If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
De Menezes: police guilty
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,735 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069796.stmLondon's police force has been found guilty of breaking health and safety laws over the shooting dead of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.
The Metropolitan Police unnecessarily put the public at risk in chasing a suspected suicide bomber across the city, an Old Bailey jury decided.
Armed police shot Mr de Menezes seven times in Stockwell Underground station on 22 July 2005.
The Met faces a potentially unlimited fine over the botched operation.
The unprecedented, highly controversial trial came after prosecutors said that no individual officer could be held responsible for the electrician's death.
Even though is of little consolation and that no individual has or will be punished in any way, a small vindication for De Menezes' family.
Will this finally make "Sir" Ian Blair resign? I suspect not... :rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
As for his resignation, that should have been provided years ago. The man is a total disgrace. The fact that London - the capital city of the United Kingdom - has such an idiot in charge of its police force is an embarrassment. He should be forced to quit and denied any kind of bonus or pension for being such a dismal failure.
As far as I'm aware it's unclear whether the officers were just randomly chasing and shooting someone, or whether it was a planned operation on a suspect that really misjudged and/or fucked up. In which case the guy in charge should get in trouble, but the police 'service' is there to be accountable, it shouldn't make individuals liable for mistakes unless a series of serious errors were made by that individual.
For example, take the private sector:
A guy works in a bank and messes up a transaction costing the bank / the bank's customer £500,000. I don't believe he should be personally liable as the bank has liability insurance, and it's a limited company so it's the 'companys' fault. Yes, he should be disciplined / or sacked, but again it depends on the circumstances - if he was following his job duties and it was the banks operational structure that caused the problem - it all becomes internalised. I suspect (although the need for public justice is sometimes the most important thing), that the police would prefer to have a judgement levied against the police service, and then internally could privately deal with those responsible. Especially considering it's excetional circumstances they work in and Joe Bloggs may not understand the intracacies of operations and the judgements that have to be made.
But again, as far as I'm aware there's not much info been released other than an unmarked PC shot Mr Menezes several times in the head with an automatic weapon. Until we know why (and I suspect, we never will, because I think there's a balance of public scrutiny and internal review, and none of us are police officers so can't understand it properly), then it's hard to make a judgement on who messed up where.
The people who should be in the dock are the organisers, the people who were between the surveillance team and the shooters - its their fault. Though the officer who identified him because he had 'Mongolian eyes' deserves to be sacked as well.
This step by step guide is worth going through;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm
As for the instructions, whomever passed on the duff info/instructions deserves to be held accountable.
Yea I agree the main gist:
- originally surveillance said he 'might' be the suspect
- firearms officer says he's not
- guy in charge asks whats the percentage chance of it being the suspect
- panics and shouts at firearms team to intercept
- De Menezes gets on tube
- guy in charge calls a code red or some sort
- firearms officers enter tube
- surveillance officer points out De Menezes
- firearms officers shoot him dead
All does seem to lack coordination, they pointed him out as a possible suspect (because of his ethnic profile, it seems) and then the guys in charge made decisions that since he was getting on the tube, it must have been him or something.
It was fined £175,000 with £385,000 costs over the 22 July 2005 shooting.
The Old Bailey jury said police chief Cressida Dick, who led the operation, bore "no personal culpability".
Despite calls for his resignation, Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said outside court that he was not resigning.
The officers who shot De Menezes shouldn't have been charged, I actually feel very sorry for them. They thought they were risking their lives in a big way to save others, and then it turns out that he was innocent and everyone hates them for it.
The senior officers should be held personally culpable, and that should have included Commander Dick. It certainly should have included other senior staff, who have been implicated in other police cover-ups and firearms negligence.
the guy who shot him almost shot another plain clothed police officer who was in the unarmed dept of the met who was following him, as well as almost shooting the driver
it's a case of the left hand not knowing what the right in regards to departments was doing whilst at the same time being complete idiots about things, the guy in charge was of watching the general flats was taking a pee at the time so no fault there really, they only decided to follow Jean Charles because he lived in the same blocks and looked 'foreign'
if he was a suspected bomber, why didn't they stop him before he even got onto a bus, but instead allow him to travel all the way to a tube station, and then kill him once he had boarded
The Met police just didn't have the system in place to deal with a fast moving situation. Senior police, such as Blair, should bear responsibility for that system not being in place, but whether that responsibility is so negligent so as to warrant prosecution I think not.
anyways how ian blair hasnt resigned i dont know,he should be sacked.
If you're an armed cop and you're confronted by someone who you believe has the potential to kill you and a lot of other people simply be pressing a button, one shot in the chest or the arm simply won't cut it. Police marksmen are trained to shoot to kill. In cases like this that death clearly has to be hurried along.
Remember at the time, the armed cops were told that this guy was a suicide bomber, hence the apparent overkill.
As for why they let him get on the tube e.t.c. they had to be sure I guess and they would have also needed a confined space in order to incapacitate him.
that's called an alley way there enough of those in south london, and if they had to be sure why not just stop him before he even got on a bus?
That information explains to me why this case was brought.
Qui bono ?
The lawyers and their hangers on.
That £550,000 tab will probably be picked up by the council tax payers in London.
Nice work if you can get it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7073286.stm
I think the argument is basically that fast moving situations where the overall aim is to protect the public is not the same as making sure that your machines have safety switches if someone gets their hand in them.
I'm not sure I'd agree with the argument, tbh. The police should have in place control systems to make sure that they have the potential to keep control (but bearing mind, no system is perfect and decisons which have to be made swiftly with imperfect information may be wrong).
The police in this case failed to have these systems. the control room was overcrowded and noisy (and many of the people didn't need to be in their), communications were unclear and the line of accountability was blurred.
But of course, this is the public sector, where such rules never seem to apply. Whether it be ministers, NHS chief executives, or cops, no one ever takes the blame for anything. The people at the top (who seem to have forgotten they are there to serve the public, not themselves) always pass on the buck to some fall guy. I just wonder who, in this case, will have to fall on their sword to satisfy Ian Blair's thirst to remain in office, despite being totally discredited.
Just to note, the police were investigated on this issue by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr011107_stockwell.htm