Open Verdict At Menezes Inquest

[immortalpuppet]

I thought he was shot by SO19 which by all accounts are the special forces branch of the Police, mind you i have not spent alot of time looking at this as to be honest i dont know much about the police rules of engagment, one thing i would say is that if it was so much of a cock up then why do so many highly trained people fuck up at the same time?

 

You would think that if there were 4 (again assuming on the way i was trained not the police, you have a brick which is 4 people and you are in eye contact with each other at all times.) people and something was not right at least a couple of them should have put a stop to the op. For all of the officers to be involved and nothing was flagged as wrong then its either a pre defined hard target capture/kill op or the training used has a big floor/hole in it.

[P.K.]

Side issue PK - what actually is the status of the Police - their own Federation describes them as 'servants of the public' and their pay is set as part of public sector pay reviews? They are accountable like public servants to a government Minister. Just wondered.

Police forces aren't accountable as such to a government minister. In the UK they are divided up along force lines with each having a Chief Constable. The idea being that it guards against the formation of a police state. This meant that the first National Police Computer had to be based at the training school at Hendon as at the time it was the only legal place that they could all be brought together.

 

But they are divided up with an independent CC because they are funded by the ratepayer, not from central taxation. A very important point. This means that the CC is accountable to the ratepayer as he works for you. So EVERY letter that is addressed to the CC just HAS to be answered. You will get a first or second reply from a staff officer. But if you persist the CC will end up having to personally explain to you the actions of his officers if that's what you are complaining about. I know this from experience. My car was broken into next to the Police County HQ. Nothing was stolen because the lap-top bag I had stupidly left on the back seat was empty. I told the CC that the Duty Sergeant would have seen the break-in from his desk if his feet hadn't been in the way. He didn't like that.

 

The exception is the London Met. They are part funded by the rates and part by central taxation. This is because they have one of the world's biggest airports, one of the world's biggest financial centres, one of the world's most famous Royal Families, every Embassy and High Commission you care to mention etc etc etc. Lots of national stuff that it's not right that the London ratepayer should fund alone. It includes all the C departments, the likes of SO19 and so on. So they have a Commissioner rather than a CC who is a bit political - as the last one found to his cost as Boris got rid of him.

 

One of the reasons I was hard on a provincial CC was because in New Scotland Yard I was once summoned to the head of SB to "explain certain irregularities that have been brought to the Commander's attention". I'd like to think of it as a draw...

[Albert Tatlock]

One of the reasons I was hard on a provincial CC was because in New Scotland Yard I was once summoned to the head of SB to "explain certain irregularities that have been brought to the Commander's attention". I'd like to think of it as a draw...

I think I saw a report about that incident on TV...didn't it involve a certain Mr Winston Godogo of 55 Mercer Road being charged with 'urinating in a public convenience', 'coughing without due care and attention', 'loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing', and 'being in possession of an offensive wife'?.

[Lonan3]

The fact that a completely innocent man was killed is pretty terrible even though, as others have pointed out, instant decisions had to be made by people under tremendous pressure who genuinely believed that they were saving many other lives by their actions.

All of that is understandable and, I believe, most members of the public would accept it.

The damage, however, was done by the pathetic and extremely amateurish attempts to cover it all up. Those in charge were so concerned about covering their own asses that they lost sight of the bigger picture.

Ultimately, the actions of those people have undermined whatever confidence the public may have had in the efficacy and efficiency of the security services.

[Albert Tatlock]

The damage, however, was done by the pathetic and extremely amateurish attempts to cover it all up. Those in charge were so concerned about covering their own asses that they lost sight of the bigger picture.

Ultimately, the actions of those people have undermined whatever confidence the public may have had in the efficacy and efficiency of the security services.

That is indeed the nub of it IMO. All Joe Public generally wants to see, is that when such things happen regardless of the reasons or circumstances, that people are held to account for it and learn from it.

 

Covering people's arses is simply not acceptable, especially in a democracy. It's the stuff of police states and banana republics.

 

Like Confuscious said: 'A man who has committed a mistake and doesn't correct it, is committing another mistake.'

[P.K.]

I'm not so sure it was an amateurish cover up. These people are professional law enforcement officers and I would expect any cover up to be of a high calibre. Mind you, standards are slipping everywhere in public life...

 

They were definitely in "defensive posture" though and that's a worry as a "blamestorming" culture is unhealthy for organisations like police forces that have to evolve tactics to deal with new situations like suicide bombers. But with the UK's rabid Red Top Brigade in full hue and cry in a way it's inevitable. I just hope that any ass-covering doesn't mean that important problems that could be fixed don't just get buried along the way. The jury identified six failings by the Met that "may have contributed" to the death of Menezes. So that's six identified they can fix. However I'm not so stupid as to think that there are no others still lurking in the background waiting for the next fuck-up. We just won't know until it happens again.

 

By the way, is Mr Kodogo by chance a coloured gentleman?

[jehovah]

By the way, are you by chance, a racist?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The fact that a completely innocent man was killed is pretty terrible even though, as others have pointed out, instant decisions had to be made by people under tremendous pressure who genuinely believed that they were saving many other lives by their actions.

All of that is understandable and, I believe, most members of the public would accept it.

The damage, however, was done by the pathetic and extremely amateurish attempts to cover it all up. Those in charge were so concerned about covering their own asses that they lost sight of the bigger picture.

Ultimately, the actions of those people have undermined whatever confidence the public may have had in the efficacy and efficiency of the security services.

 

I think the damage was done in killing this man. The institutions that were part of this operation all tried their best to depreciate the significance of the killing and kept re-iterating that they thought he was a terrorist. Which is understandable because this isn't a case of 'shit happens', more like 'OH SHIT!'.

In a sense this is a war, by that I don't mean we are fighting the ridiculous 'War on Terrorism' espoused by Bush', and the answers are not going to lie in prevention by the use of security forces and better intelligence but their involvement is going to be necessary. But this is not the same as a military conflict because it is values and ways of life that are at stake NOT territory, national pride, resources, etc.

[MilitantDogOwner]

The fact that a completely innocent man was killed is pretty terrible even though, as others have pointed out, instant decisions had to be made by people under tremendous pressure who genuinely believed that they were saving many other lives by their actions.

All of that is understandable and, I believe, most members of the public would accept it.

The damage, however, was done by the pathetic and extremely amateurish attempts to cover it all up. Those in charge were so concerned about covering their own asses that they lost sight of the bigger picture.

Ultimately, the actions of those people have undermined whatever confidence the public may have had in the efficacy and efficiency of the security services.

 

I think the damage was done in killing this man. The institutions that were part of this operation all tried their best to depreciate the significance of the killing and kept re-iterating that they thought he was a terrorist. Which is understandable because this isn't a case of 'shit happens', more like 'OH SHIT!'.

In a sense this is a war, by that I don't mean we are fighting the ridiculous 'War on Terrorism' espoused by Bush', and the answers are not going to lie in prevention by the use of security forces and better intelligence but their involvement is going to be necessary. But this is not the same as a military conflict because it is values and ways of life that are at stake NOT territory, national pride, resources, etc.

 

At the end of the day the guys were acting with the Intel to hand, which indicated to them a given target i.e. JCM. was a potential terrorist and likely to be in possession of a bomb of some description. When faced with a potentional suicide bomber, they took the right course of action. Shoot or Die. Simple as.

 

As the Armed Forces rules of engagement state: A warning must be given unless to do so would increase the likelyhood of death or injury to yourself or others. He was the nomiated target, suspected of being a SB. A warning would not have to be given....notice however I said by Military RoE. Those are peacetime, Uk soil rules. RoE in times of war and on foreign soil can be different.

 

I know if I were that situation, having served in the Forces, and being in a simliar situation myself, that the shoot or dont shoot question is a hard one to answer but in this case would have done the same.

[jimbms]

The nub of it is the men on the ground at the time believed he was a terrorist about to detonate a device in a public place, they did as trained and shot him to prevent further loss of life as all such people should be. (In my view all terrorists should be shot on sight.). The fact the intel was incorrect cannot be blamed on them.

[MilitantDogOwner]

The nub of it is the men on the ground at the time believed he was a terrorist about to detonate a device in a public place, they did as trained and shot him to prevent further loss of life as all such people should be. (In my view all terrorists should be shot on sight.). The fact the intel was incorrect cannot be blamed on them.

 

In full agreement. As the old military saying goes "Poor or no intelligence information is just as likely to kill you as the enemy is".

 

This is why members of Special Forces and certain Police units are trained to "React and Fire, and to never try for a wounding shot. A wounded combatant is still a combatant.

[manshimajin]

PK thanks for your reply to my query. The UK police have a very different structure from the forces I have been used to around the world which operate very well on a national basis. Different traditions. Then again you vote for the Sheriff in the USA.

 

Your commented:

I'm not so sure it was an amateurish cover up. These people are professional law enforcement officers and I would expect any cover up to be of a high calibre.

 

Unfortunately we continue to see so-called professionals being very amateurish when it comes to dealing with non-standard situations. Hopefully lessons have been learned (I am fairly sure they have).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The nub of it is the men on the ground at the time believed he was a terrorist about to detonate a device in a public place, they did as trained and shot him to prevent further loss of life as all such people should be. (In my view all terrorists should be shot on sight.). The fact the intel was incorrect cannot be blamed on them.

 

No it can't be blamed on them and they are told that such a person was a terrorist how are they to know better. And I do agree, those terrorists who pose a threat to civilians should be shot on sight.

But a thorough investigation had to happen and efforts made to make sure this does not happen again. If there were serious errors in intelligence then someone should be accountable or a big shake-up has to happen because it is absolutely unacceptable that this all led to the death of an innocent.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think this debate is focusing too much on the role of the police officers. I don't know what information they were acting upon. The only way the police can be said to be in error (and not on an individual basis) is if they were given the task of preparing to shoot when intel indicated a less than almost certain likelihood of this man being a terrorist.

But to talk about the officer who shot the person is to miss the point that the State made a massive error.

[MilitantDogOwner]

The team who made the kill shot are in no way to blame as I have stated before. The critical failings were made by the OP team (made up members of the newly formed SFRTG) and the command structure above that mark JCM as the primary target.

 

I'm sure the guys on the ground are under a lot of unnecessary stress and strain at moment, especially with the so called "cover-up" allegations. If any such "cover-up" occoured it would have been at command level not by the shooters.