The killing of Jean Charles de Menenez.

RE: Ne' mind then.

Same bs reported by ITV and C4 last night. They've apparantly seen copies of evidence given to the inquiry.

 

RE: Dirk didn't accuse anyone of an over simplified response

Did he? Ah right - thought he was saying yours was over simplified.

Apologies to the vertically challenged optical aid supplier.

 

ITV and C4 eh?

Carved in stone then.

 

No, the reason they were in such a position was because they made such a series of poor decisions[i/] in the first place! One bloke was taking a piss so didnt see him leave the house and therefore couldnt identify him. Another copper couldn't positively identify him but thought it might be him because, "he had Mongolian eyes" (wtf?!) yet despite him apparently being a very dangerous man they then allowed him to get on a bus. Using your own argument that in itself is negligent, is it not?

Id be interested to hear why they thought a man with no obvious strange behaviour, who didnt look to be carrying anything on his person that resembled a bomb was shot 7 times in the head at point blank range AFTER being restrained. If suspicious behvaiour is now somehow being defined as walking out of your own home, getting on a bus, entering a subway station, getting on a train and sitting down - then quite rightly there should be lots of worried UK citizens.

 

RE: Your feelings towards Blair

Yup, but we dont live there, we live here.

 

RE: ITV and C4 eh?

Sceptical of owt until official report is out. Even then it'll be more interesting for what it doesn't say.

Someone clearly lied in those initial reports about vaulting barriers and bulky coats etc.

 

RE: Over simplified response..........

Jail.

 

RE: This apathy is not a new phenomenon

A true child of Thatch.

 

RE: Dirk didn't accuse anyone of an over simplified response

Yes. What jay's just said.

 

RE: ITV and C4 eh?

I think there's little doubt about the validity of the evidence. The Independent Police Commission from where it came has not said anything to dispute the validity of the report, so you can take the witness statements by police and the public as read. You're right though, it doesnt reflect well on the police whatsoever, especially as Sir Ian Blair gave a series of explanations after the event which at best were passing on incorrect information and at worst outright lies.

 

So if this leaked report is true, does it mean all the witnesses at the scene who saw him hurdle the barrier, then be physically restrained by the officers, before having a number of shots unloaded into his head from point-blank range, had seen the wrong incident? Or is there some strnge men-in-black type malarkey going on?

 

communication

I'm sure I read that the British Transport Police are able to communicate with each other underground. So why don't Special Branch/terrorist branch? Despite being most worried about UNDERGROUND stations...etc

in the report I read (Observer) it sounds like they were too scared to grab hold of him at any time in case he detonated bomb...so they missed chance after chance then decide to grab and shoot him once he's underground. Lunacy.

I can see it now...lots of blokes jump on you (without shouting POLICE or anything, cos they didn't want him to know who it was !!??), he struggles (who wouldn't?) gets popped in the head 7 times. And 3 shots missed eh? From THAT range? He should be playing up front for Barnsley...(sorry)

 

Whatever happened...................

.......the fluffies will only hear what they want to hear.

 

The person who hurdled the barrier was apparently one of the policeman chasing him. They were obviously a fair distance behind him as he had time to walk into the station, go down the escalator, pick up a free paper and sit down in his seat before they killed him.

 

RE: Over simplified response..........

Aye ok! (zzz)

 

Let's wait and see what the final report says before stating leaked rumours are fact.

 

I'd just like to say that although I've heard countless news reports claiming that eye witnesses saw the guy hurdle the barrier, that he was wearing a padded jacket, that he had wires dangling from his clothes, that the police first apprehended him outside the station, etc, etc... I've never actually seen an eye witness on the news stating any of these things. I saw a few saying how many shots they thought they heard, but none of the rest of the stuff.

 

RE: Ne' mind then.

So they've seen copies of leaked evidence.

Just because it's evidence does not necessarily mean it is correct and what happened (not saying it is or isn't), somebody could have given evidence stating that they had seen a giant aardvark just prior to the incident, news agencies obtaining leaked versions of this and reporting it wouldn't necessarily mean it was correct.

We've already had reports of the man running and vaulting a barrier so we now have conflicting evidence - it is up to the enquiry to decide which they believe to be the correct version of events.

 

Which would lead certain people to suggest that it was the police who leaked those things. Not me like, I'm waiting and seeing.

 

A series of <span style="font-style: italic;">retrospectively</span> poor decisions.
Ok, so we've done the &quot;you've got the man, you've got the gun...&quot; scenario. If we sidestepped by accepting that the man was put in that position by the actions of others.

So, be one of the others.
You're an unarmed surveillance officer watching a building the Met have intelligence on.
Man of similar ethnic appearance to recent bombers walks out (&quot;Mongolian eyes&quot; my arse - what they meant was &quot;looked a bit woggish&quot; but can't say it).

Starting with soiling yourself so as not to take a negligent piss, take it from there. Do you follow him or not? If he attempts to take public transport, would you, and if so how would you, act to prevent this? The number of branches and possible outcomes is mind bending - without the benefit of hindsight, each decision is impossible.