And no, it doesn't show pretty clearly that at all. I believe you might be perceiving things a little different to other people to be honest. How about that?
This is an area I have problems with - if the security services thought De Menezes (or rather the person they mistook him for) was an imminent threat why weren't the officers following him armed and ready to stop him somewhere relatively safe? If he wasn't consisdered an imminent enough threat for that to happen then why suddenly send armed officers charging into an underground station?
Because they only (mis)intendifited jean Charles de Menezes as a potential match for two suspects when he was on the bus, 2 miles away from Stockwell tube. CO19 wasn't able to get there in time after the decision was made.
As far as I know Hotel 1,2 & 3 where unarmed and thus would probably be unable to safely stop a suicide bomber.
anais32 doesn't seem to be able to answer the question. I agree, I think he may have acted perhaps out of heightened excitement, adrenaline, panic, fear or a combination of those elements, his colleague simply reacting to a kind of back-up instinct.
In which case he should probably have just owned up to having done so.
I'm saying it's irrelevant. They shot him not because he was a suicide bomber but because they claimed he was 'advancing' towards them. This is a lie.
You're saying the motive is irrelevant. Wow. Still never mind. It's a wonder the police didn't shoot everybody "advancing towards them" as they made their way into the train carriage. So again, why do you think Jean Charles de Menezes was shot?
And you claimed that it was a lie, that Hotel 3 thought that Jean Charles De Menezes was advancing upon the officiers, after he had stood up in his seat? Clearly nobody could have different recollections or interpret actions differently eh?
Because they only (mis)intendifited jean Charles de Menezes as a potential match for two suspects when he was on the bus, 2 miles away from Stockwell tube. CO19 wasn't able to get there in time after the decision was made.
As far as I know Hotel 1,2 & 3 where unarmed and thus would probably be unable to safely stop a suicide bomber.
Why did they follow him onto the bus if they didn't think he was a suspect? What made them think he'd become an imminent danger to the public?
I've just done a quick check and he was wearing jeans and a light denim jacket, so nothing bulky - I have no idea how bulky a worn bomb actually is, though. Also, according to wiki (yes, I know) the officers that followed him onto the bus were armed with pistols.
You're saying the motive is irrelevant. Wow. Still never mind. It's a wonder the police didn't shoot everybody "advancing towards them" as they made their way into the train carriage. So again, why do you think Jean Charles de Menezes was shot?
And you claimed that it was a lie, that Hotel 3 thought that Jean Charles De Menezes was advancing upon the officiers, after he had stood up in his seat? Clearly nobody could have different recollections or interpret actions differently eh?
His 'recollections' were false. They were false because he needed a reason to shoot.
Why did they follow him onto the bus if they didn't think he was a suspect? What made them think he'd become an imminent danger to the public?
I've just done a quick check and he was wearing jeans and a light denim jacket, so nothing bulky - I have no idea how bulky a worn bomb actually is, though. Also, according to wiki (yes, I know) the officers that followed him onto the bus were armed with pistols.
Twice. They followed him onto TWO buses.
He got off one bus and discovered the tube was closed. So he got on another one. Then went into the underground station.
Why did they follow him onto the bus if they didn't think he was a suspect? What made them think he'd become an imminent danger to the public?
Are you asking me because you don't know the accounts? He was a potential suspect - police followed him from his building. The second question I've already answered - he was further (mis)identified as one of the suspects involved in the failed bombings the day before whilst his was on the bus to stockwell tube..
I've just done a quick check and he was wearing jeans and a light denim jacket, so nothing bulky - I have no idea how bulky a worn bomb actually is, though.
coincidentally the met had just been advised that worn bombs are less and less readily apparent.
Also, according to wiki (yes, I know) the officers that followed him onto the bus were armed with pistols.
I can't see a reference to that on wiki for that I'm afraid. One questions if they were armed, then why did they have to wait for CO19? And even point him out to them? it's more likely that the officers weren't armed or weren't trained which is why they had to wait for CO19 in the first place.
Errrr yes. They either believed Jean Charles de Menezes was a immediate threat to life or they did not. If it's the latter then they murdered a random - because reasons. This is exactly what you are saying (you think you're being clever, but unfortunately what other option is there?).
They then CLAIMED they shot him because he was advancing towards him. This would give a 'legitimate' reason for the shooting.
Jean Charles de Menezes being thought to be a sucide bomber is a legitimate reason...
They lied.
Aren't you glad that you can't be sued for libel? it's not proven that they lied and whats more you've not even presented a compelling reason why they would, or even a compelling case as to why they have.
have you got any further with supporting the rest of your ludicrous assertions?
This excuse comes up every single time a police officer's account is shown to be false.
The amount of times police are 'mistaken' in inquests, inquiries, criminal trials makes you wonder about the IQ levels of the average police recruit.
They all seem to be mental defectives.
And on and on you go, as you have for years with your superior intelligence, where you can put everything right from your cosy office.
People who have to deal with real life things make mistakes, for all manner of reasons, and mistakes do not mean corruption, except to you when it concerns the police.
You don't know it all, even though you pretend to, and attack those who argue with you, and the lack of intelligence is always your form of attack.
You are making stuff up here, as you have for years.
Your version is not factual. Bits are, but you filling in what you want to believe is not fact.
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.
That would be the one they found hiding with the released hostages, and the one they tried to take back inside, but were prevented from doing so. They were just going to have a quiet word with him I suppose.
Ah the ever-reliable defender of police malpractice....
Whose sole refrain is 'you don't know about real life'.
And when pressed, you have shown you know nothing. Your attacks on my intelligence, and knowledge were fierce in our last two encounters, and yet I was found to be correct both times, and you did a runner, rather than admit there are things you don't know.
This is one of your pet topics, and you've convinced yourself what happened, and refuse to discuss others views.
That would be the one they found hiding with the released hostages, and the one they tried to take back inside, but were prevented from doing so. They were just going to have a quiet word with him I suppose.
yes - I mentioned that.
It was told to them that they were being filmed.
Had they killed him, they would have been filmed committing a crime - perhaps even definable as murder. Even though they had a DEFINITE (not suspected) terrorist.
It wasn't an execution. It would have been the standard procedure for taking somebody down in those circumstances. The extreme aggression of the assault was driven by a serious error of identity and intelligence during a rather tense period in the capital, but that is where fault lies, not with the method of incapacitation, as gruesome as it invariably is when such action is taken.
Absolutely agree. Trained armed officers act on information supplied. We know that in this instance certainly the information was tainted/incorrect/inaccurate/unreliable - you name it, it was WRONG. The people who should be named and brought to account are the people who supplied the information, not the armed police who actually shot him. At least in this instance the Police Commissioner resigned.
Coming from a country where violence from all quarters is endemic and a violent death is experienced by just about every family the de Menezes family's outrage is wearing a little thin. I wish they would just name their price and have done with it.
Simply claiming 'he might have had a bomb' wasn't going to be sufficient though.
No no, of course not.
only 4 bombings had taking place two weeks before killing 52 people and injuring 700 odd.
Only 4 failed bombings the day before
And then thinking that Jean Charles de Menezes was one of the suspects involved in that plot, had just got on to another underground train that day in the morning around the times of the previous attack.
Clearly thinking that they were dealing with a suicide bomber posing an immediate threat to life is not a sufficent reason to shoot somebody on a tube train.
Clearly it simply required some who had by all accounts, stood up in his seat to walk towards them.
So if they didn't think he was a Suicide bomber, dozens of officiers at all levels clearly, and for shits and giggles, decided to kill a complete random, despite knowing that he wasn't a sucide bomber, in order to make them look.... incompetent as anything.
Again, taking whatever point you might of had, and royally screwing the pooch out of it aren't you?
Comments
Of course they screwed up. Are you now claiming they did think he was a suicide bomber?
Or are you claiming something else?
I'm saying it's irrelevant. They shot him not because he was a suicide bomber but because they claimed he was 'advancing' towards them. This is a lie.
Because they only (mis)intendifited jean Charles de Menezes as a potential match for two suspects when he was on the bus, 2 miles away from Stockwell tube. CO19 wasn't able to get there in time after the decision was made.
As far as I know Hotel 1,2 & 3 where unarmed and thus would probably be unable to safely stop a suicide bomber.
In which case he should probably have just owned up to having done so.
You're saying the motive is irrelevant. Wow. Still never mind. It's a wonder the police didn't shoot everybody "advancing towards them" as they made their way into the train carriage. So again, why do you think Jean Charles de Menezes was shot?
And you claimed that it was a lie, that Hotel 3 thought that Jean Charles De Menezes was advancing upon the officiers, after he had stood up in his seat? Clearly nobody could have different recollections or interpret actions differently eh?
Why did they follow him onto the bus if they didn't think he was a suspect? What made them think he'd become an imminent danger to the public?
I've just done a quick check and he was wearing jeans and a light denim jacket, so nothing bulky - I have no idea how bulky a worn bomb actually is, though. Also, according to wiki (yes, I know) the officers that followed him onto the bus were armed with pistols.
His 'recollections' were false. They were false because he needed a reason to shoot.
Twice. They followed him onto TWO buses.
He got off one bus and discovered the tube was closed. So he got on another one. Then went into the underground station.
Absolute twaddle.
If they (the officers) had reason to believe that he was indeed the suspected suicide bomber, they were quite within their remit to shoot.
Because they were waiting for information from the surveillence team.
So why the need to concoct false narratives?
Have you ever even considered that in every incident, you'll not get everyone remembering the details the same?
They may genuinely believed at the time, that when he stood up, he was coming towards them.
I don't know, I wasn't there and neither was any of the miriad of folks who have passed judgement ever since.
This excuse comes up every single time a police officer's account is shown to be false.
The amount of times police are 'mistaken' in inquests, inquiries, criminal trials makes you wonder about the IQ levels of the average police recruit.
They all seem to be mental defectives.
Are you asking me because you don't know the accounts? He was a potential suspect - police followed him from his building. The second question I've already answered - he was further (mis)identified as one of the suspects involved in the failed bombings the day before whilst his was on the bus to stockwell tube..
coincidentally the met had just been advised that worn bombs are less and less readily apparent.
I can't see a reference to that on wiki for that I'm afraid. One questions if they were armed, then why did they have to wait for CO19? And even point him out to them? it's more likely that the officers weren't armed or weren't trained which is why they had to wait for CO19 in the first place.
Clarification.
So they just shot a random, because.
Well done. I think you took whatever point you might of had, and completely ****ed it.
Er no. They shot him because they screwed up. Simply claiming 'he might have had a bomb' wasn't going to be sufficient though.
They then CLAIMED they shot him because he was advancing towards him. This would give a 'legitimate' reason for the shooting.
They lied.
Errrr yes. They either believed Jean Charles de Menezes was a immediate threat to life or they did not. If it's the latter then they murdered a random - because reasons. This is exactly what you are saying (you think you're being clever, but unfortunately what other option is there?).
Jean Charles de Menezes being thought to be a sucide bomber is a legitimate reason...
Aren't you glad that you can't be sued for libel? it's not proven that they lied and whats more you've not even presented a compelling reason why they would, or even a compelling case as to why they have.
have you got any further with supporting the rest of your ludicrous assertions?
And on and on you go, as you have for years with your superior intelligence, where you can put everything right from your cosy office.
People who have to deal with real life things make mistakes, for all manner of reasons, and mistakes do not mean corruption, except to you when it concerns the police.
You don't know it all, even though you pretend to, and attack those who argue with you, and the lack of intelligence is always your form of attack.
You are making stuff up here, as you have for years.
Your version is not factual. Bits are, but you filling in what you want to believe is not fact.
Whose sole refrain is 'you don't know about real life'.
That would be the one they found hiding with the released hostages, and the one they tried to take back inside, but were prevented from doing so. They were just going to have a quiet word with him I suppose.
And when pressed, you have shown you know nothing. Your attacks on my intelligence, and knowledge were fierce in our last two encounters, and yet I was found to be correct both times, and you did a runner, rather than admit there are things you don't know.
This is one of your pet topics, and you've convinced yourself what happened, and refuse to discuss others views.
yes - I mentioned that.
It was told to them that they were being filmed.
Had they killed him, they would have been filmed committing a crime - perhaps even definable as murder. Even though they had a DEFINITE (not suspected) terrorist.
Absolutely agree. Trained armed officers act on information supplied. We know that in this instance certainly the information was tainted/incorrect/inaccurate/unreliable - you name it, it was WRONG. The people who should be named and brought to account are the people who supplied the information, not the armed police who actually shot him. At least in this instance the Police Commissioner resigned.
Coming from a country where violence from all quarters is endemic and a violent death is experienced by just about every family the de Menezes family's outrage is wearing a little thin. I wish they would just name their price and have done with it.
Indeed.
Funny too, how any CCTV in the area of them doing anything contentious, also seems to be either defective or vanishes altogether. Really weird that
No no, of course not.
only 4 bombings had taking place two weeks before killing 52 people and injuring 700 odd.
Only 4 failed bombings the day before
And then thinking that Jean Charles de Menezes was one of the suspects involved in that plot, had just got on to another underground train that day in the morning around the times of the previous attack.
Clearly thinking that they were dealing with a suicide bomber posing an immediate threat to life is not a sufficent reason to shoot somebody on a tube train.
Clearly it simply required some who had by all accounts, stood up in his seat to walk towards them.
So if they didn't think he was a Suicide bomber, dozens of officiers at all levels clearly, and for shits and giggles, decided to kill a complete random, despite knowing that he wasn't a sucide bomber, in order to make them look.... incompetent as anything.
Again, taking whatever point you might of had, and royally screwing the pooch out of it aren't you?