"No Blood" at Oswald shooting claims photographer
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
If you honestly believed that he was about to shoot you and / or someone else and / or use the gun in the commission of some form of attack, you should have been court martialled and banged up in Colchester Prison for not shooting him.WouldBe said:
As you didn't shoot him, I suspect you didn't believe that. And lots of people with guns and other weapons in their hands are NOT shot by police officers every week. Those that are are in circumstances where there is an imminent threat of fatal attack.
It's extremely relevant. Unless I am mistaken, no-one has suggested that De Menezes did ANYTHING AT ALL to suggest he was about to detonate a bomb. That's the point. That's why that EVEN IF he was a terrorist this constitutes an execution. You can't just kill suspected terrorists because they are travelling on the tube. Other points - he could have been intercepted before getting on the tube - this wasn't done: and even if he had planted a bomb previously (wasn't it hair gel and flour?) that doesn't make him a 'suicide' bomber. It's utterly indefensible DB. But hey, they all got let off, that's good enough for you!detective-boy said:
You are. Go read the CPS explanation for their decision.Jazzz said:
No. Go read a law book.WouldBe said:Hmmm. 1 dead body, at least 1 smoking gun, gunpowder residue and blood splatters on a policeman and that's NOT sufficient evidence?
(You can read, can't you?)
Jazzz said:
That's what everyone is saying to you, Jazzz.
Think before you assume.
I suggest I am not. You show me where I am wrong. You appear to be saying that they were let off = they were innocent, an extremely naive state of affairs, and it is absolutely beyond your faith in authority to consider that such a decision could have been influenced by political motives.detective-boy said:
No. It wouldn't.WouldBe said:But it would be good enough to prosecute a member of the public.
You are wrong in law. Go read a law book on the law of self-defence.Jazzz said:
I am saying precisely the opposite of they were let off = they were innocent. I am saying that there is no evidence they have committed a criminal offence therefore they are innocent (you do believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I take it, even though you are clearly not willing to apply it here because, presumably pigs don't deserve it) and if they are innocent they cannot have been "let off" because they have done nothing to be let off about.
As for my belief whether or not the decision has been influenced by political motives, I would say I don't believe it was. I say that because I know how thorough IPCC investigations are (and in this case was) and how independent the CPS are in their decision making (if there was political influence, how come they pissed everyone off big time by prosecuting the MPS?). I also say it because I understand what the law actually says and it fits with the known facts about what happened that there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution of the individual officers involved.
You DON'T understand the law. You DON'T know how thorough / independent the IPCC / CPS processes are. You flatly refuse to listen to me or anyone else who does.
You are reaching a decision based simply on your prejudice. That is pathetic.
I agree (and have repeatedly posted) that there many be a perception that there has been a cover-up because the system we have at present has the decision made behind closed doors. I have on other threads suggested having something akin to a Grand Jury - a cross between a criminal trial and a public enquiry - where the evidence is actually tested in public and where the CPS then give and explain their decision. I have even suggested that the current CPS for a prosecution - that a conviction be more likely than not before proceeding - be replaced by the old test of primae facie case for such cases, even though that would disadvantage police officers as I feel that is a reasonable compromise for their powers over the public at large. Have yu engaged in those discussions? I have no recollection of you doing.
I guess it's because you know that the police officers are guilty, just like you know that every real murderer in the fucking world is innocent. You need fucking help.
Oh fuck off with your "trigger-happy" bollocks. The statistics show that the police in the Uk are anything but fucking trigger-happy. As has been demonstrated repeatedly on these fucking boards.Yossarian said:Detective-boy’s belligerent defence of those trigger-happy bastards in the Met has resulted in something I wouldn’t have thought possible on this thread – I’m starting to agree with everything Jazzz is saying!
Welcome to Twatville.
If you actually read them, instead of assuming what they contain, you would find that I:Yossarian said:
1. Try to explain the potential explanations for what happened (without knowing the facts I won;t say that is or is not what happened, just what may be the case, based on experience)
2. Criticise where it is appropriate and encourage people to complain (and get arsey when they can't be bothered to "because nothing ever happens" because complaining is the ONLY way things will change)
3. That I have grave concerns over the public service standards of the police service at present - especially around waiting times at counters, answering of phones and keeping people up to date with developments of cases - to the point where I have mused about carrying out some empirical research to find out what the "real" situation is.
4. Disagree with other posters who are serving police officers when I think they are talking bollocks.
BUT
5. I do not accept unjustified or prejudiced knee-jerk bollocks like that expressed here. It is simply incorrect in fact and in law.
And it's not SAD I have, it's FAD - Fuckwit Affective Disorder.
detective-boy said:
And you accuse me of prejudice! If you think I'm one if the posters who thinks that the police can't do right, or that they aren't needed, you are sadly mistaken.
For all your incredible bluster you have added nothing, and your argument is simply a pure appeal to authority. A prosecution didn't occur therefore there was no crime! God knows how many cases we can extend that line of reasoning to - we could start with the Acourt gang. You've come up with nothing to suggest that De Menezes acted in any way like he was about to detonate himself. The debate has centred around the mistaking of identity, which is utterly atrocious, yet if we even overlook that it's not enough - as I said - you can't simply execute suspected terrorists because they are travelling on the tube. You are saying that you can! Even MOSSAD were driven to say they would have done nothing like this.
Taking this bollocks in order:Jazzz said:
1. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that because an independent investigation and independent assessment of the evidence took place there was no crime. A person was killed. The investigation / assessment concluded that it was a lawful killing therefore, in law, no crime did take place.
2. No you couldn't. The Acourt brothers were not convicted for an entirely different reason. No-one (not even they, probbably) would argue that there was no murder. They were not convicted because a Court there was insufficient evidence of them being responsible for it. Any crime has two baisc elements: what happened and who did it.
3. No, I haven't, well not much. Because whether or not Jean Charles de Menezes himself did anything to add to the grounds to suspect is totally irrelevant in law. But there were certain things he did do (such as gettig off and on the bus in Brixton) which, in the circumstances and entirely unbeknown to him, did add to the overal suspicions. And I am not privy to the full details of what the officers said they believed at the time they fired, which is the only legally relevant issue. An independent investigation and assessment decided they had sufficient grounds to act lawfully as they did and I am in no position to second guess that. Unlike you, apparently.
4. Yes, the issue did revolve around a mistake in identification. Having been there I know how difficult it is to identify someone in a surveillance situation if you have never seen them before. I have tried to explain that and the majority of posters have taken account of what I have explained. BUt I am not, nor have I ever said, that this is acceptable. Innocent people should never be killed by the State. But what the fuck has it got to do with the officers who fired the shots who weren't part of the operation until the very end?. Do you really suggest that they should be slung in jail as scapegoats for the failings of others. Because that is what you are saying The failings of others - which individually have been adjudged not to be criminal offences - are collectively being prosecuted by the case against the MPS as an organisation. A prosecution I have always supported as right and proper and one which I believe has a reasonable chance of success.
5. No-one was executed simply for travelling on the tube. This is exactly by what I mean about you employing the tabloid reasoning of a fucking simpleton. I have explained repeatedly that the shots were fired because the officers honestly believed at the time that he was a suicide bomber and that he was imminently going to explode a bomb. If it had been the right man, exactly the same should have happened - if the suspicions of imminent threat had been there the shots would have been justified, if not they wouldn't. You say loads of allegedly "real" terrorists arraested at gunpoint over the next few days (and loads have been similarly arrested in the past) without being "exected". That is because "executions" do not take place place.
6. I am not saying you can execute people, you liar. Find me a post where I say that, or even one where your twisted logic can imply I am saying that or withdraw it.
7. MOSSAD have said a lot (it was the Israeli Defence Force actually but I know accuracy is a concept entirely alien to you). But look at their track record. No dead peace workers and children in Palestine there then - clearly they were really all genuine terrorists. IT must be true because Jazzz says that MOSSAD have assured him that Jean Charles de Menezes would never have died if they were carrying out the operaton. Absolute fucking bollocks, from them and from you. If the Israelis were carrying out the operation they'd probably have mortared the fucking flats in Tulse Hill ...
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
aah, but you're forgetting Jazzz is a Mossad employee....detective-boy said:7. MOSSAD have said a lot (it was the Israeli Defence Force actually but I know accuracy is a concept entirely alien to you). But look at their track record. No dead peace workers and children in Palestine there then - clearly they were really all genuine terrorists. IT must be true because Jazzz says that MOSSAD have assured him that Jean Charles de Menezes would never have died if they were carrying out the operaton. Absolute fucking bollocks, from them and from you. If the Israelis were carrying out the operation they'd probably have mortared the fucking flats in Tulse Hill ...
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I want to know if he gets invites to the company picnic or not.belboid said:
DB, we are just going around in circles. You haven't added anything new whatsoever. It doesn't matter how lengthy your posts are, adding the same stuff over and over again doesn't change the matter which that the shooting of De Menezes is totally indefensible.
You are just saying that the CPS decided not to prosecute - therefore the police were innocent. That's not the case for starters. The CPS statement says this:
"After the most careful consideration I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer. "
which, in itself, is a far cry from saying that no crime was committed.
You have provided absolutely no evidence which would suggest that De Menezes was 'about to detonate a bomb' - instead again you appeal to the authority of the investigation and make out that it is me who is involved in 'second guessing' it! You are the one second guessing it, you are completely putting your faith in it. As an aside, given the utter, utter crap that the police came out with straight after the incident, if there was anything at all that De Menezes did that genuinely gave an indication he was about to detonate a bomb, we would certainly have known about it. But all the things he was meant to have done suspiciously turned out to be lies. I think it's very fair to assume that he was just travelling on the tube to work like the rest of us do.
You are so in thrall to the system here that you completely fail to see the wood for the trees, and insist on citing 'an investigation has concluded' blah until you are blue in the face, totally overlooking the fact that man doing nothing wrong was shot eleven times at point blank range and even if he was involved in the bombings the previous day that would be, in effect, a summary execution.
Who should be blamed for it? That's a good question. It all depends on what the commanding officer told the men at the scene to do. Not surprisingly there has been a complete official silence over this.
You are just saying that the CPS decided not to prosecute - therefore the police were innocent. That's not the case for starters. The CPS statement says this:
"After the most careful consideration I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer. "
which, in itself, is a far cry from saying that no crime was committed.
You have provided absolutely no evidence which would suggest that De Menezes was 'about to detonate a bomb' - instead again you appeal to the authority of the investigation and make out that it is me who is involved in 'second guessing' it! You are the one second guessing it, you are completely putting your faith in it. As an aside, given the utter, utter crap that the police came out with straight after the incident, if there was anything at all that De Menezes did that genuinely gave an indication he was about to detonate a bomb, we would certainly have known about it. But all the things he was meant to have done suspiciously turned out to be lies. I think it's very fair to assume that he was just travelling on the tube to work like the rest of us do.
You are so in thrall to the system here that you completely fail to see the wood for the trees, and insist on citing 'an investigation has concluded' blah until you are blue in the face, totally overlooking the fact that man doing nothing wrong was shot eleven times at point blank range and even if he was involved in the bombings the previous day that would be, in effect, a summary execution.
Who should be blamed for it? That's a good question. It all depends on what the commanding officer told the men at the scene to do. Not surprisingly there has been a complete official silence over this.
detective-boy said:7. MOSSAD have said a lot (it was the Israeli Defence Force actually but I know accuracy is a concept entirely alien to you). But look at their track record. No dead peace workers and children in Palestine there then - clearly they were really all genuine terrorists. IT must be true because Jazzz says that MOSSAD have assured him that Jean Charles de Menezes would never have died if they were carrying out the operaton. Absolute fucking bollocks, from them and from you. If the Israelis were carrying out the operation they'd probably have mortared the fucking flats in Tulse Hill ...
No MOSSAD are no angels - that's precisely the point. That's why when MOSSAD of all groups shows us that we are trigger-happy it really takes the biscuit.
Guardian
I haven't ...Jazzz said:
Jazz. I've always thought you were just a bit eccentric and your dabbling with conspiracy theories was a bit of fun, kind of what you do to chill, nothing too serious. But this little exchange about De Menezes has made me realise that it's not an act at all.
You really are an idiot.
You really are an idiot.
Similar threads
