Menezes police may face charges - Your View

Non- Rugby Related Chat. Please note that this forum is moderated. If you wish to make comments for the club's attention please do so in Fans Forum and not this one.

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Sim
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Bridgnorth

Menezes police may face charges - Your View

Post by Sim » Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:44 pm

I'm sure you all know the events last year where Brizilian Jean Charles de Menezes was wrongly shot dead when mistaken for a suiside bomber. It has been announced the three Met police officiers may now be charged for Manslaughter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5178062.stm

I was wondering what peoples opinions were on this subject

Mine:
I think its shocking, yes a mistake or several mistakes were made but at the end of the day the officers who shot Jean Charles weree under the instruction that hye was a suspect and when he went onto the tube after running away from officers the day after failed attempts had occured then you would assume he was a terrorist. These officers were specifically put in place to protect the tube and at the time thats what they belived they were doing. They were under the impression that he was a terrorist and he then ran from the police onto a tube train you would think there reaction would be to minimise the threat.

With the information they had they did exactly that, protected the tube by minimiseing a belived threat, i applaude the officers for there actions, killing someone is not something police officers take lightly and it was probably a huge thing to have to do, but they belived they were doing the correct thing and although it was a terrible outcome that it turned it the intelligence was wrong a he was shot wrongly i don't think to police can win, we say they don't do enough to stop attacks and then we critise when they take pro active action.

... your views ...

tigerman
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:06 am

Post by tigerman » Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:57 pm

This is a political minefield & i for one would sooner not go there.

IsraeliTiger
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: Currently Haifa, Israel. Formerly Oadby, England.

Post by IsraeliTiger » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:02 pm

The shoot to kill policy employed, as it is by Israel, should *only* be instigated when you are 110% sure you have your target. Someone walking out of the same building as the target is not enough. Surely a Brazilian and a African Muslim don't look that similar? The officers screwed up, they shot an innocent man, therefore they should pay the price.

Also, its been established that he didn't "run away from the officers" he used his oyster card, walked through the gate normally and stepped onto the train.
Kinoulton wrote:Surely that's much more in depth than your average corporate box punter can tolerate. How about "If the entire crowd shut up, you shut up. Otherwise we'll close your bar."

Sim
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Bridgnorth

Post by Sim » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm

He may have walked onto the train but the intelligence the officers had was good, or so they thought so, the officer didn't say hes walked out of the same building, he radioed to tell the officers that it was the suspect, that is where the mistake was made, all of the incidents that occured after were justified in my opinion.

orla - mumha abú!
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: D14... the 1 is very important to me!

Post by orla - mumha abú! » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:17 pm

personally i think the police should face charges for it. it was disgraceful. absolutely disgusting.
the whole incident made me extremely sad, made me feel like England was becoming more like the US, and not in a good way. terrorism is obviously an awful thing for a country to be open to, but it doesnt make killing innocent people ok. claiming terrorism was the reason is sick and wrong. he is dead, he did nothing wrong. those that shot him should pay the price. hopefully england will, and in that way will be better than the US.
to the brave and faithful nothing is impossible

European Champions 2006!

Sim
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Bridgnorth

Post by Sim » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:22 pm

I think you're missing the poiunt of what happened, i also think its terrible but they officers were under the impression he was a terrorit, the information they had led them to belive that, the officers were doing there jobs. Claiming terrorism was the reason was a perfectly good statment, the officers on the ground had a huge descision to make and made that decission for the good of the country. It isn't sick saying it was due to terrorism it is truthful, it was part of a anti-terror operation and a mistake was made in the identity,m i don't bel;ive the fire arms officers should face charges by any means.

orla - mumha abú!
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: D14... the 1 is very important to me!

Post by orla - mumha abú! » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:05 pm

trust me, i dont miss the point.
to the brave and faithful nothing is impossible

European Champions 2006!

Sim
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Bridgnorth

Post by Sim » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:16 pm

Well what you wrote before doesn't make any sense to what happened its a fairly naive view

Iain
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8161
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:39 pm
Location: Market Harborough

Post by Iain » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:26 pm

In all fairness Sim I think that Orla's view IS the point entirely. An innocent man got shot dead. There can be no excuse for that. Orla's point makes COMPLETE sense to what happened. I think the naive view is yours for seeing it as unavoidable.

IsraeliTiger
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: Currently Haifa, Israel. Formerly Oadby, England.

Post by IsraeliTiger » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:30 pm

Sim, you can't "accidentally" shoot someone. He shot him on purpose. Mistaken identity is not a good enough defence against murder.
Kinoulton wrote:Surely that's much more in depth than your average corporate box punter can tolerate. How about "If the entire crowd shut up, you shut up. Otherwise we'll close your bar."

orla - mumha abú!
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: D14... the 1 is very important to me!

Post by orla - mumha abú! » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:31 pm

i dont think my view is naive. i know i dont understand the situation like those who were involved in the 7/7 incidents. but my sister lives in london, and would have been on one of those trains except that she happened to wake up late that morning. for that i am eternally grateful.
yes the bombings were a very sad day for everyone in england, especially london. but shooting someone was not the answer. even if it had been a suicide bomber, i wouldnt have been happy he was shot dead. i dont agree with a shoot to kill policy. look what kind of things can go wrong. if the person is innocent, there is no changing what happened. at least by making those repsonsible face up to what they did, they are doing all they can to right a terrible terrble wrong.
to the brave and faithful nothing is impossible

European Champions 2006!

Sim
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Bridgnorth

Post by Sim » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:32 pm

Thats the thing i don't think it was unaviodable, i think it is terrible, but i don't think the officers on the ground are to blame, they acted on there information, think if you were told that the man you're following was a terrorist and then he gets on to a tube the day after failed attempts and a fortnight after 52 lpeople died. They acted on the information and from that point of view is was unavoidable, i think they did a great job acting on the information, but the blame lies somewhere else not with the fire arms officers.

At the end of the day if he had have been a terrorist and blew himself up then familes of another 40 people would be saying why wasn't he sopped how did this happen etc, they did what they were trained to do and acted professionally on the information.

Orla said that terrorism was used as an excuse it wasn't, thats basically saying the officers thought they'd kill someone then cover up, they didn't they acted on what they'd been told, it wasn't an excuse terrorism/ an anti-terror operation was the reason for his death.

orla - mumha abú!
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: D14... the 1 is very important to me!

Post by orla - mumha abú! » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:42 pm

well my view is that it was avoidable.

there are too many unanswered questions. why shoot the man 7 times? they had him cornered when they shot him 7 times. he had done nothing to warrant it. he didnt run like they said he did. they had him before they shot him 7 times. did i mention they shot him 7 times?

personally i think everyone involved should pay for what they did. whoever declared the shoot to kill policy was only doing it to appease people. not really thinking of the possible consequences. not really caring what could happen. they wanted to be seen to be "fighting" terrorism. they wanted to be seen to be doing something, anything. it wasnt reasonable, it wasnt fair, it wasnt right. they took an american approach, which is never good, to this. they wanted publicity about it.

sim, are you telling me you dont believe that man was murdered? did someone not shoot an innocent man for no reason? thats murder in my books no matter who ordered it.
to the brave and faithful nothing is impossible

European Champions 2006!

Iain
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8161
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:39 pm
Location: Market Harborough

Post by Iain » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:50 pm

Compliance is not an excuse for murder either. The intelligence was lousy, the policy was lousy, but the officers pulled the trigger. That they originally lied about him wearing a long coat and jumping a barrier suggests that the ground officers knew they were at fault and were covering up for their mistakes. Had he jumped the barrier and been wearing suspicious clothing and resisted calls for him to stop then maybe there might have been a case. Surely he should only have been shot if there was reason to believe he had a bomb. That originally they claimed he was acting in a manner that beyond reasonable doubt suggested he had a bombpoints to the fact that they knew that should have been the only reason to shoot him. If he was a mere suspect identified by intelligence and acting normally could he not have just been apprehended??
I'm sorry but the buck stops with the man who pulled the trigger.

Sim
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Bridgnorth

Post by Sim » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:55 pm

If they hadn't shot him and jst conered him he could have still blown himself up if he'd have been a terrorist and this is why they shot him. 7 times, ensures no bomb goes off. I know it was terrible to shoot him i know that he hadn;t done anything wrong, but think about it the officers thought he was a terrorist on the watch list and he was on a tube train think about the timing, i agree is was avoidable but i think the officers on the ground would have done that and if you were an armed policeman you would do the same in that situation. You would have been breifed about things and its what any officer would have done.

I think you're wrong that it was to be seen to be doing something, armed police officers often never ever offload even one round in anger in there entire career and officers who do have to kill someone or shoot someone leave there job because of doing it. Its not an easy thing to do but someone has to do it. Without them we wouldn't be safe. Yes i do think its terrible but potentialy how many people could have died, lots.

No i don't belive he was murdered i bleive he was accedently shot after being caught up in an anti-terror operation. But the offivers on the ground did there job, its the intelligence officers who failed.

You must be able to see where i'm coming from!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest