Tellyn Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 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.) Can I remind you and others again that Britain was on RED ALERT. London had just been attacked, loads of people died, better one person than a train full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 better one person than a train full. But the key thing is that there was no threat; a train full was never going to die, it was just a guy catching a train. They could have killed you and said "oh, he looked terroristy, better be safe than sorry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 But the key thing is that there was no threat; a train full was never going to die, it was just a guy catching a train. They could have killed you and said "oh, he looked terroristy, better be safe than sorry." If men with big guns are shouting at you to "STOP!", what do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 If men with big guns are shouting at you to "STOP!", what do you do? He did nothing. He was sitting on a train. The woman next to him says he was sat down, the cops came on and jumped on him in his seat and shot him seven times in the head. Here's a question - what if while the firearms officers were being sent to follow and killcompletely innocent man, without suitiable equipment to keep in contact with their incompetent superiors from underground and being mis-directed by horrific failures in communication were needed to stop a real fucking terrorist on another train and they weren't able to because of this monumental fuck up and thus hundreds of people died? That's a better question. Someone of the remedial logic in this thread is completely off the wall, you might as well have a policy of shooting one person at random a day on the tube in case it saves lives. You might as well go around slashing people's tires in case they cause a fatal pile up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 He did nothing. He was sitting on a train. The woman next to him says he was sat down, the cops came on and jumped on him in his seat and shot him seven times in the head. Here's a question - what if while the firearms officers were being sent to follow and killcompletely innocent man, without suitiable equipment to keep in contact with their incompetent superiors from underground and being mis-directed by horrific failures in communication were needed to stop a real fucking terrorist on another train and they weren't able to because of this monumental fuck up and thus hundreds of people died? That's a better question. Someone of the remedial logic in this thread is completely off the wall, you might as well have a policy of shooting one person at random a day on the tube in case it saves lives. You might as well go around slashing people's tires in case they cause a fatal pile up. But that's just silly. And I know it was an example, but we aren't currently on red alert, when he was shot we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 If men with big guns are shouting at you to "STOP!", what do you do? That has nothing to do with this. You've clearly not read the wikipedia article or watched the BBC flash animation of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Red alert is abstract, they should be on red alert always, not after a terrorist attack. I usually do my commute constantly listening to music and with a back pack, I guess I would screwed if they came after me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 He did nothing. He was sitting on a train. The woman next to him says he was sat down, the cops came on and jumped on him in his seat and shot him seven times in the head. Here's a question - what if while the firearms officers were being sent to follow and killcompletely innocent man, without suitiable equipment to keep in contact with their incompetent superiors from underground and being mis-directed by horrific failures in communication were needed to stop a real fucking terrorist on another train and they weren't able to because of this monumental fuck up and thus hundreds of people died? That's a better question. Someone of the remedial logic in this thread is completely off the wall, you might as well have a policy of shooting one person at random a day on the tube in case it saves lives. You might as well go around slashing people's tires in case they cause a fatal pile up. EXACTLY! You hit the nail right on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 But that's just silly. And I know it was an example, but we aren't currently on red alert, when he was shot we were. All the more reason to hold to account the people who presided over such misommunication, mis-identification, and a general complete fuck up. What if we allow the people in charge, like Ian Blair, to stay in their position and next time we're on RED ALERT they do their Keystone Cops act again and hundreds of people die? By your own better-safe-than-sorry logic we need to sack the lot of them just in case. Or get some guy in jeans and a denim jacket to run at Ian Blair with a handgun and if he runs or looks like he's frightened and like he might run we shoot him seven times in the head. Well, 3 times in the head and 4 times in the stump, I don't know if you can actually phyically shoot someone seven times in the head and still have any head to shoot into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Boris speaks out "It's not good enough. It's not good enough just to shrug our shoulders and say that Jean Charles de Menezes was an inevitable casualty of the so-called war on terror. According to the polls I have seen, the majority of voters really seem to think we should all heave a sigh, move on, and accept that someone will always be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I say that I am afraid that will not do, because if you think about what actually happened, and you look at the real reason why an innocent Brazilian electrician had seven shots pumped into his head by the police, it is clear that we are in danger of drawing precisely the wrong conclusion. It wasn't too little concern for health and safety that did for that young man. The awful paradox is that it was too much." Good article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/08/do0801.xml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I think people here have missed the point - the firearms officers were told that he was a terrorist, and they had to stop him. They did their jobs unbelievably well. If they intelligence was correct, then they would be national heroes. However, as someone elsewhere screwed up, they are getting stick for it. As far as they new at the time, they were shooting a man with a bomb in his bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 As far as they new at the time, they were shooting a man with a bomb in his bag. He wasn't carrying a bag. If they were actually told he WAS a terrorist (not just that he was under surveillance because he came out of the same block of flats as a terrorist suspect) then that's even worse! They let him walk on to a bus full of people, get off, walk in to the underground and on to a packed tube without challenging him and then shot the poor fucker. If he'd been using a dead man's switch they'd have blown the whole thing to hell. I do agree that the responsibility for completely fucking up the job of protecting the public, killing one member of the public and endangering coutnless more in the process, lies higher up the command chain however. Which is why I still think Ian Blair will go, no matter how many investigations he tries to block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 They let him walk on to a bus full of people, get off, walk in to the underground and on to a packed tube without challenging him and then shot the poor fucker. If he'd been using a dead man's switch they'd have blown the whole thing to hell. Um, the armed police were only told to intercept him once he was going to the tube station. Also, if he was a terrorist, he'd have waited for the train to be in a tunnel, it would cause more casualties due to the difficulty of evacuation and getting in paramedics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Um, the armed police were only told to intercept him once he was going to the tube station. Also, if he was a terrorist, he'd have waited for the train to be in a tunnel, it would cause more casualties due to the difficulty of evacuation and getting in paramedics. Riiiiight, so the standard procedure when stopping suicide bombers is to wait until they're on a tube full of people. At least you can scoop up the body parts easier than if they were in a tunnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Riiiiight, so the standard procedure when stopping suicide bombers is to wait until they're on a tube full of people. At least you can scoop up the body parts easier than if they were in a tunnel. I have to agree wtith you. The way it was handled was shameful. I mean, you have a choice, either intercept him on the way to the tube and arrest him, or wait intill he's on a crowded tube and shoot him not thinking about the fact if he had have been a terroist they could have set the bomb off. He was completley innocent and the british police should be on their knees apologising for what they've done to the family of that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Riiiiight, so the standard procedure when stopping suicide bombers is to wait until they're on a tube full of people. At least you can scoop up the body parts easier than if they were in a tunnel. Watch the BBC news site's animation, and tell me at what point the firearms officers were in a position to shoot him beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 9, 2007 Author Share Posted November 9, 2007 Watch the BBC news site's animation, and tell me at what point the firearms officers were in a position to shoot him beforehand. He could have been seized by surveillance officers before even reaching the first bus. Why even kill a terrorist? You're just giving them what they want! Disable them (stun gun, tranquilizer etc) and put then on trial. The shooting is a bit dodgy the more I think of it; the armed 'officers' ordered the passengers to get out, so then what danger would the public be in at that point? All parties need more training (information, police). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 It was official murder, can't get more legal than that. Sounds like you don't know the facts AT ALL. Plus; it would've been manslaughter. To be honest; it sounds as if none of you know the facts. He was on his way to work, and missed to be stopped a few times by the survailance teams: Home (He lived in flats where Terrorists lived) - Due to pissing Bus - Can't remember why Train Station - Armed Police were apparently close by; they were'nt Once the intel team told the ununiformed officer to NOT to approach in the station, due to believing the Armed Squad were close by (which they weren't) Mendez was almost to the train. As far as I'm aware, he never ran, he may have done just to get to the train, as people do. He sat down, and the doors were late closing, unfortunatly for him; BUT he spelt his own demise when the armed squad arrived, he looked as if he was about to activate a bomb, putting his hands together infront of him instead of doing what he was told, therefor being shot. And anyone that would have done other than shoot him when it looked that close to you and many other people being blown up, then you're an absolute moron. As far as the armed squad were aware, he WAS a Terrorist. So...if he was a terrorist about to activate a bomb, you'd have let him live Odwin?! The only reason people are moaning is because: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." They forget that the armed police were believing they were saving others. I bet they'd be complaining the other way if he'd got away and had blown everyone up. The only sad thing I find about this is the Intel failed miserably, and the Met will probably think twice next time....except it'll be a real bomber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 I'm not against specific policeman, they did what they thought it was needed ( although wrongly), the problem in this is that they label him as a victim of terrorism instead of their incompetence. And when did terrorist needed to put they're hands in front of them to trigger a bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 I'm not against specific policeman, they did what they thought it was needed ( although wrongly), the problem in this is that they label him as a victim of terrorism instead of their incompetence. And when did terrorist needed to put they're hands in front of them to trigger a bomb? HAHAHA....Wow; that's the dumbest shit ever; you can put 2 wires together; fuckin hell. So...You are against the armed police?! You just said they were wrong, when in fact, they did exactly the right thing: I bet you'd* be complaining the other way if he'd got away and had blown everyone up. Though you probably wouldn't; cos then you'd just think "just a statistic; in Britain". *Edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Look dude I get that you're all happy with one less immigrant, but they're "Shit happens" excuse isn't enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Looked like he was trying to blow up a bomb, Jesus wept, if you believe that then I've got some magic beans you might be interested in buying. He didn't have any time to do anything, the woman sat next to him said he did nowt and at first she thought he'd been picked at random because he was closest to the door. Fact is any terrorist with half a brain would have used a deadman's switch so it would have been the Keystone Cop idiots who would have detonated the bomb by shooting him anyway. It was a massive fuck up, it endangered the public and killed one of them. If you're happy with these idiots not being held to account I just hope they're not in charge of protecting you next time you get a train because even Mr Bean could outwit these hapless bunch of dickheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 If you're happy with these idiots not being held to account I just hope they're not in charge of protecting you next time you get a train because even Mr Bean could outwit these hapless bunch of dickheads. So, tell me, how many have managed to outwit "these hapless bunch of dickheads" since 7/7? (And by the way, I hate it when people say "7-7".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellyn Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Was the man not an illegal immigrant anyway, henceforth he shouldn't have been there in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 So, tell me, how many have managed to outwit "these hapless bunch of dickheads" since 7/7? (And by the way, I hate it when people say "7-7".) One of the guys who tried to carry out the last attack had his car bomb towed away because it got a ticket. The other one set himself on fire. The attempted attacks in the weeks after were foiled by the incompetence of the wannabe martyrs not getting the formula of the bomb right, not by The Met. Just in case they send someone with a clue to carry out attack we need people to be held accountable when they screw up. And if you screw in a manner that results in an an innocent man being shot in the head 7 times you are going to be held accountable, copper or not. And that's how it should be. Was the man not an illegal immigrant anyway, henceforth he shouldn't have been there in the first place? Non sequitur ahoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts