ChatterBank0 min ago
De Menezes
Is it right that the policemen who shot De Menezes should escape prosecution?
Personally, I think it is absolutely the right decision.
Personally, I think it is absolutely the right decision.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No-one is treating it like a message board mrs_harman, as john so rightly says it's somewhere where all sorts of theories and hypothesis are put forward, countered, argued about, amended and so forth and if you don't like it might I suggest you clear off back to whichever sanctimonious rock you crawled from under.Alternatively answer the b****y question yourself and stop telling off grown adults who are debating the question at hand.
I don't know where you get the idea that this was a split second decision!
After all the followed him along the street, let him on a bus for goodness sake! into the tube station onto a train and then shot him!
what sort of split second decision making is that?
Now Murder is not an appropriate charge but I'm far from convinced that there's not a case to answer for manslaughter.
Particularly if somebody in the security services mis-identified him to the police.
After all the followed him along the street, let him on a bus for goodness sake! into the tube station onto a train and then shot him!
what sort of split second decision making is that?
Now Murder is not an appropriate charge but I'm far from convinced that there's not a case to answer for manslaughter.
Particularly if somebody in the security services mis-identified him to the police.
Absolutely the wrong decision.
The police officers who murdered Jean Charles de Menezes could clearly see, with their own eyes, that he was obviously not of Somali origin, as was the suspect whom they were supposedly following. They could also see clearly that he had no room under his tight clothing for any bombs. These were obvious and observable facts on a first-hand basis, and are independent of any failure or incompetence by other people in the chain of command.
The police officers who murdered Jean Charles de Menezes could clearly see, with their own eyes, that he was obviously not of Somali origin, as was the suspect whom they were supposedly following. They could also see clearly that he had no room under his tight clothing for any bombs. These were obvious and observable facts on a first-hand basis, and are independent of any failure or incompetence by other people in the chain of command.
Some of you guys here are a JOKE, after all the evidence we have heard that has been made public,, how do you agree its the right decision.
someone earlier suggested the superiors of those officers should the ones charged.... but If people follow orders from their superiors, then consider this and i'm sorry if I offend anyone by bringing this up... What of the men who were controling the concentration camps and killing innocent human beings during WWII because they were following orders, are they innocent?
Secondly, imagine De Menezes was a family member, would you still be singing the same tune? I very much doubt it.
Lastly, can you really call it a mistake when a man was held to the ground and shot.
someone earlier suggested the superiors of those officers should the ones charged.... but If people follow orders from their superiors, then consider this and i'm sorry if I offend anyone by bringing this up... What of the men who were controling the concentration camps and killing innocent human beings during WWII because they were following orders, are they innocent?
Secondly, imagine De Menezes was a family member, would you still be singing the same tune? I very much doubt it.
Lastly, can you really call it a mistake when a man was held to the ground and shot.
sorry if this is a little rambling I'm not very succint with things like this..
whilst i don't think it is 'right' to have shot him, and i wouldn't give the policemen a medal, I certainly don't think it is wrong. the city was on HIGH alert, somewhere intelligence had made a fatal mistake, and armed police officers did what they thought was right.
my boyfriend has served in the royal marines, and he has told me how in situations such as these you have to make decisions based on what you know at that second. you don't have the luxury of hindsight, and sometimes you will make mistakes, but more times you will protect many citizens of the country you fight for. our soldiers and police are not superhuman robots. mistakes happen, it is tragic but something we must accept if we want security who can act without fear or prosecution.
sp1814 you said you want to know where lies come from that he jumped a barrier and was running. i was not aware these were lies, how do we know this?
someone else said that an eye witness said that he ran on the train as anyone else might if the doors were just closing. but the doors weren't closing were they as there was time for police officers to get on the train too. they can't have been far behind. personally if police officers with guns were running towards me i would stop, i wouldn't run away.
noxlumos said 'they're looking after each other like they always do". i have to say here that yes, they do all look after each other - our security, police and military risk their lives DAILY protecting us, they see things and horrors we will never see and have an entirely different sort of camerarderie to anything we will ever understand.
I agree if i was a relation or friend i may see things differently. but i am not, i am a british citizen who is pleased to see our police taking decisive action. hopefully next time they will shoot the right guy 7
whilst i don't think it is 'right' to have shot him, and i wouldn't give the policemen a medal, I certainly don't think it is wrong. the city was on HIGH alert, somewhere intelligence had made a fatal mistake, and armed police officers did what they thought was right.
my boyfriend has served in the royal marines, and he has told me how in situations such as these you have to make decisions based on what you know at that second. you don't have the luxury of hindsight, and sometimes you will make mistakes, but more times you will protect many citizens of the country you fight for. our soldiers and police are not superhuman robots. mistakes happen, it is tragic but something we must accept if we want security who can act without fear or prosecution.
sp1814 you said you want to know where lies come from that he jumped a barrier and was running. i was not aware these were lies, how do we know this?
someone else said that an eye witness said that he ran on the train as anyone else might if the doors were just closing. but the doors weren't closing were they as there was time for police officers to get on the train too. they can't have been far behind. personally if police officers with guns were running towards me i would stop, i wouldn't run away.
noxlumos said 'they're looking after each other like they always do". i have to say here that yes, they do all look after each other - our security, police and military risk their lives DAILY protecting us, they see things and horrors we will never see and have an entirely different sort of camerarderie to anything we will ever understand.
I agree if i was a relation or friend i may see things differently. but i am not, i am a british citizen who is pleased to see our police taking decisive action. hopefully next time they will shoot the right guy 7
Pagey we know he did not jump the barrier and that he was not wearing a bulky jacket see here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2005/08/17/nmenez17.xml
He was not carrying a rucksack as the original bombers were, and had even had a chance to take a seat before he was shot.
Nobody denies that sometimes the police have to make snap decisions.
This was *NOT* one of those occasions.
If the police on the ground thought he was a suicide bomber we have to ask why they thought that.
There was no outward reason to think this so somebody told them he was.
Somebody somewhere identified him as a suicide bomber and needs to take responsibility for that and right now they're hiding behind a 'pulic interest' defence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2005/08/17/nmenez17.xml
He was not carrying a rucksack as the original bombers were, and had even had a chance to take a seat before he was shot.
Nobody denies that sometimes the police have to make snap decisions.
This was *NOT* one of those occasions.
If the police on the ground thought he was a suicide bomber we have to ask why they thought that.
There was no outward reason to think this so somebody told them he was.
Somebody somewhere identified him as a suicide bomber and needs to take responsibility for that and right now they're hiding behind a 'pulic interest' defence.
If you read any documents official or unofficial now you will see that it is universally accepted that he didn't run and the police did not identify themselves to him or anyone else.
The Police were not running along the platform yelling "stop armed police", he had no idea he was being followed and yes they were right behind him.He was seated, they restrained him FIRST then shot him 8 times at point blank range.He did not appear to be Somali ( the man they were supposed to be following was Somali) and he did not have a "big , bulky overcoat" on.He had light clothing which even with a bomb belt would have made it obvious whether he was carrying explosives or not.
It is the lies told at the time that I have the greatest problem with as it casts doubt on the integrity of the security forces and it appears those lies did their jobs very well for according to a lot of people on this thread they still think those lies were true despite official documentation months later verifying that they were false.
The Police were not running along the platform yelling "stop armed police", he had no idea he was being followed and yes they were right behind him.He was seated, they restrained him FIRST then shot him 8 times at point blank range.He did not appear to be Somali ( the man they were supposed to be following was Somali) and he did not have a "big , bulky overcoat" on.He had light clothing which even with a bomb belt would have made it obvious whether he was carrying explosives or not.
It is the lies told at the time that I have the greatest problem with as it casts doubt on the integrity of the security forces and it appears those lies did their jobs very well for according to a lot of people on this thread they still think those lies were true despite official documentation months later verifying that they were false.
ok thanks - as i said i was a little rambling and didn't know what had been proved or not (which is why i asked) with regards to the lead up to the shooting.
it doesn't change my opinion massively though on whether or not he should have been shot.
As for holding him down noxlumos, an eye witness i know personally called my brother in a panic immediately after the incident saying a guy just ran on the train and was shot in the head he didn't know why. he has never mentioned him being restrained.
the big gill - it was stockwell station not brixton
it doesn't change my opinion massively though on whether or not he should have been shot.
As for holding him down noxlumos, an eye witness i know personally called my brother in a panic immediately after the incident saying a guy just ran on the train and was shot in the head he didn't know why. he has never mentioned him being restrained.
the big gill - it was stockwell station not brixton
also i think this is a very interesting thread. people have raised some very interesting humanitarian and moral issues. i always worry i'll offend ABers by giving a true opinion, but that is what the forum is here for i guess and i find it truly interesting to hear these responses - this thread has given me pause for thought over many things this morning.....
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News13 mins ago
