Say Anything Blog

In general I agree that he should not have run away.  I am interested, however, in learning more about what led up to the chase.  From what I know now, they were plainclothes officers.  If three regular looking guys suddenly came up to me with guns in a dark alley, I don’t know that I’d stick around either.

It wasn’t in a dark alley, it was in a subway station… and if three guys with guns came running up to me, I sure as hell WOULD stick around… When the other guys have the firepower on you, you just do what you say… or you end up dead.

This is for Tea (whatever) and Rob.

If you think that Menazes was an idiot, you’d be surprised at the number of absolute morons from the West who walk the streets of the Middle East.  Next time one of these idiots or their family members gets shot or blown to bits - I’d like to see a posting from you calling them idiots.

How about the idiots who continue to use the Underground.  What an idiotic world you must live in.

Marty:

I agree about the plainclothes cops waving guns — i’d run for my life first, and ask questions later. At least, in London i would. Here in North Carolina, i’d be allowed take cover and start defending myself with lethal force.

So let me get this straight---you’re saying that if cops catch somebody else, they should feel free to murder him in cold blood. However, it’s okay for you to open fire on cops.

Is that what you’re saying?

What would you have them do, Don, when a guy, who they had been suspicious of, runs desperately into a train away from police, the day after a second wave of bombs goes off in the subway station, wearing a large overcoat?  What SHOULD they have done?

And how loud would you be screaming if he WAS wearing a bomb and managed to get it off while they were trying arrest him instead of killing him?

What SHOULD they have done?

When they have a guy pinned to the ground for acting suspisious, they should refrain from emptying their gun into his head.

Obviously, y’all feel that acting suspiciously is a capital offence, and that we should avoid the formality of judge and jury and simply kill anyone who looks hinky.

I think that’s a pretty bad idea, myself.

I agree about the plainclothes cops waving guns—i’d run for my life first, and ask questions later.  At least, in London i would.  Here in North Carolina, i’d be allowed take cover and start defending myself with lethal force.  Undercover police officers making public arrests need to make their identity clear real quick, lest they be mistaken for common thugs and treated accordingly.

Granted, i don’t know the specifics of the case in question, but generally, that’s my position.

Still, i’ve been waiting for the ususal moonbats to start crying about how “we’re living in a police state!”.  Yeah, that ususally happens during wartime when the enemy has infiltrated your home turf.  It’s a bitch and a half, aint it? You should have stopped them at the border, apparently.

(INS authorities take note: if the “police state” happens here, it will be because of your failure to secure the perimeter.)

The pigs had this guy pinned to the floor, and THEN they put five bullets into his brain (were the first four not enough?).

That’s murder, pure and simple.

I live in Harlem, and the residents here know that cops can and do murder and torture civilians.

Here in NYC, these cops are rarely punished. In your Bizarro World, they should get a medal.

What an idiotic world you must live in.

What world do you live in?

It was initially suggested that Mr Menezes was under surveillance and had been approached after he walked from his residence in Stockwell to the Tube station. It is now clear that he started his trip from Tulse Hill, where he had stayed at someone else’s home, was watched, was noted wearing bulky clothing, yet was allowed (despite the slaughter at Tavistock Square on July 7 and the attempted blast on a double-decker at Hackney last Thursday) to board a bus for a 15-minute journey and was challenged only when he sought to buy an Underground ticket. Why was someone whom the police continue to insist was a “potential suicide-bomber” no menace on the No 2 bus, but an urgent threat who had to be taken out when moving in the direction of the Northern Line?

And then there was the attempt to “spin” this situation to suit the police immediately after the shooting. It must have been obvious within minutes that the man concerned had no explosives on him and it is highly likely that he had identifying documentation. Yet for hours on Friday police sources were briefing that this shooting was “directly connected” to their inquiries into the botched bombings of July 21 and over the weekend the implication rumbled on that he had lived in, or perhaps near, or somewhere quite close to, multi-occupancy accommodation that had been deemed “suspicious”.
“>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-1707225,00.html

What has to come out of this incident is an open discussion of what went wrong, and how to prevent it from happening again.

his cousin was law-abiding and had co-operated with police on four occasions on which he had come into contact with them.

Three times, he had been stopped on his 90cc moped and once at Brixton station, his usual stop, when a police sniffer dog showed interest in his bag.

“He was asked to open it by the police and he did so. I do not believe he ran. I do not believe he jumped over station barriers, not unless they show me the pictures and there are many cameras there.”

Sounds like the guy was just running for the train.

DM: Is that what you’re saying?

I have no idea how you managed to read so much that i didn’t say, into what i did say.

From the earliest report that i heard though (granted, spin may have already been well underway by then), some police captain was explaining that in instances of suspected suicide bombers, who with their last breath of conciousness could trigger the detonation, the policy would be “shoot to kill”.

I cannot fault the man’s logic, except to say that tragic mistakes like this one WILL happen.  Still, i’m not sure that the policy is not perfectly reasonable during such a time and such a war as britain finds herself.  10 mistakes on this side of the question, and 10 innocent people are dead.  But one mistake on the other side, and dozens if not hundreds of innocents will die.  It’s one of those impossible dilemmas that happen so often in wartime…

We should be praying for the policemen, who knew full well that they murdered a man in cold blood.  They will live with the pain for the rest of their lives, i’m sure.

And we should pray that any future suicide bombers accidentally blow themselves and their freinds to smithereens when they are buckling up their vest—long before they reach the train station.

Don Myers says:

Here in NYC, these cops are rarely punished. In your Bizarro World, they should get a medal.

But wait… isn’t NYC in a blue state?  Not one of those fucked up red states where torture and beatings aren’t tolerated?

I’m just asking.

Woof, where are you getting this material?

Sorry I didn’t link the last article huge url made

http://tinyurl.com/c3qwj

Google news lists 1000+ stories on the tube incident.

That isn’t a news article, that is a pissed off relative of someone who just died being unhinged, understandably… I wouldn’t take it too seriously though unless that kind of information is backed up by some reputable sources.

We don’t know that the undercover cops didn’t identify themselves.  For all we know they were shouting the fact that they were law enforcement from the time this guy started running.  That’s typically how law enforcement does it, so it’d be interesting to know if that was the case in this instance.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Marty said, We should be praying for the policemen, who knew full well that they murdered a man in cold blood. They will live with the pain for the rest of their lives, i’m sure.

You would call this a “murder”?  It doesn’t fit.

you can try and rationalize it to yourself as some sort of war and peace, safety first scenario...but if you think the right thing was done, you’ve come to the wrong conclusion. It doesn’t even need to be explained. Innocent guy dead, five shots to the back of the head. Still like your “war”? of course you do...you’ve rationalized it all…

Still like your “war”? of course you do…you’ve rationalized it all…

Are you crazy? Who likes war? Nobody… But then, we didn’t start this, it was brought to our shores.  We are taking necesarry action to see to it that it doesn’t come back to our shores, just like the UK is taking necessary action to make sure their tubes weren’t the subject of yet another attack…

What’s so bad about being rational, anyway?  Seems a whole lot better than being irrational?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, you really live up to the title “Media Whore”.
Assume you received your copy, but if not have this one on me.
(4494 bytes)

TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD

Urgent Release For All Press

Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following
points should be emphasised in your reports:

The dead man is to be referred to as the “suspect” and never the “victim”. The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicion onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.
He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.
Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.
Remind the reader what would (never say “might") have happened if the suspect “had” been a suicide bomber and the police had “not” shot him. Exaggerate.
Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.
Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.
When describing the man use imagery drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the real bombers. Conjure up the image of a suicide bomber.
Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.
Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.
It should not be written that he “failed” to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stooping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as “refused” or “resisted”.
Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.
One witness thought he saw a “bomb-belt” on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was). Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.
The police began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the bombers (by describing the apartment block as a “house”, for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.
Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.
Avoid mention of the suspect’s family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like “regret” and “tragic”.
Assert that the way in which the suspect “dived or fell to ground” was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to “get down” as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.
Report it as if “the regulations” required the police to shoot him.
Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.
Don’t mention the war.
Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.
If the suspect turns out to be non-Muslim you should still continue to question Muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.
If the suspect does turn out to be Muslim connect Muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.
Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect’s character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, “If he hadn’t have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today...”
Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.

All other topics, speculation, criticisms of the police, or discussions, are forbidden

Rob, you really live up to the title “Media Whore”.

Andrew Milner, you really live up to the title “Stupid Whore”.

Make excuses for the fact that the man was running from police.
Ignore or explain away the implications of this incident happening after a major terrorist attack.
Explain away the fact that he was dressed unseasonably warm.
Make up a bunch of red herrings and then proceed to defeat them.
Ignore the fact that mistakes will happen.
Blame it all people like Rob who recognize common sense and are able to form an argument without a bunch of red herrings.

All serious explanations, reality, and recognitions that we are in a serious war with a serious enemy are forbidden.

Glad to know I got your attention Rob, baby. Can’t imagine you want to be confused with facts, but other contributors may be more objective.
Oxford Law Prof alarmed at “police’s Mossad-style execution” of innocent ’suspect’

Bellacio | July 27 2005

John Gardner is the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, and occasional Visiting Professor at Yale Law School.
Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police’s Mossad-style execution of a ’suspect’ (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one’s friends than by one’s enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority.

Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July:

(1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414.

(2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.

(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.

(4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower!

(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.

(6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.

(7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.

(8) Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn’t mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.

Proposed new anti-terrorist offences: The one that has been variously labelled as ’condoning’ or ’glorifying’ or ’indirectly inciting’ terrorism gives cause for concern. It is already an offence to incite another person to commit an act of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000 s59). In which respects, we may wonder, is the scope of this offence to be extended? The word ’indirect’ suggests that they mean to catch those who incite the s59 inciter. But under general doctrines of English criminal law it is already an offence to incite the s59 inciter. So one suspects some other extension of the existing offence is being cooked up. Is the plan to criminalise the mere defence or endorsement of a terrorist act? If so we are in for trouble. Terrorism in English law is defined to cover all modes of political violence, however trifling. Are academics and commentators no longer to be permitted to defend any political violence? Is Ted Honderich’s Violence for Equality, or Peter Singer’s Democracy and Disobedience, to be put on the banned books list? The only thing protecting these books at the moment is that, in the eyes of the law, an argued endorsement is not an incitement. The thought that the government may be thinking of changing this should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who still has a spine (damn few).

unsubscribe

Andrew Milner said, Glad to know I got your attention Rob, baby. Can’t imagine you want to be confused with facts, but other contributors may be more objective.

Dude, what are you talking about?  Rob probably hasn’t even read your drivel so you can stop your charade of claiming that your stupid spin are “facts”.

Hello
I live in Stockwell, London, England and was attempting to enter the station where Mr Menenzes was shot dead just as the area was being cordoned off by police.
I figured something was up when I heard sirens and helicopters all over the place, but had no idea what had just happened.

All that you stated might possibly be reasonable IF it happened as you suggest.
Your speculations about what Menenzes should or shouldn’t have done is clearly born out of your living in a country where some 11,000 people are killed by firearms annually and the where the police are known to be pretty hand with their guns. So your views about law enforcement and an individuals knowledge about how to behave in armed scenarios are somewhat different to us in the UK where about 100 people die of gunshots annually and where its a surprise to see armed police officer letter alone one wielding a HK-38 or Glock 17’s in public.
Mark me, there’s nothing wrong with believing what you do. Though it may be prudent to have evidence before applying those beliefs in this instance.

Tonight, 16 July, documented eye-witness, photographic and CCTV evidence from the official police enquiry into the shooting, was shown on the news over here.

It shows that Mr Menenzes :

1. entered the underground station, picked up a free newspaper- quite normal activity so far.

2. was not challenged by the police waving ID or guns up to this point

3. used his valid travel pass and DID NOT jump the barrier

4. started running down the escalator only as he apparently heard the train pulling into the station - I myself do this at this station just about every other day.

5. when he got on the train and as he was standing, a surveillance officer pointed him out to the armed officers one of whom, without warning or identifying himself, grabbed and held both Menenzes’ arms from behind while another armed officer, how also did not ID himself to Menenzes, shot at Mr Menenzes. - If Menenzes death was his own fault for not obeying armed police officers, then whats with the cops who didn’t even attempt to ID themselves to him before shooting.
Oh yes, heat of the moment, everything happens so fast.
But isn’t that why these cops are “elite”, precisely so they are not like ordinary Joes who might panic in a situation?

The photos of the scene taken by the underground trains CCTV show Mr Menenzes lying in a pool of blood.
Menenzes received shots to the upper body. 7 bullets into his bead and 1 bullet entering his shoulder. As can be seen in the CCTV still, bullet location markers laid out by investigating police officers show 3 bullets missed their target. So the armed officer loosed off a total of 11 bullets from his Glock 17 automatic in a crowded train carriage!!

The apparent reason for this cock up and death of an innocent man;
Menenzes lived at number 17 in a block of flats.
The police were trailing a bomb suspect who they knew to live at number 24 in the same block. Both flats share a communal entrance to the block.

The officer who was suppose to be watching for their suspect coming of out of the block had gone off to have a pee when Menenzes exited the front door of the block and thus the peeing officer was not able to properly identify Menenzes to rule him out as the suspect they where trailing. So other officers followed him anyway as a precaution.
When the tracking officers saw Menenzes entering the tube station the operation commanders at HQ made it clear that he was not to be allowed to enter the tube network. From that point on Menenzes fate was sealed.

All a bit of a muddle really and none of it appears to be Menenzes fault. when the situation is suicide bombers roaming and you have little or no prior intel about them, then I want cops who are smarter then the terrorist. Withe best intentions in the world, feckless cops are no help.

just about says it all there.  I hope now Rob is willing to take back his previous ill informed and offensive comments.

Menezes was innocent. The cops blew it, and they tried to excuse their actions with fabricated facts. We all make mistakes, but shouldn’t we assume them?

As for Menezes strange behavior, I believe that the witnesses were also induced to say that he jumped the barriers, that he was wearing a thick coat,etc, by those fake facts..with all the panic, you believe in the first thing you hear. And you, my American friend (with a taste for guns) should be used to it. After all, it is common to see these convenient facts whenever there is some strange police or government action. But it’s not your fault - just think before you “shoot” and everything will be fine. After all, why didn’t the police show any CCTV recordings of Mr. Menezes jumping the barriers, or his infamous winter jacket? For what I know, London is one of the world’s cities with most CCTV cameras around..

For now, I’ll think that Mr.Menezes was an innocent man. Was he killed by his own stupidity?! Is it a crime to be stupid? If so, thousands of stupid human beings should be..eliminated (?). Just for the sake of security.. Maybe the world would be a better place, indeed..

Peace

The facts are there.  Basically the flats were under surveilance as one of the suspected bombers was supposed to be in there.  One of the officers who was on watch chipped off to have a leak and when he came back saw a man who in usual police ignorance he thought looked arabic and a bit like the man they were supposed to be watching. Due to the high level of paranoia and lack of understanding when it comes to anyone who’s not “white” within the Police force this instantly turned into “Oh my God he’s a suicide bomber and he’s going to blow everyone up”.  There are many reasons why this would be a stupid thought to have but hey… They then followed him on the bus, and onto the train AT NO POINT DID HE ACT SUSPICIOUS except for the fact that he has dark skin and was getting on a tube.  Then he was challenged while sat down by an officer, he got up and was pinned back down again and restrained before some over eager little d**k who someone was bright enough to give a gun came and shot him 8 times (actually I think there were 2 over eager little d**ks with guns who done this).  We are now all supposed to accept that this is a necessary “inconvenience” for the world in which we live. NO IT IS NOT.  I am more scared of police with guns then any terrorist and that is the truth.

Here in Cardiff a man was woken up by armed police the other day and restrained with tape for an hour.  He had taken his mates keys and put him in a taxi because his mate was too drunk to drive.  He had then fallen asleep in his car.  What happened to just a polite knock on the window??  The man just happened to be black.  I’m not the first to say it but the moment we let ourselves be divided and live in such a paranoid state it’s 1 up to the terrorists.

Captain, do you have a link to where this video is available publicly?  Where did you see it?  I haven’t yet…

Well, the facts are out and it appears that the cops were mistaken… appears being the operative word.  I’d love to hear the real reason they shot this guy.  It couldn’t possibly have just been random, they must have had intel that pointed to this guy having a bomb on his person… Who knows…

Actually while I’m on a bit of a rant about this.  All those people who say “but if he had been a suicide bomber”.  Are no doubt all the same people who said “but if he did have WMD”.  You can’t wipe someone (or hundreds of people) out ‘just in case’.  If I walked on a train and shot the whole carriage just incase one of them was a suicide bomber I’d be a homicidal maniac.

Suddenly all the morons are very, very quite

I’m not quiet, I’m talking.  I want to see that video that y’all are talking about

Suddenly all the morons are very, very quite.

You could today kill a saint or maybe even Jesus and not acknowledge it, or should I say , you wouldn’t care.

Alexxis said, Suddenly all the morons are very, very quite.

What are you talking about?  I suspect that “morons” are people who disagree with Alexxis.

You could today kill a saint or maybe even Jesus and not acknowledge it, or should I say , you wouldn’t care.

Who are you talking about?  Care to be more specific?

The information released by the"Bobbys" says he acted suspiciously, and when confronted he ran onto a tube carriage, where he was subsequently subdued and shot. Being held down and shot multiple times is not my idea of proper police procedure. I have searched for these surrveilence videos and photos that are referenced here. I have not found them anywhere, and I have extensive news service listings, not just fox,bbc,and cnn. Please provide links or even a vague clue to where to find these most damning materials. We all await your response in trembling anticipation.

Alexxis:

Suddenly all the morons are very, very quite.

Very, very quite .... WHAT?

Dumb ass.

I’d really like to see this video too… I’m sure someone has the capacity to “produce” it.  60 minutes, perhaps?  The have an excellent production staff and should be able to direct this information to the public.  Who would play the part of “Menenzes"… Um for the TV movie, I mean… Not for the damning evidence… That movie is already recorded… Right?

I’ll eat crow if it’s real!  I’m good with that bet!

What a wonderful thing it would be to have 20/20 hindsight. Sir Ian Blair is demanding a police enquiry...into who leaked part of the IPCC report to ITN NEWS. Someone in the Metropolitan Police Service with a conscience. Well that narrows down the suspects to a handful. What a talent Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair (soon to be plain Mr. Ian Blair) has for opening his mouth and putting his foot in it. Keep this clown on the front pages for five consecutive days and he’s history. Come on media whores, where are you when you’re really needed?

Please be advised that “Say Anything” direct e-mails go straight into File 13, along with the Nigerian Bank scam messages.

Andrew Milner informs us, Please be advised that “Say Anything” direct e-mails go straight into File 13, along with the Nigerian Bank scam messages.

I took your e-mail off of the subscription notice for this story.  The next time you shouldn’t sign up for the story.

Yeah, now that the fact finders have gone silent when asked to produce said video, I’m becoming very skeptical they were on the level.  I just figured they were telling the truth, but I’m not gonna believe it til I see it now…

Please be advised that “Say Anything” direct e-mails go straight into File 13, along with the Nigerian Bank scam messages.

Well that’s nice to know, but wouldn’t it be easier to just use the unsubcribe link at the bottom of the email notifications?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Still waiting for that link to all these videos of the shooting. Or, as I said, even vague clues. Anything Andie boy. ****************************** Still waiting.

We are all so happy to hear that, shit for brains.

Yeah, now that the fact finders have gone silent when asked to produce said video,

add to this the fact that I am inclined to believe 2H9 over most folks…

With a horse like this, I’m-a-bettin’…

It couldn’t possibly have just been random, they must have had intel that pointed to this guy having a bomb on his person… Who knows…

These cops had as much intel on him as they have on you. That would make it between about none and non exsistant !!

The cops bungled the job, killed an innocent man and are doing everything possible to squirm out of admitting this. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

The cops have a habit of doing this. over the past 30 years 1000 innocent people have died in dubios circumstances at the hands of the police, and each time the cops have without fail, attemoted to villify the victim and suggest that it was the individuals own fault the police had to kill them.

E.g. In 1999 a man was shot and killed by armed police who said he was facing them and pointing a “gun” at them. The guns turned out to be a table leg he had just repaired and the entry and exit wounds in his head forced them to ditch the story about him facing them.

Accidental shooting, OK yes it was, but why try and wriggle out of it by saying something tnat was not true?
This leaves me with little confidence in geting a fair hearing if the cops make a mistake - if I’m not dead !!

The real problem that has arisen in London with the shoot to kill policy, is that once you are innocently in the cops feild of operations and they have no intel on you to rule you out as a suspect, you will remain in thier operational loop as a suspect and they will treat you as one. What ever innocent actions you take, they may well see as a threat. Why? Because they are looking for a bomb suspect, not looking to rule you out as a suspect. 

The cops say they had no choice but to shoot Menezes in the head becasue he was wearing a big jacket that may have concealed a bomb and in shooting to the torso they might have hit the detonator and it would be lights out.

So then whats with the cops in Manchester a couple of days later firing a 50,000 volt TAZER stun gun into a suicide bomb suspect who was wearing a rucksack !!!. That could have ended in tears !! Turns out he was a real bomber.

Its wrong what the cops did to Menezes. They shouldnt try to wriggle out of it or cover up the circumstances. Play it striaght and people will naturally have more confidence in them.

The lesson learned here, I think is that it pays to treat information with suspicion until it has been verified.  It now seems that NOTHING the Police said at the time was correct.  Something that we should, perhaps, have suspected when no CCTV footage was released of the suspect leaping a barrier in his strangely out of place puffer jacket.

It now seems that NOTHING the Police said at the time was correct. Something that we should, perhaps, have suspected when no CCTV footage was released of the suspect leaping a barrier in his strangely out of place puffer jacket.

So far I’ve seen nothing to rebuff the police’s account of what happened.  I’ve only heard from a few nuts that decided to show up on this post to claim the police were 100% wrong.

I’m still waiting on that video.  And until i see it, you’re just a Looney Liberal

My feelings in a small movie:

http://homepage.mac.com/timintas/iMovieTheater12.html

Tim

So tim, what is the point of your little video. Want to change peoples minds, show them the security camera footage illustrating that he was executed for the crime of having dark skin.

Sphagnum - so you think the Independant Police Complaints Commission are populated with Loony Liberals.  Interesting, on what evidence do you base your comments? 
Where is the film footage of the event?  Perhaps you should check with ITV as they seem to have stills of CCTV footage which undermines your position.  Instead of demanding proof from others why don’t you provide some proof of your own, and by that I mean something more than the hearsay you culled from the Police press briefings.

Where is the film footage of the event?

Exactly what I would like to know.  Others on this thread have supposively seen the video and apparently it is damning to the police force, but I have yet to see it. Until I do, I don’t take you seriously.

You guys may want to check out Jay Tea’s latest on this. Some links w/photos provided.

Cynic: Instead of demanding proof from others [...]

So much for cynicism, which is crafted around demanding proof from people when they make assertions.

Here is a link to a photo of Menezes. No heavy coat is visible.

This photo raises alot of questions. Why are his shoes off? Why is the puddle of blood about a foot past his feet, instead of distending from upper torso? Why is there so little blood? Multiple hits to the head at close range produce a great deal of blood. Why, if that was the outer layer of clothing is there no blood on it? And who in the coroners office released this photo? Last, and certainly not least, Why is the skin so appallingly white? And no, it would not be accounted for by blood loss. Dark-skinned persons don’t turn white. The skin goes an ashen, dark hue. As I have stated before, here and other places, subduing and then shooting a person multiple times in the head is not proper police procedure. And with 4 million security cameras in England, I don’t buy that this incident is not on film. At least from the point that he entered the Tube station proper. That ought to about cover it for now. Let the verbiage fly!

So how do all you “useful idiots” feel now with the advantage of hindsight? Ashamed of yourselves I should hope. Especially you Rob. What a pathetic excuse for a journalist, not to say human being. But I doubt if hard-wired, read-only-memory clowns are capable of remorse.