clangerman Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, Scully said: For crying out loud! Why on earth do you keep banging on about the Menedes case? He wasn’t shot by accident! He was shot deliberately, because intelligence identified him as a threat. You make it sound like a negligent discharge! Yes, they got it wrong, but they were acting on information they had received. What were they expected to do? nothing wrong with asking for a explanation when i have to hear non stop excuses as for my expectations that would be the half wit responsible for his misidentification having the back bone to own up like a man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 5 minutes ago, Scully said: For crying out loud! Why on earth do you keep banging on about the Menedes case? /\ This. The Menendes case is not this case. For as long as we are under threat from terrorists - there will be a need to tackle them - and there will be mistakes. It is inevitable. Even more people - probably many more will die if you don't tackle terrorists. The 'blame' if there is any - is 100% with the terrorist. No one else. Its like - if you have roads - there will be accidents. Its part of the world in which we live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 5 minutes ago, clangerman said: nothing wrong with asking for a explanation when i have to hear non stop excuses as for my expectations that would be the half wit responsible for his misidentification having the back bone to own up like a man I’ll ask again, what were they supposed to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, Scully said: I’ll ask again, what were they supposed to do? we had that one long ago question is still why would the innocent pay compensation it can’t be that hard for someone to admit the answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 If you read the report on the stockwell shooting, the person who identified de menendes was not a police officer. He was on secondment from the army, they refer to him as "frank". He said it was the man and the operation went from there. He was urinating at the time and couldn't transmit pictures of the subject. They had to take his word for it. The 2 officers believed it was the subject and they were told to not let him get to the tube under any circumstances. Believing him to be a suicide bomber. They did what they thought was right. The cps considered prosecuting them but said it would fail in court and thusly declined. They prosecuted the commissioner's office under health and safety. Perhaps, clangerman, you should start critiquing the army's ability to identify someone rather than the polices ability to shoot a suspected suicide bomber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, GingerCat said: Perhaps, clangerman, you should start critiquing the army's ability to identify someone rather than the polices ability to shoot a suspected suicide bomber. i have no problem with the police shooting terrorists but still no explanation why the innocent would pay compensation maybe you have one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 In the de Menezes case the officers had a judgement call to make on the info given and an innocent man died. But it could have so easily been the other way around, he could have been a suicide bomber and the officers judgement call could have been different and dozens could have died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, clangerman said: i have no problem with the police shooting terrorists but still no explanation why the innocent would pay compensation maybe you have one Maybe because the state killed a man who was not a terrorist. With the best of intentions that's what happened. It's not hard to work out really. No why don't you answer what they were supposed to do when they were given the Intel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 I do, the commissioners office was found liable under health and safety law. Its easy to find if you can be bothered bothered look. I'll save you some time at least with one of thousands of links, it took me less than 10 seconds to find. ,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 22 hours ago, GingerCat said: Your wasting your time. This is pigeon watch, where shooting bunnies with a .22 or roe with a .243 on a leisurely stroll is directly comparable with shooting terrorists in a fast moving situation with scratch Intel in a capital city in peak hours. So comparable in fact that you can criticise group size and use hindsight to second guess guess decision they had microseconds to make based upon what they knew that they heard on 1 of 3 radio channels. The terminator would be hard placed to compare with some on here, even on a good day. I should have listened to you here 😵 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 Just now, 12gauge82 said: I should have listened to you here 😵 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 10 minutes ago, GingerCat said: I do, the commissioners office was found liable under health and safety law. Its easy to find if you can be bothered bothered look. I'll save you some time at least with one of thousands of links, it took me less than 10 seconds to find. ,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes had seen it thanks like the rest stinks like a rancid ferret but what do you expect these days not like anyone was going to tell the truth anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 31 minutes ago, clangerman said: we had that one long ago question is still why would the innocent pay compensation it can’t be that hard for someone to admit the answer I must have missed your answer. So what should the officers on the ground have done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 (edited) Clangerman, i think you last post says a lot about you. You don't really care for the facts, just your bias views that are baseless. Where's your criticism for the sas soldiwr who misidentified the chap leading to his death? Whys it always the police? I think I know the answer. Edited June 10, 2021 by GingerCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 14 minutes ago, GingerCat said: Clangerman, i think you last post says a lot about you. You don't really care for the facts, just your bias views that are baseless. Where's your criticism for the sas soldiwr who misidentified the chap leading to his death? Whys it always the police? I think I know the answer. shooting tomorrow so talking facts will leave this with one the innocent do not pay compensation and you are right “frank” or whatever half wit identified him is to blame which is what I said all along Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 5 minutes ago, clangerman said: shooting tomorrow so talking facts will leave this with one the innocent do not pay compensation and you are right “frank” or whatever half wit identified him is to blame which is what I said all along So as usual, when the questions get a bit awkward for you, you conveniently have something to do. 🤔 Ill ask one more time however, what should the officers on the ground, have done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 6 minutes ago, Scully said: So as usual, when the questions get a bit awkward for you, you conveniently have something to do. 🤔 Ill ask one more time however, what should the officers on the ground, have done? only thing i’m to busy for is childish baiting a six am start calls for some sleep thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 10, 2021 Report Share Posted June 10, 2021 5 minutes ago, clangerman said: only thing i’m to busy for is childish baiting a six am start calls for some sleep thanks How convenient. You’re very good at criticising but not too hot on solutions, but it’s ok, there’s no rush. I eagerly await your answer on your next visit to PW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted June 11, 2021 Report Share Posted June 11, 2021 (edited) 'Innocent' is a very emotive word. I can 100% guarantee, that if Menezes had done what was required of him in law, then he would not have been shot by the British Police. Edited June 11, 2021 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangolin Posted June 11, 2021 Report Share Posted June 11, 2021 8 hours ago, Scully said: So as usual, when the questions get a bit awkward for you, you conveniently have something to do. 🤔 Ill ask one more time however, what should the officers on the ground, have done? 8 hours ago, clangerman said: only thing i’m to busy for is childish baiting a six am start calls for some sleep thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangolin Posted June 11, 2021 Report Share Posted June 11, 2021 Time to write an 18 words, they could have been 18 words saying what the officers should have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkedUp Posted June 11, 2021 Report Share Posted June 11, 2021 2 hours ago, Newbie to this said: 'Innocent' is a very emotive word. I can 100% guarantee, that if Menezes had done what was required of him in law, then he would not have been shot by the British Police. If he had stopped and spoken to the police like a normal human it would never have happened. Failure of intel not failure of the officer who pulled the trigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted June 11, 2021 Report Share Posted June 11, 2021 You can lead a horse to water.... I asked three pages ago what the police should have done differently in the deMenzes case, and more broadly what their suggestion is with respect to an improved doctrine is for dealing with suicide bombers. Crickets. Tumbleweed. Diddly squat. Just doubling down an re-iterating their entrenched position. The sad reality is that dealing with suicide bombers is the closest you will ever come to (publicly sanctioned) extra-judicial killings to prevent much greater loss of life. Charging officers with murder -although considered by the CPS - was never going to pass any sort of threshold to be successful, despite @ordnance's legal opinion otherwise. As for @clangerman's frankly straw-man argument, that paying compensation is an admission of guilt. Yes, yes it is*, the Met was prosecuted and convicted as an organisation for systemic failiings. They then paid compensation to the victim's family. So we still await suggestions for improvements to this rock/hard place scenario that the police find themselves in. Should be noted that even when the bomber is dead, you still need someone from the RLC Bomb Disposal team to put a Kevlar suit on and disable the devices. All you've done is disable the, uh, main detonator. Their could still be booby traps or timer switches present. *In civil cases out-of-court settlements are often tied to both parties signing an NDA with no admissions of guilt, which is possibly what Clangerman is driving at, but not in this case as it was following a criminal prosecution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 11, 2021 Report Share Posted June 11, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Newbie to this said: 'Innocent' is a very emotive word. I can 100% guarantee, that if Menezes had done what was required of him in law, then he would not have been shot by the British Police. OK not a terrorist, suicide bomber, not a threat. How about innocent bystander. Quote Dictionary not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences. "an innocent bystander " Quote I asked three pages ago what the police should have done differently in the deMenzes case, and more broadly what their suggestion is with respect to an improved doctrine is for dealing with suicide bombers. My first suggestion to stop a suicide bomber would be shoot the bomber, not a innocent bystander. Edited June 11, 2021 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted June 11, 2021 Report Share Posted June 11, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, ordnance said: OK not a terrorist, suicide bomber, not a threat. How about innocent bystander. I stand by my previous statement below - 14 hours ago, Newbie to this said: I can 100% guarantee, that if Menezes had done what was required of him in law, then he would not have been shot by the British Police. Edited June 11, 2021 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.