Should The Police Man That Shot The Man on The Underground Face Charges?

Former Member

Should The Police Man That Shot The Man on The Underground Face Charges?, be promoted, fired, be give paid or unpaid leave?, etc?

Do you think the papers should publish his name, photo, etc?

It would seem the police man or undercover solder or whatever he is shot that chap 8 times, 1 in the shoulder and 7 in the head

so what do you think should happen to him?

and what compensation do you think the family should get?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004600000-2005340264,00.html

Former Member

not answering your question but heres a very interesting point i pinched from freeps.

---

0

---

Okay - lets look at it another way.

A motorist is driving down a High Road - as he nears the tube station, he sees a police officer aiming his gun at a man in a thick jacket.

Knowing that a policeman has killed an innocent man in a very similar scenario, and wanting to avoid the tragic ending of another innocent life, the motorist accelerates into the policeman, and kills him.

The suspect is found not to have a bomb. An innocent life has been saved.

Can we expect the motorist to walk away from the scene without a charge?[/

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

not answering your question but heres a very interesting point i pinched from freeps.

---

0

---

Okay - lets look at it another way.

A motorist is driving down a High Road - as he nears the tube station, he sees a police officer aiming his gun at a man in a thick jacket.

Knowing that a policeman has killed an innocent man in a very similar scenario, and wanting to avoid the tragic ending of another innocent life, the motorist accelerates into the policeman, and kills him.

The suspect is found not to have a bomb. An innocent life has been saved.

Can we expect the motorist to walk away from the scene without a charge?[/

hmm that's very hypothetical

shooting someone in the head 7 times seems a bit extreme, one would have done the job, though he was acting on false intelligence so maybe was caught up in the moment...i think someone should be charged, someone has to be charged

Former Member

Hard to say ... I mean there definitley needs to be an enquiry and I don't the details of what happened but if he's acting under orders then there must be some sort of limit to his responsibility.

Its a difficult one - given the surrounding circumstances and the amount of pressure that must have been laid on the officers involved you can understand how anxious he would have been to prevent a repeat of 7/7

On the other hand wasn't he shot 7 or 8 times? That does seem very over zealous! And surely anyone working on this operation must have been highly trained ... should this mistake be forgivable?

I think the government should definitley be taking responsibility for their policies that led to this guys death! Why is Blair so completley invulnerable to the consequences of his mistakes?

Former Member

I imagine that there's no chance that an investigation will find fault with the officer, as the met chief has made clear as soon as there was evidence that a suicide bombing had taken place new orders were in place to kill any suspect.

Ideally, once the officer is cleared, there should be an investigation into those orders and the intelligence because if it a man is dead based on him wearing a big jacket it's appalling, but I couldn't be sure that will actually happen.

Former Member

turlough wrote:

hmm that's very hypothetical

If I'd told you last Wednesday that a cop would shoot a guy, on a platform, for wearing a thick jacket and running away - I've no doubt that you'd have said the same thing .........

But, what I aimed to do is test the water -

Is acting under orders an excuse?

Not according to John Gardiner Professor of Jursiprudence at Oxford.

(6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.

oh, and the Prof. says that the cop should be treated the same as my motorist:

(7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.

You lazy buggers can click on the link to see what he says about "reasonable force"

Former Member

Jim V wrote:

I imagine that there's no chance that an investigation will find fault with the officer, as the met chief has made clear as soon as there was evidence that a suicide bombing had taken place new orders were in place to kill any suspect.

Ideally, once the officer is cleared, there should be an investigation into those orders and the intelligence because if it a man is dead based on him wearing a big jacket it's appalling, but I couldn't be sure that will actually happen.

Well, if I read Prof Gardner correctly, whoever issued those orders can be tried as an accomplice.

And, if the investigation finds that the killing of Jean de Menezes was lawful, it will just have to be challenged. Cos executing men on tube platforms is a step too far.

What will swing it for the cop though is blackmail from SO19 ......... Who'll threaten not to kill any more Brazilian electricians.

Former Member

Know what you mean, just think it'd be a disgrace if all that happens is some public witch hunt against one cop, rather than the people responsible for the mindset and intelligence that lead to the decision.

Former Member

Jim V wrote:

Know what you mean, just think it'd be a disgrace if all that happens is some public witch hunt against one cop, rather than the people responsible for the mindset and intelligence that lead to the decision.

EIGHT BULLETS ...........

The guy deserves a witch-hunt.

Skive

freethepeeps wrote:

EIGHT BULLETS ...........

The guy deserves a witch-hunt.

The number of bullets means fuck all - the aim was to kill the chap.

Former Member

Skive wrote:

The number of bullets means fuck all - the aim was to kill the chap.

And apparantly for no one to recognise him once they'd finished with him ... 8 is exessive don't you think?

Former Member

Skive wrote:

The number of bullets means fuck all - the aim was to kill the chap.

Yes - the aim was to kill him. That, I think you'll find, makes it murder.

Basically then, murder is when a person causes the death of another person with an intention to kill them or to cause grievous bodily harm. This is the case unless the killing is justified, that is, through the withdrawal of treatment, when the defendant was acting in self-defence or trying to prevent a serious crime. If the homicide was committed through provocation towards the defendant or due to the defendant's diminished responsibility the defendant is not guilty of murder, but of voluntary manslaughter (Lacey and Wells, 1998).

source

Aah, you'll say - he was trying to prevent a serious crime....... but, will come back the reply - there was no serious crime.......

Former Member

if the guy had died from one bullet wound, would it have made any difference

be interesting to see what people would say if armed police saved them from a hostage situation, would they prefer that armed police never existed

what the policeman did was wrong i do believe, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and i know i couldnt carry a gun around with me in protection of the country, even if intended and used sucessfully, these guys go around knowing they might have to kill

Former Member

I share Jim's sentiments somewhat on this. I'd go further, though, to say that the enquiry needed isn't into just this but the entire context-setting event itself and the as yet unpresented concrete evidence that any of the men splashed across the press and media had anything other than being passengers like everyone else to do with the incidents.

Headlines saying "Bomber(s)" above their pictures and all the allegation-filled stories in the world are not a disclosure of any real PROOF, just manufactured consent and propaganda.

Let there be a publically open forensic examination of the bombed carriages with government non-interference into any data demanded of them and their MI5 goons and perhaps we would find the matter goes to the very heart of the British establishment and the retention of elite power and privilege.

That's what they dare not allow.

Pat "official" answers and claims that the matter is "being looked into" will have to suffice. :rolleyes:

Former Member

Feel sorry for the cop, personally. Like I said in another thread, what would any of us done in the same circumstances, not knowing what was happening.

I wrote it up in the last two paragraphs here

Former Member

MrG wrote:

if the guy had died from one bullet wound, would it have made any difference

Yes it does make a difference - one bullet would have suggested a professional officer made an instant decision and shot to kill .... 8 seems like it was wild and very unprofessional.

In terms of him being dead of course it would make no difference but as to the situation and the state of mind of the officer i think its important!

MrG wrote:

be interesting to see what people would say if armed police saved them from a hostage situation, would they prefer that armed police never existed

what the policeman did was wrong i do believe, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and i know i couldnt carry a gun around with me in protection of the country, even if intended and used sucessfully, these guys go around knowing they might have to kill

And I wonder what you'd say if that guy had been your dad or brother or son?

He was am innocent person - 'hindsight is a wonderful thing?' .... it should never have got to this point! A persons life is important enough that the police's foresight better be damned perfect before they start killing! For fucks sake they should not be killing what so ever ... there other ways to take a suspect down and this nations justice system is founded on the notion that people are innocent until proven otherwise!

Former Member

MrG wrote:

if the guy had died from one bullet wound, would it have made any difference

be interesting to see what people would say if armed police saved them from a hostage situation, would they prefer that armed police never existed

what the policeman did was wrong i do believe, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, and i know i couldnt carry a gun around with me in protection of the country, even if intended and used sucessfully, these guys go around knowing they might have to kill

The guy had a duty to know WHY he thought the guy was a bomber -

Intelligence was:

1) He was "asian"
2) He came out of a block of flats
3) He caught a bus
4) He was wearing a thick jacket
5) He ran off when "challenged"

No bloody way would I, as a highly trained arms officer, pull a trigger once on that basis.

But, of course I wouldn't carry a gun anyway........

Former Member

That reminds me of the time the police killed a man carrying a table leg in a plastic bag because they thought it was a shot gun. I never understood that either because even if it was a shotgun it was being carried in a plastic bag not as if te guy was carrying it in his hands with his finger on the trigger. I have no idea why the police even if they chose to shoot him didn't aim for his leg or arm?

Maybe part of the problem is our police are the some of the least experienced in the world with handling guns?

They might be well trained but they don't deal with guns and gun crime on a daily basis as they might in the USA. Maybe the trouble with having specialist officers that carry guns in the UK is they don't feel they've done their job unless they get to fire a few rounds off?

Does anyone here even know what a real police ID would look like if shown one by an uncover policeman? I only know what a US police badge might look like from TV.

I was in London a few months ago and very surprised to see an armed policeman walking the streets with a huge automatic machine gun, it seems we have such extremes either cops with no gun or guns that are huge and designed to kill rather then stop and disable someone.

Former Member

DiamondGeezer wrote:

That reminds me of the time the police killed a man carrying a table leg in a plastic bag because they thought it was a shot gun. I never understood that either because even if it was a shotgun it was being carried in a plastic bag not as if te guy was carrying it in his hands with his finger on the trigger. I have no idea why the police even if they chose to shoot him didn't aim for his leg or arm?

Maybe part of the problem is our police are the some of the least experienced in the world with handling guns?

They might be well trained but they don't deal with guns and gun crime on a daily basis as they might in the USA. Maybe the trouble with having specialist officers that carry guns in the UK is they don't feel they've done their job unless they get to fire a few rounds off?

Does anyone here even know what a real police ID would look like if shown one by an uncover policeman? I only know what a US police badge might look like from TV.

I was in London a few months ago and very surprised to see an armed policeman walking the streets with a huge automatic machine gun, it seems we have such extremes either cops with no gun or guns that are huge and designed to kill rather then stop and disable someone.

guns to disable someone , theyre designed for killing. a bullet entering the body, especially the torso that it would kill 90% of people shot

arming the police isnt the answer

and i was for the cops who shot man with table leg, they followed decent procedure, ie warn them with the guns aimed at the person to drop everything and put hands up

in this case though the police were blatantlt out of order, and policy isnt an issue as nazi soldiers found out...

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

arming the police isnt the answer

and i was for the cops who shot man with table leg, they followed decent procedure, ie warn them with the guns aimed at the person to drop everything and put hands up

...

i remember.
arming the right people might be the answer ...either hillbillies or hippys.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

i remember.
arming the right people might be the answer ...either hillbillies or hippys.

arming the police isnt a good idea though, they arent the judge jury and executioner.......


anyway havent they noticed that the more stupid this countries crime policies are, the more violent peopel will get due to disenfranchisement

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

anyway havent they noticed that the more stupid this countries crime policies are, the more violent peopel will get due to disenfranchisement

...along with a public who largely feel harassed by the police already.
only two things bring on road rage in me ...driving behind people throwing rubbish out along their journey ...and traffic cops.
seriously ...i live in a very rural area ...there seems to be no one left with a clean driving license.
many people do not feel the police protect us from each other.
many believe the police to be a handicap and not a bonus.
recent coppers getting away with aralling traffic offences ...

yet still there are people on these boards saying a doppers lot is not a happy one ...continualy making fucking excuses for what surely has become inexcusable.

Former Member

he ran away after number of "FREEEZE¬ ARMED POLICE" he could of had a bomb, blown him self up and killing more by letting him wait, or shot him

1 dead person or 50?

Skive

I think it's very easy to say what you would and wouldn't do if you were put in the position of that police officer especially with the bonus of hindsight.

I feel extremely sorry for the bloke.

I really hope he isn't reprimanded. If a situation occurs in the near future where there's another potential suicide bomber I would hope that the police would feel confident to use deadly force without having to hesitate.
What really needs to be looked at though is the quality of the intelligence given to the police to enable them to make those decisions properly.

With this incident the blame lies with the shite intelligence and the stupidy of the man who ran - not with the police marksman. He did his job.

Former Member

Skive wrote:

the police marksman. .

don#t make me laugh!

Skive

morrocan roll wrote:

don#t make me laugh!

Why do you find that so 'funny'?

Skive

Jon_UK wrote:

Yes it does make a difference - one bullet would have suggested a professional officer made an instant decision and shot to kill .... 8 seems like it was wild and very unprofessional.

Actually that is the professional way. If you want to make sure somebody is dead you don't jsut shoot them once - even in the head.

Jon_UK wrote:

And I wonder what you'd say if that guy had been your dad or brother or son?

Yes you would have a differnt veiw. It would be influenced by emotions but it wouldn't mean you opinion carried any more weight.

Jon_UK wrote:

For fucks sake they should not be killing what so ever ... there other ways to take a suspect down and this nations justice system is founded on the notion that people are innocent until proven otherwise!

I'm sorry but in our justice system you need a trial to prove guilt and there are always going to be occasions when that's going to be out of the question. If there are people at risk due to terrorists, hostage takers etc then quite often shooting them dead is the best way to deal with the situation.

You can't negotiate with people who have nothing to lose.

Former Member

joshmeister wrote:

he ran away after number of "FREEEZE¬ ARMED POLICE" he could of had a bomb, blown him self up and killing more by letting him wait, or shot him

1 dead person or 50?

what about having to kill 1 innocent person to save 10 randoms, i wouldn't

where does this ratio become nice then?

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote:

what about having to kill 1 innocent person to save 10 randoms, i wouldn't

where does this ratio become nice then?

but thats not the case is it, we are judging one guy and not ourselves

Former Member

Skive wrote:

With this incident the blame lies ........ the stupidy of the man who ran - not with the police marksman. He did his job.

FFS - when did running from coppers become an executable offence.

I seriously hope that the next one innocent person executed by a marksman is known to somone who has seen fit to argue that the cop SHOULD have killed Jean Charles de Menezes, and not to me.

I'd love to see you arguing that the cops had no choice but to murder your brother while he was on his was to buy a can of cola.......

Skive

freethepeeps wrote:

I'd love to see you arguing that the cops had no choice but to murder your brother while he was on his was to buy a can of cola.......

Why do people here keep saying 'what if it was your brother?' - It wasn't, and it wasn't yours either so what point are you actually trying to make?

If it was a relative of mine I'd have different feelings about this yes - but that's because I'd be letting emotions affect my opinion.

I'm not actually arguing that the gavers had no choice but I do think the policeman who fired should be free of blame - he did his job. There should definately be questions asked about his superiors however, and there are lessons to be learnt from this.