de menzes

for those who don't remember jean charles de menzes was the man shot on the underground after the july bombings.

it was later found that he was not a suicide bomber did run away from armed police men and was wearing a heavy jacket.

well the investigation findings has been leaked and it turns out that was all lies.

de menzes was not wearing a heavy jacket. he did not run from the police. he did not vault the ticket barrier he used a valid ticket. he did not run down the escalator. he walked calmly to the platform.

so why did he not run from the police? because they were in plain clothes. and...... they did not identify themselves.

so what do we have left? brazilian man walking onto a train then shot in the back and then the head 7 times as he cried and begged for his life, at point blank range.

he did not see it coming. it was silent until the moment the gun was pulled. he didn't stand a hope in hell.

and the price for the murder of an innocent man? £500,000. and probably no criminal charges.

is it me or is this story still sickening and has gained even more of that effect now?

I didnt hear anything about this, Where did you get this information from.

Holy ... Please tell me this isn't true.

it was in the sunday mail this morning.

the full investigation will be published soon.

Not surprised.

Yeah - Not too suprising here either. That is pathitic if this is the case. Shooting anyone 7 times-- wth is the point. If he was a bomber - shoot him once bring him in and torture the hell outta him and subject him to experimentation! (jk) I think they should kept him for questioning at least. I wonder what the reason would be for this one man to be picked out:

• Racism


• Government Conspiracy


• Severe anger plunging cops into a frenzy


• Cop had a personal vendetta

Yeh -- not looking too good for the fuzz there.

Bipper

Quote:

---

£500,000

---

In the words of the great Marty McFly "Thats heavy..."

it was basicly an execution.

why was he suspected? we have now ruled out him having a big jacket. and he didn't run away from the police.

so what reason is left to shoot him?

it was an execution carried out without thought and probably with hate. they walked up behind him and killed him.

there is no doubt here that these guy should be tried fully for murder.

No doubt that they should be tried for murder you say? I think it would be obscene to try the officers for murder.

Imagine the situation: You're a counter-terrorism police officer. London has been attacked several times during the past fortnight, and everyone is paranoid about more attacks. You have been sent to check outside a suspect's house. (Why he was suspected is irrelevant to the officer, as he has been told so by his superior) A man, who looks to be of foreign origins, emerges, and you identify yourself as armed police officers, ask him to stop, and you are well within your rights to do so. Suddenly he runs off towards a station - where several previous bomb attacks have occurred - and dives into a carriage filled with people. What would you do? Personally, I would open fire out of fear for public safety.

Murder is defined as "The unlawful killing of another human being during the Queen's peace with malice aforethought". I ask you this: Where was the malice in the killing of Jean Charles DeMenezes? The police officers were doing their duty: Protecting the public. Now, as we can see, they were wrong about this, but just because they made a mistake, does this mean they should be tried for maliciously killing someone? No.

However, I am not saying let them get away with it. I think whoever is found responsible by a jury should be found guilty of Gross Negligence Manslaughter, and all others involved should lose their jobs, as it shows they are unfit to serve and protect the public.

that would be all well and good psychotic if that was the case. but it wasn't.

london had been the day before not for the last fortnight.

his house was not under surveillence the block of flats he lived in was.

he was not a suspect.

they did not identify themselves.

he did not run. (why would he run if noone had bothered identifying themselves?)

there lies the rub. he could have been any other man on that train. there was nothing that outlined him different other than the set of flats he lived in. he did not run, he was not wearing anything suspicious, he wasn't even arab, he wasn't suspected of anything. he was a man going to work who the police walked behind then shot.

that is an execution. that is murder. that is not duty. it is not protecting the public, it is killing them with no cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

london had been the day before not for the last fortnight.

---

Then that would heighten security.

Quote:

---

his house was not under surveillence the block of flats he lived in was.

---

In that case, this is mistaken identity. It is certainly not a random event.

Quote:

---

they did not identify themselves.

---

Several witnesses say that they did. Several say they did not. You cannot present that as a fact unless you were there, and I will take the liberty of assuming you were not. And as for the purpose of a murder trial, it is up to the jury to decide whether or not they identified themselves from the evidence presented to them, not you. So saying they should be tried for murder on this basis is absurd.

Quote:

---

he did not run. (why would he run if noone had bothered identifying themselves?)

---

See above.

Quote:

---

that is an execution. that is murder. that is not duty. it is not protecting the public, it is killing them with no cause.

---

I repeat: Murder is "The unlawful killing of another human being during the Queen's peace with malice aforethought". If they honestly believed him to be a suspect, then they were doing their duty, because they did not kill him with malice. In order for them to be found guilty of murder, you need strong evidence they killed him with malicious intent. And I ask again: Where is the malice?

I thought about jumping in on this thread and putting two cents in. But I now just sigh and say, "not worth it till I get something that is just straight out facts and won't be contradicted later".

I have looked up some more recent articles and none are conclusive. All they really do is contradict one another. I will just wait till something more reliable comes out. Debating on possibilities(where facts change depending on your news source) is just pointless in my eyes.

If it is as you first post says.. it was wrong. But I doubt it went exactly like that, I imagine at least something is hidden. If however it is as was first being said.. then I really can see where they came from. Too many conflicting reports as of now for a definate opinion on this situation.

the malice is killing an unarmed, walking, unsuspicious man.

look at bonini's convistion this week. he didn't mean to kill that did. but he was stupid enough to fire an airgun at the kid holding him. he was guilty of murder due to being stupidly reckless and performing a deadly act.

these police were stupid enough to shoot a random guy. they were stupid enough to shoot him 8 times. that was totally un-neccessary.

this was done to "teach those bloody towelheads a lesson" shame though he wasn't muslim or a terrorist. or actually doing anything for which you can excuse.

No, malice is not killing an unarmed, walking, unsuspicious man. Let's suppose you and I are factory works operating heavy machinery. However, you make a mistake, and the machinery ends up crushing me. Did you do that maliciously? Of course not. It is the same situation here: Someone doing their job and making an error.

Bonini and this situation have absolutely nothing in common, other than a fatal shooting. These are officers of the law, who are licensed to carry firearms and use them. Bonini was a drug-crazed maniac who had no right to shoot at anyone at all.

This is a legal point, not a moral one. If they are, as you say, "stupid", then that is not malice, is it? It's an error. And if an error was made, it is NOT murder, it is manslaughter.

And who exactly are you quoting when you say "teach those bloody towelheads a lesson" anyway? I sincerely doubt any officer of the law said that, and if they did, the resulting media witch-hunt would see them kicked off the force immediately. You can't assume what the attitude or motivation behind the killing of De Menezes was and then present it as a fact. It is not a fact, it is just your opinion. In my opinion, the officers killed him - wrongly - to protect the public. And as I have said, whoever is responsible should be sentenced, but for gross negligence manslaughter, not murder.

it is not an accident to shoot a man not once but 8 times. it is not a mistake to walk up behind him and coldly end his life.

what threat exactly was he? what reason can be given for his killing? he was not an obvious threat. and if he ws not an obvious threat then there was no way to say he was endangering anyone. the one rule of police pulling the trigger is that they are obviously threatening the lifes of the officers or the public. he wasn't. there was no reason to suspect him. no run. no jacket. no evidence. just shot.

The amount of shots fired is nothing odd: They said they wanted to sure that they had neutralised the suspect. And no, the killing is not a mistake, but the point is, armed police officers are legally able to kill suspects. And you, of course, and quite rightly will say "He was not a suspect!" But they MISTOOK him for one, and it is the state of mind that is the relevant factor here.

Whether or not he was a threat, again, for the purposes of murder, is not relevant, it is that they believed him to be one. I am sure they have their reasons for saying he was a threat, as until they went underground, they were in contact with their superiors and they would have access to information that neither you, I, or the media have.

Also, I have already said to you to stop stating it as fact that he did not run, because several witnesses have said that he did and several said that he didn't, so I think it is in just your opinion he didn't run, and again I will take the liberty of assuming you were not there, and so your opinion that he didn't run means exactly nothing to a court of law, and that is where the decision will be made.

it's not my opinion it's the opinion of the investigation that he did not run. established as fact.

"Whether or not he was a threat, again, for the purposes of murder, is not relevant, it is that they believed him to be one." i could say that about anyone. "i thought he was going to rob me" "did he look like he was going to" "no but he lives in the same area i think folk do some robbing" "so you shot him?" "yes" "well that's okay then"

there was no reason to suspect him. and that is the point.

armed police are only allowed to shoot if they feel they or the public are endangered. what reason did they have to believe that?

No investigation has been officially released, so it's not the opinion of any investigation. Although earlier in this thread you claim the source of this is a Sunday newspaper, and we all know how credible the media is if they think there's money in it for them. The Mirror's fake Iraqi prisoner abuse pictures, anyone?

In your robbery scenario, you shot him and made a mistake, then yes, you would be sentenced, because that is unreasonable force. However, if you made an honest and reasonable mistake, and used reasonable force to defend yourself, then yes, that is valid. Let's suppose De Menezes WAS a terrorist, like the officers believed, and jumped onto a train with passengers on. Shooting him in order to stop him detonating his bomb is reasonable force.

Evidence:

He lived in a block of flats that was under surveilance by police officers, and could easily be mistaken for someone of arabic descent.

Mark Whitby, a witness to the shooting, told Reuters that he observed Menezes wearing a large winter coat, which "looked out of place." Another eyewitness, Anthony Larkin, told the BBC that Menezes appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out."

Admittedly some people say that he was not wearing a large coat, but why would witnesses say he did? As for the "bomb belt with wires coming out", this seems very likely as he was an electrician about to do a job. (well, the wires bit, not the bomb bit)

Some witnesses say the police challenged to stop him outside, but he failed to do so and ran off, and vaulted a ticket barrier. Some claim he used a travel card pass, but the truth is currently unclear because CCTV footage has not yet been released.

So let's review: A man who looks arabic comes out of a block of flats under surveilance for suspected terorrist suspects, with a dark coat and what appears to be some sort of electrical equipment. When the police ask him to stop, he runs off and gets onto a packed train.

it was from part of the investigation which has been leaked.

and he does not look arab at all.

and lets be quite frank here. shooting him if he had a bomb would have done no good at all. acetone peroxide is highly dangerous and explodes with shock, heat, friction or basicly npt being held still at room temp. falling to the ground after being shot would be that kind of shock required to detonate it. if he had a bomb he would have blown up anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and lets be quite frank here. shooting him if he had a bomb would have done no good at all. acetone peroxide is highly dangerous and explodes with shock, heat, friction or basicly npt being held still at room temp. falling to the ground after being shot would be that kind of shock required to detonate it. if he had a bomb he would have blown up anyway.

---

Yes, because they had the time to stop and ask "Excuse me sir, exactly what kind of explosives are you carrying, and have you taken precautions, if it is volatile, to prevent premature or accidental detonation, for example from a light impact?" :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

it was from part of the investigation which has been leaked.

and he does not look arab at all..

---

For all you know, it could just be a load of fake documents produced by some random Joe to make a quick buck. Or pound, in this case.

He does to me in some photographs I have seen of him, and if I can make that mistake, so can police officers.

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1677571.html

http://edge.channel4.com/news/2005/0.../16_brazil.wmv

http://edge.channel4.com/news/2005/0...16_brazil2.wmv

so there we have it. wearing a denim jacket as the picture shows. walking. used his travel pass. even stopped to grab a paper.

ran before he was told to stop. so did not run away from police. he ran for the train. no other bomber ran. they sat and waited. why shoot a man for running?

he cooperated with the police when they called him.

they then grabbed him. and blew his brains out.

Wow... that pisses me off. good peice here cloud

Quote:

---

Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

---

Even if the gentleman was this man, why shoot him seven times!?!?

Bipper

Shoot first ask later, you cant sue stuff under royalty maybe...>>; Or maybe they thought they be totally fine under pressure..who knows..its still very disturbing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Even if the gentleman was this man, why shoot him seven times!?!?

Bipper

---

To make sure he is dead?

Guns don't have as much stopping/killing power as some believe. Now you also must factor in that not all shots will hit.. blah blah.. blah. This has been discused.

However.. this sounds like it could easily be gross neglience on someones part.. But I will keep on eye out till something more final is released... I don't like to trust stuff from only one source.. I like to make sure most sources aggree first(unless I Saw it myself etc....).

Ah, finally, proof of what you are saying. Thank you. That totally comprehends what the initial witnesses said, but I still think it is best to wait for the final report.

As for that evidence, it proves only what we already knew: He wasn't a terrorist. What part of it shows malicious intent?

Are the officers truly at fault, if they are told over the radio that a suspect is indeed a terrorist and they have authorisation to kill, and then see him run onto a train (the news report says he ran on the platform, although it also says he "quickened his step" - I suppose what happened is still unclear)? I don't think so. It was a series of errors in intelligence made by several people that caused the death, not one person's decision to, as cloud no 9 put it, "teach those bloody towelheads a lesson". No malice, in my opinion, so no murder.

on bbc this morning they said that the surveillence officer at the time when he left the house was "relieving himself" and this is why he was unable to indentify him.