Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
The Menendez tragedy
Shot by the police, a mistake yes, but which mistake and who made it ?
Here is my solution, it is simple and it will work. To the front-line armed officers issue the order 'if the target is even vaguely ethnic minority' clear off to the pub and ignore it. If you don't, you will be pilloried. Better still, just have a gun that goes bang and waves an ethnically suitable flag. If your object is white though, then you fire away !
You see, all the reports refer to the *Brazilian* rather than to the human being.
Here is my solution, it is simple and it will work. To the front-line armed officers issue the order 'if the target is even vaguely ethnic minority' clear off to the pub and ignore it. If you don't, you will be pilloried. Better still, just have a gun that goes bang and waves an ethnically suitable flag. If your object is white though, then you fire away !
You see, all the reports refer to the *Brazilian* rather than to the human being.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by whiffey. 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.
MrBen5 Oneeyed vic, there is intelligence showing him entering the actual suspected terrorists flat and talking to the suspected terrorists they were watching.
You will excuse me if I don't believe you since earlier you stated: When asked to stop by police, he jumped over a security barrier and fled. With him wearing a big jacket in the summer
These are reports that came out when the shooting happened and shown to be lies afterwards.
On the basis that you don't seem to provide any web links to places that provide any kind of evidence for your statement, I am afraid I must say that I assume that this is another one of your fabrications.
You will excuse me if I don't believe you since earlier you stated: When asked to stop by police, he jumped over a security barrier and fled. With him wearing a big jacket in the summer
These are reports that came out when the shooting happened and shown to be lies afterwards.
On the basis that you don't seem to provide any web links to places that provide any kind of evidence for your statement, I am afraid I must say that I assume that this is another one of your fabrications.
JNO
I take it you live in Britain. Are you not aware that most police forces have an armed response team on duty most of the time to deal with incidents involving firearms. They deal with hundreds of incidents in a year and the number of people shot by them is probably still in single figures. I cannot recall any police officer being charged with murder as a result. Inquests have returned verdicts of justfiable homicide. Decisions reached by juries consisting of ordinary citizens.
So you see FIGI it is not end of story as you see it but end of story as decided by a group of your peers.
It does seem unfortunate that Mr Menendez has,according to your assumptions Jno, met up with the only gung-ho, trigger happy cops in the country. The surveillance team that followed him that day were not armed, possibly why they were unable to prevent him getting on the 'bus. The firearms team took over at the tube station and acted on the information they were given.
What emergency arose, you ask. The police were trying to track down four men who had just failed to detonate bombs on the transport system. How much more of an emergency do you require.
You are entitled to your opinion but I find these unfounded assertions you make are to be frank, ludicrous.
Oneeyedvic. Mr ben is not fabricating. The description of the clothing and the jumping of the barrier, are taken from witness statements made by members of the public at the time. Whether they were mistaken or not is another question.
P.S Lets not forget he was in this country illegally. I think this has a relevance to how he may have reacted to the police.
I take it you live in Britain. Are you not aware that most police forces have an armed response team on duty most of the time to deal with incidents involving firearms. They deal with hundreds of incidents in a year and the number of people shot by them is probably still in single figures. I cannot recall any police officer being charged with murder as a result. Inquests have returned verdicts of justfiable homicide. Decisions reached by juries consisting of ordinary citizens.
So you see FIGI it is not end of story as you see it but end of story as decided by a group of your peers.
It does seem unfortunate that Mr Menendez has,according to your assumptions Jno, met up with the only gung-ho, trigger happy cops in the country. The surveillance team that followed him that day were not armed, possibly why they were unable to prevent him getting on the 'bus. The firearms team took over at the tube station and acted on the information they were given.
What emergency arose, you ask. The police were trying to track down four men who had just failed to detonate bombs on the transport system. How much more of an emergency do you require.
You are entitled to your opinion but I find these unfounded assertions you make are to be frank, ludicrous.
Oneeyedvic. Mr ben is not fabricating. The description of the clothing and the jumping of the barrier, are taken from witness statements made by members of the public at the time. Whether they were mistaken or not is another question.
P.S Lets not forget he was in this country illegally. I think this has a relevance to how he may have reacted to the police.
chompuOneeyedvic. Mr ben is not fabricating. The description of the clothing and the jumping of the barrier, are taken from witness statements made by members of the public at the time. Whether they were mistaken or not is another question.
The reason that we are talking about this case (which is now 2 years old) is because the the Independent Police Complaints Commission ruled that Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, the most senior counter terrorist-officer in the UK, "misled" the public about the 27-year-old's death.
Mrben5 has been provided links (and a bit of research will show) that he is relating information that is 2 years old and has proved to be inaccurate. If you are providing inaccurate information, then you are misleading people. I have seen absolutely nothing about Menenez going into a flat of a terrorist suspect. Not one thing. And (surprisingly) the person who accuses of him can't provide any links to websites either.
Therefore I believe that he is not only misleading people (by giving two year old information that is inaccurate) in his posts but also fabricating evidence which he does not or cannot prove.
If he can prove that there is evidence showing Menenez going into terror suspects flats then I will happily apologise.
The reason that we are talking about this case (which is now 2 years old) is because the the Independent Police Complaints Commission ruled that Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, the most senior counter terrorist-officer in the UK, "misled" the public about the 27-year-old's death.
Mrben5 has been provided links (and a bit of research will show) that he is relating information that is 2 years old and has proved to be inaccurate. If you are providing inaccurate information, then you are misleading people. I have seen absolutely nothing about Menenez going into a flat of a terrorist suspect. Not one thing. And (surprisingly) the person who accuses of him can't provide any links to websites either.
Therefore I believe that he is not only misleading people (by giving two year old information that is inaccurate) in his posts but also fabricating evidence which he does not or cannot prove.
If he can prove that there is evidence showing Menenez going into terror suspects flats then I will happily apologise.
chompu: "Oneeyedvic. Mr ben is not fabricating. The description of the clothing and the jumping of the barrier, are taken from witness statements made by members of the public at the time. Whether they were mistaken or not is another question. "
No, it's not another question. MrBen is insisting that facts accepted as wrong somehow have some bearing on the police's actions.
Yes, it was initially reported that de Menenez was wearing a bulky jacket and that he'd vaulted the turnstyle, so what? Are you seriously suggesting that the police somehow saw him wearing a bulky jacket that didn't exist..?
Do you really think that just because an eyewitness later claimed to have seen de Menenez vaulting the turnstyle, something conclusively proved to be false by the CCTV footage, where he picks up a copy of Metro and walks through the barrier in the normal fashion - a fact acknowledged by IPCC - that the police somehow also managed to see this event occur, even though it, er... didn't?
What you're proposing violates the laws of physics. It's inane.
Contemporary eyewitness; "Yeah, I saw him driving a tank down platform 2"
The IPCC; "There is not a shred of evidence to suggest he was driving a tank down platform 2. The CCTV footage conclusively proves this didn't happen."
Mr Ben: "The police thought he was driving a tank down platform 2 because a witness thought he saw it happen, therefore they had to shoot him in case he crushed anyone with the tracks."
chompu: "Mr Ben is right; the police clearly have every right to base their actions on hallucinations and the thoughts of people they've never communicated with."
No, it's not another question. MrBen is insisting that facts accepted as wrong somehow have some bearing on the police's actions.
Yes, it was initially reported that de Menenez was wearing a bulky jacket and that he'd vaulted the turnstyle, so what? Are you seriously suggesting that the police somehow saw him wearing a bulky jacket that didn't exist..?
Do you really think that just because an eyewitness later claimed to have seen de Menenez vaulting the turnstyle, something conclusively proved to be false by the CCTV footage, where he picks up a copy of Metro and walks through the barrier in the normal fashion - a fact acknowledged by IPCC - that the police somehow also managed to see this event occur, even though it, er... didn't?
What you're proposing violates the laws of physics. It's inane.
Contemporary eyewitness; "Yeah, I saw him driving a tank down platform 2"
The IPCC; "There is not a shred of evidence to suggest he was driving a tank down platform 2. The CCTV footage conclusively proves this didn't happen."
Mr Ben: "The police thought he was driving a tank down platform 2 because a witness thought he saw it happen, therefore they had to shoot him in case he crushed anyone with the tracks."
chompu: "Mr Ben is right; the police clearly have every right to base their actions on hallucinations and the thoughts of people they've never communicated with."
Hmmm, now now, this not a MrBen post.
The fact of the matter is, he was seen entering and leaving a flat and having concersations with known terror suspects, who were under survelaince (someone please find a link which proves this)
He was here illegally , which means the police had little knowledge of who he really was (someone please find a link that proves this)
He ran from the police who clearly stated who they were (someone please find a link to prove this)
All i have ever said was that all this info pieced together gave the police the right to take out a terror susupect. (With the tension at the time and what had just happened).
They are all facts. Just because the police lied on a few things, it doesnt mean they were wrong to act how they did.
They are here to protect our country.
If it means some illegal immigrant gets shot in the line of duty, then so be it.
Do you know who your neighbours are?
The fact of the matter is, he was seen entering and leaving a flat and having concersations with known terror suspects, who were under survelaince (someone please find a link which proves this)
He was here illegally , which means the police had little knowledge of who he really was (someone please find a link that proves this)
He ran from the police who clearly stated who they were (someone please find a link to prove this)
All i have ever said was that all this info pieced together gave the police the right to take out a terror susupect. (With the tension at the time and what had just happened).
They are all facts. Just because the police lied on a few things, it doesnt mean they were wrong to act how they did.
They are here to protect our country.
If it means some illegal immigrant gets shot in the line of duty, then so be it.
Do you know who your neighbours are?
No, *you* find the links that prove it. Extraordinary cliams require extraordinary proof.
You are regurgitating intially-reported facts which were all later completely discredited on the basis of things like CCTV footage. Not a single one of the facts you've just claimed is accurate, apart from the fact that Menezes was here illegally. Sadly for you, this is utterly irrelevant since the police a) didn't know he was Jean Charle de Menezez but thought he was a terrorist, and b) we don't actually shoot illegal aliens, in case you hadn't noticed.
"He was seen entering and leaving a flat and having concersations with known terror suspects, who were under survelaince".
No, he lived in the same block of flats. Not the same thing at all. There was no suggestion he knew the terrorists.
"He ran from the police who clearly stated who they were"
No, he didn't. He is on CCTV getting a Metro newspaper and then using his Oyster to go through the barriers. He decended the stairs slowly. When he got to the platform he saw a train waiting, and at that point only did he run. He was not running from the police since he was entirely unaware they were following him. He then sat down to wait for the train to pull out.
The police warning was 'Police'. The IPCC said last week that the warning was not possible to be understood by anyone who was innocent.
If the Independant Police Complaints Commission say that the version of events where he didn't do any of the thing you describe is the true one, that should be good enough for anyone.
You are regurgitating intially-reported facts which were all later completely discredited on the basis of things like CCTV footage. Not a single one of the facts you've just claimed is accurate, apart from the fact that Menezes was here illegally. Sadly for you, this is utterly irrelevant since the police a) didn't know he was Jean Charle de Menezez but thought he was a terrorist, and b) we don't actually shoot illegal aliens, in case you hadn't noticed.
"He was seen entering and leaving a flat and having concersations with known terror suspects, who were under survelaince".
No, he lived in the same block of flats. Not the same thing at all. There was no suggestion he knew the terrorists.
"He ran from the police who clearly stated who they were"
No, he didn't. He is on CCTV getting a Metro newspaper and then using his Oyster to go through the barriers. He decended the stairs slowly. When he got to the platform he saw a train waiting, and at that point only did he run. He was not running from the police since he was entirely unaware they were following him. He then sat down to wait for the train to pull out.
The police warning was 'Police'. The IPCC said last week that the warning was not possible to be understood by anyone who was innocent.
If the Independant Police Complaints Commission say that the version of events where he didn't do any of the thing you describe is the true one, that should be good enough for anyone.
MrBen5
I've just seen your post from Friday and for the first time on this site, I've felt real fury at something someone has posted.
I'm going to temper my language, because I don't want this to descend into name-calling, but why on earth are you writing these lies about Jean Charles de Menezes?
How dare you?
I've just seen your post from Friday and for the first time on this site, I've felt real fury at something someone has posted.
I'm going to temper my language, because I don't want this to descend into name-calling, but why on earth are you writing these lies about Jean Charles de Menezes?
How dare you?
MrBen5
You're perpetuating lies you've read.
Okay...there's nothing wrong with believing lies when you first hear them...but when it's been conclusively proven that lies have been told, then as an intelligent adult, it's up to you not to continue spreading them.
I think the reason I'm so disgusted with your point of view is that I've seen picture of Jean Charles body lying on the ground. It occurs to me that he that could quite conceivably be one of my nephews (lives in the area, not white, constantly has his iPod on - oblivious to the world).
Attitudes like yours...like his life was expandable, make me...I don't even have a word for it.
I think your attitude is disgraceful, deplorable...really.
You're perpetuating lies you've read.
Okay...there's nothing wrong with believing lies when you first hear them...but when it's been conclusively proven that lies have been told, then as an intelligent adult, it's up to you not to continue spreading them.
I think the reason I'm so disgusted with your point of view is that I've seen picture of Jean Charles body lying on the ground. It occurs to me that he that could quite conceivably be one of my nephews (lives in the area, not white, constantly has his iPod on - oblivious to the world).
Attitudes like yours...like his life was expandable, make me...I don't even have a word for it.
I think your attitude is disgraceful, deplorable...really.
I did not say that Mr ben was correct using the information he quoted, I was pointing out that they were not lies and fabrication by him but information from witness statements at the time.
SP
I can understand your anger but would consider it even more appropriate if you displayed the same emotion towards Gromit who also made a gross error in linking to a photograph alleged to be de Menzes but which is clearly not.
Waldo
I would accept the findings of the Independent Police Complaints Commission if I thought they were indeed completly independent. They are also subject of a complaint regarding aspects of the de Menzes case.
http://www.metfed.org.uk/current_affairs.html
I prefer to wait for the decision of the jury at the coroners court. A group that will consist of ordinary citizens who will have access to all the evidence. If thet reach a decision of unlawful killing then I wouldn't argue with that.
Of course the fact that de Menezes was illegally in the country has a relevance. If he wasn't here he wouldn't have got shot.
SP
I can understand your anger but would consider it even more appropriate if you displayed the same emotion towards Gromit who also made a gross error in linking to a photograph alleged to be de Menzes but which is clearly not.
Waldo
I would accept the findings of the Independent Police Complaints Commission if I thought they were indeed completly independent. They are also subject of a complaint regarding aspects of the de Menzes case.
http://www.metfed.org.uk/current_affairs.html
I prefer to wait for the decision of the jury at the coroners court. A group that will consist of ordinary citizens who will have access to all the evidence. If thet reach a decision of unlawful killing then I wouldn't argue with that.
Of course the fact that de Menezes was illegally in the country has a relevance. If he wasn't here he wouldn't have got shot.
Hmmm, ok i apologise SP1814
I didnt realise what sort of friends and family you have.
I cant believe i have made you so angry. You must have very strong beliefs.
I have also seen the picture of his body lying on the ground, and i cant understand why trained officers would shoot someone for no reason.
I mean i just cant understand why, when he was sat there on the train, peacefully reading his metro newspaper, unaware that any police were persuing him.
This could have been anyone.
Once again i apologise for my misleading info.
Maybe all the police forces should resign and maybe we should look upon illegal immigrants as contributers to society (whether good or bad).
Maybe when someone you know gets caught up in terrorist activity, you will change your point of view.
Or maybe you just hate this country so much that you will never accept our laws and way of life...
I didnt realise what sort of friends and family you have.
I cant believe i have made you so angry. You must have very strong beliefs.
I have also seen the picture of his body lying on the ground, and i cant understand why trained officers would shoot someone for no reason.
I mean i just cant understand why, when he was sat there on the train, peacefully reading his metro newspaper, unaware that any police were persuing him.
This could have been anyone.
Once again i apologise for my misleading info.
Maybe all the police forces should resign and maybe we should look upon illegal immigrants as contributers to society (whether good or bad).
Maybe when someone you know gets caught up in terrorist activity, you will change your point of view.
Or maybe you just hate this country so much that you will never accept our laws and way of life...
Mr Ben - I simply think you're on a wind up. I do not believe that you hold the views you have stated.
You have seen the evidence to the contrary of what you're saying via the links that have been put up. You in turn have posted nothing of interest of substance and everything that is offensive and actually bordering on inhumane. You have shown no sensitivity whatsoever.
We all hold opinions that we can debate but when you have seen conclusive proof it is time to accept that you may have to change of adjust your opinion slightly.
Therefore I can only conclude that you are on a wind up and that the subject you have chosen to use as a wind up is in the worst possible taste and as a result I have the highest disregard for your pixels.
If not a wind up then Splat was generous in implying you may be an intelligent individual.
You have seen the evidence to the contrary of what you're saying via the links that have been put up. You in turn have posted nothing of interest of substance and everything that is offensive and actually bordering on inhumane. You have shown no sensitivity whatsoever.
We all hold opinions that we can debate but when you have seen conclusive proof it is time to accept that you may have to change of adjust your opinion slightly.
Therefore I can only conclude that you are on a wind up and that the subject you have chosen to use as a wind up is in the worst possible taste and as a result I have the highest disregard for your pixels.
If not a wind up then Splat was generous in implying you may be an intelligent individual.
Hmmm, china doll, please stick to the body and soul section. Women shouldnt be in this news section.
I have merely stated that the police did what they thought right at the time and what they were instructed to do.
I am in no way supporting any shootings of an innocent man.
I am supporting the fact that the 'actual' police who shot him, had a right to do so, given the circumstances and orders they were given.
Just because they may have lied in some reporting of circumstances , it doesnt mean that they are entirely to fault.
If you were a soldier and asked to shoot a suspected terrorist, does that mean you are at fault for obeying orders?
I am not saying that it was right to shoot an innocent man, just right to shoot a suspected terrorist...
I have merely stated that the police did what they thought right at the time and what they were instructed to do.
I am in no way supporting any shootings of an innocent man.
I am supporting the fact that the 'actual' police who shot him, had a right to do so, given the circumstances and orders they were given.
Just because they may have lied in some reporting of circumstances , it doesnt mean that they are entirely to fault.
If you were a soldier and asked to shoot a suspected terrorist, does that mean you are at fault for obeying orders?
I am not saying that it was right to shoot an innocent man, just right to shoot a suspected terrorist...
Ok china doll ;)
have you not got some cake making advice to give in the food and drink section or maybe someone wants to know what to do about a split nail in the body and soul section.
When you sign up you have to follow orders. Whether you think they are right or not is an entirely different thing.
As far as the police involved were concerned (not the IPCC or who ever else you wanna blame) they were doing the right thing. They were following orders.
Wow, i bet you think the guys who tried to attack Glasgow airport may have just crashed by accident or maybe they didnt know they had explosive material in their car.
Just becuase i have no fancy links to things doesnt mean it isnt true...
have you not got some cake making advice to give in the food and drink section or maybe someone wants to know what to do about a split nail in the body and soul section.
When you sign up you have to follow orders. Whether you think they are right or not is an entirely different thing.
As far as the police involved were concerned (not the IPCC or who ever else you wanna blame) they were doing the right thing. They were following orders.
Wow, i bet you think the guys who tried to attack Glasgow airport may have just crashed by accident or maybe they didnt know they had explosive material in their car.
Just becuase i have no fancy links to things doesnt mean it isnt true...
No, your 'facts' being utter cobblers is what makes it not true.
And what kind of cretinous, half-witted argument is that about the Glasgow terrorists?
'Oh, you pasta-knitting fools don't approve of the shooting of an innocent man and the subsequent lies by the police to try and cover up the massive failings in the operation; ergo, you are pro-terrorism?'
That's a tw@s argument, and no mistake.
And what kind of cretinous, half-witted argument is that about the Glasgow terrorists?
'Oh, you pasta-knitting fools don't approve of the shooting of an innocent man and the subsequent lies by the police to try and cover up the massive failings in the operation; ergo, you are pro-terrorism?'
That's a tw@s argument, and no mistake.
Hmmm, calm down Mr Waldo.
You must accept peoples views, whether you agree with them or not. Childish name calling shows your intelligence.
Why do you get so upset because i am supporting our forces?
I have stated that the police were wrong to lie, but they were right to take out a suspected terrorist.
Chill out...
You must accept peoples views, whether you agree with them or not. Childish name calling shows your intelligence.
Why do you get so upset because i am supporting our forces?
I have stated that the police were wrong to lie, but they were right to take out a suspected terrorist.
Chill out...
What a funny little pixel you are... truely.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Body-and-Soul/Q uestion440231.html
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Body-and-Soul/Q uestion440231.html
Why must people's views on an Interweb site be accepted? What nonsense is this? Views that are based on rubbish are fair game. No one's stopped you from posting them, they've called you an idiot for doing so.
If you're going to imply people are soft on terrorism because they want the police held accountable for their action, your views are clearly tw@y, and very much more a reflection of your intelligence than mine.
If you're going to imply people are soft on terrorism because they want the police held accountable for their action, your views are clearly tw@y, and very much more a reflection of your intelligence than mine.
Latest Posts
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.