Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by spot »

You'll remember that we blasted several holes into the skull of a completely oblivious, innocent and unarmed Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, a while ago on the London Underground, having carefully avoided interacting with him in safer environments from the moment he left his apartment?

We now have Ann Sanderson, deliberately shot dead by armed police. She was, it would appear, firing ball bearings at CCTV cameras in the centre of Sevenoaks after midnight. Refusing to obey the command of an armed response unit - not that people always get that much warning - might be considered suicide. On the other hand, using a police firearm to end this open-air dispute might be considered predictable overkill.

One day one of these goons in uniform might get a day's pay stopped as a token of official disapproval, and pigs will fly. An ideal society wouldn't be governed by state-employed terrorists.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Bill Sikes »

It's a very bad job indeed. The IPCC are on the job, but that's only after the event, so not very helpful.
User avatar
Uncle Fester
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:06 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Uncle Fester »

She should have put the gun down , how were the police to know it was not a lethal weapon , while we are on about it , on the same day a policeman was stabbed to death just doing his duty






IF YOU CAN'T SAY GOOD ABOUT SOME ONE , KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT





Did you know that too much chocolate shrinks your clothes



http://www.theparanormalcrypt.org/portal.php
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by spot »

It could have been a table leg in a carrier bag for all the police care, it has been in the past after all. Or should we rename the armed response units Euthenasia Squads if they're prepared to automatically dispatch the suicidally-minded on request?

The English police have never once, to my knowledge, shot any woman with good cause. You'd think they'd stop doing it. You'd like some examples?

Members of the West Midlands police put six bullets into Gail Kinchin who was 16, pregnant at the time and merely in the wrong place at the wrong moment. She died but nobody lost a day's pay for it.

Cherry Groce was paralyzed when her house was raided in Brixton and she was "shot in the confusion". Nobody involved had a gun except the police who shot her. They were looking for her son at the time. He wasn't home. "Inspector Lovelock was cleared of all criminal charges and reinstated".

More?

Jane Lee was "deliberately shot three times by police investigating reports of an armed woman seen driving a car" in Essex, but she survived. Have a guess whether any of the officers involved were held accountable.

What's the common factor here, "she should have put the gun down" or "nobody will penalize us however carelessly we behave, so we might just as well shoot"?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
Chookie
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:55 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Chookie »

What these cases all have in common is the presence of trigger-happy idiots none of whom should have been armed with anything more lethal than a water-pistol.

Then there is a Police Complaints Commission which seems to exist solely to rubber-stamp the actions of the police.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Uncle Fester;635572 wrote: She should have put the gun down , how were the police to know it was not a lethal weapon , while we are on about it , on the same day a policeman was stabbed to death just doing his duty


That might possibly wash if she was just waiving it about but if she was taking pot shots with it then it would be immediately obvious to any *trained* firearms officer.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by spot »

The inquest into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is about to begin.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
abbey
Posts: 15069
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:00 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by abbey »

He was a guy just catching the tube, of course he was shot illegally!
User avatar
Chezzie
Posts: 14615
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:41 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Chezzie »

Whole thing stinks and they should have the book thrown at them for being trigger happy.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by gmc »

Clearly it was an unlawful killing but culpability depends what the armed police on the scene were actually told at the time. Bear in mind what had happened not long before, if they thought he was actually a suicide bomber the last thing they are going to do is warn him he has been found out and give him the few seconds needed to blow himself up. I think he fault lies not with the police on the scene but whoever was in direct charge at the time.

Let me put it this way, if a suicide bomber gets on the train you are on and the police are following would you be happy if they hesitate and you get killed as a consequence.
Victoria
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:33 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Victoria »

gmc;991106 wrote: Clearly it was an unlawful killing but culpability depends what the armed police on the scene were actually told at the time. Bear in mind what had happened not long before, if they thought he was actually a suicide bomber the last thing they are going to do is warn him he has been found out and give him the few seconds needed to blow himself up. I think he fault lies not with the police on the scene but whoever was in direct charge at the time.

Let me put it this way, if a suicide bomber gets on the train you are on and the police are following would you be happy if they hesitate and you get killed as a consequence.


well said Yes of course we all have 20/20 vision in hindsight and now see that this was an ill informed action resulting in the death of an innocent man, but do any of us really know 100% sure that we wouldn't have made the same decision given the information these officers had not to mention the pressure they were under the circumstances post 7/7



The public and the media were on an anti terrorist witch hunt whipping up emotion and fear until everyone with a backpack and a suntan was suspect.

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't someone will always say they were wrong MP's, media,public, civil rights. You name it they are all lining up to throw in their opinion.

Bear in mind even in this inquest not all information will be revealed there will be a D notice on some stuff and some will fall under the Official secrets act... So just wait 50 or 100 years until it becomes public.. then we will know all the facts.
User avatar
Chookie
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:55 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Chookie »

It doesn't matter what people say here or on other forums. The result of this inquest will be a whitewash. The trigger-happy idiots who actually did the killing will not called as witnesses - its unlikely they will even be named.

What is not in question is that the Metropotlitan Police will be instructed to make changes in their procedures.

No charges will be brought even though the Metropolitan Police and Sir Ian Blair are both equally guilty of, at least, institutional manslaughter.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
User avatar
abbey
Posts: 15069
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:00 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by abbey »

Chookie;991734 wrote: It doesn't matter what people say here or on other forums. The result of this inquest will be a whitewash. The trigger-happy idiots who actually did the killing will not called as witnesses - its unlikely they will even be named.



What is not in question is that the Metropotlitan Police will be instructed to make changes in their procedures.



No charges will be brought even though the Metropolitan Police and Sir Ian Blair are both equally guilty of, at least, institutional manslaughter.Hear Hear.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by spot »

Chookie;991734 wrote: It doesn't matter what people say here or on other forums. The result of this inquest will be a whitewash. The trigger-happy idiots who actually did the killing will not called as witnesses - its unlikely they will even be named.The two men who pulled their triggers will give evidence. There's a list of who's who at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7628145.stm

They were put in a position where they were only following orders. They'd been told that hesitation in killing would result in innocent deaths and they killed. Whether they also lied about shouting warnings before firing might finally come out - the "health and safety" trial took no evidence from any member of the public who was on the train, this inquest will do. If the inquest finds that they collaborated on inventing a sanitized truth after the event and lied about what happened so as to fit precisely into correct operational procedure I'd happily see them jailed for that. The same goes for anyone who tried to shift blame by corrupting the paper trail.

Irrespective of whether blame exists at any level, accountability surely did. Nobody stood up and walked, and someone should have. Preferably several people at different levels. Wherever the buck stopped, the office holder should have retired from public life with a catastrophic event of this magnitude. That most certainly includes Sir Ian Blair and the Home Secretary. It's a matter of honour. Neither walked into the sunset, both insisted they and the system they superintended was blameless, both were wrong, both have blood on their hands.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by spot »

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has announced his resignation.

He's the man who should have jumped onto his sword the day after the killing. Every day since then he's been an unprincipled careerist instead of a policeman.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by spot »

The Guardian quotes his resignation announcement:Blair, who has refused to quit over these issues in the past, said yesterday at a press conference that they were not the reason for his departure 16 months before his contract is due to expire. "I am resigning not because of any failures by my service and not because the pressures of the office and the many stories that surround it are too much," he said. "I would have wished to continue to serve Londoners until my time of office expired in February 2010. However ... the new mayor made clear, in a very pleasant but determined way, that he wished there to be a change of leadership at the Met ...

"To serve effectively the commissioner must have the confidence of both the mayor and the home secretary. Without the mayor's backing, I do not consider that I can continue in the job."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/0 ... servatives

The man displayed no sense of honour in office, he seems to have left it completely unaware of how deeply loathed he's been ever since he strutted over the corpse of his force's innocent victim three years ago. Public life should have no place for anyone so arrogant.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Blare was ultimatley in charge -- enough said.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

Jean Charles de Menezes inquest: police were 'out of control' - Telegraph
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

OpenMind;1044015 wrote: Jean Charles de Menezes inquest: police were 'out of control' - Telegraph


I have been following this story and the inquest for many months. Witnessess gave evidence in the trial yesterday that absolutely no warnings were given when they held him in his seat and opened fire at close range.

All i can think of, is that he must have been so frightened. Poor man, may he rest in peace and his family find comfort from some-where.

Dis-grace on our police.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Bryn Mawr »

oscar;1044273 wrote: I have been following this story and the inquest for many months. Witnessess gave evidence in the trial yesterday that absolutely no warnings were given when they held him in his seat and opened fire at close range.

All i can think of, is that he must have been so frightened. Poor man, may hr rest in peace and his family find comforet from some-where.

Dis-grace on our police.


Not content with that, the Police officers involved have admitted to changing their records and therefore changing their evidence to "prevent it being mis-interpreted".

Finally, the cover up is starting to come to light.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bryn Mawr;1044277 wrote: Not content with that, the Police officers involved have admitted to changing their records and therefore changing their evidence to "prevent it being mis-interpreted".

Finally, the cover up is starting to come to light.


Absolutely. I have had some personal experience of supressed evidence etc as you know.

Witnessess that gave evidence yesterday totally swung me when they said they thought the police were terrorists. That shows they just stormed the tube and shot him. Surprising now how many officers have convieniently 'forgotton' if they gave a warning claiming they were traumatised at the time.

This is a massive cover up from the start. They have tried for a year to bury this and my only consolation is Sir Ian Blaire is sacked and gone.

I can't get out of my head the terror he must have felt in those seconds.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

De Menezes inquest: train driver thought marksmen were terrorists - Telegraph
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

OpenMind;1045434 wrote: De Menezes inquest: train driver thought marksmen were terrorists - Telegraph


I also saw this.

With the witness testimony's that they heard no police warnings, this just confirms, yet another police cover up. An innocent man who must have spent his last seconds terrified, can't even bring the bastards to tell the truth. And they wonder why th public dis-trust the police so. A travesty. What's the betting, the inquest will clear the police of all wrong doing???
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

oscar;1045519 wrote: I also saw this.

With the witness testimony's that they heard no police warnings, this just confirms, yet another police cover up. An innocent man who must have spent his last seconds terrified, can't even bring the bastards to tell the truth. And they wonder why th public dis-trust the police so. A travesty. What's the betting, the inquest will clear the police of all wrong doing???


I absolutely love this country. It is beautiful, it is fertile, it is a delight to see even from the air. The countryside is enthralling.

But I hate what is being done to it by all those people responsible for its welfare and safety, the people in charge and those who make the decisions.

I am surrounded by people who either do not care any more, or who care but feel impotent to do anything about it. Criminals and thugs appear to be protected over those who believe in civilization and self-responsibility.

The police look to score points,not arrests. I know one lad who took up a cadetship with the police force. He qualified and became a police officer only to leave because he couldn't do his job properly due to the immense amount of paperwork and documentation involved. He became a carpenter instead, and a good one at that.

In Leeds, I have watched a group of young police officers, male and female. The males were busy preening themselves for the females. I would understand this if they were not in a busy shopping precinct.

Those who still respect the authorities must do so out of a dumb faith in the essential sense of the term. I have watched this decay since the 70s when I first became personally aware of it.

All this makes me so sad because I love this land.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

OpenMind;1045538 wrote: I absolutely love this country. It is beautiful, it is fertile, it is a delight to see even from the air. The countryside is enthralling.

But I hate what is being done to it by all those people responsible for its welfare and safety, the people in charge and those who make the decisions.

I am surrounded by people who either do not care any more, or who care but feel impotent to do anything about it. Criminals and thugs appear to be protected over those who believe in civilization and self-responsibility.

The police look to score points,not arrests. I know one lad who took up a cadetship with the police force. He qualified and became a police officer only to leave because he couldn't do his job properly due to the immense amount of paperwork and documentation involved. He became a carpenter instead, and a good one at that.

In Leeds, I have watched a group of young police officers, male and female. The males were busy preening themselves for the females. I would understand this if they were not in a busy shopping precinct.

Those who still respect the authorities must do so out of a dumb faith in the essential sense of the term. I have watched this decay since the 70s when I first became personally aware of it.

All this makes me so sad because I love this land.


Amen to that.

I can not reveal more as i would give too much of myself away but i have had very close experience of British police and what they are capable of. Your absolutely bang on. Well said.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

Sir Ian Blair asked Prime Minister to change law

Sir Ian Blair asked the Prime Minister to change the law to protect officers confronting terror suspects a day before Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead, an inquest into his death has heard.





By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent

Last Updated: 6:32PM GMT 06 Nov 2008



The Scotland Yard chief discussed with Tony Blair the possibility of "maximising" legal protection for marksmen tracking down suspected suicide bombers and developing military rules of engagement in a meeting on the day of the July 21 failed bomb attacks on London.

Mr de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, was killed at point blank range by firearms officers the next morning who mistook him for a suicide bomber.

Michael Mansfield QC, representing the de Menezes family, suggested that Sir Ian was saying that officers should be allowed "to just shoot" without fearing the recriminations.

The talks came to light as a jury was shown a letter Sir Ian wrote to the Home Office on the day of the Stockwell shooting.

An extract of the letter, read out by Mr Mansfield to the jury at the Oval cricket ground, south London, said: "In the meeting we had with the Prime Minister yesterday, I raised the issue of maximising the legal protection for officers who had to take decisions in relation to people believed to be suicide bombers.

"This is clearly a fast-time decision-making process, one which officers cannot risk the kind of containment and negotiation tactics which would normally be the case. Put simply, the only choice an officer may have could be to shoot-to-kill in order to prevent the detonation of a device.

"In due course I believe we need a document similar to the military rules of engagement."

Chief Superintendent Steve Swain, a senior officer who helped develop anti-terror tactics at Scotland Yard, refused to comment on the document.

Mr Swain said: "I do not remember much of the detail so if you do not mind I would not want to say much about it."
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

The result of Charles De Menezes inquest does not surprise me in the slightest.

Unlawful killing verdict ruled out in De Menezes inquest as coroner tells jury: 'He wasn't murdered' | Mail Online
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by spot »

If the jury decides to put a written explanation on their verdict I'll be interested to read it. I don't see how they can avoid an open verdict after what I've read.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1075625 wrote: If the jury decides to put a written explanation on their verdict I'll be interested to read it. I don't see how they can avoid an open verdict after what I've read.


Agreed. Since when did pumping 7 bullets at point blank range into an innocent man, become 'lawful'?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by spot »

oscar;1075628 wrote: Agreed. Since when did pumping 7 bullets at point blank range into an innocent man, become 'lawful'?


Whenever it's done by a police officer on duty and even, on occasion, when he isn't.

On the other hand there's been permitted collusion, refusal to be questioned, insistence on comparing notes and providing only written statements so as not to be tripped into admissions, utter lies as to whether warnings were called in the carriage - not ONE of the travellers in the carriage was allowed to give evidence at the criminal trial and this inquest is the first time, three years on, when they've been listened to, the deliberate smearing of the guy they shot, the gloating triumphalism of the police after the event. I want the jury to discuss all that and then to say how disgusted they are by the entire feral pack of them. An open verdict is a refusal to let them off the hook.

After the inquest closes the people who designed the shoot-to-kill response system should be fired, the gloaters should be fired, the system of written statements and collusion and no interviews should be banned, everyone who lied should be named and sacked.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

spot;1075639 wrote: Whenever it's done by a police officer on duty and even, on occasion, when he isn't.

On the other hand there's been permitted collusion, refusal to be questioned, insistence on comparing notes and providing only written statements so as not to be tripped into admissions, utter lies as to whether warnings were called in the carriage - not ONE of the travellers in the carriage was allowed to give evidence at the criminal trial and this inquest is the first time, three years on, when they've been listened to, the deliberate smearing of the guy they shot, the gloating triumphalism of the police after the event. I want the jury to discuss all that and then to say how disgusted they are by the entire feral pack of them. An open verdict is a refusal to let them off the hook.

After the inquest closes the people who designed the shoot-to-kill response system should be fired, the gloaters should be fired, the system of written statements and collusion and no interviews should be banned, everyone who lied should be named and sacked.


The one thing that really stood out for me was the blatent lie that he had tried to jump the barrier only to be proved at a later date that he did no such thing and it was a pack of lies.

A witness on the tube also gave evidence that she went to phone the police because she and another believed the police to be terrorists, thus proving that no warning was given.

A typical example of gung ho cops who charge in and then have to lie to get out of it at a later date.

There are so many cover ups in this, surely the jury should return an open verdict?

The country would have more respect if at least one of them put their hands up and admitted that errors were made that day. Also, to offer the family apology and compensation but instead, as you say, they try to smear the innocent man instead. This happens far too much as we know.

I hope the family continue's with this until the bitter end. they should immediately lodge complaints of perjury to the police complaints commission who will then be leagally forced into investigating each officer.

I so hope they don't give up.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

I would like to see a narrative verdict returned at the very least. I think there has been a statement about who actually shot de Menezes and it was more than one person and that should justify murder. The question becomes whether it is lawful or not.

The coppers involved have lied so much I think there should be a retrial. It is obvious they did not act according to the correct procedure and that, to me, makes it unlawful killing. Further, in view of the fact that it is known that the coppers have lied, they have perjured the court. This should also go to trial, surely.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

OpenMind;1076410 wrote: I would like to see a narrative verdict returned at the very least. I think there has been a statement about who actually shot de Menezes and it was more than one person and that should justify murder. The question becomes whether it is lawful or not.

The coppers involved have lied so much I think there should be a retrial. It is obvious they did not act according to the correct procedure and that, to me, makes it unlawful killing. Further, in view of the fact that it is known that the coppers have lied, they have perjured the court. This should also go to trial, surely.
If they have the proof (which they do) that the coppers first stated he jumped the barrier, then the cctv showed he did not, each and every officer should be investigated for perjury. Otherwise, who said he jumped the barrier? It certainly came from them at the time when they tried to first justify their mistake.

I just hope his family insist on a re-trial.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

oscar;1076420 wrote: If they have the proof (which they do) that the coppers first stated he jumped the barrier, then the cctv showed he did not, each and every officer should be investigated for perjury. Otherwise, who said he jumped the barrier? It certainly came from them at the time when they tried to first justify their mistake.

I just hope his family insist on a re-trial.


I hope so too.
User avatar
Chookie
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:55 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Chookie »

It won't happen..................

The Metropolitan Police will not allow it. No member of the public can be permitted to question the actions of the Metropolitan Police "service".



Is there a distinction between unlawful and illegal?
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Chookie;1076497 wrote: It won't happen..................

The Metropolitan Police will not allow it. No member of the public can be permitted to question the actions of the Metropolitan Police "service".



Is there a distinction between unlawful and illegal?


Trust me.....They can and it's been done.

All it takes is a formal complaint of perjury to the Police Complaints Commission and they legally have to investigate.

Weather they investigate in the complainents favour is a different matter but it's easy to do.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Bryn Mawr »

oscar;1075624 wrote: The result of Charles De Menezes inquest does not surprise me in the slightest.

Unlawful killing verdict ruled out in De Menezes inquest as coroner tells jury: 'He wasn't murdered' | Mail Online


I'm surprised it was just his family that walked out - the jury should have as well.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Bryn Mawr »

oscar;1076420 wrote: If they have the proof (which they do) that the coppers first stated he jumped the barrier, then the cctv showed he did not, each and every officer should be investigated for perjury. Otherwise, who said he jumped the barrier? It certainly came from them at the time when they tried to first justify their mistake.

I just hope his family insist on a re-trial.


I fear the journalist have not "revealed their sources" and the claim is unsubstantiated hearsay.

They have, however, admitted to altering their notes and thus changing their evidence - that must count as perjury.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bryn Mawr;1076720 wrote: I'm surprised it was just his family that walked out - the jury should have as well.


They just haven't got the balls to hold their hands up have they??

I find it ironic because if the police just admited they got it wrong, and made some way of compensating the family, I'd understand that. It's the lie's and deciet that followed.

'We shot him dead because he leapt the barrier' 'Oh, you've got cctv footage showing that he didn't do anything of the sort' 'Over to you boss'

I can understand that the police were under huge media and public pressure after the Tube Bombings but none of this adds up.

At least we have the consolation that it contributed to Ian blair getting pushed by Boris.

Good riddence to him.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Chookie;1076497 wrote: It won't happen..................

The Metropolitan Police will not allow it. No member of the public can be permitted to question the actions of the Metropolitan Police "service".



Is there a distinction between unlawful and illegal?


As I understand it, illegal is specifically a breach of the law whereas unlawful could be a breach of social or moral convention.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Bryn Mawr »

fuzzy butt;1076728 wrote: I don't understand you guys .............how can an Act of parliament be unlawful? these people were given the right under the law to apprehend and to exercise full force. They exercised that right. It's impossible for it to be an unlawful killing.


The corroner directed that it could not be unlawful killing because the evidence did not admit to proving that a specific individual was responsible.

The Act of Parliament did not give anyone the right to shoot a person without warning and without meaningful evidence of an immediate intent to kill on the part of that person.

If the officers on the ground had been given sufficient grounds for that belief than the superior officer who gave them those grounds without holding sufficient evidence herself should be held responsible.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bryn Mawr;1076732 wrote: As I understand it, illegal is specifically a breach of the law whereas unlawful could be a breach of social or moral convention.
Then surely he was killed 'unlawfuly'??
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

Bryn Mawr;1076743 wrote: The corroner directed that it could not be unlawful killing because the evidence did not admit to proving that a specific individual was responsible.


I thought it was known who actually shot him.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Bryn Mawr »

OpenMind;1077151 wrote: I thought it was known who actually shot him.


For the breach of the law that would make it unlawful - not of the killing.

IMHO this is ridiculous - this is a Coroner's Inquest, not a trial and non of the individuals concerned are accused of murder or manslaughter. It is perfectly possible for the evidence presented to the inquest to show that the killing itself was unlawful without having to show that this action by this individual made it so.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

Bryn Mawr;1077221 wrote: For the breach of the law that would make it unlawful - not of the killing.



IMHO this is ridiculous - this is a Coroner's Inquest, not a trial and non of the individuals concerned are accused of murder or manslaughter. It is perfectly possible for the evidence presented to the inquest to show that the killing itself was unlawful without having to show that this action by this individual made it so.


With the little I have read about this case, the inquest has been turned into a farce and the police have been the clowns.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bryn Mawr;1077221 wrote: For the breach of the law that would make it unlawful - not of the killing.

IMHO this is ridiculous - this is a Coroner's Inquest, not a trial and non of the individuals concerned are accused of murder or manslaughter. It is perfectly possible for the evidence presented to the inquest to show that the killing itself was unlawful without having to show that this action by this individual made it so.


Well i agree. the officers are not on trial for murder. It would not matter an iota in a Coronor's inquest to rule 'unlawful killing'. It would not point the finger of blame at one specific officer if they were under orders from that stupid woman.

Maybe, that's what they are all worried about? If the jury rule 'unlawful killing', the family could insist on an enquirey to point the blame at one particular individual.

Again........ GUNG HO COPS ALL PROTECTING EACH OTHER'S ARSSES
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by OpenMind »

I wonder if the coroner has been 'advised'.
User avatar
Chookie
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:55 am

Yet another avoidable killing by armed police

Post by Chookie »

Here's an excerpt from the official record. I'm not going to comment here, I'll put in my two cents after you've read the excerpt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... kwell1.pdf

...12 SURVEILLANCE

12.1 DC U commenced a Surveillance Running log within Room 1600 at

04:38hrs.

12.2 ’Frank’ deployed with the SO12 surveillance Red team to the SCOTIA

ROAD area and surveillance commenced at 0604. He maintained a

surveillance log and recorded any relevant sightings by his team until

08:45hrs when he handed over responsibility for the log to Tango 9.

12.3 ’Frank commenced direct observation on the communal entrance to the

block of flats in SCOTIA ROAD, SW2 that included number 21. ’Frank’

is a member of the SO12 surveillance team. He was secreted in an

observation van that provided a clear un-obstructed view of the

entrance. He was equipped with a video camera that allowed him to

take video footage. The camera was not continually switched on and

was only operated when activated by ’Frank;. There was no facility to

relay images back to Room 1600. ’Frank’ loaded the camera with what

he assumed was a blank tape on 20 July 2005; it was not an original

sealed tape.

12.4 Subsequent investigation by the IPCC has revealed that ’Frank’ had the

necessary leads to connect the camera to the vehicle’s electrical system,

but chose instead to rely on the camera’s battery, switching the

equipment off when not in use.

12.5 At 0605 ’Edward’ saw the Nissan Primera vehicle parked near to the

flats in SCOTIA ROAD.

12.6 Between 07:36hrs and 11:02hrs ‘Frank’ observed eight people leave the

flats. Six of these were captured on the video recording. These images

have been copied onto a composite DVD produced on behalf of the

IPCC, that shows all the relevant CCTV images gathered during Mr DE

MENEZES’ journey onto the platform at STOCKWELL Underground.

12.7 At 08:33hrs ’James’ deployed the Grey surveillance team in the TULSE

55

HILL area in order to follow suspects away from the premises. He

maintained a log of relevant radio transmissions until ‘Ken’ joined him

and took over that responsibility.

12.8 ’Nick’ was deployed in Room 1600 as Silver Firearms Liaison. He gives

evidence of a phone call he had with ‘Derek’, the red team surveillance

team leader. ‘Derek’ expressed concerns about the distance between

SCOTIA ROAD and the current CO19 team location at NIGHTINGALE

LANE. He was also concerned about access that any subject would

have to nearby buses, which were still running. He discussed these

concerns with Trojan 80. Commander DICK made the decision to allow

the buses to continue to operate because she thought it might alert any

suspects if they stopped operating.

12.9 At 09:33hrs ’Frank’ needed to urinate in a plastic container while inside

the observation van. At this time he saw a male person exit the flats.

He described the person as IC/1 (Identity Code 1- White) 5’8”, dark hair,

beard / stubble, blue denim jacket, blue jeans and wearing trainers. He

checked the photographs of the suspects that he had been provided with

and transmitted over the radio to his colleagues that ‘it would be worth

somebody else having a look’. He was unable to switch on the video

camera while using his radio. The person sighted coming out of the flats

was Jean Charles DE MENEZES.

12.10 Shortly before 09:39hrs ’James’ saw Mr DE MENEZES walking in

UPPER TULSE HILL towards TULSE HILL. He described him as about

5’10” tall of stocky build with collar length black hair and stubble, with a

wide face. He described his complexion as being similar to a light

skinned North African. ’James’ examined the photographs provided to

him during the briefing and was of the opinion that the male was

‘possibly identical’ to the subject NETTLE TIP. ’Tim’ heard ’James’

describe Mr DE MENEZES as a ‘good possible likeness to the subject

NETTLE TIP’.

12.11 ’Harry’ also observed him at this time. He saw Mr DE MENEZES looking

over his shoulder and acting in a wary manner. He appeared nervous.

56

’Harry’ was not able to identify the male as being identical to the first

suspect OSMAN.

12.12 ’Tim’ was directed to attempt to record video footage of the male person,

but he was never able to get himself in a position to achieve this.

Similarly, ’Ken’ deployed on foot in attempt to provide a better

identification but due to his radio malfunctioning he was unable to

transmit or hear what was being communicated. Because of this he was

unable to get into a position to observe Mr DE MENEZES’ face. He was

able to see Mr DE MENEZES turn left into TULSE HILL and board a

number 2 bus towards BRIXTON.

12.13 At 09:39hrs ’Ivor’ saw the bus move northbound towards BRIXTON and

he saw Mr DE MENEZES sitting at the extreme rear nearside of the bus.

’Ivor’ boarded the bus between TULSE HILL and BRIXTON. At about

09:47hrs Mr DE MENEZES stood up. At this time ’Ivor’ received a

phone call from ’Harry’ enquiring as to the identity of the subject being

followed. ’Ivor’ stated that he could not positively identify the male as the

first suspect Hussain OSMAN, (NETTLE TIP) but that he had distinctive

‘Mongolian eyes’. ’Harry’ relayed this information to the remainder of the

team. CCTV has been retrieved from the bus and provides the first

recorded image of Mr DE MENEZES during his journey.

12.14 At 09:46hrs Trojan 80’s loggist notes ‘Not ident male as above

discounted. Surveillance team to withdraw to original positions.’

Although this is consistent with the uncertainty of the surveillance team

regarding the identification, this event is not mentioned in any of their

evidence.

12.15 At 09:47hrs ’Graham’ observed Mr DE MENEZES get off the bus in

BRIXTON ROAD, just south of BRIXTON Underground station. ’Ivor’

saw him walking for about 20 metres before he ran back towards the bus

he had just left. He joined a queue boarding the bus while using his

mobile phone.

12.16 ’Laurence’ also observed Mr DE MENEZES walking away from the bus.

57

Initially he only had a side view of his face, but as he drove past him he

managed to get a full frontal view of his face for a split second. Shortly

afterwards he joined up with ‘James’ and ‘Ken’ and informed them that

he did not believe that the person was identical to NETTLE TIP.

12.17 Hotel 11 also saw him get off the bus, and then rejoin the queue and use

his mobile phone. From a distance of 10 metres Hotel 11 considered the

person to be a similar likeness to the photograph he had seen

previously. It is at this point that CO19 officers and those in Room 1600

state that they were made aware that Mr DE MENEZES was acting

nervously or ‘twitchy’. There is no evidence from the surveillance team

of this at this time or later.

12.18 Detective Superintendent V from SO12 states that there are no technical

means within Room 1600 to record communications and that it is the

role of the Surveillance Monitor to make notes of the transmissions.

12.19 Some of the staff within Room 1600, including ’Owen’, described the

environment there as being very noisy and indicate that it was necessary

to shout to ensure that senior officers were aware of what was going on.

Commander DICK however was satisfied that the room was operating

effectively. She was aware that the surveillance team were following a

person and trying to determine whether or not he was one of the

suspects. Commander DICK states ’Pat’ then informed her “it is him, the

man is off the bus. They think it is him and he is very, very jumpy.” This

is recorded within her loggist’s notes.

12.20 DCI C was at the TA Centre when he heard over the surveillance radio

that the person being followed on the bus had been identified as

NETTLE TIP. He was in no doubt this was a positive identification.

Trojan 84 and Delta 10 returned to the vehicle having also heard this.

The CO19 units commenced making their way towards BRIXTON.

Open telephone lines were established between Commander DICK and

DCI C and between Trojan 80 and Trojan 84.

12.21 An SO13 debrief team led by DS Piers DINGEMANS had been deployed

58

to debrief the unidentified person and were making ground to catch up

with the bus. Given the apparent identification of the subject, they were

stood down at approximately 09:55hrs, despite the fact that CO19 were

not then in a position to respond.

12.22 Commander DICK sought additional confirmation regarding identification

and through ’Pat’ asked the Surveillance team to give a percentage

indication of how certain they were. This was a check that Commander

DICK knew was used frequently during surveillance operations regarding

kidnaps and hostage scenarios. D/Superintendent BOUTCHER made a

similar request on a scale of 1 – 10. ’James’ received this message and

considered this to be a ‘ridiculous question’ and one impossible to

answer. He informed ’Pat’ that when he briefly saw the male at 0939 he

thought he was a ‘good possible’ for the subject NETTLE TIP’ but since

that time none of his team had been able to get a close look at him. He

did not communicate to ’Pat’ that in fact one of his team, ’Laurence’, had

indicated that he did not believe that the person was identical to NETTLE

TIP. He also failed to relay that ’Harry’ was not able to identify the male

as being identical to the first suspect. OSMAN.

12.23 ’James’ stated that he thought it was the subject and that was the reason

for the continuation of the surveillance. He agreed to ask his team if

anyone could give a percentage but got no reply. This was relayed to

‘Pat’ and then to Commander DICK. Although ’Pat’ does not himself

recall saying this, Commander DICK and others in her presence heard

’Pat’ say words to the effect that ‘They can’t give a percentage but they

believe it is NETTLE TIP’.

12.24 ’Laurence’ had boarded the number 2 bus at approximately 09:55hrs

along STOCKWELL ROAD. He located Mr DE MENEZES on the upper

deck and sat 3 rows behind him. ’Laurence’ sent a text message to

’Harry’ to update him. As the message was being sent Mr DE MENEZES

got up and moved towards the stairs. A few moments later ’Laurence’

received a call from ’Harry’ and he verbally updated him on Mr DE

MENEZES’ movements.

59

12.25 The CO19 team together with DCI C were doing their best to catch up

with the surveillance team and were travelling towards STOCKWELL on

blue lights and sirens. Commander DICK and Trojan 80 were

considering their tactical options. Interception on the bus had been

considered but rejected as being too dangerous.

12.26 At approximately 10:03hrs Mr DE MENEZES got off the bus at

STOCKWELL. ’Ken’ witnessed this. He looked at his face and believed

that he was possibly the subject NETTLE TIP. Still unsure, ’Ken’ saw Mr

DE MENEZES walk past the National Westminster bank. He states he

transmitted that the unknown male in denim was off the bus on a

reciprocal route passing the bank. He then watched him cross over the

road and into STOCKWELL Underground station.

12.27 At this time, our investigation has since revealed that none of the

surveillance team had positively identified the subject as NETTLE TIP.

Furthermore none of them agree that they heard anyone communicate

that it was a definite positive identification. Conversely it seems that the

Senior Officers in Room 1600 and the CO19 team including DCI C all

believed that a positive identification had been established. As CO19

reached STOCKWELL, the Firearms Team Leader ’Ralph’ heard over

the radio that; ‘it was definitely our man and that he was nervous and

twitchy.’

12.28 Despite the belief within Room 1600 that NETTLE TIP had been

identified it should be noted that every entry on the Surveillance Running

Log refers to the person as being ‘U/I male’, U/I meaning unidentified.

12.29 Commander DICK in consultation with Trojan 80 decided that ‘the

subject believed to be NETTLE TIP cannot be allowed to enter the tube

system. He must be arrested before by SO19’ (Decision Log 16). Her

decision was communicated directly to both Trojan 80, who was next to

her and to DCI C who had an open phone link. In turn both of these

relayed the instructions to Trojan 84. (Trojan 84 being with DCI C and

having an open phone link with Trojan 80).

60

12.30 Central 1614 entered Room 1600 and heard the surveillance monitor

commenting that the man under surveillance was on a bus. He then

heard he was getting off the bus and the surveillance monitor asking

Senior officers whether he should be stopped. He states that

Commander DICK and a senior SO13 officer shouted, ‘yes stop him’. It

then became apparent that CO19 were not at STOCKWELL station and

there appeared to be some confusion as to who this command was

relayed to. Someone asked ‘Who has been told to stop him’ and a reply

of ‘SO12’ was given.

12.31 At this point CO19 had still not reached STOCKWELL Underground

station. ’Ivor’ sought a decision from Room 1600 via ’James’ regarding

the armed SO12 officers doing the stop. Although this was not a

preferred option Commander DICK agreed that this might well be

necessary. However as this was being communicated, DCI C informed

her that CO19 had arrived at STOCKWELL Underground station. It

should be noted that the CCTV evidence shows that the CO19 officers

entered the underground station some two minutes after Mr DE

MENEZES had passed through the ticket barriers13.

12.32 Trojan 84 was told by DCI C to intercept the subject and by Trojan 80 to

stop the subject getting on the tube. Trojan 84 then transmitted over the

radio to the CO19 officers that ‘they want us to stop the subject getting

on the tube’. At this point ’Ralph’ communicated that the CO19 officers

were going State Red. (This indicates to the firearms team and the

surveillance team that CO19 now has control and that an armed

interception is imminent).

12.33 When ’Ralph’ received the message from Trojan 84 that, ‘he’s to be

stopped getting on the tube’, he took it to mean CO19 were to intercept

and detain him if possible. However, given the intelligence they had and

the fact that he believed this to be a confirmed suicide bomber getting

onto a train, he felt there was a genuine possibility that the suspect could

be shot and killed in order to save life.

13 During the criminal proceedings ‘Ralph’ gave evidence that, had CO19 been given the order to go to

‘State Amber’ whilst travelling towards Stockwell tube station, they would have been in a position to

intercept Mr de Menezes when he got off the bus prior to entering Stockwell tube station.

61

12.34 Commander DICK, DCI C, Trojan 80 and Trojan 84 remain satisfied that

this was an unambiguous command to stop and intercept the person

believed to be NETTLE TIP. However some other officers who heard

this communication perceived it differently.

12.35 The following are either direct or summary quotations of perceptions

from certain police officers at the point Mr DE MENEZES entered the

station:

12.36 Acting Detective Superintendent X who was within Room 1600 states he

heard Commander DICK say ‘the male must not be allowed to get on a

train at all costs’. Charlie 11 interpreted this as an intervention from the

DSO that they were to be immediately deployed to stop the suspect from

taking any action. Charlie 6 interpreted this as an instruction to stop a

suicide bomber. He believed he may have to shoot this man in order to

stop him killing members of the public and himself. ’William’ believed

that this was a KRATOS incident and he needed to engage the subject

and be convinced that the rounds would not over penetrate and stop the

subject immediately from detonating any device. He considered he must

be stopped at all costs. In a subsequent statement he adds ‘this all

leads me to believe this to be a KRATOS incident if the male did not

comply immediately with police actions or requirements.’ ‘Vic’ states ‘I

heard who I believed to be 84 say, ‘They’ve said he’s to be

stopped. Do not let him on the tube. Do not let him get on the tube’, the

tone of voice and urgency of this radio transmission, combined with all

the intelligence meant to me that he must be stopped immediately and at

any cost. I believed that a bombing of the tube could be imminent and

must be prevented’.

12.37 There is no evidence that Commander DICK used any code word

associated with Operation C or gave any order for the man to receive a

critical headshot without challenge.

12.38 Despite Commander DICK’s decision, it was too late to prevent Mr DE

MENEZES going into the station. He picked up a Metro Newspaper

62

from a stand then used his Oyster card to go quite normally through the

automatic barrier. He used the escalator to descend towards the

platform. He walked down the moving escalator on its left side and was

seen to run near at the end towards Platform 2 for the North bound

Northern line and onto a train.

12.39 Some seconds later officers from CO19 arrived at the barriers and

attempted to jump over or push through them. This was undoubtedly the

origin of later press reports that Mr DE MENEZES had jumped over the

barriers while being chased14.

12.40 ’Ivor’ followed Mr DE MENEZES onto the train. He entered a carriage in

front of him and turned right taking a seat facing the platform with a glass

panel to his right. ’Ivor’ took a seat to his left with two or three

passengers sitting between them. ’Geoff’ sat down two seats to the left

of ’Ivor’.

12.41 ’Ken’ took a seat some 20 yards to the right of Mr DE MENEZES.

’Malcolm’ entered the train but could not immediately see Mr DE

MENEZES. He then returned to the escalator to establish

communications with those above ground and saw four or five officers

who he recognised from CO19 running down the escalators.

12.42 A CO19 officer boarded the train near to ’Ken’ and asked ‘Where is he’

’Ken’ indicated towards his left. As far as ’Ken’ was concerned he was

merely indicating towards the subject of their surveillance. Another CO19

officer entered the carriage and again ’Ken’ indicated towards Mr DE

MENEZES15.

63

13 THE SHOOTING

13.1 In addition to the police officers, there were 17 passengers in the

carriage at the time the incident commenced. They have seen or heard

various parts of the traumatic incident. Some of them, undoubtedly due

to shock, have provided what are assessed to be somewhat inaccurate

accounts of what happened. Every statement taken from these 17

witnesses will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service.

13.2 There is no doubt that officers shouted ‘armed police’ as they ran down

the escalators and onto the platform in an attempt to clear the area of

passengers. It is perhaps significant that none of the 17 witnesses

recall hearing the police officers shout ‘police’ or ‘armed police’

immediately prior to the shooting, whilst the eight police officers on the

train recall either shouting or hearing this. Those officers have been

interviewed under caution concerning allegations that they have

conspired to pervert the course of justice.

13.3 This report details the police officers accounts and those of the

passengers.

13.4 On seeing CO19 officers on the platform ’Ivor’ got up from his seat and

placed his foot by the train door to prevent it from closing. He shouted

‘he’s here’ and indicated towards Mr DE MENEZES. He heard the word

‘police’ shouted and turned towards Mr DE MENEZES who had got up

and walked towards the police officers. ’Ivor’ considered that Mr DE

MENEZES was agitated and noticed that his hands were held below his

waist and slightly in front of him. He continued to walk towards ’Ivor’

and fearing for the safety of everyone on the train he grabbed Mr DE

MENEZES around his torso and pinned his arms to his side. He then

pushed Mr DE MENEZES back into the seat that he had been sitting

on.

13.5 Charlie 2 having heard the order to stop him getting on the tube

believed this was relayed from the DSO and that this suspect was a

64

suicide bomber who had entered the tube in order to blow up a train.

On entering the ticket hall he saw Charlie 12 and climbed over the ticket

barriers. At the bottom of the escalators a male, presumably ’Malcolm’

indicated that the suspect was on the northbound tube. Charlie 2 drew

his handgun as he reached the train and another male, presumably

’Ken’ who was on the train, indicated towards Mr DE MENEZES.

Charlie 2 followed Charlie 12 onto the carriage.

13.6 Charlie 2 saw a person he believed to be a surveillance officer point at

a male who Charlie 2 described ‘as Asian, dressed in jeans wearing a

bulky looking denim jacket’. Mr DE MENEZES stood up and was

grabbed by the surveillance officer who pushed him back onto the seat.

13.7 Charlie 2 was convinced Mr DE MENEZES was a suicide bomber about

to detonate a bomb. He states that he honestly believed that unless he

acted immediately everyone present was about to die. He formed the

opinion that the only option was to shoot the man in the head and kill

him instantly to prevent any detonation. Charlie 2 ran forward and

reached over the top of ’Ivor’ shouting ‘Armed Police’. He held his gun

to Mr DE MENEZES’ head and fired.

13.8 Charlie 2 was aware that Charlie 12 was also firing. Charlie 2 cleared a

blockage in his gun and continued firing until he was certain that the

threat had been eliminated.

13.9 Upon hearing the command State Red Charlie 12 had run into the

underground and down the escalators. He was the first to reach the

train and was aware that Charlie 2 was right behind him. He was

directed to Mr DE MENEZES by people he presumed to be surveillance

officers.

13.10 Charlie 12 described Mr DE MENEZES as Asian looking wearing a

‘bulky’ denim jacket.

13.11 Charlie 12 states that Mr DE MENEZES advanced towards them. His

hands were down by his side. Charlie 12 shouted ‘armed police’ and

65

pointed his gun. He considered that Mr DE MENEZES was closing

them down and he thought that he was about to detonate a bomb and

kill everyone. He believed he had to shoot him first.

13.12 ’Ivor’ then grabbed Mr DE MENEZES and pushed him back into the

seat. Charlie 12 states that the only option was to shoot Mr DE

MENEZES in the head to kill him instantly and save the lives of those

present. He did not consider there was any alternative. He fired a

number of shots; he was aware of other gunshots and being hit in the

face by debris. He believed he would not be safe until the man was

dead. He states that he honestly believed the male to be a suicide

bomber. Mr DE MENEZES fell towards the floor and as he did so

Charlie 12 fired again.

13.13 Charlie 5 entered the carriage and saw ’Ivor’ lurch towards another

male who was either standing or attempting to stand. He heard shouts

of ‘armed police’ and heard several shots fired. He then grabbed hold

of ’Ivor’ and forced him to the ground, and pointed his pistol at his head

before ’Ivor’ identified himself as a police officer.

13.14 ’Terry’, another team leader, followed Charlie 2 onto the train and

became aware of a struggle taking place. He states he heard

challenges of ‘armed police’ and called out ‘armed police’ himself. He

states he heard cracking noises in front of him, the struggle continued

and he formed the opinion that shots had been fired but was initially

unsure by whom. After a momentary pause the shots resumed. He

saw Mr DE MENEZES slumped over the seat, face down. ’Terry’ was

concerned about the possibility of a concealed explosive device and

began to order an evacuation of the remaining people in the carriage.

13.15 Delta 4 heard the shouting and shots being fired. He looked into the

carriage and saw Charlie 2 and Charlie 12 struggling with Mr DE

MENEZES who was on his knees bent onto a seat. He then heard the

sound of more shots and saw Charlie 2 and Charlie 12 move aside. He

saw wounds to Mr DE MENEZES’ head. Delta 4 then instructed other

officers to get off the carriage, as he believed that Mr DE MENEZES

66

was a suicide bomber.

13.16 Delta 9 was directed towards the carriage and saw Mr DE MENEZES

sitting on the far side of the carriage. He could hear shouts of ‘armed

police’. Mr DE MENEZES suddenly stood up and was grabbed by

’Ivor’. He saw Charlie 2 and Charlie 12 either side of Mr DE MENEZES

who appeared to have gone rigid. Delta 9 thought he was resisting and

could see his hand down to his right side. Delta 9 bent down and

controlled the lower half of Mr DE MENEZES body and tried to get to

his hands to stop him detonating a device. He then heard a number of

shots fired and saw blood coming from Mr DE MENEZES face. He then

shouted for people to get off the train.

13.17 ’William’ ran onto the platform. He believed this was a KRATOS incident

and believed that he had to engage the subject if the subject did not

immediately reply. He would need to be convinced that the rounds

would not over penetrate and stop the subject from detonating any

device. On reaching the platform he heard shots being fired. He then

saw a person in the tunnel, on the tracks. He challenged this person

and pointed his firearm at him. He was subsequently identified as the

train driver who was taking refuge.

13.18 It is apparent that the actions of the surveillance officers who boarded

the carriage caught the attention of the other passengers. Some

witnesses refer to a man of Asian appearance carrying a rucksack.

Although not of Asian ethnicity it would appear that they are referring to

’Ivor’.

13.19 Witness YA was a passenger on the train. He saw what he thought to

be a group of armed police officers. As they passed him he heard

someone say ‘he’s here’ and someone say ’get down’ He then heard

the sound of gunshots.

13.20 Witness YB was a passenger on the train with his girlfriend YC. As the

train was stationary at STOCKWELL he became aware of someone

running past him and heard the word ’here’ spoken. He then saw a

67

man entering the carriage wearing a red T-shirt and pointing a small

black handgun towards a man sat opposite him. He saw three other

armed men. The first gunmen pointed his gun at the right side of the

man’s head from a distance of about 12 inches. He describes the

person as wearing a denim jacket and blue top and formed the

impression that he was reaching for the left side of his trouser

waistband.

13.21 Witness YC sat to the left of Witness YB she saw men entering the

carriage carrying different types of firearms and heard someone shout

get out. A shot was fired and she saw a man opposite her in the seat

with a wound behind his left ear. She believes six or seven shots were

fired.

13.22 Witness YD was a passenger on the train when it arrived at

STOCKWELL. Her attention was first drawn to a man with a rucksack

and she became concerned regarding his actions. This person would

appear to be ’Ivor’. Suddenly she became aware of a lot of shouting

coming from a group of men at the door to the carriage. She heard

either ‘this is it’ or’ there he is’. She then recalls a seeing a man sitting

two seats away with a gun to his neck, the gun was pointed directly into

the joint between the man’s neck and head. The man holding the gun

was standing over the other man holding the gun at arms length. She

then saw flashes and heard a quiet popping noise. She was not able to

identify any of the men as police officers neither did she hear the word

‘police’ shouted

13.23 Witness YE was a passenger on the train when it reached

STOCKWELL. He became aware of people running towards the train

and heard someone who he assumed was a police officer say

something like ‘that’s the man, that’s the one’. He was pointing at man

wearing a blue denim jacket, black T-shirt and jeans. He states this man

was carrying a small rucksack that he described in some detail. Two

other police officers entered the carriage and held the man down. The

officers were wearing hats with the word ‘Police’ on them. The man

was held down by the two officers and he saw one of them with a

68

handgun shoot the man four or five times.

13.24 Witness YF was a passenger on the train when it reached

STOCKWELL. He was sitting with his back to the platform. He heard a

noise and saw about four men who he assumed from the caps they

were wearing were armed police officers. Immediately he was aware of

something happening inside the carriage to his right. Four or five

officers appeared to be pinning someone to the floor. He particularly

noticed one officer ‘knelt down in a prone position’ and another pointing

a machine gun at someone on the floor poised ready to fire. He heard

some shots and assumed the officer with the machine gun must have

fired them...


My comment is that this bunch of incompetent cretins would make the Keystone Cops look good.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....

Return to “Current Events”