de menzes

[Cloud No.9]

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?

[Psychotic]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Madame Adequate]

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

[Psychotic]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[bipper]

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

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

[Lionx]

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...

[ShunNakamura]

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....).

[Psychotic]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.