I caught a bit of Question of Security on BBC 1. Firstly, I feel proud that Britain has taken the shooting of this poor guy so seriously. We are as a nation embarrassed and a bit ashamed of the killing. There are already Public and Criminal Inquiries underway. (Although there are many people who will not believe the result of Inquiries, if they exonerate the officers). Secondly, I was impressed by Ian Blair's remorse and obvioulsy mind-felt love for the welfare of the detectives involved in the killing and the family of the dead chap.
His view of the Officers who ran towards and captured someone that they firmly believed was a suicide Bomber? "Pure, Cold, Courage"
His explanation for 8 shots? "Once the decision is taken to kill, human instinct takes over"
In the cops minds they must have considered their lives to be at extreme risk, when they got a chance to eliminate that risk and only after there were no other alternatives available, they unloaded.
Not many (none) of us will ever be in that position but if we were, I wonder if any of us would have fired less shots? It would have made no difference in any case.
A bomb or a fish supper?
Probably not. It's like when you see people standing on a spider. One small step does the job but then they tend to grind the poor thing into the ground just to make sure.Porty wrote:I wonder if any of us would have fired less shots? It would have made no difference in any case.
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!
Oh, so now we know.
The man who was murdered :
didn't run away from the police, didn't ignore their instructions, didn't vault the barrier, wasn't wearing a padded jacket, didn't trip and fall over, and officers weren't "forced" to fire the shots.
All he did was leave his house, get a bus, go into the tube station, pick up a Metro newspaper, run to catch his train, sit on a seat, and get shot in the face.
Yes, let's defend the police. Yes, let's torture the innocent. Go back to bed, your government is taking care of business.
The man who was murdered :
didn't run away from the police, didn't ignore their instructions, didn't vault the barrier, wasn't wearing a padded jacket, didn't trip and fall over, and officers weren't "forced" to fire the shots.
All he did was leave his house, get a bus, go into the tube station, pick up a Metro newspaper, run to catch his train, sit on a seat, and get shot in the face.
Yes, let's defend the police. Yes, let's torture the innocent. Go back to bed, your government is taking care of business.
-
mr magnolia
- Posts: 972
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 22:07
- Location: close to the edge
- Contact:
It makes you glow with pride that, in such difficult circumstances, the police had the presence of mind to make all these things up.Dadaist wrote:
didn't run away from the police, didn't ignore their instructions, didn't vault the barrier, wasn't wearing a padded jacket, didn't trip and fall over, and officers weren't "forced" to fire the shots.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157892.stmPorty wrote:What happened whilst I've been gone? I take it there has been some revelations about what "actually" happened. All I learned in the states was the guy had an expired Visa and a forged Passport.
-
mr magnolia
- Posts: 972
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 22:07
- Location: close to the edge
- Contact:
xxxx wrote:I think manslaughter is a more accurate termPorty wrote:
If that is all true then an extreme miscarriage of justice has taken place.
I think murder is actually the term in question here.man·slaugh·ter Audio pronunciation of "manslaughter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mnslôtr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury
Every Day Counts
Agreed.mr magnolia wrote: I think murder is actually the term in question here.
There's just such a huge catalogue of errors and cover ups here.
All the info fed by Ian Blair and various Police chiefs to the media about the victim and duffel coats, padded jackets, rucksacks, vaulting of barriers, resisting arrest, fleeing through the station, throwing himself onto the tube carriage.
Eye witness accounts of more padded jackets, wires protruding etc.
All now appears to be complete and utter nonsense.
Will the perpetrators of this murder and their leaders be named and brought to book? I fear that won't happen.
The victim was supposedly ID'd by a policeman who "wasn't very sure and thought it might be worth someone else taking a look" as he was relieving himself at the time. Unbelievable!
Police also claim that none of the CCTV cameras at Stockwell Station were working that day. Also, unbelievable.
There was a sickening photo of the victim lying on the floor of the carriage on the front page of today's Metro which I'm sure many of us saw.
Sadly, the publishers didn't miss the opportunity to point out that one the victim's last acts was to pick up that days copy of the Metro before boarding.
Nice.
Last edited by ecm on 17 Aug 2005, 23:06, edited 1 time in total.
ecm, please do not circumvent our profanity filter in the future.
Whilst English is a living language and your comments were not offensive in their context, they do represent a material breach of current POL guidelines on the use of certain words which may be regarded as profane.
Should you require additional instruction on alternative words in the future, please do not hesitate to ask me to provide them, as I have lots at my disposal. It shouldn't be necessary for you to bring us down to the level of the potty-mouthed in order for you to get your point across; indeed I feel it will carry more weight if you delete the expletives.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Porty for highlighting this important issue, and look forward to helping him wage linguistic, etymological and indeed lexicographic jihad against the infidel word.
Whilst English is a living language and your comments were not offensive in their context, they do represent a material breach of current POL guidelines on the use of certain words which may be regarded as profane.
Should you require additional instruction on alternative words in the future, please do not hesitate to ask me to provide them, as I have lots at my disposal. It shouldn't be necessary for you to bring us down to the level of the potty-mouthed in order for you to get your point across; indeed I feel it will carry more weight if you delete the expletives.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Porty for highlighting this important issue, and look forward to helping him wage linguistic, etymological and indeed lexicographic jihad against the infidel word.
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
Not doubting the above but was it the Police that made all this up or were some of the above reported eye witness accounts? Ian Blair, in his post incident statement said "as far as he understood" I am genuinely unclear as to who claimed what?xxxx wrote:It makes you glow with pride that, in such difficult circumstances, the police had the presence of mind to make all these things up.Dadaist wrote:
didn't run away from the police, didn't ignore their instructions, didn't vault the barrier, wasn't wearing a padded jacket, didn't trip and fall over, and officers weren't "forced" to fire the shots.
Porty wrote:
Not doubting the above but was it the Police that made all this up or were some of the above reported eye witness accounts? Ian Blair, in his post incident statement said "as far as he understood" I am genuinely unclear as to who claimed what?
As they were there at the time, they were in the best position to inform us about the events.
The fact that they did nothing to disabuse us is shameful. While they certainly did not know what they were doing, they could be in no doubt about what they had done.
How could there be eye witness accounts of non existent wires, non existent bulky jackets and non occuring vaults of the ticket barrier by the slain man?
All of the misinformation was groundless, so they must have known it was untrue.
The fact that they kept silent and tried to avoid an inquiry served noone but themselves and the armchair andy mcnabbs exulting in their 'heroic' killing.
I was trying to be objective not take the side of the Police or the murdered.xxxx wrote: The fact that they kept silent and tried to avoid an inquiry served noone but themselves and the armchair andy mcnabbs exulting in their 'heroic' killing.
1) Your statement:"tried to avoid an inquiry" It is, as far as I am aware, not within Police powers to resist a Police Complaints Authority Inquiry, if the PCA want an Inquiry, it happens. I doubt that there has ever been a Police shooting, whether it resulted in Murder or not, that has not been put before the PCA.
Ian Blair, may and I stress may be guilty of attempting to wash his organisations laundry in private. Every, and I stress every, leader of any substantial organisation would fight for the same thing. He should not be castigated, it is a form of loyalty. Perhaps misplaced but loyalty all the same.
2) Your statement "the armchair andy mcnabbs exulting in their 'heroic' killing"
I have not witnessed either visually or aurally anyone claim that the actual killing was heroic, you made that up to feed your righteous indignation, shame on you.
Just like your imaginary "armchair Andy Macnabbs" In your mind you have a storyline, an audit trail of events that took place. Using all of the information you have, would you care to walk us through the sequence of events? Please include sources, as in, who claimed padded jacket? Who claimed vaulted barrier?
You have made the point that once the Police did possess the knowledge of what actually transpired they could have provided the general public with intimate detail and substance of the events. In turn, can you provide us with some credible examples where the Police have gone public with all of the intimate details of a potential crime scene, prior to a possible arrest and conviction? As a matter of course do the Police publicly dis-credit eye witness accounts, pre-judice?
xxxx you are being silly.
Porty, to your credit you have immediately reacted to the change in events, and it goes without saying, to me at least, that you're trying to be objective.
Some others however, who were more shrill in their defence of the shootists from the outset, have not even peeped yet.
I think that the Iraq "mistake" maps onto the Menezes "mistake" if only in the respect that we thought both of them had unauthorized weapons, so we shot them up a bit just to make sure.
In that context, "armchair andy mcnabb" hits the descriptive target, because it immediately paints a picture of that very British hillbilly we're blessed with here - the type who are quite happy to shoot first and then claim ownership of which questions should be asked later when it turns out we capped the wrong guy.
Some others however, who were more shrill in their defence of the shootists from the outset, have not even peeped yet.
I think that the Iraq "mistake" maps onto the Menezes "mistake" if only in the respect that we thought both of them had unauthorized weapons, so we shot them up a bit just to make sure.
In that context, "armchair andy mcnabb" hits the descriptive target, because it immediately paints a picture of that very British hillbilly we're blessed with here - the type who are quite happy to shoot first and then claim ownership of which questions should be asked later when it turns out we capped the wrong guy.
Independent Police Complaints Commissioners, please.Porty wrote:I must admit, I know nothing of Andy Macnabb, however, armchair Police Complaints Commissioner's, are their views worth more tham AAM?
It depends on how much of the mind of the inquirer is searching for truth, and how much is pushing an agenda, I guess - in terms of it's worth to others.
In your opinion, not mine.Porty wrote:xxxx wrote: The fact that they kept silent and tried to avoid an inquiry served noone but themselves and the armchair andy mcnabbs exulting in their 'heroic' killing.I don't believe I said you were notI was trying to be objective not take the side of the Police or the murdered.It's not within their powers, but that they would try to is the point.1) Your statement:"tried to avoid an inquiry" It is, as far as I am aware, not within Police powers to resist a Police Complaints Authority Inquiry, if the PCA want an Inquiry, it happens. I doubt that there has ever been a Police shooting, whether it resulted in Murder or not, that has not been put before the PCA.
From the BBC 18th August:
"Scotland Yard "initially resisted" the investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has said.
The inquiry was not formally handed over to the IPCC until five days after the Brazilian was shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July.
Lawyers for Mr Menezes' family said vital evidence could have been lost.
Denying a cover-up and calls to resign, Met chief Sir Ian Blair said: "My job is to stay here looking after London."
Sources said a member of the IPCC secretarial staff had been suspended during an investigation into the source of the leaked papers. "
Dirty laundry is a quite a euphemism for an unlawful killing.Ian Blair, may and I stress may be guilty of attempting to wash his organisations laundry in private. Every, and I stress every, leader of any substantial organisation would fight for the same thing. He should not be castigated, it is a form of loyalty. Perhaps misplaced but loyalty all the same.
If a member of a criminal organisation displays his loyalty by resisting inquiry would you be so understanding? Ian Blair's loyalty should be to the due process of law, not his individual organisation.No shame on me, I read what people say
2) Your statement "the armchair andy mcnabbs exulting in their 'heroic' killing"
I have not witnessed either visually or aurally anyone claim that the actual killing was heroic, you made that up to feed your righteous indignation, shame on you.Jamesie wrote: But the Police should not be criticised for their heroic efforts at preventing the loss of human life.I am at a disadvantage here, unlike members of the metropolitan police, I was not there, I do not have an investigative organisation of my own. I can only go on the information provided. They also have an extensive public relations department with which to disseminate information. Its not too much to ask for correct information to be distributed is it?Just like your imaginary "armchair Andy Macnabbs" In your mind you have a storyline, an audit trail of events that took place.Here we go, from the times july31:Using all of the information you have, would you care to walk us through the sequence of events? Please include sources, as in, who claimed padded jacket? Who claimed vaulted barrier?
"
When the shooting at Stockwell Underground station was first confirmed, a senior police source told reporters, off the record, that they had killed one of the would-be suicide bombers who was on the run after the failed July 21 bombings. Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, said that the shooting was "directly linked" to the terrorist operation.
The man, according to the police, was suspect because of his "clothing and behaviour". He had been followed from a house that had been under surveillance. When he was challenged at Stockwell, he ignored instructions and ran. He had vaulted over the ticket barrier and was wearing a dark bulky jacket that could disguise a bomb. "
Is this not a valid point, why not let the public know the facts?You have made the point that once the Police did possess the knowledge of what actually transpired they could have provided the general public with intimate detail and substance of the events.Perhaps you are familiar with the colour television programme 'Crimewatch' where the Police assist in detailed reconstruction of events prior to arrest and conviction. Of course in these cases they are usually unaware of the perpretator's identity. In this case you have the perpretators, victims, CCTV evidence were all to hand.In turn, can you provide us with some credible examples where the Police have gone public with all of the intimate details of a potential crime scene, prior to a possible arrest and conviction? As a matter of course do the Police publicly dis-credit eye witness accounts, pre-judice?
Again I repeat, how can you have an eyewitness to events that did not occur?xxxx you are being silly.
Outstanding comeback - and of course, Porty has already hinted at the answer to that question - you don't castigate them, you torture them.xxxx wrote: If a member of a criminal organisation displays his loyalty by resisting inquiry would you be so understanding? Ian Blair's loyalty should be to the due process of law, not his individual organisation.
Excellent response xxxx. You obviously didn't take your POL name from your homework marks.
Your point about the criminal organisation: I would understand why ANY leader would seek to protect/defend hsi own, that is part of being a leader. I would not tolerate it but in the case of Ian Blair neither would IPCC.
Crimewatch do not disclose the intimate detail of crimes a) to entrap the perpetrator and b) to prevent people claiming falsely that they "done" it.
The senior police officer in the Times may or may not have been party to the facts of the pursuit. He may have based his statements on secondhand information. Which is why an inquiry is required.
If you can't walk us through the event, through the process, through the decision to pull the trigger, I suggest you put your pipe in it and wait til we see the findings of the inquiry. We seem to know the result: unlawful killing, let us find out why?
Personally, whatever the findings may be, I am for retaining a shoot to kill policy. That is my opinion.
Dada, stop trying to torture me with your tortous attempts at starting a torture fight. We had the poll, it was specific case, the shooting makes no difference.
Your point about the criminal organisation: I would understand why ANY leader would seek to protect/defend hsi own, that is part of being a leader. I would not tolerate it but in the case of Ian Blair neither would IPCC.
Crimewatch do not disclose the intimate detail of crimes a) to entrap the perpetrator and b) to prevent people claiming falsely that they "done" it.
The senior police officer in the Times may or may not have been party to the facts of the pursuit. He may have based his statements on secondhand information. Which is why an inquiry is required.
If you can't walk us through the event, through the process, through the decision to pull the trigger, I suggest you put your pipe in it and wait til we see the findings of the inquiry. We seem to know the result: unlawful killing, let us find out why?
Personally, whatever the findings may be, I am for retaining a shoot to kill policy. That is my opinion.
Dada, stop trying to torture me with your tortous attempts at starting a torture fight. We had the poll, it was specific case, the shooting makes no difference.
Are you serious? Eyewitness accounts can be wholly unreliable. In this case I watched BBC and saw 4 different versions of how many shots were fired. Every witness seemed plausiblexxxx wrote: Again I repeat, how can you have an eyewitness to events that did not occur?
There is a commonly knowm experiment where a person is held up in an armed raid where the bandit uses a banana. More than 50% report the weapon as a gun. You don't know that it was the police who initially claimed he vaulted the barrier or claimed he disobeyed instructions, do you?
But you were quick to identify them as having made it all up.