Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes On the channel 4 news (uk) they just showed a computerised reconstruction on the ordeal according to information...And it is nothing short of disgusting! This has obviously been a case of severe information editting by the powers that be. Things that dusgust me: - False information; jumping over barriers, wearing a winter jacket (in summer). - False information regarding underground cameras being out of service. - The way they restrained him and the seven shots in the head. - Attempts to smear De Menezes name by accussing him of crimes prior to the incident. If he was such a danger why did the plain-clothed policemen allow him unto a bus?! And why whould they restrain him at close range if he had the capabilities of denotating an explosion? This just makes me sick - Taking a man's life on such flawed information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 The person who pulled the trigger must have felt he had a pretty good reason to do it at the time, especially infront of all those witnesses. If he had turned out to be a terrorist then it would have been a totally different story. Im not saying he deserved to die. It was very wrong to take a life, But it did show to other possible terrorist we wern't pissing about. As for my thoughts, i'm neutral on the whole thing. We will never get the whole truth on what happened and what was going through the plain clothed police heads, or that of De Menezes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I think "endangering the public" is a god damn poor excuse of a conviction for killing an innocent man because the surveying officer was out for a piss when he left the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 It was official murder, can't get more legal than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 For god's sake Britain was on red alert, they did the right thing. He was told to stop running, he didn't. It was either shoot him and potentially save tens of lives, or let him carry on running and potentially let him kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 He was another victim of terrorism. Nothing else to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I think the policeman that shot him did the right thing. If he thought he was a terrorist then you shoot to kill not to hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Glad you all support it, next time it might be one of your friends or family, just because they acted weird. Or maybe they even stop giving a reason for killing innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Glad you all support it, next time it might be one of your friends or family, just because they acted weird. Or maybe they even stop giving a reason for killing innocent people. I'm glad I support it too, better to be safe than sorry. The policemen would have been lynched if they'd let him get away and he blew the train up. And I'll remind you that Britain was on red alert, that's "no shit or I'll blow your brains out", you know after loads of people got murdered by the 7/7 bombers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I don't support what they did but what happened was because of a terrorist event and so I can only blame the terrorists for his death. He was a casualty of war. Collateral damage, if you will. I find it sad that the victims of the bombings seemed to have been forgotten in light of this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 For god's sake Britain was on red alert, they did the right thing. He was told to stop running, he didn't. It was either shoot him and potentially save tens of lives, or let him carry on running and potentially let him kill people. FFS...Lets use logic here. When a group of armed men run after you yelling "stop!" what do you effing do? The footage shown of him walking through the gates and walking down the escalator were of a calm nature. He ran for the tube because he was late for work! Everyone runs for the tube when they the doors are about to close. To those that say its right, I really hope one of your family members get shot in the head five times for doing nothing whatsoever, I really wonder if you would hold the same opinion. I don't support what they did but what happened was because of a terrorist event and so I can only blame the terrorists for his death. He was a casualty of war. Collateral damage, if you will. I find it sad that the victims of the bombings seemed to have been forgotten in light of this incident. Okay, that I can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I think it's worth pointing out that he was not running. He did not vault the barrier. He was not a terrorism suspect. He was positively identified several times that he was not the suspect they were charged with following. He was followed covertly all the way down and into the train by plain clothed officers. No order was given to detain him. Despite this, a "code red" was given to firearms officers by ops. He was sitting down when they shot him. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I understand that, but they shouldn't shoot him based on suspicions! It could have been any of you! Even if he was a terrorist, it would be stupid to think he was alone in it, so why not arrest first, instead of shooting him to death, there's a lot of place you can shoot without killing a person and living him immobilized. Edit: I saw what gaggle posted in the news some time ago, but I wasn't sure if it was updated, but it just makes it worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 To those that say its right, I really hope one of your family members get shot in the head five times for doing nothing whatsoever, I really wonder if you would hold the same opinion. Wishing death on someone's family isn't how a debate goes you heartless bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 That was the sort of computerised animation I saw on the news...And it just makes it even worst. Understandably there seems to be a total lack of visual communication with the surveillance officers and the armed 'agents' (since they were about to shoot one of 'their' own 'colleagues'), but what disgusts me more is the whole "he jumped over barriers" excuse and the dodginess concerning cameras...All these lies and undercover evidence tampering is what totally disgusts me. Wishing death on someone's family isn't how a debate goes you heartless bastard. Heartless? I am the one who feels for the guy who got shot up for no reason. You are the one claiming it had to be done - fine! But your reaction is my point; if it was your family judging by your reaction just now goes to show how you would feel...I'm pretty sure you will be changing your opinion on what had to be done. If there was a heartless bastard here, it would be you and so many others in this country who display a gross level of carelessness for how this man's life was taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I think the police did bloody brilliantly - especially the firearms teams. Unfortunately, the intelligence teams fucked up in a big, big way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zell Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Glad you all support it, next time it might be one of your friends or family, just because they acted weird. Or maybe they even stop giving a reason for killing innocent people. Can't really use that as an excuse. You'd obviously think differently when personal reasons come over normal judgement. Many people in this country supported the war in Iraq, until their sibling was killed there and all of a sudden their opinion swings 180. Sure it's very sad for the guy's family, but in the situation and the intelligence that they had, was it the right thing to do? Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 The real question you have to ask yourself is. What would you be saying if they didn't kill him and it turns out he was a bomber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firthy1991 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 i dont like the fact that an innocent man died, and i do realise that he was mistaken for a terrorist at the time, but this shows that the police do not gather enough intelligence before taking action, just because they THOUGHT he was a terrorist that does not warrant the right to take his life, and ive heard others saying that he didnt stop when ordered to, but that does not give the right to kill the man, the armed police officers actually borded the train to shoot him, even though at that distance they could have just arrested him, but no they shot him dead, i think this is down to the poor intelligence that the police were working off of, and that the police is blame for the whole series of event that led to this innocent mans death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 The fact is, he was killed. But why the fuck Sir Ian Blair isn't stepping down is beyond me. How much shame can that one man take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfox Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 If he was a bomber and wasn't killed, think of the flac from that. A lot of people would have died, and it would have been preventable. Its just unfortunate an innocent died. I think the terrorists are more to blame, if they weren't going about in their misguided and fucked-up ways then he wouldn't have died either. Scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mundi Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 When i first heard of this i was of course shocked but you have to take into account what had happened before and the mentality of the police officer. It´s hard to deny that after 7/7 that a lot of cops had a kind of a vigilante mentality going on and the victim happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong and his only "crime" was looking different. But that dosen´t justify what he did, if it becomes for acceptable (by the general public of course) to shoot to kill just because suspicion of being a terrorist then more people are gonna die because of paranoid cops And if it´s alright to shoot people when they don´t stop when the cops tell them too, there´s gonna be a lot of headphone related deaths :Þ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I think it's worth pointing out that he was not running. He did not vault the barrier. He was not a terrorism suspect. He was positively identified several times that he was not the suspect they were charged with following. He was followed covertly all the way down and into the train by plain clothed officers. No order was given to detain him. Despite this, a "code red" was given to firearms officers by ops. He was sitting down when they shot him. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm That's truly awful to read. I am completely opposed to the shooting of someone "just in case" they were about to do something. For me there has to be 100% proof/surety of it, or it's a total no go. (Whole thing reminds me of Minority Report in a way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 The real question you have to ask yourself is. What would you be saying if they didn't kill him and it turns out he was a bomber? Sacrificing one person to guarentee the safety of others, but killing someone who actually posed no threat is wrong, innit. It was a mistake. That's the truth of it, and there's no point trying to justify it when no greater good was achieved. What's important is whether you still think the police are doing a good job of protecting you, whether you still feel safe living your lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firthy1991 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I think the policeman that shot him did the right thing. If he thought he was a terrorist then you shoot to kill not to hurt the police never shoot to hurt, they shoot to disable the suspect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts