Open Verdict At Menezes Inquest

[MilitantDogOwner]

Take some of your own advice and try to stay on topic or are some of the big words making you lose concentration?

 

I was mearly responding to a statement made about my spelling. I dont try to cross thread like yourself.

 

Anyway back to the thread has there been any update on the situation?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

 

But this is not what happened because this man was innocent, there was no threat and nobody required protection. And knowing this, to continue to argue on this point is to argue that the process of tackling terrorism (demonstrated in this killing) might involve innocents being killed by the State when there is actually no real threat.

 

That should NEVER happen and it would make no sense for this to be justified. It doesn't all boil down to how many innocents can be saved, the threat needs to be eliminated entirely. You can't sacrifice innocents now there is a threat, not in a democracy.

[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.

 

But this is not what happened because this man was innocent, there was no threat and nobody required protection. And knowing this, to continue to argue on this point is to argue that the process of tackling terrorism (demonstrated in this killing) might involve innocents being killed by the State when there is actually no real threat.

 

That should NEVER happen and it would make no sense for this to be justified. It doesn't all boil down to how many innocents can be saved, the threat needs to be eliminated entirely. You can't sacrifice innocents now there is a threat, not in a democracy.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful isn't it. The point you've missed is that the polive marksman on the ground, armed, who was given a target who potentially be a suicide bomber had seconds to react. His training and experience lead him to the decision to open fire. He was not aware that this was not the right man or not. He was given a shoot to kill order if the officer believed there was a risk of the target being a suicide bomber. In the eyes of the officer there was an immediate threat to himself and those around him including innocent civillians.

 

You are correct however that this should never of happened. Intelligence should not have i.d. him as the target. The OP teams following him should have had better photographs for positive identification. But they didn't. Sad but true. The failing was not at the flash point but the events leading upto it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Hindsight is a wonderful isn't it. The point you've missed is that the polive marksman on the ground, armed, who was given a target who potentially be a suicide bomber had seconds to react. His training and experience lead him to the decision to open fire. He was not aware that this was not the right man or not. He was given a shoot to kill order if the officer believed there was a risk of the target being a suicide bomber. In the eyes of the officer there was an immediate threat to himself and those around him including innocent civillians.

 

You are correct however that this should never of happened. Intelligence should not have i.d. him as the target. The OP teams following him should have had better photographs for positive identification. But they didn't. Sad but true. The failing was not at the flash point but the events leading upto it.

 

Exactly, though I did say this earlier. This debate is focusing too much on the role of the officers doing the shooting that led to a death which should not have happened and which has serious implications for freedoms and liberties in Britain if something is not done to make sure it never happens again. This is not Northern Ireland. The UK can't afford to disregard civil liberties as it did there. I just find perspectives which explain this as an unfortunate event but necessary to saves the lives of more innocents as one that ignores the 'means' as opposed to the 'ends' in this fight against terrorism.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Hindsight is a wonderful isn't it. The point you've missed is that the polive marksman on the ground, armed, who was given a target who potentially be a suicide bomber had seconds to react. His training and experience lead him to the decision to open fire. He was not aware that this was not the right man or not. He was given a shoot to kill order if the officer believed there was a risk of the target being a suicide bomber. In the eyes of the officer there was an immediate threat to himself and those around him including innocent civillians.

 

You are correct however that this should never of happened. Intelligence should not have i.d. him as the target. The OP teams following him should have had better photographs for positive identification. But they didn't. Sad but true. The failing was not at the flash point but the events leading upto it.

 

Exactly, though I did say this earlier. This debate is focusing too much on the role of the officers doing the shooting that led to a death which should not have happened and which has serious implications for freedoms and liberties in Britain if something is not done to make sure it never happens again. This is not Northern Ireland. The UK can't afford to disregard civil liberties as it did there. I just find perspectives which explain this as an unfortunate event but necessary to saves the lives of more innocents as one that ignores the 'means' as opposed to the 'ends' in this fight against terrorism.

 

This was a cock up. Not a planned hit on a target. Would you mind explaining how this will impact on civil liberties? How can we stop cock ups happening again. To err is human, I believe the saying goes. Shall we have another inquiry at the cost of millions for some highly paid people to decide "lets not cock up again, because its a pain in the arse"?

 

As someone who has never been directly or indirectly affected by terrorism and the aftermath of terrorism, your view that less is more is blinkered and dangerous.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

This was a cock up. Not a planned hit on a target. Would you mind explaining how this will impact on civil liberties? How can we stop cock ups happening again. To err is human, I believe the saying goes. Shall we have another inquiry at the cost of millions for some highly paid people to decide "lets not cock up again, because its a pain in the arse"?

 

But the identification and shadowing of this person was planned. They followed this man from his home. And yes, people make mistakes. But there is an underlying attitude of a few posters who see this as being an example of anti-terrorism operations running their natural course but that this time a big mistake was made, and that even so it is better to kill one innocent to risk many more lives. But this is crazy.

If there are terrorists and a likelihood of terrorists acts being committed it is not right for the State to make a compromise and effectively sanction the killing of innocent in the process of stamping out terrorism. It makes no sense because when the State makes such a compromise it shows how effective the terrorists are without ever needing to use a bomb. And how far do you take the argument that a few innocents dead AT THE HANDS OF THE STATE that is supposed to protect them from terrorism is better than many more. Is it a better situation to have fifty innocents killed by police than have a hundred killed by terrorists?

When the state starts killing innocents it means that an innocent people are at risk from their state as well as from terrorists. Their freedoms and liberties are rather severely reduced when their protector will happily shoot them to save others simply based on the numbers. But ultmately my point of view is one that recognises that there are human rights and liberties afforded by the state that should be overridden, for to do so would be the change the very value system of the democracy in which we live.

 

 

As someone who has never been directly or indirectly affected by terrorism and the aftermath of terrorism, your view that less is more is blinkered and dangerous.

 

I don't need to be affected directly or indirectly to have a view on anti-terrorist measures, I don't see how it is relevant. But what do you mean less is more in regard to my previous post? I am, however, certainly not an advocate of just "more, more, more...". It isn't necessarily about a level of extremes of how to deal with terrorism, there are different strategies but my argument is based around those strategies and tactics which could effectively undermine the value systems which we are trying to protect. I value my freedoms and liberties but I have to question how far they can be limited for me and others for the sake of preventing terrorist acts occurring. If it meant having the most severe and draconian terrorist laws and police powers to combat terrorism and there was an improvement, is this a success for the country? Definitely not. We certainly don't want to turn the UK into another Northern Ireland, a place where the UK already has a very shitty record in respect of human rights.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Hush now everyone LDV is going to explain how he has solved the world wide terrorist problem. One in which no-one can be mistakly killed or where terrorist will all come along like good little extremeists and lay down their weapons.

 

Come on LDV tells us all how it should be done with your years of experience in anti-terror and world politics.

[MilitantDogOwner]

"But the identification and shadowing of this person was planned."

 

Well of course is was you bleeding idiot. The building where JCM was living was under observation. That was planned. The subject was identified and then orders were then given to follow. Only when a target suspected of being a potential suicide bomber entered a tube station,......shock horror this had happened only a few days earlier mind you....that officers used "shoot-to-kill" orders in a potential tube bombing situation. The shooting was not, and I shall repeat in big letters for you LDV !!!!!NOT!!!!! planned. It was a reactionary response to the situation.

 

Or maybe there was a massive conspiriacy to shoot dead a jobless immigrant mexcian just for the shtis and giggles of it????

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Hush now everyone LDV is going to explain how he has solved the world wide terrorist problem. One in which no-one can be mistakly killed or where terrorist will all come along like good little extremeists and lay down their weapons.

 

Come on LDV tells us all how it should be done with your years of experience in anti-terror and world politics.

 

Why waste your time typing away when you are saying so little, at least explain why you disagree with me. You seem to be purposely misportraying my point of view which I think is very clear.

 

The terrorist problem can be solved by removing the causes but it isn't SOLVED by preventing people committed to making acts of terrorism from doing such things. No doubt you could remove a good deal of terrorism by removing economic exploitation and state power in areas where people are oppressed. But I am not going to go off on a tangent with this.

 

I never said that people cannot be mistakenly killed or that terrorists will lay their weapons down when told. Where did you get this idea? I am saying that innocents should NOT be killed or have their lives put at risk or ended by the State when the State wants to try and stop acts of terrorism. It's almost contradictory in my mind.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

"But the identification and shadowing of this person was planned."

 

Well of course is was you bleeding idiot. The building where JCM was living was under observation. That was planned. The subject was identified and then orders were then given to follow. Only when a target suspected of being a potential suicide bomber entered a tube station,......shock horror this had happened only a few days earlier mind you....that officers used "shoot-to-kill" orders in a potential tube bombing situation. The shooting was not, and I shall repeat in big letters for you LDV !!!!!NOT!!!!! planned. It was a reactionary response to the situation.

 

Or maybe there was a massive conspiriacy to shoot dead a jobless immigrant mexcian just for the shtis and giggles of it????

 

And you call me blinkered and an idiot! You seem to be making assumptions about my views on this topic by thinking I am following a general line of thinking that you are already familiar with and dislike. I haven't mentioned anything about a conspiracy and have re-iterated quite a few times now that this issue is not ALL about the officers who fired.

 

But maybe I have got something wrong. Maybe I do not know, but has the recent inquest focused solely on the police officers who did the shooting and not on any other aspect, such as the police intelligence, which led to this situation? If it is all about the officers who firted then an inquest is needed into finding out the facts because the death of an innocent is an extremely serious thing and every effort has to be made to prevent it happening again.

But I think it would be unfair to focus on the role of the officers when they had intelligence that pointed this person out as being a terrorist. You can't just focus on one aspect of this issue.

An inquest needs to happen because it is simply not good enough that an innocent was killed by accident. Everything was wrong from the start because they thought an innocent person was a POSSIBLE terrorist suspect and now he is dead.

 

If this thread is to feature former military people comparing their experiences with the officers who did the shooting with the aim of making comparisions between the psychological effects of being put in those situations then fine. But to focus solely on this is a bit pointless. We don't know exactly what happened and the whole issue does not hinge on whether the officer made a mistake in shooting.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Hush now everyone LDV is going to explain how he has solved the world wide terrorist problem. One in which no-one can be mistakly killed or where terrorist will all come along like good little extremeists and lay down their weapons.

 

Come on LDV tells us all how it should be done with your years of experience in anti-terror and world politics.

 

Why waste your time typing away when you are saying so little, at least explain why you disagree with me. You seem to be purposely misportraying my point of view which I think is very clear.

 

The terrorist problem can be solved by removing the causes but it isn't SOLVED by preventing people committed to making acts of terrorism from doing such things. No doubt you could remove a good deal of terrorism by removing economic exploitation and state power in areas where people are oppressed. But I am not going to go off on a tangent with this.

 

I never said that people cannot be mistakenly killed or that terrorists will lay their weapons down when told. Where did you get this idea? I am saying that innocents should NOT be killed or have their lives put at risk or ended by the State when the State wants to try and stop acts of terrorism. It's almost contradictory in my mind.

 

No shit. Was I saying that innocents should be killed? An inquest has been done. Open verdict. It was an Intelligence fubar. They happen, Intelligence is like chinese whispers, somewhere along the line something is going to get changed, left out or misinterpretted. I know lets have a multi million pound inquiry lasting years to find out that. In this time money and time that could of been spent on new and better surveillance equipment, improving training techniques and actually stopping the bad guys is being spent on blaimstorming.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

No shit. Was I saying that innocents should be killed?

 

No, but you seem to depreciate the significance of when the state kills a civilian. And a few other believe that it is acceptable for the state to kill civilians if it means that terrorists are thwarted from committing terrorist acts.

 

An inquest has been done. Open verdict. It was an Intelligence fubar. They happen, Intelligence is like chinese whispers, somewhere along the line something is going to get changed, left out or misinterpretted. I know lets have a multi million pound inquiry lasting years to find out that. In this time money and time that could of been spent on new and better surveillance equipment, improving training techniques and actually stopping the bad guys is being spent on blaimstorming.

 

 

Intelligence mistakes do happen, very often. And it happened here. But the matter should not rest there with an acceptance that mistakes just happen. The consequences of bad intelligence and bad decision making led to the police killing an innocent and I am saying that this just cannot be allowed to happen again. Therefore, an inquest is required to established EXACTLY what went wrong but I would agree that the cost of this inquest is excessive and I do not know how the role of intelligence was taken into account in the inquest.

 

What should certainly not happen is for there to be a recognition of a mistake on behalf of the police and then give them new training and new equipment without understanding why it happened.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Here is an interesting article about de Menezes killing and democracy:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...nezes.terrorism