de Menezes killing: open verdict

[tarannau]

Yes pdxm. And with respect, I'd rate my impartiality and ability to coherently interpret information as better than yours.

Most of the time you're an unapologetic loudmouth troll with all the subtlety and originality of Joe Pasquale on here. It's a bit rich to start suggesting that you're some kind of reasoned free thinker.

 

[snadge]

Have you read the evidence? Have you actually done the hard work and maybe thought for yourself, or do you prefer just to be spoonfed?

yes and they lied.

see my above points, they also colluded with each other to get their facts straight with each other.

I hear that they allow firearms time together to collude their story in the case of a "shits hit the fan" scenario as this one.

The police don't ley anybody else collude together when wrongdoing has been done but hey we're coppers and what we say goes, like the word of one copper is always taken at face value in court over the sworn statements of 30 independent witnesses.

 

[pdxm]

Yes pdxm. And with respect, I'd rate my impartiality and ability to coherently interpret information as better than yours.

Most of the time you're an unapologetic loudmouth troll with all the subtlety and originality of Joe Pasquale on here. It's a bit rich to start suggesting that you're some kind of reasoned free thinker.

two words, Ad Hominem.

 

[snadge]

two words, Ad Hominem.

three words.

fuck off filth.

 

[pdxm]

yes and they lied.

see my above points, they also colluded with each other to get their facts straight with each other.

I hear that they allow firearms time together to collude their story in the case of a "shits hit the fan" scenario as this one.

The police don't ley anybody else collude together when wrongdoing has been done but hey we're coppers and what we say goes, like the word of one copper is always taken at face value in court over the sworn statements of 30 independent witnesses.

That will be the POST INCIDENT PROCEDURE which is juducially approved as best practice and has been tried and tested many times in court. That will be a procedure that has been scientifically researched and shown to be an effectvie remedy to the well documented phenomenon of perceptual distortion.

 

[tarannau]

A telling comeback. What else can I judge you on, apart from your patronising, vastly oversimplified posts on this thread and your inane contributions on here in general. Others are equally capable of reading the evidence.

I note you still haven't answered my repeated question. Why?

 

[snadge]

That will be the POST INCIDENT PROCEDURE which is juducially approved as best practice and has been tried and tested many times in court. That will be a procedure that has been scientifically researched and shown to be an effectvie remedy to the well documented phenomenon of perceptual distortion.

that's a jazzed up version of "let's get our stories straight lads".

Fucking scum.

 

[pdxm]

Have you read what the jury thought of the reliability and honesty of the police's statements then pdxm, or are you conveniently forgetting the black and white yes/no questions

For people experiencing in the idea of giving honest witness statements, the police really seem to have struggled. Funny that.

I repeat: why should these police officers remain in a job (even be promoted) when incompetency elsewhere would lead to more vigorous disciplinary sanctions?

The jury said nothing about the honesty with which the statements were delivered, they merely stated that they disagreed with the polices interpretation. A sutble and important distinction. There can be many reasons why this could be the case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6047218.stm

The other question re the the position of the officers. Ken Livingstone has today said that DAC is one of the most brilliant officers he has ever worked with. The two officers who killed him did what they were trained to do. The fault lies with the misidentification, aggravated by a fast moving and confusing situation.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, to be fair PDXM is being politer than I've ever seen him be before in one of these sorts of conversations. Give him credit.

It still looks like a whitewash though.

 

[pdxm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7739869.stm

Interesting

 

[snadge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7739869.stm

Interesting

we know the senses shut down, the coppers are adamant that they shouted warnings that no member of the public heard so they must have lost the power of speech eh.

 

[pdxm]

we know the senses shut down, the coppers are adamant that they shouted warnings that no member of the public heard so they must have lost the power of speech eh.

Or could have been mistaken and genuinely believed he shouted it because that's what he would have done in thousands of training scenarios before hand. Or the members of the public who weren't expecting anything to happen did not him him say it as two guns went off in a big metal tube and they were witnessing a violent and traumatic incident. More importantly he wasn't required legally to announce he was an armed police officer and therefore had no reason whatsoever to lie if he had failed to say it.

 

[belboid]

You started with some reasonable comments and then let yourself down! Ask yourself this. What legal advantage would they have gained by deliberately perjuring themselves? Answer, none whatsoever.

you let yourself down by asking possibly the dumbest question ever. What advantage could thy have gained? I'd have thought that was painfully obvious. Even if the two killers were never going to be charged with murder, they would still want to try and show that their force acted as honestly, reliably, and with full justification (in the eyes of the public, as well as narrow definitions of the law). So, they lied. Deliberately, and with malice aforethought, it would seem.

The 'interesting' link you mention in a later post is entirely irrelevant. The killers (all of them, right up the line) hoped that the jury would do what juries tend to do in such circumstances. Which is either simply believe the police, or have enough members on it who do believe the police for no verdict to be brought against them.

This jury explicitly did not believe the police. The only people who seem to do that are other police! And Ken Livingstone.

 

[Jonti]

So, let me get this straight. JCdM's head had to blown away in case by some residual jihadist twitch he managed to set off the bomb before he died.

But the cops say they shouted a warning anyway

They were hyped up and testerical, not least because of shit-stirring hysteria by the likes of Paul Dacre and his minions. If a bunch of mufti sas, appropriately tooled, had wandered into the tube after JCdM it simply would not have happened that way. Nothing at all would have happened. Any fool in their right mind could have seen he did not present any real and present danger.

The operational mindset must have been if we can't prove he isn't the suspect then he must be killed. That's why the plods went into the station, to do what they did.

They were idiots for getting themselves manipulated like that, no doubt. But the culpability is not all theirs.

 

[pdxm]

you let yourself down by asking possibly the dumbest question ever. What advantage could thy have gained? I'd have thought that was painfully obvious. Even if the two killers were never going to be charged with murder, they would still want to try and show that their force acted as honestly, reliably, and with full justification (in the eyes of the public, as well as narrow definitions of the law). So, they lied. Deliberately, and with malice aforethought, it would seem.

The 'interesting' link you mention in a later post is entirely irrelevant. The killers (all of them, right up the line) hoped that the jury would do what juries tend to do in such circumstances. Which is either simply believe the police, or have enough members on it who do believe the police for no verdict to be brought against them.

This jury explicitly did not believe the police. The only people who seem to do that are other police! And Ken Livingstone.

If you read the transcripts you will find that even the defence barristers questioned the need to shout "armed police". If they knew or genuinely believed that hadn't said it then it would have made perfect sense to say so. They will have recieved very clear legal advice on this point.

 

[pdxm]

So, let me get this straight. JCdM's head had to blown away in case by some residual jihadist twitch he managed to set off the bomb before he died.

But the cops say they shouted a warning anyway

They were hyped up and testerical, not least because of shit-stirring by the likes of Paul Dacre and his minions. If a bunch of mufti sas, appropriately tooled, had wandered into the tube after JCdM it simply would not have happened that way. Nothing at all would have happened.

The operational mindset must have been if you can't prove he isn't the suspect then kill him. But any fool could have seen he wasn't the subject.

That is why it was an unlawful killing.

The cops actually say they shouted it as they were firing and when cross-examined say they did it out of habit, they themselves in cross-examination admit that they had no need to and wouldn't have been expected to.

 

[belboid]

If you read the transcripts you will find that even the defence barristers questioned the need to shout "armed police". If they knew or genuinely believed that hadn't said it then it would have made perfect sense to say so. They will have recieved very clear legal advice on this point.

None of which has any relevance to anything. Wholly specious.

They lied. They did so because they thought they could get away with it. They did so after an internal conspiracy to decide what to tell the courts.

 

[ymu]

The cops actually say they shouted it as they were firing and when cross-examined say they did it out of habit, they themselves in cross-examination admit that they had no need to and wouldn't have been expected to.

Yet they still lied. Force of habit?

And it wasn't the only lie, was it? Was he wearing a bulky jacket? Was he moving towards them before they shot him?

Why did the independent witnesses see something so different to what the police said happened? Why did the jury conclude, on every point of contention, that the police lied about the circumstances?

 

[TAE]

I think that a reasonable person would conclude that at least some of the officers were saying something which they must have known was not true.

In addition there has been so much spin from the police it is hard to take their word at face value.

 

[pdxm]

None of which has any relevance to anything. Wholly specious.

They lied. They did so because they thought they could get away with it. They did so after an internal conspiracy to decide what to tell the courts.

Hmmm. So they thought that despite the fact there would be an IPCC enquiry, huge press coverage, an inquest and internal DPS inquiries it was important to lie about something that was entirely inconsequential to their legal position?

 

[belboid]

Was he moving towards them before they shot him?

I was just about to point that one out to. Seems an odd bit of training doesn't it?

 

[likesfish]

That's classic that, 'he was acting all innocent so we shot him'. What was he doing, looking up at the ceiling with his hands in his pockets and whistling? Did everyone else on the tube look guilty of something, is that why they were spared?[/QUOTE]

because he got on and got off buses completely innocent but............if your being followed its a way of losing a tail

 

[cozmikbrew]

Plain and simple,cops murdered someone,then covered thier backs(with help) an got away with it

 

[TAE]

I also find the whole 'self defence' argument a bit odd as the officers put themselves into that situation.

The so question is why did they put themselves into that situation - who gave them the impression that this was a suicide bomber at all ?

I do find the whole 'honestly believed' defence a bit worrying because it is impossible to prove that an officer DID NOT honestly believe something. It would make more sense to me if the officer had to have reasonable grounds for such a belief.

 

[pdxm]

Yet they still lied. Force of habit?

And it wasn't the only lie, was it? Was he wearing a bulky jacket? Was he moving towards them before they shot him?

Why did the independent witnesses see something so different to what the police said happened? Why did the jury conclude, on every point of contention, that the police lied about the circumstances?

So answer this

Why did the jury find that IVOR the covert officer felt the need to bear hug JCDM despite also finding that he hadn't moved towards the officers.

 

[pdxm]

I also find the whole 'self defence' argument a bit odd as the officers put themselves into that situation.

The so question is why did they put themselves into that situation - who gave them the impression that this was a suicide bomber at all ?

The Surveillance officer!!!!!!!!

 

[belboid]

so according to you Menezes WAS trying to rush the coppers was he? Maybe he really did have a bomb under his (thin, denim) jacket after all?? The crafty arab (pretending to be Brazilian) bastard!

 

[TAE]

You see this is where it gets murky for me. Were the officers told that this person was a suicide bomber who was about to detonate his bomb? Were they merely told that this person is believed to be the suspect? What were they told exactly?

 

[belboid]

and I see the lying killers are being allowed straight back onto the street - and with guns!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/13/jean-charles-de-menezes-police-verdict

The Met really does have such a brilliant sense of fairness, openness and responsibility, doesn't it?

 

[belboid]

You see this is where it gets murky for me. Were the officers told that this person was a suicide bomber who was about to detonate his bomb? Were they merely told that this person is believed to be the suspect? What were they told exactly?

All covered by police obfuscation, a constructed story in which no one individual (or individuals) could be held responsible. Anyone connected with the whole disgusting affair should be sacked, and most of them put on trial.