• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

London Subway Shooting : Serious doubt cast on police version.

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,778
Reaction score
1,046
Uhh, running from police after being told to stop and wearing a big jacket on a summer day?

Nothing to investigate. Can't take risks like that. You don't stop when you're told to, YOU risk the consequences.
Click to expand...
(posted by EVKL in the london bombing thread over in misc)

Back then I said there was always a reason to investigate - the possibility, for starter, that the police might be lying.

Well, according to some leak from the investigation :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4157892.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1794292005

The last one has a purported picture of the so-called "heavy padded jacket".

If this is true (and it certainly fits the descriptions of Menezes better than the official version), what should be the fate of the involved policemen?

As far as I'm concerned, if this is true, we're not talking about an understandable yet tragic misunderstanding. We're talking about a series of police-side blunders that resulted in the death of an innocent whose only crime was to have "mongoloid" eyes and to live in the wrong neighbor.

And there should be hell to pay.
 
Last edited:
What interests me is what would have happened in America on the 12th of September 2001 if this had happened there...

I bet it would be very different.

My original thoughts on this were similar to Evkl's. If you're going to run from the police with guns in their hands, you're a moron. Especially in a country on high alert.

The police outright lying though?

That seems like a bigger crime than the actual shooting. Especially since it means that they can litterally kill anyone and they could very well be innocent.

I doubt, though, that there will be many shootings at all now after this. Which could be a very bad thing indeed - it could mean that those with the intentions of blowing up half of London could get away with it. Again.
 
Hold up, Dami, you're misquoting me.

I said that in the context of "If he was wearing a big jacket and acting suspiciously, as accused, there shouldn't be the time taken to investigate." Which I still would stand by today. IF he were wearing a large winter overcoat on a summer day, acting suspiciously, jumping barriers and the like, I see no reason why the London cops shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later.

Now that it turns out that he wasn't acting all too suspiciously, and didn't appear to be any danger to the public, that changes things significantly. The London cops screwed it up--but that doesn't detract from the fact that ultimately, had he been doing what they accused him of, the shooting would have been justified.

Given this information, you STILL have to emphasize with the logic of the police, which is that this man was supposed to be one of the guys who got away the day before. Were their actions extreme and in the heat of the moment? Undoubtedly. Given the situation--what if he WAS their man, and they did the whole "STOP! POLICE!" at which point he pulled out: a) a gun or b) a bomb tripwire and sent the whole thing to hell?

It's a very dicey situation they were in, and I can't fully bring myself to be furious with the London police, because the risk they were running was still--to them--extremely high.
 
Evan, they GUESSED he was the one with the closest they came to identification being "He's worth a second look" and "I think he has mongoloid eyes"!

You do NOT kill someone because you GUESS he might looks like a terrorist. Not ever.

(and, ev - how are we supposed to find out about the police lying WITHOUT an investigation in the first place?)
 
I meant an investigation prior to the shooting itself, given the reported circumstances.

You do NOT kill someone because you GUESS he might looks like a terrorist. Not ever.
Click to expand...

Don't you? I would. If a guy fits the profile, comes out of the building that the reputed terrorist lived in, and is headed for a subway, that alone would be worth using a few guys to tail him. Did they take it too far, in light of the facts? Yeah, probably, but the heat of the moment caught up with them.

We still have as yet to learn how much was fact and how much was fiction of the initial reports.[/quote]
 
Christ Evan, the only "profile" he happened to fit was having (according to a SINGLE agent) "mongoloid" eyes, and living in the wrong block. Not to mention, the profile apparently said "SOMALIAN or ETHIOPIAN"

They just plain got overzealous and fucked up trying to be the anti-terrorist James Bond, and there should be hell to pay for it.

If you claim the police's actions in the shooting (putting aside the later lying) were acceptable (and keep in mind : not punishing the involved policement essentialy amounts to tacit approval of their decisions), you're saying it's acceptable to shoot ANYONE who might possibly be mistaken for an asian or arab who happens to live near a terrorist suspect.

And there's just no way in hell that's acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that the police did screw up, which sounds like the case now, who should be held accountable?
- the cop who saw Menezes while pissing?
- the cop who said Menezes had "Mongolian eyes" (...possibly a racist)?
- the SO19 unit who shot him (did they have orders to)?
- senior commanders in charge (who gave orders based on poor identification)?
 
Where is E: "All of the above"?
 
Damian Silverblade said:
Where is E: "All of the above"?
Click to expand...
So we should punish a while slew of officers for this incident? Or possibly even toss out the whole idea of surveillance and interception of suspicious people?
While what happened was obviously a huge injustice, it already happened, and I'm not certain that punishing so many cops would send out the right message. Quite possibly they may become careful to be the point of being useless.
 
Racial profiling is bad.
Acting against possible terrorists before they act is bad.
Shooting someone while they're down because you think they could be a suicide bomber is bad.

Crippling the police so treasonous Muslims can plot in peace is good.
 
Oh please, everyone's overreacting. You can live in a world where you DON'T shoot everyone who MIGHT be a terrorist without having to worry about getting shot in the back.

As is, we're OBVIOUSLY shooting the wrong people, or we wouldn't have to keep looking over our shoulders.

And if I shot everyone I thought was a terrorist, there wouldn't be a single person left in the South. With a few exceptions.
 
You can be *for* excessive force but against, in theory, what happened in this situation. Someone fucked up here, but it most certainly was NOT the people who shot this guy. Whether this guy was named Chemical Abdul or Juan Brazilian de Tourist, the force was necessary.

Using this as an example of why we should tone down trying to find and kill these fuckers is as silly as saying we shouldn't carpet bomb terrorist training camps because some of the lovely folk there might have brought their innocent wives and children. Wait, some people do? Aiee
 
What I don't understand is this: We know where these terrorist training camps are. And we do NOTHING. But then when we randomly find them wandering around...we shoot 'em up. If we THINK it's them.

It's almost like ignoring the dangerous countries WITH nukes while going after the ones we THINK have nukes.

If you can justify to me why NOT invading a terrorist training camp is ok WHILE failing to prevent a terrorist attack DIRECTLY RELATED to a camp we know about...I'll consider this shooting to be warranted.
 
What I don't understand is this: We know where these terrorist training camps are. And we do NOTHING. But then when we randomly find them wandering around...we shoot 'em up. If we THINK it's them.

-- 1) Many of these terrorist training camps are spread over a very large contingent of Muslim countries. Some countries "condemn" terror, some don't. In most cases, carpet bombing these camps would be deemed an act of war. Of course, if we had Europe on our side that would make this a lot easier, but whatever.

It's almost like ignoring the dangerous countries WITH nukes while going after the ones we THINK have nukes.

-- 2) Having nuclear weapons is a HUGE deterrent for invading a country. The best time to get a country is before they get nuclear weapons. Once that seal is broken, then you can't just storm in (as easily).

If you can justify to me why NOT invading a terrorist training camp is ok WHILE failing to prevent a terrorist attack DIRECTLY RELATED to a camp we know about...I'll consider this shooting to be warranted.

-- 3) There are major geopolitical ramifications to invading numerous countries at once. If the UN/EU had any backbone, they would support the USA and make this a war on "radical" Islamists. They should start by not deporting imams and other Muslim hatemongers, but executing them in secret prisons. And yes, we *should* treat them differently than other "spewers of hatred", because the threat from the worldwide islamic caliphate movement presented by Shari'a Cola (Ride the Walrus) is far greater than any Basque or IRA thread.
 
Mozz said:
-- 1) Many of these terrorist training camps are spread over a very large contingent of Muslim countries. Some countries "condemn" terror, some don't. In most cases, carpet bombing these camps would be deemed an act of war. Of course, if we had Europe on our side that would make this a lot easier, but whatever.
Click to expand...

What about the ones in Afghanistan? Or the ones in America?

You ARE right that bombing them would be seen as an act of war, but what about the countries we've already declared war on? Or the ones in our own backyards?

-- 2) Having nuclear weapons is a HUGE deterrent for invading a country. The best time to get a country is before they get nuclear weapons. Once that seal is broken, then you can't just storm in (as easily).
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll put North Korea as Clinton's fault. But what about Iran? Bush named them in his axis of evil, and there was hard evidence that they were developing nukes. Even EUROPE is against it. We would have had real allies going in there.

-- 3) There are major geopolitical ramifications to invading numerous countries at once. If the UN/EU had any backbone, they would support the USA and make this a war on "radical" Islamists. They should start by not deporting imams and other Muslim hatemongers, but executing them in secret prisons. And yes, we *should* treat them differently than other "spewers of hatred", because the threat from the worldwide islamic caliphate movement presented by Shari'a Cola (Ride the Walrus) is far greater than any Basque or IRA thread.
Click to expand...

There are not only geopolitical ramifications, but tactical issues. I'm not saying we should be invading every country that pisses us off, but it seems that we aren't choosing our targets wisely, nor are we dealing with the more immediate threats, namely the ones ALREADY here. I trust you don't really think that there were only 20 Muslim terrorists in the US prior to 9/11. Or that they were the only threat.

The UN...has issues. They DO need reform, but they're right to be careful.

I've no issues with executing Muslim hatemongers, as long as we can throw in the Christian hatemongers with them.

And the problem with ignoring the Basque is that they're a constant danger. They like to strike at random, and do as much damage as possible. If we dealt with the Basque, IRA, and American terrorists first, we could have our backs covered while we go full tilt against the ones waving their hands. If you focus on the lion on your fence, you'll get bitten by the snake in the grass.

And Al Qaeda has been proven to be connected with various terrorirst organizations worldwide. Some Muslim, some not.
 
I wish we killed all members of terrorist camps, organizations, front organizations like CAIR and their families.

I'm still trying to see how the Christian fundamentalists are as bad as the radical Islamists, even though Damian has constantly lectured me ^_^

Just funny that you say go after Basque, the IRA and those evil Christians first.

And regarding Iran, I really don't know why we didn't go after them first. My guess would be Iraq was a much easier target, had a much more visible tyrant and was MUCH more legally available to pwn. Also, we could set up shop in Iraq first, hopefully getting the young Iranians to revolt with some slight assistance.
 
Mozz said:
I'm still trying to see how the Christian fundamentalists are as bad as the radical Islamists, even though Damian has constantly lectured me ^_^
Click to expand...

KKK. Aryan Army. National Alliance. The National Alliance, an AMERICAN BASED ORGANIZATION, CHEERED 9/11. The leader referred to it as a good job because it "killed Jews." The Aryan Army is responsible for training McVeigh. McVeight went on to plot and carry out the OKC bombing. Granted, the Aryan Army IS more anti-government than anything else, but an unwarranted death is an unwarranted death.

Just funny that you say go after Basque, the IRA and those evil Christians first.
Click to expand...

I'm from Oklahoma. We've only been directly attacked by white terrorists. I've got Spanish blood in me...I hate the Basque. I've got an English ancestor who worked for the English royalty...I have to support my blood-feuds. I was born into my hate. Is it justified? Not really. Except for the part about me hating anti-government militias. But I'm advocating the destruction of these groups...I'm merely saying that if we're making a list, they deserve to be higher up than they currently seem to be. I've been an accomplished pacifist for about 2 years now...so I'm a little biased towards that path. Although I've been advocating a little more understanding towards the Muslim groups since 9/11.

I'm not saying we should let the oppressive governments with terrorist camps in them continue, I'm just saying that we should make a list first and go down said list. And I still think we should have either gone into Afghanistan sooner, or much later. Sooner would have meant more success. Later would have meant cool heads.
 
Back on topic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1553528,00.html

Heads really do need to fly over this utter fiasco.

(And going after Iran would have been a Vietnam-scale political suicide on the 10th power, foreign support or not, Grn. They have the resources, the terrain and the population to make attack and occupation such a hell on earth that Iraq would be a pleasant dream by comparison)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom