I'd also say it's utterly risible that someone is comparing the actions of the police on this day to the SAS embassy siege.
Firstly, the SAS are SOLDIERS; the police are not. I would say we have very, very serious problems if the latter start to think they are the former. They are not. And should never begin to think they are anything of the kind. Indeed, armed police do not themselves even have specific 'anti-terrorist' duties.
Secondly, there was a serious hostage situation at the embassy whereby two people had already been killed (body just thrown out the window).
Furthermore, there WERE questions asked over the shooting of two of the gunmen. At least I suppose in that situation, they were in fact gunmen.
During the SAS operation, at no point were the killed terrorists ever restrained. There was one who was of course, they didn't feel the need to blow his brains out. He was simply arrested.
The fact that you think the two situations are comparable, is pathetic.
I'd also say it's utterly risible that someone is comparing the actions of the police on this day to the SAS embassy siege.
Firstly, the SAS are SOLDIERS; the police are not. I would say we have very, very serious problems if the latter start to think they are the former. They are not. And should never begin to think they are anything of the kind. Indeed, armed police do not themselves even have specific 'anti-terrorist' duties.
Secondly, there was a serious hostage situation at the embassy whereby two people had already been killed (body just thrown out the window).
Furthermore, there WERE questions asked over the shooting of two of the gunmen. At least I suppose in that situation, they were in fact gunmen.
During the SAS operation, at no point were the killed terrorists ever restrained. There was one who was of course, they didn't feel the need to blow his brains out. He was simply arrested.
The fact that you think the two situations are comparable, is pathetic.
I'm comparing the situations only from the angle that you keep referring to the amount of lethal aggression used as being a heinous factor of this incident, when it really isn't.
Under perception that they were good to go, they did as instructed and went for the head, using hollow point rounds.
I would point out, however, that I was totally against the SAS shooting dead those unarmed IRA suspects in Gibraltar. Again, of course, we got the usual lies in the aftermath (there had been a 'shootout', a 'car bomb' had been found - both false).
And of course, there was all the 'issues' afterwards. Mainly that the government had stitched up the inquest. Basically giving a completely false account.
I'm comparing the situations only from the angle that you keep referring to the amount of lethal aggression used as being a heinous factor of this incident, when it really isn't.
Under perception that they were good to go, they did as instructed and went for the head, using hollow point rounds.
They went for the head AFTER the suspect had been restrained and completely neutralised.
There should not EVER be a situation where this is legal. In any civilised country.
Indeed, in the case of the embassy siege, it did look like one of the soldiers was going to kill a suspect he had neutralised. He was only prevented from doing this when he was informed the operation was being televised and he knew that to kill him would have been unlawful.
They went for the head AFTER the suspect had been restrained and completely neutralised.
There should not EVER be a situation where this is legal. In any civilised country.
Indeed, in the case of the embassy siege, it did look like one of the soldiers was going to kill a suspect he had neutralised. He was only prevented from doing this when he was informed the operation was being televised and he knew that to kill him would have been unlawful.
His arms were grabbed, held against his torso and he was pushed back onto a seat by one officer. If one officer grabbed me and pushed me into a seat I daresay I could fight my way free. So he was not restrained and completely neutralised whatsoever, and they took no chances with the guy.
The error was in his identification, but as I have said, you wouldn't have had much complaint to make about pushing a guy down and killing him had the situation been as perhaps feared.
EDIT: It is also not beyond the wit of man to consider that a worn-explosive may need to be detonated with a remote, hand-held switch, which could still be activated whilst pinned down.
Is that a universal opinion of yours, or simply one based on De Menezes being an innocent victim of bungled police and anti-terror intelligence?
The reason I ask is that I doubt you would be making such declarations had the shooting prevented an act of terrorism.
The "blowing his head clean off his shoulders" is not the element to be criticised here, the failings in police identification, intelligence, and subsequent whitewashing are.
Do you consider the SAS should face criminal charges for example for the way they assaulted the Iranian Embassy in 1980 and literally obliterated the antagonists with hundreds of rounds of automatic machine gun fire? Does that operation gauge us as a civilised society?
Here’s a moral dilemma for DS threadsters.
Consider this serious question about a purely hypothetical situation.
You’re sat on a busy tube-train with your children; a guy opposite passes you a note that reads:
“I’m a anti-terrorist officer. The man next to you is a suicide bomber; we believe he’s about to detonate explosives.
We have 2 options;
A) we take decisive action and kill the man instantly; no chance to detonate his bomb.
we restrain and capture him alive; there is a possibility that he may detonate his bomb.
Which option should we take?....make an IMMEDIATE decision! “
His arms were grabbed, held against his torso and he was pushed back onto a seat by one officer. If one officer grabbed me and pushed me into a seat I daresay I could fight my way free. So he was not restrained and completely neutralised whatsoever, and they took no chances with the guy.
The error was in his identification, but as I have said, you wouldn't have had much complaint to make about pushing a guy down and killing him had the situation been as perhaps feared.
Again - this is more bull.
There is no way you could 'fight you way free' from several gunman on top of you.
It really is astonishing the levels of nonsense that people will peddle to defend the indefensible.
Consider this serious question about a purely hypothetical situation.
You’re sat on a busy tube-train with your children; a guy opposite passes you a note that reads:
“I’m a anti-terrorist officer. The man next to you is a suicide bomber; we believe he’s about to detonate explosives.
We have 2 options;
A) we take decisive action and kill the man instantly; no chance to detonate his bomb.
we restrain and capture him alive; there is a possibility that he may detonate his bomb.
Which option should we take?....make an IMMEDIATE decision! “
Which option would you choose?
In that situation I'm afraid my immediate response would be the person passing me the note is a nutter and probably drunk or on drugs.
No he didn't run away. It was reported that he had jumped over a turnstile, but that turned out to have been a police officer. Jean Charles De Menezes was never challenged. He was shot in cold blood as he sat in the train.
In my opinion the commissioner's actions regarding this affair were totally disgraceful too.
Again - this is more bull.
There is no way you could 'fight you way free' from several gunman on top of you.
It really is astonishing the levels of nonsense that people will peddle to defend the indefensible.
One officer (Hotel 3?) pinned him, who was then pulled off by the other armed officers.
Do you, or do you not accept the possibility that a worn explosive could be detonated by a palm-held switch, which could be activated whilst you are held down?
One officer (Hotel 3?) pinned him, who was then pulled off by the other armed officers.
Do you, or do you not accept the possibility that a worn explosive could be detonated by a palm-held switch, which could be activated whilst you are held down?
I think such a thing could have happened when a suspect walked out of a building, down a road, got on a bus, walked casually into a busy tube station and embarked a crowded train.
But no-one challenged him. At any point.
They just allowed him to meander through the streets of South London, getting on two modes of public transport before blowing his brains out.
What happened was inexcusable. And anyone seeking to justify has no moral centre whatsoever.
I think and such a thing could have happened when a suspect walked out of a building, down a road, got on a bus, walked casually into a busy tube station and embarked a crowded train.
But no-one challenged him. At any point.
They just allowed him to meander through the streets of South London, getting on two modes of public transport before blowing his brains out.
What happened was inexcusable. And anyone seeking to justify has no moral centre whatsoever.
Again "blowing his brains out". You aren't making the incident appear any more grievous by reverting to emotive phrasing you know.
The mistakes in the operation don't negate the level of force used, or the tactics at the final moments.
Actually blowing his brains out is probably minimising it.
His head was shot clean off his body.
The level of his injuries are irrelevant. He was shot to be killed, and that is what ultimately happened. That is what most firearms personnel who have to fire on a person will ultimately look to achieve. There is no such concept of shoot to wound, no "Give him one in the knee Bob!". You go all the way, or you don't shoot at all.
IAt the point he was shot, there was absolutely NO reason to do so.
So why did they then? Just for laughs? Perhaps a bunch of psychopaths had infiltrated that particular group of officers, coincidentally? Perhaps they had planned "the perfect murder?"
The reason was one of perception at that precise moment, and given the circumstances, that is what justifies it, whether you like it or not. Retrospect and the luxury of hindsight and time to consider the reality is not something the officers have in those circumstances.
So why did they then? Just for laughs? Perhaps a bunch of psychopaths had infiltrated that particular group of officers, coincidentally? Perhaps they had planned "the perfect murder?"
The reason was one of perception at that precise moment, and given the circumstances, that is what justifies it, whether you like it or not. Retrospect and the luxury of hindsight and time to consider the reality is not something the officers have in those circumstances.
They shot a man who had been restrained and did not pose a threat at that particular moment. Moreover, they allowed him to wander around at will without challenging him before.
I firmly believe they had no reason to kill de Menezes. They had ample opportunity to engage him prior to killing him.
You think it should be accepted with just a shrug and a 'shame. oh well'. That says more about you.
Comments
Firstly, the SAS are SOLDIERS; the police are not. I would say we have very, very serious problems if the latter start to think they are the former. They are not. And should never begin to think they are anything of the kind. Indeed, armed police do not themselves even have specific 'anti-terrorist' duties.
Secondly, there was a serious hostage situation at the embassy whereby two people had already been killed (body just thrown out the window).
Furthermore, there WERE questions asked over the shooting of two of the gunmen. At least I suppose in that situation, they were in fact gunmen.
During the SAS operation, at no point were the killed terrorists ever restrained. There was one who was of course, they didn't feel the need to blow his brains out. He was simply arrested.
The fact that you think the two situations are comparable, is pathetic.
I'm comparing the situations only from the angle that you keep referring to the amount of lethal aggression used as being a heinous factor of this incident, when it really isn't.
Under perception that they were good to go, they did as instructed and went for the head, using hollow point rounds.
And of course, there was all the 'issues' afterwards. Mainly that the government had stitched up the inquest. Basically giving a completely false account.
They went for the head AFTER the suspect had been restrained and completely neutralised.
There should not EVER be a situation where this is legal. In any civilised country.
Indeed, in the case of the embassy siege, it did look like one of the soldiers was going to kill a suspect he had neutralised. He was only prevented from doing this when he was informed the operation was being televised and he knew that to kill him would have been unlawful.
His arms were grabbed, held against his torso and he was pushed back onto a seat by one officer. If one officer grabbed me and pushed me into a seat I daresay I could fight my way free. So he was not restrained and completely neutralised whatsoever, and they took no chances with the guy.
The error was in his identification, but as I have said, you wouldn't have had much complaint to make about pushing a guy down and killing him had the situation been as perhaps feared.
EDIT: It is also not beyond the wit of man to consider that a worn-explosive may need to be detonated with a remote, hand-held switch, which could still be activated whilst pinned down.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jan/15/july7.uksecurity
Here’s a moral dilemma for DS threadsters.
Consider this serious question about a purely hypothetical situation.
You’re sat on a busy tube-train with your children; a guy opposite passes you a note that reads:
“I’m a anti-terrorist officer. The man next to you is a suicide bomber; we believe he’s about to detonate explosives.
We have 2 options;
A) we take decisive action and kill the man instantly; no chance to detonate his bomb.
Which option should we take?....make an IMMEDIATE decision! “
Which option would you choose?
Again - this is more bull.
There is no way you could 'fight you way free' from several gunman on top of you.
It really is astonishing the levels of nonsense that people will peddle to defend the indefensible.
In that situation I'm afraid my immediate response would be the person passing me the note is a nutter and probably drunk or on drugs.
No he didn't run away. It was reported that he had jumped over a turnstile, but that turned out to have been a police officer. Jean Charles De Menezes was never challenged. He was shot in cold blood as he sat in the train.
In my opinion the commissioner's actions regarding this affair were totally disgraceful too.
One officer (Hotel 3?) pinned him, who was then pulled off by the other armed officers.
Do you, or do you not accept the possibility that a worn explosive could be detonated by a palm-held switch, which could be activated whilst you are held down?
I think such a thing could have happened when a suspect walked out of a building, down a road, got on a bus, walked casually into a busy tube station and embarked a crowded train.
But no-one challenged him. At any point.
They just allowed him to meander through the streets of South London, getting on two modes of public transport before blowing his brains out.
What happened was inexcusable. And anyone seeking to justify has no moral centre whatsoever.
There are certain people here who think that the police are incapable of any kind of criminality, poor judgement or dishonesty.
They just make 'honest mistakes'.
Those kind of people are themselves amoral (and if police officers colluding in criminality and corruption).
Again "blowing his brains out". You aren't making the incident appear any more grievous by reverting to emotive phrasing you know.
The mistakes in the operation don't negate the level of force used, or the tactics at the final moments.
...now that 'hypothetical' answer is a real cop-out anais32!
Actually blowing his brains out is probably minimising it.
His head was shot clean off his body.
Whereas your general opinion of the police is completely balanced of course.
Why do you refuse to address the point being put to you?
...source please.
The level of his injuries are irrelevant. He was shot to be killed, and that is what ultimately happened. That is what most firearms personnel who have to fire on a person will ultimately look to achieve. There is no such concept of shoot to wound, no "Give him one in the knee Bob!". You go all the way, or you don't shoot at all.
I have addressed it perfectly.
De Menezes (even if it had been assumed he was a suicide bomber) was not a threat when he was shot.
He was allowed to proceed down a busy street, onto a bus and onto a busy train without being challenged.
At the point he was shot, there was absolutely NO reason to do so.
And people who seek to justify it are loathesome. It CANNOT be justified under any circumstances. There is nothing which will ever make it so.
So why did they then? Just for laughs? Perhaps a bunch of psychopaths had infiltrated that particular group of officers, coincidentally? Perhaps they had planned "the perfect murder?"
The reason was one of perception at that precise moment, and given the circumstances, that is what justifies it, whether you like it or not. Retrospect and the luxury of hindsight and time to consider the reality is not something the officers have in those circumstances.
They shot a man who had been restrained and did not pose a threat at that particular moment. Moreover, they allowed him to wander around at will without challenging him before.
I firmly believe they had no reason to kill de Menezes. They had ample opportunity to engage him prior to killing him.
You think it should be accepted with just a shrug and a 'shame. oh well'. That says more about you.
Because (contrary to the defenders of the police here) they DID lie.
Hayman allowed the Commissoner to make a statement he KNEW would be false.
He then got his mates at the News of the World to collaborate in lies.
That's the kind of police force we have.