LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBut the police had no intelligence identifying him as a potential terrorist at all.
But the police had no intelligence identifying him as a potential terrorist at all.
He came out from a common entrance to a flat used by the terrorists.... He's not registered as living there if he has no visa?... I'd say thats a good reason to stop him to ask questions to be honest.....
If he hadn't have run, he'd have been arrested, asked questions and probably deported?.
It doesn't matter to me what intelligence the armed police had, if they tell you stop, you stop...
TiG
-- Hexus Meets Rock! --
No, to a BLOCK of flats one of which may have been used by suspected terrorists; so do the police have a license to shoot everyone coming out of a block of flats on the basis that one flat is suspect?Originally Posted by TiG
Fine by me. Difficult to ask him questions now that they've shot him in the head, isn't it?
Possibly; although given that they had him immobilised on the ground by two officers while a third shot him I'm not making any assumptions.
Yes, yes, a policeman with a gun has the right to order anyone around that he pleases, even if there's no reasonable grounds for doing so, and they have a license to shoot them too...and while we're at it, why don't we cheer that we've all been saved from this dangerous and deadly...scared electrician.
No police don't have the right to shoot everyone coming out of a block of flats, but they have the right to stop them. So as soon as he ran he was dead, that much i know. You run from armed officers jump barriers, run onto a train you've signed you life away.
Would you prefer the officers to have stopped him on the train and for him to have taken the risk and been blown them up and the other 50 people on board the train?. Well they can't take the risk, they go into auto training mode, the way to deal with potential suicide bombers is shoot to kill.
Sure they had no intelligence on him, thats why the followed him. It is no-one's fault bar him for being in this country illegally, running from armed police in todays climate of shoot to kill with the prospect of suicide bombers.
I'm sorry but i can't see what the police did wrong. Followed training, with the concept of protecting innocent life. I'd rather this happen than be talking about 50 dead on a train as police didn't shoot to kill.
TiG
-- Hexus Meets Rock! --
So you would take that chance.
Would you advise the police by saying, "We know nothing about this bloke so let him go on his way even though he's come out of a building connected with terrorist activity wearing a suspiciously large unseasonal coat."
They had no choice but to follow him. To not do so would have been a deriliction of duty and potentially put the public at risk.
No intelligence is 100% reliable - there will always be doubt, errors etc. The London bombs have come right out of the blue. There was no intelligence. No indications. No intelligence identifying potential terrorists.
The authorities do not know who these peolple are, so how are they to gain the intelligence that identifies people as potential terrorists?
It's good old fashioned detective work including tailing suspects. That's what they did. Armed police were used because of the potential threat.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Then you should have paid more attention since other witnesses have stated that he fell, was held down by two officers while a third shot him. And he wasn't a terrorist, the police had no reasonable grounds for supposing that he was - what, everyone who runs away from a policeman's a terrorist and deserves to be shot?
The police tailed him because he came out of a block of flats; he was on his way to work. He didn't come out of a specific flat that they'd been watching, just out of the entrance to a block of flats. Maybe he was worried about his visa, maybe he was scared for some other reason; scared people do stupid things, it doesn't mean that they're terrorists.
You talk about the known facts at the time, yet it seems to me that the problem is that there WERE no known facts, and if the police had this block of flats under surveillance then there damn well should have been, and if there had been, then an innocent man might not have been killed.
Last edited by nichomach; 25-07-2005 at 04:43 PM.
You're being ridiculous. "suspiciously large unseasonal coat"? You mean like that worn by a hell of a lot of people; I wear "unseasonable" jackets some of the time, just because they have sufficient pockets in - oops! Guess I'm a previously unsuspected member of Al-Qaeda then - break out the Glocks!
And the purpose of the building being under surveillance was what, then? To gather intelligence on the people within it and determine who they were. Something that patently didn't happen in this case. Flawed intelligence, as I said.
And the threat potential was critically misidentified because the police didn't know who the person that they were pursuing was.
Like I said, there are still questions. It's not black and white, iranu. Tailing is good old fashioned policing, but so is stopping and questioning suspects, or surrounding a block of flats, as they did today.
The 'suspicious coat' you're so fond of as a trigger for the armed squad didn't alert the police tailing him, even as he boarded a bus.
And it's wrong to say we'd all be cheering if they got the right man. Only t*ats who don't read the news do that. On the evidence they had, if they got the right man a lot of people would think 's*hit, they were lucky'.
Forget blame, I don't want people prosecuted, I'd rather something be learned from this.
It's naive to think the police will be hamstrung, the tide is completely against it. The last 2 days have been a united front politically for the Police and government, it's been very 'bullish'. So it's more important to oppose this complacency, I think.
On saturday a senior policeman disagreed with the way the operation was carried out. I'd like to hear what he has to say. I doubt we will though, for all the shouts of 'nah, it's nothing'.
Last edited by equivalent; 25-07-2005 at 11:25 PM.
So no one cares that the officers let a potential terrorist get onto the train in the first place?
He should have either been arrested on the train, or shot before he could enter the station.
From the inconsistencies of this thread alone, an enquiry looks like a good idea.
Neither did they have any inteligence that the four July 7th bombers where going to did what they did.
Yes, dom, but then they weren't supposed to have their building under surveillance; here, the circumstances are very different. It's also worth noting that he apparently WASN'T here illegally as has previously been speculated; according to Jack Straw:Indy Linky
Indy Comment
Last edited by nichomach; 26-07-2005 at 11:10 AM.
"Neither did they have any inteligence that the four July 7th bombers where going to did what they did."
But from that argument, it doesn't follow that they were right, does it? By that token, every policeman in the land could be occupied by questioning the nearest asian, while the terrorists roam free. Some conservatives would love that policy, but I wouldn't.
If you don't have any intelligence, the only conclusion you can make is that you don't know. If you act on that routinely, you're wasting time and resources.
From Andy McNab, on yesterday's ITV lunchtime news (defending the Gibraltar killings): "The SAS were given intelligence that the 3 IRA members had a bomb."
The police tailing Jean Charles de Menezes obviously didn't think he had a bomb as they let him on a bus. Questions?
Last edited by equivalent; 26-07-2005 at 11:31 AM.
I do agree with some of the policy and points brought up here. I think a shoot to kill policy should be in place if there is a deffinate chance of danger. Hower this should never be enfordced by plain clothed police officers.
The entire point of an increased police presence is to show it and to allow them to act on any incident arising.
My point being that if 3 people in plain clothes approach me with guns i'd probably run. However if 3 people in full police uniform approach me i'd be a lot more likely to stop beleiving them to be police officers.
Secondly, the entire point of the shoot to kill policy is to stop possible suicide bombers. The guy should have been shot the instant he ran. The idea of allowing him to maybe lead them to other terrorists totally defeats the purpose of a shoot to kill policy as it increases the threat as you allow him to get to more poplated areas.
Update: according to a leaked report just shown on the UK news, the de Menezes shooting was not as clear a situation as initially reported/assumed:
He was not surveilled with video (as the officer operating the camera was taking a p[ss)
He was mistakenly identified as IC2 (black)
He was supposed to be arrested as soon as he was clear of his house
He was unaware he was being tailed as he walked through the turnstiles and stopped to pick up a free paper. He was supposed to have been stopped as a terrorist suspect before he entered the station, but this information only reached officers by the time he was on the train.
He did not run from the police, but he was probably running for the train, and was sitting down on the train when he was shot (both eyewitness and surveillance unit member, who said he restrained him, report this).
There was a massive article in the Observer this Sunday. Here is what we now know:
* He was NOT wearing a big jacket, just a thin denim one
* He did NOT have a tool belt on, it was left at a friends house.
* He did NOT jump the gate, HE USED HIS TRAVEL ACCESS CARD.
* He was NOT running, they did not aproach him until right up to the point he reached the train.
* The police said there was no way to communicate between comanders and the team that murdered him down the underground. Funny that, the transport police seem to manage ok.
* But get this - NONE of the CCTV camera's were working that covered the incident. NONE, yet there must have been many that covered it. And thats after the other bombing when they should have been making sure all camera's were working.
UN-*******-REAL. Anyone else smell a cover up? :/
Last edited by DaBeeeenster; 16-08-2005 at 11:54 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote