de menzes

[Cloud No.9]

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?

[Destai]

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

[nik0tine]

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

[Cloud No.9]

it was in the sunday mail this morning.

the full investigation will be published soon.

[Lionx]

Not surprised.

[bipper]

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

£500,000

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

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Psychotic]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Psychotic]

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

Then that would heighten security.

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.

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.

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

See above.

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?

[ShunNakamura]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Psychotic]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Psychotic]

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.