Open Verdict At Menezes Inquest

[P.K.]

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

No. Are you?

 

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).

Very tongue-in-cheek. In an operation like this there is actually very little to cover up with. But Blair did keep the IPCC investigators from the scene which was not his best decision although it is a very transparent one. All those who were acting in good faith actually don't have anything to fear from an inquest. There were some rumblings that the officers colluded around whether or not they gave a warning but as it's a bit of an irrelevance they were just that - rumblings.

 

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 totally convinced that it was a fuck-up, unfortunately they happen but I don't think anyone is really to blame. But like the jury I'm not totally convinced that the guys on the ground shouldn't have positively identified Menezes beyond all doubt before anything else took place. Unfortunately the surveillance officer said to the armed officers "That's him" and they very understandably took that as a positive id.

[John]

I am not an expert on armed response, but IMO from the evidence there where so many Ifs and Buts, but as has been said before in a life or death (for many) situation I have no idea how I would react. It’s sad that an innocent person lost his life, sad that officers now have to live with the guilt.

 

The sham of an inquest just rubs salt into lots of peoples wounds

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am not an expert on armed response, but IMO from the evidence there where so many Ifs and Buts, but as has been said before in a life or death (for many) situation I have no idea how I would react. It’s sad that an innocent person lost his life, sad that officers now have to live with the guilt.

 

The sham of an inquest just rubs salt into lots of peoples wounds

 

An inquest has to happen though because such accidents cannot be allowed to happen again in the manner they did.

 

Bad intelligence led to the situation where a person was shot, this person was not a terrorist. If this is allowed to simply pass over with little interest into the whys and hows then we might as well forget about civil liberties and human rights.

It would be a fool who would propose that everything possible should be done in a democratic society to prevent terrorist acts if that included risking the lives of innocents. Such a belief contradicts the values that the liberal democratic state is based upon and benefits the terrorist's cause.

[jehovah]

LDV, please explain the relevance of this beauty

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

What has that to do with anything?

[MilitantDogOwner]

I am not an expert on armed response, but IMO from the evidence there where so many Ifs and Buts, but as has been said before in a life or death (for many) situation I have no idea how I would react. It’s sad that an innocent person lost his life, sad that officers now have to live with the guilt.

 

The sham of an inquest just rubs salt into lots of peoples wounds

 

An inquest has to happen though because such accidents cannot be allowed to happen again in the manner they did.

 

Bad intelligence led to the situation where a person was shot, this person was not a terrorist. If this is allowed to simply pass over with little interest into the whys and hows then we might as well forget about civil liberties and human rights.

It would be a fool who would propose that everything possible should be done in a democratic society to prevent terrorist acts if that included risking the lives of innocents. Such a belief contradicts the values that the liberal democratic state is based upon and benefits the terrorist's cause.

 

Better one innocent killed by accident in the protection of other civilians than hundreds killed on purpose in the name of a deity. Even the geeks have got it right...The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one or the few.

[Albert Tatlock]

Better one innocent killed by accident in the protection of other civilians than hundreds killed on purpose in the name of a deity. Even the geeks have got it right...The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one or the few.

Better none though. The real issue is that hiding behind arguments like that and not examining/admitting/correcting mistakes in policy and procedures in intel, communications, training etc. etc. only heightens the chances of another innocent being killed - and increases unaccountability and irresponsibility.

 

Somehow I don't think you'd be so accepting of your own argument if the person involved was your own son.

[MilitantDogOwner]

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

No. Are you?

 

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).

Very tongue-in-cheek. In an operation like this there is actually very little to cover up with. But Blair did keep the IPCC investigators from the scene which was not his best decision although it is a very transparent one. All those who were acting in good faith actually don't have anything to fear from an inquest. There were some rumblings that the officers colluded around whether or not they gave a warning but as it's a bit of an irrelevance they were just that - rumblings.

 

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 totally convinced that it was a fuck-up, unfortunately they happen but I don't think anyone is really to blame. But like the jury I'm not totally convinced that the guys on the ground shouldn't have positively identified Menezes beyond all doubt before anything else took place. Unfortunately the surveillance officer said to the armed officers "That's him" and they very understandably took that as a positive id.

 

 

I'm sure with hindsight its okay to say that. The target was followed by several foot OP's and tracked on CCTV. With the time critical situation and the potential casulaties, as soon as the target moved onto a tube train (the then favourite target of the time) it was decided by the troops on the ground to make the split second choice....Stop the guy, ask for his documents, passport and inside leg measurement or remove the target as a potential threat with immediate action. Like I said there we several mistakes by the OP which were compounded by the time frame and intelligence handed down.

 

The police firearms officers involved are trained extensivly and exhaustivly. They are given the responsibilty to assess and act as the situation dictates. Until you have to deal with that situation personally, no-one can truely understand.

[gazza]

sometimes it is necessary to

 

 

“sacrifice few to save many”.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Better one innocent killed by accident in the protection of other civilians than hundreds killed on purpose in the name of a deity. Even the geeks have got it right...The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one or the few.

Better none though. The real issue is that hiding behind arguments like that and not examining/admitting/correcting mistakes in policy and procedures in intel, communications, training etc. etc. only heightens the chances of another innocent being killed - and increases unaccountability and irresponsibility.

 

Somehow I don't think you'd be so accepting of your own argument if the person involved was your own son.

 

 

Of course none is better but this is the real world where the result of split second decisions in the heat of battle will be made and unfortunatly sometimes an innocent will get hurt. Its unavoidable. As we are human mistakes will be made eventually in all our endevors.

 

I myself have been in a simliar situation as the officers in this incident where I came very close to shooting a person. Luckily I was not under the same conditions as the officers and in the end did not have to resort to deadly force, so I can understand the pressure, fear and inner turmoil that goes with armed duty and the responsibilities that go with it. One slight esculation in the scenario and I could of easily fired on the person.

 

In my opinion the "cover-up" would have been generated from behind a desk very high up at Scotland Yard or even higher. The shooters will have followed the rules of engagment for a suspected suicide bomber, which I believe was shoot to kill is necessary, so they have done nothing wrong. It would have been someone high up, who upon hearing that the wrong man was killed, decided that a cover up was necessary to protect the image of the Met, its leadership and to maintain the image that London's anti-terror forces were doing its job i.e. stopping the bad guys.

 

And as for not being so accepting, I dont have children (I see it cruel to bring a child into the world in the state its in). Yes I would be upset but knowing what I know about the world and the way some things are conducted in it, I would not be angry about the way it happened. A very large percentage of my family have served in the forces, and I myself have lost friends in the service so I no stranger to the loss of loved ones in conflict.

 

I seem to notice that the fact the JCM was illegally in the UK at the time has been sweep under the rug. Strange also how Boris Johnson also recently went on record wanting to give an amnyesty to illegials. If he wasnt there in the first place he wouldnt of been shot. Quite simple really.

[Pragmatopian]

Strange also how Boris Johnson also recently went on record wanting to give an amnyesty to illegials.

 

I just hope he clamps down on illiterates! My gifts to you are this link:

 

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

 

where you can download and install Firefox if you don't already use it and this link:

 

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:3

 

where you can download a British English dictionary for Firefox that will put squiggly red lines under all misspelled words and (if you right-click on the word) suggest alternatives.

 

Merry Winterval!

[MilitantDogOwner]

Strange also how Boris Johnson also recently went on record wanting to give an amnyesty to illegials.

 

I just hope he clamps down on illiterates! My gifts to you are this link:

 

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

 

where you can download and install Firefox if you don't already use it and this link:

 

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:3

 

where you can download a British English dictionary for Firefox that will put squiggly red lines under all misspelled words and (if you right-click on the word) suggest alternatives.

 

Merry Winterval!

 

 

I love the fact that people without any thing intelligent to say, attack someone elses spelling mistakes and mistypes. Well done you hero, you've added something that has changed the course of history as we know it, how this discussion coped without you up to now is a mystery.

[jehovah]

Let's face it mate, it was going to happen sometime.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Attacking the man, not the arguement....last resort of someone with nothing of any great substance to say.

[P.K.]

Attacking the man, not the arguement....last resort of someone with nothing of any great substance to say.

Surely attacking someone's posts with words is infinitely better than attacking their house with explosives? Because surely that would then constitute "threatening behaviour" - but what do I know about the legalities, eh?

 

But I do know I've been blown over by a t-flash, so don't try and claim they can't be lethal...

[MilitantDogOwner]

Attacking the man, not the arguement....last resort of someone with nothing of any great substance to say.

Surely attacking someone's posts with words is infinitely better than attacking their house with explosives? Because surely that would then constitute "threatening behaviour" - but what do I know about the legalities, eh?

 

But I do know I've been blown over by a t-flash, so don't try and claim they can't be lethal...

 

Well if you were stupid to be standing next to it when it went off, more fool you. And I'm still not sure where you get the impression I want to attack someones house?

 

I make no claim to any sort of pyrotechnic can't be lethal. If they are used properly by trained professionals then the risk is reduced. Simple really.