RF,
Can you tell us where you got this version from. I would be interested to see the source.
Cheers
Printable View
RF,
Can you tell us where you got this version from. I would be interested to see the source.
Cheers
Channel 4 news got hold of documents, witness statements plus photos from a source with the Police Complaints people... the Home Office and Police both refused to make a statement..
ie: It was Leaked
This was on the news at 7 O'Clock this evening.
Theres a summary here, however there was a 15 minute in-depth report on the TV.
One of the officers watching the block of flats was having a piss, erm i mean "relieving himself" when the guy left the flat. :unsure:
From Channel4 News:
http://www.channel4.com/news/content...jsp?id=1677571
Slightly different to your post, RF.
Here they say that the firearms officers got what they described as 'positive identification' before they shot him - also says that he did run.
This is why i prefer the in-depth reports on TV ;)
I'm sure, as it took up so much coverage (it was the lead story) on the 7 O'Clock news.. it'll be repeated later tonight on both ITV and Channel 4.
As it was ITN that got the leak, the BBC may be a little slower on this one...
The guy getting interviewed (forget who it was, but assume he was from the Police Complaints Authority) said that he "speeded up, but wasnt running" ... i got the impression that he was doing that half jog we all do when hoping not to miss the train pulling into the station, but not wanting to look a prick.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by RF
I know the one :D
===
All the same, you took pains to point out that at the time he left his residence the police could not get positive ID on him yet you made no mention of them getting positive identification of him before they did shoot him (presumably some time in between him leaving his home and getting on the tube).
Not really an unbiased account that you posted for us. As I say, I really don't like what happened and posted to that effect before this slant on the story came out but when the story includes that small piece of information, it makes the armed policeman's position more tenable.
Seems to be an intelligence problem - giving the footsoldiers the wrong information.
RF
You are an ex-squaddie, you know the way it works.
The footsoldiers must be willing to follow orders as they are given, knowing that they will not have all of the information available. They need to trust their superiors, otherwise they are the wrong person for the job.
I remain of the opinion that this was a tragic accident, at a time when tension was high and the Police were in a no win situation.
I couldn't give a fuck, they are acting in their best intrests to protect me :dry:
all I have to say, England, is...
Welcome to Texas! :D
I see what you mean..Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
To clarify..
The Police Officers all had pictures of the suspects, in addition the armed police were informed that all the intelligence would be "Direct"..
ie: If required, a positive ID would already have been made, from one of the direct observers.
None of the direct observers positively IDed him. Indeed the original ones watching the flat specifically stated there was doubt as to his identity.
Someone in an office ignored this and gave the orders..
Someone held the guys arms while someone else shot him in the head from 12 inches away 7 times, missing 3 times and therefore endangering others on the train.
The fact that there was a mistake is bad enough, however how anyone can be complacent over the outright lies that came from the Met to try and cover it all up is beyond me.
Danb, i hope you feel that way if the next time its you or someone you know.
As has been pointed out, he hardly looked like someone from the Middle East, a number of people have commented upon how "white" he looked.
JP, I would agree with you except:
a/ They all had photo's of the suspects and not one of them questioned the fact he wasnt one of them.. except for the guys who were watching the flat (the main observers) who were ignored. Squaddies dont blindly follow orders in the British Army, they are trained to use their initiative. Remember more than a few were returned from Iraq because they refused to follow what they considered illegal orders and were not charged.
b/ It was quite plain he was wearing light clothing, it was also quite unlikely that he could have been carrying a bomb under a light Jacket.
c/ They were ordered to stop him going into the Tube network, and he should have been stopped prior to entering the Tube Station. Instead they followed him onto a Tube Train, despite the fact he could have been stopped at any point.. This increased the danger to the public if he was a terrorist and reduced their options.
d/ They did not identify themselves as Police Officers, nor did they give a warning. Squaddies would have done both of these, as to have done otherwise is illegal.. Remember Squaddies have been jailed for firing at cars driving AT them in Northern Ireland, because they gave no warning first. ie: When directly threatened.
e/ If someone was holding his arms, and others were within 12 inches of him.. why was he shot 7 times in the head? There was 5 policemen around him, and he was held. A squaddie would not have fired unless they had to, due to the risk of those around him. The fact that they missed 3 times at that distance, shows the risk involved.
f/ They were so quick off the mark with the cover-up, that someone must have known they'd fucked up almost immediatly... otherwise why lie?
As it happens IQuote:
Originally Posted by RatFaced
dodid know someone that was killed in the 7/7 tube bombs:(
so it would've been justifiable if he had a darker complexion? :\Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
You took that totally out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparsely
It would have been easier to understand how the mistake was made if the guy who was shot had a darker complexion, since the suspect's (Hussain Osman's) complexion was darker than the guy who was shot.
OK?
RF makes several good points, I am clueless as to why this guy was shot.
Mistakes happen
Indeed, but we can't just shrug and say say 'Ah well, maybe we'll get the right guy next time'.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
We have to look into why the mistake was made and ensure that it is much less likely to occur again.
The amount of mistakes that appear to have been made is appalling.
Just 'cos Wales isn't likely to get attacked :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, I didn't really that you had to live within the confines of the M25 to qualify to comment on this matter.
Didn't really what?Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
That Channel4 link I posted earlier has been updated - it seems as if the Police did give warning of who they were, it was agreed previously that police would shoot a suspect if he ran and he stood up then advanced towards the police who were trying to apprehend him in the carriage of the tube train:
RF, either that TV report you watched earlier was bunk, or your recollection of it is pretty poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by C4
Now it's totally different to what you posted earlier.
http://moderation.invisionzone.com/s...fault/dabs.gif
Should have said realise.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
I didn't realise that you had to live within the confines of the M25 in order to qualify to give an opinion on the matter.
Ah, my bad for picking up on your spelling/grammar mistake :blushing:
That's fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
Just so long as the counter-sarcasm came thro' okay ;)
SO19 Homepage if anyone is interested.
Wednesday August 17, 2005
The Guardian
The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night.
It also emerged in the leaked documents that early allegations that he was running away from police at the time of the shooting were untrue and that he appeared unaware that he was being followed.
But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train
The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: "I heard shouting which included the word 'police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.
"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 [firearms squad] officers ... I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."
Full Story
The whole thing is a sorry mess. Somebody somewhere has fucked up in a big way, and has to be held accountable.
But I don't know who. :(
To shoot him while he was restrained, and clearly not carrying an explosive device, and so not a threat to the public, is obscene.
In fact, it's murder.
Why don't we start with the lying fucking police?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
They are the ones that came up with all this bullshit, to defend their actions, they should be tried for murder.
I don't think the police on the ground did much wrong. They had their orders and instructions so had little alternative to shoot him.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
They were ordered to shoot a suspect if positive ID had been provided and the suspect ran - he ran.
They identified themselves by shouting 'police' yet he still advanced toward them. Could he have been carrying a small incendiary device? The officer who shot him certainly seemed to think so and I would say that he has specific training in this field.
Given their orders and given the positive ID that they received, I cannot think too badly of them.
Higher up the chain of command, tho', the people who issued the blanket statement 'Shoot the suspect if he runs' and the people who wrongly identified the man as Hussain Osman are culpable.
Also, the cover-up and misinformation distributed by the police (one presumes) about him jumping the barrier, having a heavy coat on etc. -this needs to be dealt with in an official manner.
Was it the Police who issued the original version of what happened, or was that put together by reporters.
It is unlike the Met to issue statements regarding this type of thing if they themselves have not held an enquiry
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
...Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
It did run in all newspapers, so it's unlikely they all made up the coat and barrier leap story.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I can only assume it came from an official source.
Naturally, I stand to be corrected on that assumption.
It may have come from an "official source" that does not mean it was the Police. It may have come from Journalists speaking to "eye witnesses" who would tell different reporters the same story. It may have come from a news service, which the others picked up on. The story could have come from a variety of places, in fact it probably did and was cobbled together from there. My question is, how much of it came from the Police.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
To me, only guessing here, if it was an official source it would be more likely to be political than the Met. They are usually accused of not releasing statements quickly enough, because of their internal enquiries. It just seems unlikely to me that in this instance they would break with that practice.
Like you I stand to be corrected.
If someone knows where the original version came from I would appreciate it.
I've just watched the BBC News.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
It seems the MET released a statement shortly after the shooting saying that he was shot partly due to his behaviour in the station and the attire he was wearing at the time. The Commisioner of the MET, forgotten his name, said that he didn't obey the directions of his oficers.
At no time did the MET say that he jumped over a barrier nor that he ran. However, commentators on the News reported that the MET could have done more to dispell these rumours which originated from (unreliable) eyewitnesses - instead they chose to stay silent.
So basically, it seems as if the MET have issued an official statement that was, at best, partly incorrect - at worst, downright misleading.
The Press, it appears, used that statement by the MET and fleshed it out with unsubstantiated reports of duffle-coats and barrier leaps.
On the day of the incident, Ian Blaire said only that someone had been shot; that he was a direct suspect, and couldnt comment further until he had read the Police Officers reports.
The day after, in a TV interview, he said it was mis-identification and mentioned specifically the coat and his actions. The Interview certainly mentioned everything that had been reported, the only thing he said was incorrect was the identity.
It has now emerged that the Met tried to stop the inquiry, and was over ruled by the home Office.
manker,
I didnt hear about the claim he was actually sitting down on the train until tonight... this is obviously an emerging story with more and more things coming out. On the 7 O'Clock news yesterday it was definitly stated that he hadnt been running, however it was implied about the hurrying.. as i stated last night.
Also, re: the warning... The Public Witness Statements did not mention any warnings, none were heard. Yours is from a Police Statement, which i hadnt heard until now.
I also did not hear anything about him getting up and approaching the police.. not surprising as i didnt hear he was sitting down as i said.
This gets more and more interesting... there has obviously been an almighty cock-up and the umbrellas are up. Therefore i will give more weight to witness statements than officers atm.. ;)
You will notice that there is now pressure to charge the police involved with Criminal Charges.
Good, the minimum is Manslaughter.. however, it was cold blooded and intended so i hope they get Murder.
manker
That seems much more likely, thanks for that.
"However, commentators on the News reported that the MET could have done more to dispell these rumours which originated from (unreliable) eyewitnesses - instead they chose to stay silent."
The staying silent is what I would have expected. To release a quick, short statement soon after the event to give the bare facts. To then wait until they have made their own enquiries before making a more comprehensive one.
I think the newspapers are deflecting here, it was them who misled the public and they are now saying "Ah, but the Met should have told the public we were printing nonsense". It seems it was their reporting which was at most fault.
As an aside, one doesn't report what the Met (or anyone else) should have done, one opines it. One reports what they did do.
So whats the difference between the Police killing someone by mistake and the Army killing people by mistake?
8 bullets in head compared to large bomb on house or an Embassy perhaps ?
Absolutely none... you have been reading my posts re: Iraq? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by DanB
That's a matter for you, however I am more likely to listen to the highly trained, experienced, professional witnesses. Rather than the panicking members of the public in an entirely strange and stressful situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
It's really difficult to keep an open mind on this. On one hand you've got multiple unreliable 'eyewitness' accounts, as reported by the popular press. On the other you've got the MET putting up a smokescreen and telling, what amounts to, barefaced lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
You're right, new details are emerging all of the time. in the hour or so last night between when I posted that CH4 link and when I subsequently referenced it. The details had altered drastically.
I'm going to sit on the fence wrt to the armed police on the ground til all the details are known. However, I definitely believe inexcusable errors were made at a higher, intelligence, level.
The same ones who mentioned the jumping and heavy coats in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by RF
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
highly trained, experienced, professional witnesses.