hands, several time wil do the job.
For example a friends uncle tried to commit suicide with a 12 bore in his mouth, he pulled the trigger, gun moved and blew off part of his face and head/brain, he still managed to raise the alarm by getting to he wall mounted alarm buzzer thing where he lived.
You kinda weakened you position and POV by saying you are not a conspiracy theorist then proposing a couple of conspiracies mate
I would still be interested in you answering my two questions that i posed, not looking for a row just interested in you perspective and POV
02 November 2007, 07:29 PM
#93
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact is inteligence wasnt correct and lead to the death of a innocent man .Now in my opinion someone should be held accountable and this doesn't mean the cop that pulled the trigger.
02 November 2007, 07:57 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland/Reading
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RB
No fighting chance. a Glock 9mm at point blank? i bet they had to use a hose to clean the train. i don't think there was an open casket do you? extreme force should be used, were necessary. we were misled by the authorities do you agree? i agree Menezes was an illegal. in every working environment we are held accountable for our actions. my work involves setting up safe systems of work for people working on or near the railway. if i make an error and someone is injured or worse i am accountable. the officers made a decision outwith their rules and they are not being held accountable. they should not be jailed but they should be punished, let me know what you think?
02 November 2007, 08:03 PM
#95
My point was, if you're (armed police) shooting somone in the head you intend to use lethal force. 1 or 20 shots doesn't matter, but best go with 20 as it's guarenteed to do as intended.
'Oh, it's ok, we only shot him once' is not really an excuse is it, the only thing it changes are the odds on the potential bomber being able to detonate whatever he has.
'Oh, it's ok, we only shot him once' is not really an excuse is it, the only thing it changes are the odds on the potential bomber being able to detonate whatever he has.
02 November 2007, 08:10 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland/Reading
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TO PAUL HABGOOD
To paul i've sent you a private message with my answers. i undermined myself about conspiracies yes. our news in this country is filtered so we see and hear certain angles not 360 degrees. okay okay i must be a conspiracy peeps!!!! i'm not looking for an argument either all the best. i'll mail you again over the weekend, with my views on the liverpool situation.
03 November 2007, 12:52 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed!
oh and as for demenezes acting oddly - have a look at
In addition, his visa had run out in 2003 - so, we have an illegal who had recently taken a Cocaine - class A substance and likely to be either high or coming down and feeling paranoid and, in addiditon knowing he is in the UK illegally and being challenged by the Police.
Ultimately, he was a victim of terrorism although if he had done as the terms of his visa requested - instread of breaking the laws of the land then he would have been some 7000+kms away at the time of the incident.
I am a bit tired and bored of listening to his family bleating on about what a good boy he was, he was a coke user and here illegally, so, two serious laws this good boy had broken already. Whuilst this is not reason to shoot him De Menezis helped put himself in this position - along with the terrorist scum who helped creat it!
as for the Police and culpability - Sir Ian Bair should carry the can and will be relieved of his position soon imho!
and finally - Well done to the Met and SO19 for helping to keep this country safe under extreemely difficult and challenging circumstances and i think you will find a majority of decent, sensible people agree and back you and you actions all the way!
All the other PC knobbers can just **** off and stop meddling!
oh and as for demenezes acting oddly - have a look at
In addition, his visa had run out in 2003 - so, we have an illegal who had recently taken a Cocaine - class A substance and likely to be either high or coming down and feeling paranoid and, in addiditon knowing he is in the UK illegally and being challenged by the Police.
Ultimately, he was a victim of terrorism although if he had done as the terms of his visa requested - instread of breaking the laws of the land then he would have been some 7000+kms away at the time of the incident.
I am a bit tired and bored of listening to his family bleating on about what a good boy he was, he was a coke user and here illegally, so, two serious laws this good boy had broken already. Whuilst this is not reason to shoot him De Menezis helped put himself in this position - along with the terrorist scum who helped creat it!
as for the Police and culpability - Sir Ian Bair should carry the can and will be relieved of his position soon imho!
and finally - Well done to the Met and SO19 for helping to keep this country safe under extreemely difficult and challenging circumstances and i think you will find a majority of decent, sensible people agree and back you and you actions all the way!
All the other PC knobbers can just **** off and stop meddling!
Lie 1 He was wearing a big jacket Lie 2 He ran from Police. Lie 3 he jumped the barriers Lie 4 he was acting suspiciously Lie 5 The cctv from the tube station was broken. the tube staff said the tapes were fine intil the police took them.
THe Police kiled an innocent man who was not a threat to society because of ineptitude. Lucky for them he was not a british national or they would be facing manslaughter charges by now. THe trouble is now these inept little children are running around thinking they can shoot people on a whim.
03 November 2007, 01:32 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter you muppet
Look, cocaine - read up or take a toot or two mate!
effects are euphoria/great feelings whilst high on it.
However:
Whilst coming down (as Demenezes was, as it was in his urine not his bloodstream)) are paranoia, moods, irrtablility, etc and very likely to be a contributing factor!
Look, cocaine - read up or take a toot or two mate
!effects are euphoria/great feelings whilst high on it.
However:
Whilst coming down (as Demenezes was, as it was in his urine not his bloodstream)) are paranoia, moods, irrtablility, etc and very likely to be a contributing factor!
What did he do which was suspicious? he left his dwelling not properly seen by the copper who was having a pee at the time, walked down the road, caught a bus, got off and got on again, entered the tube station, bought a paper, bought his ticket and walked through the stiles, walked to the train, got on and sat down. Now you tell me what is suspicious about that!
He was wearing light clothes which would not have hidden a bomb and he was not carrying a rucksack. If he had a bomb with intent, he would have detonated it long before the officers who overpowered him had a chance to shoot him. Real suicide bombers are prepared for all that. They could have held his arms and checked him for explosives before shooting him. They had wrestled him to the ground before they shot him-7 times for goodness sake! Since no bomb had gone off by the time they shot him, and they had overpowered him, they could easily have checked him before shooting and not been in further danger.
This was a shameful and unecessary killing brought about by a series of errors all along the line due to the shambles which the police control was demonstrating.
This was not improved by the attempted cover up from the top by telling lies for several hours about what had happened when they had realised their gross error.
I think it is quite reasonable to expect that a proper identification should be made before they go around shooting people in cold blood.
The responsibility lies with the man at the top and he should take the correct and decent action immediately
I really hope the IPCC come to a truthful conclusion over this.
Les
04 November 2007, 03:49 PM
#99
Im wondering????? 
Picture the scene:
** There is a significant threat of people letting off bombs in the underground. You have 5 seconds to make a descision or face long term 'consequences' [the accusations of the public and families of 50/60 bomber victims], for not stopping a bomber when you could.
If the policemen having to make the snap decsion** had not shot him, AND he had gone on to blow up a train.
HOW MANY of you
would be here slating the Police and the government (and probably London Underground) for NOT taking decisive action.
I mean these are supposed to be trained people, paid and trained to make a hard decision to save ours lives, what the hell are they doing allowing a 'potential bomber' onto a packed train....
Picture the scene:
** There is a significant threat of people letting off bombs in the underground. You have 5 seconds to make a descision or face long term 'consequences' [the accusations of the public and families of 50/60 bomber victims], for not stopping a bomber when you could.
If the policemen having to make the snap decsion** had not shot him, AND he had gone on to blow up a train.
HOW MANY of you
would be here slating the Police and the government (and probably London Underground) for NOT taking decisive action. I mean these are supposed to be trained people, paid and trained to make a hard decision to save ours lives, what the hell are they doing allowing a 'potential bomber' onto a packed train....
04 November 2007, 04:25 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im wondering?????
Picture the scene:
** There is a significant threat of people letting off bombs in the underground. You have 5 seconds to make a descision or face long term 'consequences' [the accusations of the public and families of 50/60 bomber victims], for not stopping a bomber when you could.
If the policemen having to make the snap decsion** had not shot him, AND he had gone on to blow up a train.
HOW MANY of you would be here slating the Police and the government (and probably London Underground) for NOT taking decisive action.
I mean these are supposed to be trained people, paid and trained to make a hard decision to save ours lives, what the hell are they doing allowing a 'potential bomber' onto a packed train....
Picture the scene:
** There is a significant threat of people letting off bombs in the underground. You have 5 seconds to make a descision or face long term 'consequences' [the accusations of the public and families of 50/60 bomber victims], for not stopping a bomber when you could.
If the policemen having to make the snap decsion** had not shot him, AND he had gone on to blow up a train.
HOW MANY of you
would be here slating the Police and the government (and probably London Underground) for NOT taking decisive action. I mean these are supposed to be trained people, paid and trained to make a hard decision to save ours lives, what the hell are they doing allowing a 'potential bomber' onto a packed train....
04 November 2007, 10:01 PM
#102
Cocaine user or not, what possible relevance could that have on being shot by the police. Did they know he had been using it? Your description has absolutely no bearing on this brutal act by the armed police.
What did he do which was suspicious? he left his dwelling not properly seen by the copper who was having a pee at the time, walked down the road, caught a bus, got off and got on again, entered the tube station, bought a paper, bought his ticket and walked through the stiles, walked to the train, got on and sat down. Now you tell me what is suspicious about that!
He was wearing light clothes which would not have hidden a bomb and he was not carrying a rucksack. If he had a bomb with intent, he would have detonated it long before the officers who overpowered him had a chance to shoot him. Real suicide bombers are prepared for all that. They could have held his arms and checked him for explosives before shooting him. They had wrestled him to the ground before they shot him-7 times for goodness sake! Since no bomb had gone off by the time they shot him, and they had overpowered him, they could easily have checked him before shooting and not been in further danger.
This was a shameful and unecessary killing brought about by a series of errors all along the line due to the shambles which the police control was demonstrating.
This was not improved by the attempted cover up from the top by telling lies for several hours about what had happened when they had realised their gross error.
I think it is quite reasonable to expect that a proper identification should be made before they go around shooting people in cold blood.
The responsibility lies with the man at the top and he should take the correct and decent action immediately
I really hope the IPCC come to a truthful conclusion over this.
Les
What did he do which was suspicious? he left his dwelling not properly seen by the copper who was having a pee at the time, walked down the road, caught a bus, got off and got on again, entered the tube station, bought a paper, bought his ticket and walked through the stiles, walked to the train, got on and sat down. Now you tell me what is suspicious about that!
He was wearing light clothes which would not have hidden a bomb and he was not carrying a rucksack. If he had a bomb with intent, he would have detonated it long before the officers who overpowered him had a chance to shoot him. Real suicide bombers are prepared for all that. They could have held his arms and checked him for explosives before shooting him. They had wrestled him to the ground before they shot him-7 times for goodness sake! Since no bomb had gone off by the time they shot him, and they had overpowered him, they could easily have checked him before shooting and not been in further danger.
This was a shameful and unecessary killing brought about by a series of errors all along the line due to the shambles which the police control was demonstrating.
This was not improved by the attempted cover up from the top by telling lies for several hours about what had happened when they had realised their gross error.
I think it is quite reasonable to expect that a proper identification should be made before they go around shooting people in cold blood.
The responsibility lies with the man at the top and he should take the correct and decent action immediately
I really hope the IPCC come to a truthful conclusion over this.
Les
Good post Les, you have encapsulated in a balanced and articulate manner the reasons why this must never be allowed to happen again. It's alright saying well he was an illegal and shouldn't have been here (a poor red herring), but that doesn't diminish the the terrible failings in the Police operation. I'm sure the likes of Hol et al would be equally understanding if it was a member of their family wrongly executed, well it was only a mistake not a conspiracy hey ho.
04 November 2007, 10:10 PM
#103
They followed him for 45 mnutes not five seconds. There was no reason to suspect him of being a bomber he had no rucksack or any way of carrying one, the 45 minutes 10 police oficers spent following him they should have noticed that. Once on the train he had all the time in the world to detonate the bomb if he wanted. He stood up out of his seat and walked towards the police and was then told to sit down they then held him down and shot him in the head a survelance officers then almost got shot for being in the general vicinity. That just sows how inept and stupid these shooters were and none of them should be in the police force let alone allowed to carry a gun.
Thankfully the powers-that-be consider the above conjecture to be irrelevant compared to the fact that the guy should not have been in the country at the time of the incident.
Despite the failures here, serious shootings of innocent cilivians are very very rare in the UK. The last one I can remember was Stephan Waldorf back in the 1980s, when plod turned the guy's mini into a collander.
Islamic terrorists have nailed quite a few more than that in recent times
. Which is precisely the reason why the police were so jumpy in this case too. If anything the Brazilian was an, albeit indirect, victim of terrorism, surely?
Last edited by Suresh; 04 November 2007 at 10:14 PM. Reason: edited to add missing "not"
04 November 2007, 10:19 PM
#104
Thankfully the powers-that-be consider the above conjecture to be irrelevant compared to the fact that the guy should not have been in the country at the time of the incident.
Despite the failures here, serious shootings of innocent cilivians are very very rare in the UK. The last one I can remember was Stephan Waldorf back in the 1980s, when plod turned the guy's mini into a collander.
Islamic terrorists have nailed quite a few more than that in recent times . Which is precisely the reason why the police were so jumpy in this case too. If anything the Brazilian was an, albeit indirect, victim of terrorism, surely?
Despite the failures here, serious shootings of innocent cilivians are very very rare in the UK. The last one I can remember was Stephan Waldorf back in the 1980s, when plod turned the guy's mini into a collander.
Islamic terrorists have nailed quite a few more than that in recent times
. Which is precisely the reason why the police were so jumpy in this case too. If anything the Brazilian was an, albeit indirect, victim of terrorism, surely?Last edited by Maz; 04 November 2007 at 10:30 PM.
04 November 2007, 10:26 PM
#105
04 November 2007, 10:42 PM
#107
Put yourself in the police's shoes though and given the information they had at the time, would you have done anything differently?
Before we start a collection here for him, note that the victim was a convicted armed robber
Open verdict on man shot dead by police | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
Before we start a collection here for him, note that the victim was a convicted armed robber
Open verdict on man shot dead by police | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
05 November 2007, 10:25 AM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I've joined the Focus family
Posts: 7,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think with someone positively identified as an immediate threat, yup, but you do it as far away from crowds as possible. They failed to identify their target, AND failed to prevent him from entering i) the bus, ii) re-entering the bus, iii) the tube station and iv) the tube.
The entire situation was fueled by increasing levels of anxiety and panic and a feeling of imminent doom.
J.
The entire situation was fueled by increasing levels of anxiety and panic and a feeling of imminent doom.
J.
05 November 2007, 11:15 AM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always more to it than meets the eye. I remember that one. If I recall there was a tip off to the police about an armed man int he vicinity which is why armed police were present . He had been drinking the twit didn't drop it when challenged? Or were those 'lies' presented as evidence by the police?
If you are briefed to shoot to kill then I think you should be very certain how real the threat is befopre you do that.
Les
05 November 2007, 12:01 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police involved were hardly run-of-the-mill bobbies drafted in for a late shift. They were the best available and there were a lot of them involved in the op.
J.
05 November 2007, 03:45 PM
#112
Yes it seems there is more than meets the eye. The table leg was wrapped up so that it could not have been used had it been a gun and he was not using it in a threatening manner.
If you are briefed to shoot to kill then I think you should be very certain how real the threat is befopre you do that.
Les
If you are briefed to shoot to kill then I think you should be very certain how real the threat is befopre you do that.
Les
It's easy to use a sawn-off in a bag - armed robbers used that trick all the time in the seventies. And both eye-witness and autopsy reports suggest that he turned round and swung the leg towards the two officers. The contentious point is about when exactly they opened fire. Remember, they had been told the bag contained a shotgun, and suddenly the owner is swinging it around towards them. What are you going to do? You have about one tenth of second to decide - hurry up.
M
06 November 2007, 12:37 PM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Whether the officers are guilty of the killing and of incompetence under pressure is one thing. I haven't read the reports, inquest, whatever. Can't be arsed.
What I find far scarier, from the above, is the apparent amount of lying and falsification of evidence afterwards, done by police officers FFS - and up to what level? All to cover their own backs.
These are people who are expected to go into court and act as credible/professional witnesses. People who are expected to have the trust of the public and of the judiciary.
I picked up a book at my father's house called "Bent coppers". The point of the research was, whoever the author spoke to in the police, it was always a thing of the past mate, a minority, no no it doesn't happen these days.
Erm, it obviously does.
To me, that's the saddest part of the whole episode.
What I find far scarier, from the above, is the apparent amount of lying and falsification of evidence afterwards, done by police officers FFS - and up to what level? All to cover their own backs.
These are people who are expected to go into court and act as credible/professional witnesses. People who are expected to have the trust of the public and of the judiciary.
I picked up a book at my father's house called "Bent coppers". The point of the research was, whoever the author spoke to in the police, it was always a thing of the past mate, a minority, no no it doesn't happen these days.
Erm, it obviously does.
To me, that's the saddest part of the whole episode.
06 November 2007, 12:52 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I obviously feel upset about his death but I agree with the point about the actions afterwards in the hope of a cover up which were condoned by the bloke who ought to be out on his neck anyway.
Les
Les
06 November 2007, 03:13 PM
#117
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
To Meridian, carry a bag in your hand of a piece of wood and see what happens if someone shouts your name or something to grab your attention from behind you... instinct is to turn quite quickly, resulting in swinging of the arms and therefore whatever is being held.... so it is quite plausible the guy simply turned round and as a result ate lead.
As for what Brendan says, I agree completely, how can any of the people go into court and be classed as a credible witness is beyond me. If I was on a jury and one of these people turned up and would automatically think 'lying b4stard'......
As for what Brendan says, I agree completely, how can any of the people go into court and be classed as a credible witness is beyond me. If I was on a jury and one of these people turned up and would automatically think 'lying b4stard'......
06 November 2007, 05:38 PM
#118
To Meridian, carry a bag in your hand of a piece of wood and see what happens if someone shouts your name or something to grab your attention from behind you... instinct is to turn quite quickly, resulting in swinging of the arms and therefore whatever is being held.... so it is quite plausible the guy simply turned round and as a result ate lead.
You are perfectly correct that most people might turn around when shouted at: even when what was actually shouted was along the lines of: "Stop! Armed Police!" But that doesn't change what the police see, and why they are likely to open fire under such circumstances.
M
06 November 2007, 05:43 PM
#119
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police officers claimed he grasped one end of the table leg into his body and pointed the other at an officer, making it look like a shotgun.
The inquest, however, heard forensic evidence indicating Mr Stanley was facing away from the officers.
Evidence from a Home Office pathologist showed Mr Stanley was hit on the left side and was therefore facing away from the policemen. "He was probably just starting to turn round when
The inquest, however, heard forensic evidence indicating Mr Stanley was facing away from the officers.
Evidence from a Home Office pathologist showed Mr Stanley was hit on the left side and was therefore facing away from the policemen. "He was probably just starting to turn round when