Police shoot suspect....................er why?

by ISP 299 Replies latest members politics

• 

  katiekitten

  ISP come back with a measured sensible response to make KK look like a hysterical woman.

  (but you have taken serveral oppoerunities to rub in the fact that you were right and others were wrong - rather than just letting your arguments speak for themselves, you had to point it out too, which I find slightly irritating and ungracious)

  KK waits for another adult response from ISP highlighting her petulant immaturity...
• 

  Englishman

  He was shot in the head because on a day soon after eight bombs had gone off in London on the underground system, he was asked to stop close to an underground station by armed officers, and instead of stopping he VAULTED the pay barrier (graphics supplied by national papers!) and ran full pelt towards a tube train and jumped on.

  Why vault the pay barrier? Any other day vaulting the pay barrier would have a guard chasing you and rugby tackling you to the ground. On this day it wasnt a guard, it was an armed officer. Stupid stupid stupid man. No he doesnt deserve to die, but sometimes stupidity at the wrong time is fatal

  Words of wisdom, Katie Kitten.

  You know, sometimes we have to take responsibility for our actions instead of blaming others for everything that goes wrong in our lives. The guy behaved stupidly in trhe way that he acted. Of course our police are going to make mistakes in the heat of the moment, especially when the adrenaline is running as high as it has been for the last few weeks. The guy behaved idiotically and bears much of the responsiblity for what happened to him.

  Englishman.
• 

  ISP

  ISP come back with a measured sensible response to make KK look like a hysterical woman.

  You need no help from me!

  He was shot in the head because on a day soon after eight bombs had gone off in London on the underground system, he was asked to stop close to an underground station by armed officers, and instead of stopping he VAULTED the pay ;barrier (graphics supplied by national papers!) and ran full pelt towards a tube train and jumped on.

  OMG...he was being chased by 3 would be assailants who failed to identify themselves properly or at all.

  The guy behaved idiotically and bears much of the responsiblity for what happened to him.

  Even the cops dont believe that.

  ISP
• 

  katiekitten

  ISP come back with a measured sensible response to make KK look like a hysterical woman.

  You need no help from me!

  ISP, I am not hysterical, I think this is getting a bit personal and its starting to upset me. Please cant you just state your arguments without saying things like "people have to admit they are wrong", because it sounds like you are crowing. And its not nice to crow.

  Im allowed to trust the police if I want to, Im allowed to make a wrong judgement without it being implied that I am getting hysterical. I am allowed to think the poor man made a mistake and you are allowed to think the police made a mistake. And we are allowed to disagree on the apportionment of the total sum of the mistakes.
• 

  ISP

  Oops, sorry, won't do. We can't just shrug our shoulders over this shooting Tim Hames

  THE POLICE, according to a Sunday newspaper yesterday, fear a “backlash in the Muslim community” after the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian electrician, at Stockwell Tube station on Friday. What the police should fear is a backlash from the entire civilised community. Yet there is no evidence that either the politicians or the public will provide it. The theme has been that this was a tragic “mistake”, but one which was unavoidable, even inevitable, in the current climate. The breadth of the coalition of “Oh dear, but . . . ” in this instance is astonishing. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, who can normally be relied on for controversy, has declined to condemn either the specifics of this event or the shoot-to-kill strategy behind it. The Liberal Democrats, whose purpose in life, surely, is to defend civil rights in difficult times, are similarly reticent. Muslim Labour MPs, such as Khalid Mahmood have urged caution. Even Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, has given warning against a “rush to judgment”. It has been left to the Brazilian Government to express anger about the manner in which Mr Menezes died. It should not be angry alone. I am a hardliner on the War on Terror and remain a hawk on the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. But if al-Qaeda has created an atmosphere in which an ordinary person can have five bullets pumped into him by the police, and society shrugs its shoulders, then the terrorists have already won a modest victory. The inconsistency bordering on callousness of Scotland Yard has been breathtaking. 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”. This attempt to blame Mr Menezes for his own death continues unabated. It was hinted that he might have been an illegal immigrant, as if that justifies what occurred. It has been argued that it was “irresponsible” of him to wear a quilted jacket in July, as if that were a crime. There are, furthermore, “no excuses”, it is intoned, for the fact that he ran when armed plainclothed police officers shouted at him. I don’t know about you, but if I found myself minding my own business on the São Paulo metro and was suddenly confronted by men wearing no uniforms but wielding weapons, screaming at me in Portuguese, I too might choose to bolt for it. It was not merely the police but their victim who had to make a split-second decision. At a minimum, the Metropolitan Police should be expressing something a little stronger than “regret” and admitting unambiguous, if partially understandable, responsibility for this outrage. Yet the spirit in which they are operating was summed up by Lord Stevens, the former Commissioner of the Met, in his News of the World column yesterday. Now Sir John Stevens, as he was, was an admirable public servant and he does make a number of compelling points about the pressure that the police are under and the unique dangers posed by suicide bombers. Even so, to dismiss this death as an “error” that should not result in the shoot-to-kill policy being reviewed verges on the sadistic. “My heart goes out,” Lord Stevens wrote, not to the Menezes family, but to “the officer who killed the man in Stockwell Tube Station.” Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. There should be three consequences of this terrible tragedy. The first is that every aspect of the investigation that will be conducted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission should be published. There must not be the slightest possibility that the Metropolitan Police might be covering up its embarrassment by, for example, citing “operational reasons” why the decisions taken last Friday morning cannot be scrutinised. The second is that the shoot-to-kill policy has to be re-examined. There is a world of difference between a plainclothes policeman finding himself riding on the Tube and spotting a man with a large bag behaving in a manner that makes him a potential suicide bomber and shooting him, and chasing a person on to a train carriage and firing at him. The final and most important aspect relates to Mr Menezes and his loved ones. This man was, in effect, as much a victim of the London bombs of July 7 as those who died then. It is inconceivable that he would have been killed by the police if those terrorist atrocities had not happened. His name should be included among those who will be supported by the fund that was set up to help those left behind after those murders. We must be honest about how his awful death took place and be ready to learn the lessons.

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-1707225,00.html ISP
• 

  katiekitten

  
  EDITED - realised my mistake.

  ISP, I can see you are someone who cares very dearly about every single human life. Can I ask you do you work for Amnesty or Liberty?

  I think their campaigning over worldwide issues of miscarriages of justice would suit your deep convictions. It helped me feel like I had a channel for the unfairness I saw happening, and they often get good results as well for individuals.

  It would be a shame to think that all this discussion is just that, and not any substantive action on behalf of these poor people who are victims of miscarriages of justice.
• 

  ISP

  KK did you read the article? any views?

  YES ISP we have all admitted we are wrong.

  I bow down to your superior intuition; I promise to never trust the police again.;

  You are so right, I wish I could know things like you do.; What is going to make you happy, a written retraction, witnessed by a notary?; OR perhaps you just want to carry on letting people know for a few more pages that I was unbelievably naieve for thinking the police might have had a reason for their actions?

  I WAS WRONG, YOU WERE RIGHT. IM VERY VERY SORRY

  BTW you used the word hysterical. The above does sound pretty, dare I say it...hysterical.

  The truth if this happened to you or your family I would be saying it was wrong. I wouldn't be shrugging my shoulders or saying you deserved it.

  ISP
• 

  katiekitten

  I said it more as tongue in cheek really ISP, but the problem with posting is we cant see our facial expressions or hear our tone of voice.

  I see you have chosen to quote it again, because it is one of my more stupid posts, and you wouldnt want anyone to forget that I made an extreme post, as compared to my more recent reasonable post which you have chosen to ignore.
• 

  katiekitten

  yes I did read the post. My views are that I think you should join Amnesty to channel the great care for human life I see you have.

  There comes a time when only actions can satisfy the need we have to correct injustices - argueing with me wont solve anything, after all I am already a convert. I already campaign against all sorts of governments on behalf of individuals who are the victims of state oppression. Amnesty have a writing arm, they send you an e-mail with all the details and give you the name of a government minister to write to. Because the minister receives a flood of letters from all over the world it has the effect of making him modify the state oppression. Amnesty have had lots of success doing this.

  Who knows, my next e-mail from Amnesty might be about this very issue - they dont limit their work to foreign countries.
• 

  ISP

  Hi KK, I would have preferred not to quote it again but you are the one that posted it and you seem bemused when people take you up on it!

  I dont work for Liberty or Amnesty. What made you join?

  ISP