macmannin Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Whether the cops shouted armed police is not completely meaningless.It seems they have lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 A monumental cock-up by the MPS, but not an unforgivable one given the high tension in London at the time: I certainly wouldn't suggest on the evidence that the officers firing the fatal shots were acting contrary to orders or had any doubt in their mind that the guy was potentially a suicide bomber who they need to disable. What is unforgivable is the subsequent cover-up and denial of culpability on the part of senior officers for the shooting of an innocent man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 I just hope the whole thing doesn't put any doubt into the mind of an armed copper in the same position in the future. "will i? won't i? but he might not be" BANG! 100s dead. Doesn't bare thinkinng about, and i'm glad i'm not such a person that'd be on the front line trying to protect the UK in such times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 If, if, if - maybe - but it was pretty clear this was a f**k up of the first order if you read the detail. Dear me, just how many times do you lot need to be told? You can "what if" just about anything just about forever - proves nothing. There was never a specific intent to kill Jean Charles de Menezes so murder is not an option. The cops were acting with the best of intentions but importantly within the law so unlawful killing is not an option. Whether they shouted "armed police" or not is completely meaningless as they were going to shoot him anyway as the Israeli experience has shown it's the only way to stop a suicide bomber and save the lives of the innocents. It's extremely regrettable but as these processes are run by people and as people make mistakes it's not only inevitable but it almost certainly will happen again. Welcome to Planet Earth - I live here, do you? This is the problem though, a massive problem, they were operating within the law yet they shot a completely innocent person. I personally think excuses based on high tensions were at the time are unacceptable as are justifications that state that he MIGHT have been a terrorist. The fact is that he wasn't so someone or something should be held accountable, if we simply forget and move on we end up recognising that innocents MIGHT get killed in preventing terrorism, which to my mind in wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Whether the cops shouted armed police is not completely meaningless.It seems they have lied. Flag down a cab and head for real street. "It seems they have lied" - oh really? So where is your proof? Ask six different witnesses to the same event the same questions and you will get six different versions of what happened. A man was shot dead in front of them in seconds. Noise, shock, blood blasting out all over the place. Do you really think they'll have a coherent memory of the events? Pathetic. As to a "cover up" that's even more pathetic. Welcome to Planet Earth - I live here, it seems you don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 It seems a lot of criticism comes from people who have never been in an adrenalin filled armed situation, when a person be they police or military start to close in on a suspected target they usualy do so after the target being confirmed by radio from above, at that point the focus is on the target and the target alone, adrenalin is high reactions become more rapid, the mind can play tricks, the target makes a move that can be seen as suspect, mental hightened the armed hunter can imagaine he has said a warning and this can be so strong he actualy believes he has said it and if mentioned to others they will think he has because they are in the same state, the target obviously doesnt hear this and carries on the action, officers open fire and do what they are trained to take down the target as rapidly and effective as possible, usualy double tapping chest and head, target is slotted very fast, officers look round for any others standing as by this time civilians have usualy hit the deck, worth also noting at this time that when the armed officers first appeared that a slightly different type of adrenalin surged their bodies but results similar i.e. confusion on what is happening, hearing things that didn't happen or not hearing things that did, uncertain about sequence of events. So when officers are certain no other targets are around then the body starts to ease and the situation is analized and there again confusion can occur. So yes criticise the evidence from above leading up to the event but you cannot criticise the armed officers for doing what they are trained to to in a highly efficient way, had this Brazilian chap been a real terrorist and they had delayed we all know what could have happened. Shit happens collateral damage can occur, better the accidental loss of one life than the loss of hundreds due to hesitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Shit happens collateral damage can occur, better the accidental loss of one life than the loss of hundreds due to hesitation. No no, I so disagree. I am no liberal or believe that we live in any admirable system of government (it isn't much of a democracy) but if you to see your human rights and civil liberties endure and want to live in a democracy then you have to be very careful about the 'payoffs' you should make in dealing with terrorism. This is one innocent person dead (far too many for me) but how many more is acceptable to prevent the POSSIBLE chance of a hundred people being blown up by some terrorist? I don't think the increased likelihood of killing innocent civilians is a cost society can incur if we want to preserve our values based on democracy and liberty. Find other ways. I completely take your argument however and think you are right that in such tension filled situations mistakes can happen. Such people are only human. What really angers me is how these whole situation came about: the intelligence that made it possible that he could have been a terrorist and then whatever process took place to lead to this innocent person have guns sighted on him and then finally used on him. However reasonably sure they were about this man being a terrorist they were ultimately wrong. Now the culpability of the officer, yeah he is human and prone to mistakes, even those that might cause death to another. But did he follow procedures and was his judgement clouded? If not, then at the very least this is not the tactic to take towards terrorists, something ought to be done to be make more certain that they have the right guy than allowing wonky fingers or mind boggles to risk the life of an innocent. There just has to be certainty, Britain cannot afford to take risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 With your first comment let me ask you this: You have a person in your sights, he has what looks like a remote control for a car or plane in his hands (can be used to detonate a device), you cannot see anything around he may be controlling, you get intelligence that a device is planted outside the nearby school, kids are coming out of school, you don't have time to get any conformation on the target, if he is the bomber you wont have time to get the kids away or get to the device, you cannot disable him safely, the only way is to slot him, do you take the shot knowing he could be innocent or do you wait and see if he realy is a terrorist and allow the kids to die ? your call LDV you have 3 seconds to decide when reading this and that is being generous in comparrison to real life. People who have never experienced similar situations or know what goes on in a state of high security alert or what goes on in the background should not comment on things they know little about. I don't hear anyone complaining about the couple of dozen members of the security services who get killed or seriously injured every year just to keep our society safe, they never even get mentioned in the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 With your first comment let me ask you this: You have a person in your sights, he has what looks like a remote control for a car or plane in his hands (can be used to detonate a device), you cannot see anything around he may be controlling, you get intelligence that a device is planted outside the nearby school, kids are coming out of school, you don't have time to get any conformation on the target, if he is the bomber you wont have time to get the kids away or get to the device, you cannot disable him safely, the only way is to slot him, do you take the shot knowing he could be innocent or do you wait and see if he realy is a terrorist and allow the kids to die ? your call LDV you have 3 seconds to decide when reading this and that is being generous in comparrison to real life. I would have to wait. I know you are giving a hypothetical situation, but the evidence could be wrong and doesn't implicate THIS guy, he MAY be controlling something nearby but you don't know. Given the lack of information that put a very very high probability on this person being a terrorist the risk is too great to take a shot. I MIGHT find that there was no bomb and you didn't see a remote control car. I know what you are getting at though, at certain times one person can be left in a position to make difficult choice under much stress. What I am saying is that events should not have led up to the killing of this person and if such bad intelligence and policing can up with someone killed then power should not be given to people who can make such mistakes to make them again. It will cost this democracy too dearly, and it is bad enough already in the UK with some of the excessive terrorist laws and erosion of civil liberties thought best by the government. People who have never experienced similar situations or know what goes on in a state of high security alert or what goes on in the background should not comment on things they know little about. I don't hear anyone complaining about the couple of dozen members of the security services who get killed or seriously injured every year just to keep our society safe, they never even get mentioned in the press. I don't agree with that line of thinking. Is that not a bit like saying that, for instance in your case, someone cannot comment on the tactics or operations of the Falklands conflict without being there? I can't imagine what others think but I certainly won't make a complaint. If one takes a conventional line of thinking it would be the same as complaining because a soldier got killed. Besides the security services keep the country safe in so much as they sweep up the shit caused by the very state and government they work for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Let me make it quite simple LDV with your views I would not trust you to take a decission about the safety of my bonsai tree I have nurtured for 12yrs let alone the life of anyone, you live in an idealistic dream world. The above sitution is not hypothetical I have seen it more than once and your hesitation would have meant children dying, well done you have just murdered 30 children in the name of your ideals. As for the second part, many can comment with hind sight but tactics of a campaign cannot compare to actions in a close split second situation, until you have been painted with the blood on the brush you can never know. All in all with your idealistic outlook on life, given a situation where I was with you, facing a werewolf and I had a gun and two silver bullits, I think the safe option would be to shoot you twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 you live in an idealistic dream world. No, I live in the real world full of false ideals that most people believe implicitly, just I don't. I just hold different ideals which may be just as false but don't hold any that I know definitely are. However, in this case I am actually taking a very common viewpoint. It is that a democratic state (or one that preaches to be) has to be very careful about the steps it takes in this so-called war on terror. When the state itself kills innocents it is a very big price to pay and allowing for that contingency in a frank manner depreciates the states recognition of one's liberty. I believe that there should be certainty or a good deal of evidence before one makes such a decision. I don't think it is right to entrust to one man the power to make such decisions when the intelligence and information can be, as is the case with this Menezes shooting, so wrong. ...you have just murdered 30 children in the name of your ideals. But I have not murdered 30 children though. This does not depreciate the tragedy of those deaths, but were I to kill an innocent it is the State and the democracy that has murdered him. This does not accord very well with the ideals of a democracy when the process behind targeting and shooting was heavily flawed and ended up with an innocent killed. As for the second part, many can comment with hind sight but tactics of a campaign cannot compare to actions in a close split second situation, until you have been painted with the blood on the brush you can never know. What you seem to be getting at is that the deaths of innocents by the state is acceptable if more innocents can be saved by terrorists. I am saying it is not acceptable if you want to state to remain a democracy. It may okay in some other country where democratic and liberal values are not held. But you are focusing this point on the fact that it all ends on the decision of the sniper. I am saying that to avoid such a situation again it should not end with this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 You are avoiding the question: If you come across the situation where you have no choice but to kill one or let one hundred die what would you do. fuck what should have happened or how in your ideal world things should have turned out, just answer the bloody question without any crap whould you shoot them yes or no. Please attempt to give a one word answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 People who have never experienced similar situations or know what goes on in a state of high security alert or what goes on in the background should not comment on things they know little about. I don't hear anyone complaining about the couple of dozen members of the security services who get killed or seriously injured every year just to keep our society safe, they never even get mentioned in the press. I think you'll find that quite a few people posting on this forum know exactly what goes on in a state of high security alert and in a war zone for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 So we live now in a society where a totaly innocent person can be slaughtered like a hog in public by PUBLIC SERVANTS and there is nobody accountable.sad so sad. Where are we when the people paid to protect the public, kill the public---who will protect us from them? I wonder how many of the collateral damage crowd would be so forgiving if it was their child with seven rounds in their head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 People who have never experienced similar situations or know what goes on in a state of high security alert or what goes on in the background should not comment on things they know little about. I don't hear anyone complaining about the couple of dozen members of the security services who get killed or seriously injured every year just to keep our society safe, they never even get mentioned in the press. I think you'll find that quite a few people posting on this forum know exactly what goes on in a state of high security alert and in a war zone for that matter. WilDDog old chap I was refering more to the ones who have not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.