Jazzz said:
no one, including DB, has suggested that de menezes was about to detonate a bomb.
"No Blood" at Oswald shooting claims photographer
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
no one, including DB, has suggested that de menezes was about to detonate a bomb.
Since you are now indulging in personal abuse I'll bother to address this. You show that either you have not been reading my posts, or are failing to comprehend them. Nowhere have I said that the police knowingly killed an 'innocent' man. In fact my whole line is that that is not the issue at all. It doesn't matter whether someone is a terrorist or not, you cannot simply assume that because they may be a terrorist they are about to become a suicide bomber before your eyes.Spymaster said:
That you seem to think that this is the issue, the implication being that if CdM was somehow 'guilty' of something that makes it okay, is the attitude that beggars belief IMHO.
Jazzz said:
so why are you telling DB that he has not provided any evidence that JCDM was about to detonate a bomb, if he did not make the suggestion in the first place?
I can't believe I am having to defend a copper (all right, ex-copper, but they're all the same anyway
).Jazzz said:
see reply above to the post that you have just edited.
Because this is the central issue at stake. You think someone is a suspected terrorist. Can you then simply shoot them dead when they get on the tube?
DB said a while back
"The officers involved have provided an account of what they did and why they did it which has satisfied the IPCC and the CPS that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that he was a suicide bomber about to detonate a bomb."
Without actions from the man in question at the time I don't see how this possibly can be said to be the case. Without that, we have the situation where the police can simply shoot a man dead for being a suspected terrorist (that's all they had to go on for the man they thought it was). This is utterly chilling.
They could have easily challenged De Menezes before getting on the tube!
DB said a while back
"The officers involved have provided an account of what they did and why they did it which has satisfied the IPCC and the CPS that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that he was a suicide bomber about to detonate a bomb."
Without actions from the man in question at the time I don't see how this possibly can be said to be the case. Without that, we have the situation where the police can simply shoot a man dead for being a suspected terrorist (that's all they had to go on for the man they thought it was). This is utterly chilling.
They could have easily challenged De Menezes before getting on the tube!
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Spymaster said:
I wouldn't mind, but it's when he starts advising people not to take vaccinations based upon some dodgy anti-semitic video David Icke must have recommended, that's when it ceases to be amusing.
Still, if urban75 has to keep one nutjob as an example of what to avoid, it may as well be the boy who cried wolf...
See that bit in bold? The bit that you didn't have? THAT is the bit which justifies the use of fatal force. Not that they simply believed he was a terrorist but that they believed that he was about to detonate a bomb, something which would have justified the use of force whether or not they also believed he was a terrorist.Jazzz said:
Yes, they could ... except for the fact that they did not have armed arrest officers accompanying the surveillance team and had to call them in from elsewhere. This fact, which has now been confirmed by the investigation (but which was postulated by me based on the known facts from the very outset if you want any evidence that I actually do know what I'm talking about), is part of the basis for the H&S prosecution of the organisation - "Why was there no armed support for the surveillance?"*.
Armed arrest support needed to be scrambled from elsewhere ... and (thanks to Sods Law) it arrived at precisely the wrong moment - too late to get an on-scene briefing and too early to wave goodbye to the train from Stockwell Station.
MINI Beat-The-Bookie Thread: Pop down Ladbrokes and have £5 on insufficient armed officers to support the dozens of surveillance operations being attemtped simultaneously on 22.7.06
I am familiar with Jazzz's views on the so-called holographic planes- if I recall correctly he does not advance this theory. you are thinking of David Shayler...
woof indeed... you've lost me there, jessiedog
Jessie, I really hope you are feeling okay.
jessiedog, could you have maybe made the point er... a little more succinctly...?
I'm only pullin' yr leg, mate
woof
woof
detective-boy said:
God now this really is like arguing with a Jehovas' witness. "It says in the Bible... sorry CPS statement..."
What reason on earth did the police have to think he was about to detonate a bomb?
Please, for god's sake, don't say " CPS has investigated it blah blah"
Jazzz said:God now this really is like arguing with a Jehovas' witness. "It says in the Bible... sorry CPS statement..."
What reason on earth did the police have to think he was about to detonate a bomb?
Please, for god's sake, don't say " CPS has investigated it blah blah"
The CPS statement is reported here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5187484.stm
Can't be arsed to find the other related links, but the above plus the following seem to represent the reasoning behind the decision not to prosecute anyone:
1. The video and audio recording equipment in Cressida Dick's control room was 'not working' on the day in question.
2. The armed squad claim that Cressida Dick had identified de Menezes to them in the terms quoted above, which is why they believed it necessary to shoot him.
3. Cressida Dick denies doing so.
4. There is no way to dispute Cressida Dick's denial, as no recordings exist.
5. Therefore, the armed squad acted correctly because they genuinely believed they had been told they were dealing with an immediate threat.
6. And Cressida Dick cannot be prosecuted, because her denial that she told the armed squad that they were dealing with an immediate threat cannot be disproved.
So, to answer your question - ("What reason on earth did the police have to think he was about to detonate a bomb?") - well, it's rather more complicated than that.
The police had no reason to think he was about to detonate a bomb, and they didn't, but the armed squad thought that Cressida Dick had told them he was about to detonate a bomb. Cressida Dick says she did not, in fact, tell them that at all. It was a misunderstanding.
Hence,
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Jazzz said:
That's funny.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a Scientologist.
"No but there was a race of aliens, really, and they were lizard jews with hologram missiles, and, and, if you're taking the piss out of me then you're, you're, you're... um... being racist!!
It says so on prisonplanet.org!!"
The Jazzz who cried wolf.
snouty warthog said:jessiedog, could you have maybe made the point er... a little more succinctly...?
It came from a post I made on a thread on the Forest Gate shooting back in June.
I was postulating about all these "Honestly held beliefs".
Jessiedog said:d-b,
I think one of the problems with the "honestly held belief" defence, as it relates to the police in these circumstances (Forest gate and Stockwell), is that it is inevitable that the cop-on-the-ground will have an "honestly held belief" that mortal attack is imminent - they are told by their superiors of the imminent threat.
Given what they are told before an operation, how could they not hold an honest belief in the case of Stockwell and Forest Gate.
"Right lads, now when you go in, you've got to expect each one of these bastards to be armed to the teeth with guns, bombs, chemicals, poisons and the rest, AND you'd better expect them to be ready to use them immediately."
Or......
(In relation to someone suspected of carrying a bomb.)
"The suspect is heading for the tube station. The suspect MUST be stopped from entering the station, at all cost".
I can see the court transcripts:
"Yes your honour, I was utterly convinced that the man was about to detonate a bomb on the tube, so I had to put 8 bullets through his brain."
Reasonable? Yes.
"Yes your honour, I deeply believed that as he came down the stairs, he was armed to the teeth with guns, bombs, chemicals, poisons and the rest, AND was about to use them immediately."
Reasonable? Yes.
Under the circumstances, of course it's "reasonable".
Essentially, this means that (under these circumstances), the cop-on-the-ground has a Get out of jail free card.
So then we turn our attention upwards through the chain of command to try and identify the person(s) who briefed the officers and then onto who briefed them and then up to who briefed them and so on. Unfortunately, by that time, we're back into the domain of "intelligence", "sources", "credibility", etc. And even if the police service have doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, some politician (briefed by MI5), can order a raid to take place on the "honestly held belief" that the risk was too great to not act.
And so on, ad-infinitum.
Everybody, therefore, gets a Get out of jail free card.
----------I think this is one of the things peeps here are reacting to. There is scepticism that anyone will be charged, let alone convicted, under these circumstances. And that means that there is effectively carte blanche to repeat the scenario again and again and again - without any convictions.
It seems like it's happened (at least) twice now. How many times would be acceptable before changes were made? 10 dead innocents? 20? 100? 1,000?
I appreciate that cops need to do their jobs, but when innocent people are being shot by the police and nobody is being convicted for it, it is inevitable that peeps are going to be concerned and to question what mechanisms are in place to prevent such disasters.-----------
I can see a scenario where a senior officer tells a junior officer: "This is a top-secret operation son. Nobody but NOBODY must hear what I'm about to tell you. Despite what you may have heard about mythology and despite what you may think about reality and fantasy, the fact is that we believe we have trapped a real live Medusa in that there flat and despite what you may think, this ain't no joke. Be aware that Medusa's can kill - instantly. Should it lunge at you, just ONE of the deadly snakes could kill instantly. Be very careful and beware of the LUNGE.
So.....In go the cops.
NOW! Some poor bastard is in his living room having a wee dance around the room to Bob Marley wailing about luv-n-stuff - a' shaking his dreadlocks like crazy....
BLAM! BLAM! Oh dear.
"Yes, your honour, I was convinced beyond any doubt that this creature was about to strike me down with a dozen deadly snakebites - it was horrifying - there was nothing else I could do."
Reasonable? Of course.
And the superior who gave the instructions? Well, he was told the same story by MI5 and had an "honestly held belief" in its veracity.
And MI5, although they can't disclose their sources, will tell you that they had credible intelligence, and therefore an "honestly held belief", that Medusa was alive and well and holed up in Brixton.
Where does it end?
Woof
D_b said it would only form a part of any defence, which I accept. And I accept that the briefing itself will only play a part in formulating these "honestly held beliefs", along with much else that is said and implied as things develop.
But I still just can't rid myself of the notion that there's a veritable plethora of "get out of jail free" cards flying around.
As well as Forest Gate, I also alluded to the Stockwell shooting.......
Jessiedog said:
D_b responded.........
detective_boy said:
And me again.....
Jessiedog said:
Frankly, nothing that has transpired since June fills me with any confidence that the "Medusa defence " is anything other than a tried and tested method of deflecting even the likelyhood of prosecution - and certainly the likelyhood of conviction.
And it seems that, as I postulated, the person or persons responsible for spreading all these "honestly held beliefs", have not been unveiled.
What a surprise.
The system seems genuinly unable to cope with the Medusa defence and there is, therefore, obviously a need for systemic change.
If nobody is ever responsible when innocent peeps keep getting shot by the authorities, then something is very badly wrong.
Woof
Similar threads
