So who's lying.......
 

...... General public or the Police??? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

BBC NEWS | UK | Menezes police 'gave no warning'

BBC NEWS | UK | Menezes police 'out of control'

Well now.........the members of the public have a good reason to lie, so..........oh, wait, that's wrong isn't it?

Guess it COULD be the police then, oh what a turn up for the books, after all they are ALWAYS honest and never lie do they?:rolleyes:

I think the Police firearms guys 100% thought that he was Bomber and that they were terrified THEY might be killed. I dont think it was a cover up so much as a massive cock up. I wouldnt like to be in their shoes and I couldnt say how Id react in the same situation. So whether all this criticism is really justified. Maybe they did shout a warning. We'll never know. The public, isnt really a true indicator as they may of misheard in the comotion.

I have to wonder why its taken 3 Inquiries to ascertain nothing new though?

I think that if some guys run onto a normal train shouting 'armed police' the people would remember

It was the police testimony from the guy that shot him in the head 6 times that got me...

Basically fired a shot point blank to the head, gun jammed... cleared the jam, reloaded then plugged another 5 rounds into his head!

Gung-ho, adrenaline fueled fcuk up of monumental proportions IMHO

Independant witnesses all seem to say no warning, so I suppose you have to go with that.

But are they not meant to ne trained for this sort of situation :confused:

if you listern to what the "witness" said, she said the mendez bloke just sat there waiting to be shot.

just think though, this has nothing to do with terrorism they werent firearms officers they were mi5, and that bloke was the bad guy.

I doubt he reloaded, I think you meant he recocked the gun. Slight difference :thumb:

but they weren't MI5, nor was he a bad guy, and it was about terrorism

Guys, I find this questioning of the police sickening. They have a hard enough time as it is shooting innocent members of the public, without everyone jumping on a bandwagon every time they shoot someone completely innocent.

Maybe it's time we brought in some more anti terrorism laws?

[gets off soapbox]

I feel really sorry for the family.... Don;t you think this is more traumatic for them than the police (who by the sound of it) got on a tube train, isolated their target..held a gun to his head and blew his brains out because he didn't "get down get down".... sickening..I'm sorry I support the police whenever I can, but in this instant a monumental cock up with the Police now trying to make it sound cosha...

Yes, and this is exactly why they should have the book thrown at them. I don't care that they were under a lot of stress, that is never an excuse to shoot someone, especially by a trained officer.

I also think that the fact that they're lying about the incident makes the whole thing worse. First CCTV footage was lost "showing the suspect jumping the barriers and running onto the platform", and then it was found and there was no jumping of barriers, no running etc etc. The police allegedly shouting "armed police" when nobody else heard a thing etc etc. It's a big stinking lie-fest from the police from the start to finish.

In my world, if you make a mistake, you stand up for it. Trying to lie your way out of it is cowardly in the extreme.

IMO, the police officers involved (directly and indirectly) should stand trial for murder, and then for perjury.

I think this has dragged on for far far too long.

Whilst its wrong to shoot an illegal immigrant for no provable reason. There are too many inconsistancies to know exactly what happened, that combined with twisted facts (both witness and police), cover ups, blinkered public perception and the fact that the public nor press won't rest until they only hear what they want to hear.

And after all that it still doesn't change anything; the bloke's still dead! And no doubt given the same circumstances it probably would happen again (think, incorrect intelligence saying there is a bomber, potential bomber giving chase, shoot to kill? or shoot to injure and risk getting blown up in the process? ).

When it happened the very first interviews of the people that were on the train said they thought it was a gangland hit at first as the shooters got on the train and put multiple shots into this guy without saying a thing, and his hands were up in the air.That has never been reported since:wonder:
I remember thinking they did that in a highly charged atmosphere at the time to send out a message to the terrorists that they would not be messing around and would shoot to kill first and ask questions later, as would i in the same situation! only problem is the guy was innocent! so its the inteligence guys that should take the rap not the shooters as they just did as they were told..
Can you imagine how scared everyone concerned was in that split second and how bad the guys that shot an innocent man must feel..
The repercussions of that fatefull day are never ending for ALL concerned.

It looks like the whole exercise was a shambles from the controlling team onwards. People in the control room could not hear what was happening for all the noise going on they say.

Menezes was stated to be wearing a light open jacket and it must have been pretty obvious that he did not have a bomb strapped to him anyway. His actions prior to boarding the train were completely normal. He had been reported by the police to have been running to the train and that he jumped over the ticket barrier. This turned out to be all untrue. He bought a newspaper on the way to the train in fact.

He was reported to be sitting in the train with no luggage of any kind. They say he was not warned of the presence of the police before he was shot in the head while holding his hands up. I wonder why they then felt they had to take turns in putting another 6 shots in his head! Were they in a killing frenzy?

I think there are a lot of questions to be answered over this.

Les

imagine this then suicide bomber goes on train, police shout "stop armed police" what does bomber do? boom, the police have to be fast otherwise many people would die and they have to make such a tough choice in a split second i feel sorry for them over this witch hunt.

all that this is gonna do is make officers think even harder and maybe not shoot to kill next time, what will be said then if the guy really is a bomber and takes out 50 people when he could of been stopped?

thats what were told though, personally i think it was some sort of firm job.

just to clarify does anyone know what this bloke was doing over here in the first place?

He was an electrician, on his way to work.

At various times I've thought about the motivations of the officers involved. Unfortunately, there's been so much outright lying. Probably now dismissed as mere "confusion". I've given up trying to deduce how they messed up so badly.

I blame the surveilance team for not doing their job. I blame the senior officers for not being able to make decisions or otherwise delegate to the officers on the scene. I blame the firearms unit for shooting him in the head. (though given the information available, I'm not surprised).

I now worry that the firearms lot are a bunch of killers who like shooting people or that the Met are fully capable of making the same mistake again.

This incident did more to damage public confidence than if another bomb had gone off, IMO. It showed that TPTB were incapable of managing the situation and added to public anxiety rather than ameliorating it.

J.

just makes me laugh that where having a go at these guys for doing what they where ordered to do, the guy on the ground had intel from his senior officers that this guy was a threat and they only way to stop that is a shot to the head. its ok for us all to sit behind these keyboards ripping them but imagine the stress those guys are under.

Did they forget because it happens "so often", or did they "do what they did" or "just didn't bother" (Because the British public is so lathargic)?

yeh you cant move for dead brazilian electrictians up my way :D

Phil, if he was your brother/father or cousin would you still be sitting there saying 'it's ok, mistakes happen'????

I personally think what happened is a disgrace and the attempted cover up shows a blatant disregard for the law and all involved in it should be tried for attempting to pervert the cause of justice (at the least) and manslaughter if I had my way

i understand everything behind it and people always push out the "what if it was your mum/dad/sister/brother" but would you rather have the security forces not trying to stop suicide bombers or would u like them to try and be proactive in there fight? if charges where brought there is no way that any of the terrorism officers will take that chance anymore and then what are we left with?

it was a terrible terrible mistake but it was at a very tense and difficult time. how many soildiers kill friendly troops during conflicts and yet they dont get this kind of scrutiny

I do understand what you are saying....... but the fact is no one had positively ID'd him. If they had gone 'sh1t, we shot the wrong guy, we will cooperate fully with the investigation to work out why and what went wrong' then people may of had some sympathy for them. The fact is they lied, fabricated stories, destroyed original evidence and co-erced people into changing facts for fiction to cover their own mistakes.

phil_wrx;8244028imagine this then suicide bomber goes on train, police shout "stop armed police" what does bomber do? boom,


He wasn't a suicide bomber:)

the police have to be fast otherwise many people would die and they have to make such a tough choice in a split second i feel sorry for them over this witch hunt.

Are they not trained for this type of situation:)

all that this is gonna do is make officers think even harder and maybe not shoot to kill next time, what will be said then if the guy really is a bomber and takes out 50 people when he could of been stopped?[/QUOTE]

Good we can all catch the tube safe in the knoledge mr policeman isn't going to shoot us:thumb:

Very good point.

Les

'Trained firearms officers' are not housewives taking a break before knocking up a sunday roast, they are supposed to be able to make logical on the spot decisions under pressure whilst considering ALL available information.
I've been around guns since I was 15 (shotguns and firearms) and I'm not mad keen on terrorists, but I can assure you that I would absolutely not shoot to kill on someone else's say so without either conclusive visual or confirmed factual information to vindicate that decision. This isn't the Wild West is it? However you dress it up, they messed up bigtime.
Kevin

While feeling very sorry for his family, I have to say that I think the shooting was .. if not warranted, then at least acceptable?.

They were told that he was a suicide bomber, likely to be about to blow up the train and kill as many as possible (Including the officers).

If everybody involved now did as suggested above and accepted and publicised their original mistakes, then what nmessage would that send out? That when a similar situation arises, then next time the potential bomber will be positively identified by 5 people and we won't shoot unless we can see the bomb itself?

I'd rather the current message which clearly says "Ok we shot the wrong guy, but give us a break, we were trying to save members of the public and acted on the best intelligence at the time, flawed or otherwise. But mark our words, the next time we get told to shoot a potential bomber, he will die as quickly and in the same fashion as Mr. Menezes"