Safe Speed Forums

Well gentlemen (and ladies),

They apparently tried to cover this up, but now we have stories emerging of the poor Brazilian fellow NOT running from the police, NOT vaulting the ticket barriers, NOT running down the escalator.

More stories of "definate identification" not being possible due to an unfortunate requirement to answer a call of nature.

Another witness on the telly saying "I heard the first 2 bullets (then a pause) which I thought were the sounds of a detonator going off". Unfortuantely, we don't quite get at where the other 6 bullets came into the scenario but we glean that one very brave policeman (by all accounts) wrapped his body around the 'suspect' immobilising him when he heard the shots going off before being pulled away.

There is still a very, very bad smell around this: Weren't we assured by Sir Ian Blair that the man didn't help himself by his actions? His actions of what? Buying a tube ticket, Standing on an escalator and then getting on a train????

We need lots of answers to this and we need them quickly. Yes, the police have a very difficult job to do BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE!

We can't surely just allow this to have taken place in London to be swept under the carpet?????

I honestly believe that there still might be every justification, as sad as it might be, in bringing charges of murder and or culpable homicide against the officers involved and or their superiors.

A man died because he had the misfortune to live in a building where other suspects were believed to have lived (or been holding out). Unfortuante? Yes; Sorry? Yes; all of these words of symapthy from the police are appropriate BUT THIS SHOULD NOT AND DOES NOT NEGATE THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO OBEY THE LAW THEMSELVES.

We have to have the truth. An innocent man is dead. Shot 8 times. Wee need to see the facts, the evidence tested. "Trust me, I'm the Commissioner for the Met Police" is NOT enough, not by a very, very long way. Getting at the whole truth is the only way we'll have any chance of avoiding this again in the future - and surely as a society we owe that man's family all the answers as painful as they may be.

The fact that the leak came from the IPCC suggests that there is no cover up or sweeping of stuff under carpets. If it had come from inside the Met I'd worry, but all this tells us at the moment is that the inquiry is doing its job. I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that the details coming out paint a different picture from what we were told on the day. Not because I distrust the Met or the police particularly, but because we were being told all that stuff while the poor man was still warm. An early eye-witness account claimed five shots fired, which rapidly turned out to be eight. At that point I decided it wasn't worth paying any attention to what was said until the inevitable inquiry and inquest had reported, and then make my mind up about it.

Still, I agree that it doesn't look good at the moment. Right now it does look a bit like the Sussex shooting all over again. But all the same I wish it hadn't been leaked because you can be damn sure that the inquiry is in possesion of other details that have not been leaked. All this does is fuel more speculation and the desire for a quick outcome. I'd rather they take all the time in the world and get it right than rush it and balls the whole thing up. The shooting of de Menezes itself should be a lesson about being absolutely sure of all the facts before committing to an action that may be impossible to reverse. And if heads need to roll it's absolutely vital that it's the right heads. Would we want a rushed inquiry to damn the wrong officer and miss potential culpability in someone else? I think everyone would want to avoid that at all costs, so I say let the IPCC get on with it. We may be in a hurry for answers but if we want this to be done right then it'll take as long as it takes.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Just to show how reasonable I am, I totally agree with you on this one Paul, and the way they are describing their policy towards suspected suicide bombers is very worrying indeed - the police can't identify themselves or give the person a warning because the suspect might set the bomb off! Well, how is the suspect supposed to avoid being shot in the head, if their suspicion is wrong? We have to remember that what the police refer to as "intelligence" can be nothing more than a nosy neighbour phoning up to report "suspicious" activity.

Isn't the right decision a grusome probability estimate?

e.g. 100% risk * 1 life against 50% confidence * 10 lives

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Did they? Reports of vaulting over barriers etc came from eyewitnesses reports in the media, the events are being investigated ( which takes time to do properly ) and what has been leaked suggests that full and proper enquiry is in progress.

Unfortunately it seems that these days the media in particular seem to expect answers immediately, we see this when a plane crashes - "experts" give their opinion on what may or may not have happened and this is often reported as fact.

Not everything has to involve a conspiracy theory - i blame the X-Files and the internet.

Sometimes people make mistakes, but best to wait until full report is out in the open before judging the those involved.

I thought that much of the information came from the immediate press conference... running away when challenged, wearing inappropriately heavy clothes, etc. None of this is apparently true, and 8 shots were fired from very close range (there was an officer holding the man down), and only 5 hit the target.

I thought that even the anti-terrorist SAS group were trained to only fire two shots in rapid succession as this was sufficient for a kill or serious disablement.

It isn't necessarily a conspiracy, it could just be incompetence and arse covering..

Most reports i saw were interviews with eyewitnesses, who contradicted each other.

Does appear to be incompetence rather than cover up, but by who?

Problem is that the officers at the front end rely on information and act to guidelines set down by others who sit behind desks, yet when it all goes wrong it is the officers who acted who have to live with what happened.

That's the trouble with the media wading in before facts have been established. Most witnesses will see things diffrently or embellish or just not note the same things. That "Krypton Factor" memory test springs to mind... few contestestants acutally scored well on that particular test at any one time as I recall from the shows I watched at the time.

Even on Traffic Cops tonight - more evidence of the way different people see the same thing: some noted the red Mondeo and one of the drivers involved could not even remember seeing it There was confusion as well as to how many were in the offending Modeo which was the catalyst cause of the driver error and subsequent pile up.

I hope the truth will come out on this as the catalogue of apparent (but not proven) mistakes is worrying. But like Gatsymate - would rather them take the time to get all facts first and ensure that we are told the absloute truth - good or bad.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

That's the problem though isn't it - can you be sure that the truth will be told? How many examples of inquiries coming up with complete b:censored:t do you need? Here's two recent ones:

The UK government didn't manipulate any evidence to imply that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - but somebody altered that old thesis to change any doubts into absolute certainties, and to then release it as latest intelligence.

All of the UK Speed Cameras are correctly positioned - yes, obviously.

Maybe I have been turned into a complete cynic, but there is some much official arse covering and people going "you wipe my arse, I'll wipe yours" that I have trouble believing anything official, because the moment you scratch to the surface it all start to stink of sh*t.

This link explains why eyewitness memory often fails.
The Magic Of The Mind
Its a well known phenomenon, people who never actually saw exactly what happened mentally compile a picture of what happened, subconsciously filling in any missing detail. They are then left with a complete sequence of events which is recorded as their memory of what happened; they honestly believe they saw things they never actually did.

..

Yes, you can bet they'd be a tad unhappy if a couple of members of the public jumped on a BiB, pinned his arms to his side and shot him a few times in the head.

The more of this that leaks out the more and more I tend to view this as MURDER.

Yes, they might be policemen, yes, they might have been on duty, yes, it might have been a terrible mistake.....

Just think of the chain of events: A man leaves home to get on a train. He buys a ticket and rides the escalator before boarding the train. He is then unceremonially wrestled to the ground by one (or more) men who are restraining his arms.

Then he gets shot 8 times in the back and back of the head.

This is murder by any other name

They get on the radio and another 3 TSG van loads full of the wankers turn up for backup.

When it becomes obvious that they still can't control the situation, then the Chief Inspector for Hampshire will phone you personally on your mobile phone and tell you that he already knows that you have phoned certain individuals who are known to be members of a motorcycle club, but if you could just let his officers handle the problem then everything will be allright.

When you point out that his officers had their chance and walked away and that they can now go & fuck themselves, he will then instruct them to arrest you for drinking & driving, even though you haven't left your house all night.

You will then be arrested by an absolute minimum of 6 officers (none of whom actually want to try & put handcuffs on you for some strange reason), and asked to step inside the police vehicle.
When you get to the station, they will then hang the breathalyser procedure out for three hours before actually taking a sample.
When you still fail the breathalyser after blowing a 97, you will be bailed to return in two weeks. However, after one week you will receive a letter from the arresting officer stating that although you have an obligation to comply with the law, they feel it is not in the public interest to prosecute for drinking & driving on this occasion.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I'm not aware that the law allows the police to use deadly force in any extra circumstances than an ordinary member of the public would be allowed to: ie, only when that force is reasonable.

Now, I know with near certainty, if an ordinary member of the public had shot an innocent person in exactly the same circumstances, they wouldn't be 'waiting for an inquiry' or anything, the person would be remanded in custody awaiting trial for murder.

I think that they had better pull their fingers out and start explaining what went on sooner rather than later.

A man is dead. Silence 'blood money' has been offered to the family then it's been denied it's been offered.

The silence from New Scotland Yard is now starting to deafen me as well.

We want the truth. If someone fucked up then come clean and TELL US NOW. All this old bollox anbout 'judicial process'... If I along with a few mates had tailed and then shot someone in the back of the head in a variety of different way, we would now be in police custody awaiting the outcome of their enquiries before most likely facing a trail.

NOT on holdiay on the Chief Constable's personal say so!!!

At the end of the day we have to have the truth. Because if we don't get at the truth and all the bits of the washing that they don't want seen in public, then when they kill someone else 'by accident' it will be easier for them to sweep that under the carpet too.

That 'next person' killed by the police "could be you".

We're not talking about 'technical offences' where people stray over white lines or over poorly set low limits (where no-one actually gets hurt anyway), we're talking about gangs of men, tooled up with guns indescriminately shooting people because they 'could' be a bomber.

Everyone who gets on a train 'could' be a bomber. Everyone who uses a kitchen knife 'could' turn funny and stick it in the next person to knock on their front door's chest - does this mean that the police should turn up 15 or 16 handed, use deadly force and then just say "sorry" at the end of it and we have to just accept that????

The police will learn nothing until and unless they air some of their washing. If one of them has done something which they shouldn't have, if one of them 'exceeded' their orders or reasonable powers then they have to pay like any of the rest of us for that failure. At the end of the day, the courts can be sensible, merciful places where leniency and understanding of dificult mitigating circumstances get taken into consideration.

The police have to subject themselves to thios process too; failing which we might as well all have fallen into the hands of the Nazis at the end of the war. They had a cute way of covering up the odd atrocity in the beginning, didn't they?

Yes, "we want the truth".

Maybe we should wait until investigation complete? Or shall we just jail the officers involved now to save time and money of a trial? What was the information they were acting upon? If it was wrong through incompetence then are they the ones who should be on trial? Was the shooting ordered by a senior officer because of incorrect information? Or did the officers just fancy shooting someone ( in which case by all means charge them with murder and throw away the key )?

As for the "blood money" - i don't know if compensation was offered or not, but if none has been offered than there wil be an outcry about how callous the police are, and if they do offer some then they are accused of offering blood money.

Yes, they could be.

That is the dilema facing the Police, whether they are armed officers or not.

Next time the mistake may be not to shoot.

I do not envy the job they have to do, and unless we get to the root of what went wrong then there is a chance of another innocent life being taken.

That's the general ruling. In normal circumstances. Trouble is - we don't tend to come across suicide bombers in this country - until now. Sure we had IRA etc... but they used to plant the bomb and leave a coded message - and if we were lucky - time to diffuse it.

If possible you'd use a tazer, baton, swift kick in the ghoulies at a specific nerve centre ( brings tears to the eyes and disables iwith immediate effect and usually followed by disabling force to another nerve centre we know of and . er um - thug is not longer a problem for us.) Bit different if you think person might just blow himself up (and you with him!). Tazer - electric charge and may detonate the device and his finger may be on the button just as you aim at the aforementioned nerve centre....

In this case - shooting in the head is fairly reasonable under those circumstances - but one would pray you had the right man and the right information first.

Trouble is - no one knows what really happened and witness accounts as Mad Doc points out - vary. He is absolutely correct in this opinion. Witness accounts have to be independent and they all perceive and place emphasis on different things they think they saw or definitely remember seeing and hearing. These varied accounts will be crucial in piecing together the exact sequence of the events. There does not seem to be any CCTV footage as film had not been replaced from the previous day. Presumably they took supply of all recordings for the week to sift the evidence - leaving no spare for the Friday.

Sincerely hope for all our sakes that the inquiry into this will not be Hutton style. As facts emerge or are leaked ... and media pounces without thought - this is going to prejudice the inquiry to some extent in people's minds.

No amount of money will bring back the victim in all this and no amount of money is ever going to compensate Jean Charles mother either. Worst nightmare for the BiB concerned to have killed an innocent in genuine error like this - but I am a realist enough to know that his personal hell is deep but maybe not as deep as the person's immediate family.

Feel that this incident is closing the proverbial stable door after the horse has bolted - but I really do hope lessons have been learned to extent that this kind of mistake never occurs again.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

What's worrying me over this, (apart from ...."the obvious" which you have all expressed) is the fact that the "leak" came from a member of the "IPCC"!!!!!

They (whoever) has NOW been "sacked"(loss of job, index linked pension, etc, etc, etc,).

Why would someone put themselves in the position of maybe being sacked if found out if "they" were confident that it would soon become "public knowledge" anyway?

Do YOU think that this person should be sacked? or awarded a medal for Bravery in disclosing information which is to the Public good? After all....................................it IS a............"Democracy" here.

Is it not?...............................