Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
two mistakes:

firstly the misidentification of the brazilian man.
secondly the mainstream media took the eye witness accounts as fact.

i think most people are familiar with this eyewitness by now. half truths and half interpretations?...i'd call it blatant lies.

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
two mistakes:

firstly the misidentification of the brazilian man.
secondly the mainstream media took the eye witness accounts as fact.

i think most people are familiar with this eyewitness by now. half truths and half interpretations?...i'd call it blatant lies.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Blatent lies?
Or interpretations?
I cant think every single witness lied, do you think so?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Blatent lies?
Or interpretations?
I cant think every single witness lied, do you think so?


almost all eyewitness accounts seem to either conflict, or have almost no factual representation. how do you mistake 5 shots for 10? how do you mistake a denim jacket for a bulky, padded, winter coat? if anything most eye witness accounts seem to be vastly exaggerated, and these were played on by the media and accepted as truth.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
almost all eyewitness accounts seem to either conflict, or have almost no factual representation. how do you mistake 5 shots for 10? how do you mistake a denim jacket for a bulky, padded, winter coat? if anything most eye witness accounts seem to be vastly exaggerated, and these were played on by the media and accepted as truth.

What is truth though?
What you say and hear and smell?
If thats so then what these men and women seen are true and factual.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
well... these so-called witnesses that saw him shot, or say they saw him bundled on by police and pushed to the ground, perhaps they never saw this at all and merely heard what happened. yet, they thought they'd get their 15 minutes of fame if they had made up a story that they were actually real close by...the only problem? they couldn't even tell what jacket he was wearing.

truth is the truth, not necessarily what we say, hear and smell. i don't think any witness who saw the shooting or even was nearby to hear it, let alone taste the blood, can be trusted to give a detailed analysis of the event. obviously, almost all of those witness have never heard a real gun go off in their ear, and almost certainly not seen a real man shot like that...was there even anything left of his head? how in the world do you process that if you're watching it. this is why the eyewitnesses may have genuinly thought they were telling the truth, but in all honestly were blatantly confused.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Well I've seen the pictures of the of the poor sod after he had been shot in the papers.

For one thing I do not think it was the SAS or SBS because they would not be willing to make that mistake. They are soldiers and have had the proper training and certainly would have only shot him if he had been a viable threat to anyone in that station.

That said I feel uncomfortable and nerveous with the whole idea of this shoot to kill policy more so as there is every chance a stray bullet could go through a suspect do it's damage and carry on on it's path into another person then you may well end up killing one suspect and some innocent bystander.

As for the people who supposedly heard the shots and saw him die they obviously never did do otherwise they would not be in a fit state to talk about it. You would be in severe shock if you had seen a man's head get blown off with five bullets!

Either way I think the poilcy is not well thought out and yes these people need to be stopped from doing the sick things like 7/7 but I am worried that more mistakes will be made if they carry on the way that they are.

IS



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Truth is truth?
But what is truth?
How do we define what the "truth" is and what "lies" are?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
the truth is truth and the lies are lies.



A member of the surveillance team is quoted in the report. He said: "I heard shouting which included the word `police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.


this is truth, accounts of the actual team that were there when the incident took place. you told me time after time that the police couldn't go up to de menezes as they thought he was a threat? yet, in this quote from one of the officers there he says 'grabbed the male by wrapping both arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side'. if this is not a subdued suspect then i don't know what is. de menezes showed no signs of suspicious behaviour and continued to cooporate with the police.

i could understand your arguement for the shoot to kill policy and that the police acted right under circumstances, such as vaulting the barrier, running from police shouting stop and they had to use such force. however, all of this is now not true and you're still trying to defend their actions.

de menezes sitting on the train. police tell him to come over to them. he gets up and walks towards them. one officer grabs him and pins his arms to his sides. they then put him back in to his seat, which is when they decided to shoot him.

in my oppinion the officers that made the shots need to be tried as criminals in a court of law, or the person it is that gave the order to shoot to kill. something should be done. if you choose to go in to that line of work then you need to also accept the resonsibilities along with it.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the truth is truth and the lies are lies.

You can say that but that doesnt define anything..


A member of the surveillance team is quoted in the report. He said: "I heard shouting which included the word `police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.

Would be nice if they could spell the units name right...


this is truth, accounts of the actual team that were there when the incident took place. you told me time after time that the police couldn't go up to de menezes as they thought he was a threat? yet, in this quote from one of the officers there he says 'grabbed the male by wrapping both arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side'. if this is not a subdued suspect then i don't know what is. de menezes showed no signs of suspicious behaviour and continued to cooporate with the police.

This is only a partial qoute, its no use with out putting it in context nor with out the last bit.
Having your arms pinned does not mean subdued, you have legs as well and a head.
I never said they couldnt go up to him, I said not sneaking up to him.


i could understand your arguement for the shoot to kill policy and that the police acted right under circumstances, such as vaulting the barrier, running from police shouting stop and they had to use such force. however, all of this is now not true and you're still trying to defend their actions.

I am trying to defend the police's name from being slandered as bloody usual.
The actions what happened that day are sad but the officers felt it was necessary to save lives, mabye not all but most.
As I asked, WHO'S TRUTH?
Mine , yours, the officers?


de menezes sitting on the train. police tell him to come over to them. he gets up and walks towards them. one officer grabs him and pins his arms to his sides. they then put him back in to his seat, which is when they decided to shoot him.

Before you start, we nor anyone else will know for several months what happened, how do I know this?


The Independent Police Complaints Commission has began an inquiry which is expected to take several months

Source, guardian...
Where did you get those qoutes?
Where did those "secret papers" come from?


in my oppinion the officers that made the shots need to be tried as criminals in a court of law, or the person it is that gave the order to shoot to kill. something should be done. if you choose to go in to that line of work then you need to also accept the resonsibilities along with it.

You do relise that these men will never , EVER be allowed to work with firearms again most likely?
They will be investigated and distrusted by thier collegues, the world will hound them for doing what?
Thier job?
You wish to call a man a murderer for trying to defend people then go ahead, I frankly trust the police's word over a tabloid newpapers that frankly spin and twist words and many blatently tell thing that did not happen or did not happen in a certain way.

I would rather see an inocent man dead than have the blood of 40 or 60 or even 100 men women and children on my hands because , some one might make a mistake?



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   


I would rather see an inocent man dead than have the blood of 40 or 60 or even 100 men women and children on my hands because , some one might make a mistake?


God, i never heard such stupidity.

Man, how come can you judge someone before they perpetrate a crime ?
Who are you to make such judgment ?
What person in the world is in the position to perform such action ?
How can a person be punished(by death) for something he/she might do ?

We are not in the movie Minority Report.


For those interested in some new details in the case of the murder of the brazilian guy.
www.guardian.co.uk...

Btw, FUNNY in the picture i dont see he using a heavy trench coat, but only a small denim jacket.

LIIIIIEEEEESSSS....this is what piss me of more...
# governements, and amazing some ppl still believe ion them.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Would be nice if they could spell the units name right...


i'm just quoting from the documents, from channel 4, from itv, from itn, from the guardian... how is the unit name spelt wrong?



Having your arms pinned does not mean subdued, you have legs as well and a head.
I never said they couldnt go up to him, I said not sneaking up to him.


at no point did the officers say there was a struggle. i'll go through the events again if you want me to?

1) de menezes sitting on his seat on the train.
2) police tell him to come to them, he does so.
3) one officer grabs his torso, pinning his arms to his side (no mention of a stuggle).
4) they then proceed to put de menezes back in to his seat.
5) the shooting takes place.

where was this threat you talked and argued about for weeks? he was obeying the orders given to him, he was not struggling.



I am trying to defend the police's name from being slandered as bloody usual.


forgive and forget? maybe they should hand out some medals for the heroic and brave firearms unit.



but the officers felt it was necessary to save lives, mabye not all but most.


whose lives were they saving? de menezes was not a threat to the people around him or the officers. infact 3 bullets missed de menezes, if anyone was the threat it was the officers.



Before you start, we nor anyone else will know for several months what happened, how do I know this?


well we already know most of the story from the leaked documents. the leaked documents have not been dismissed by the people doing the enquiry. channel 4, itv, itn, bbc, the guardian have now all reported these findings. we should have found out in a few months time, yet luckily enough this evidence has been withold long enough and someone decided to leak it.



You do relise that these men will never , EVER be allowed to work with firearms again most likely?


good. they don't deserve to. if you can't do the job, don't sign up. if that's all their punishment is then they are getting off lightly.



the world will hound them for doing what?
Thier job?


their job is to protect people like de menezes and other innocent people, not shoot them. given the circumstances that we are in does not mean it is o.k for police to shoot innocent people.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
If half those people claiming shoot to kill were suddenly confronted with the barrel of a gun, their perception would change.

I am increasingly alarmed by the lack of concern for personal safety and individual rights. Yes I am deaf.

But the protection of the general welfare is no guarantee you won't one day be the one shot for not understanding or adhereing to policy.

Hell, in American I stood before a judge who refused me an attorney although i produced my VA disability card showing I was hearing impaired.

What was my crime? I was left homeless by a court and couldn't pay child support.

Great nation we live in. Where most countries exile people who don't fit the system, here we make them fit or make sure they have nothing.

I didn't wear the uniform for that thinking. I wore it so we would have the opportunity to make decisions in our lives that truly matter to us.

Shoot to kill? Just don't shoot to kill those who think shoot to kill is the proper action, right?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Just wanted to say that Charles Clarke has been on the tele saying he is standing by Blair & co. and that the 'Shoot to Kill Policy' will continue to stay the same. There is so much back and forth with this issue I am starting to get whiplash.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
they have outright shown, in the circumstance of the new type of terrorism, that the shoot to kill policy will not work and is not safe. just because we live in these new circumstances does not mean the police should be aloud to shoot someone before knowing they are a threat. assumptions are not reason enough to shoot someone.

true, we do need to fight back at suicide bombers and other terrorists. yet, how are we fighting back if we're too busy shooting innocent people, and too busy cleaning up the mess afterwards.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Why did they not stop the suspect whilst he was walking to the bus stop?

Why did they not stop and intercept him when he was waiting for a bus for 5 mins?

Why did they not tackle him as soon as he got off the bus?

Why did they not intercept him as soon as they knew he was going into the tube station?

Why did they wait until he was on the train to intercept him?

They had 29 minutes to confront him yet they chose to wait until he was in the most public place on the train? why?

Why say he was wearing a heavy jacket when he wasn't?
Why say he leaped the barriers when he didn't?
Why say he ran from officers when he didn't?

Imagine what Martial Law will be like!

[edit on 20-8-2005 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
garyo1954,

Heres the question, have you ever been on the wrong end of a weapon?

I have , its not pleasent.

Odium,

the shoot to kill policy has never worked, because someone dies.
Its the lesser of 2 evils.
Allow a man to kill or kill him.
They made a mistake, because of this people will tarnish and ruin the police image.
Everyone,
If you(anyone not oduim) want to do so, go ahead.

Just dont talk to me.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Police officers from the team involved in the fatal shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes did not believe he posed 'an immediate threat'.

Senior sources in the Metropolitan Police have told The Observer that members of the surveillance team who followed de Menezes into Stockwell underground station in London felt that he was not about to detonate a bomb, was not armed and was not acting suspiciously. It was only when they were joined by armed officers that his threat was deemed so great that he was shot seven times.

Sources said that the surveillance officers wanted to detain de Menezes, but were told to hand over the operation to the firearms team.

The two teams have fallen out over the circumstances surrounding the incident, raising fresh questions about how the operation was handled


observer.guardian.co.uk...

Devil Wasp, This was not as simple as you seem to think. As above more information is coming out daily. This info shows more and more that he could have been detained, not shot SEVEN times in the face!

My question to you also, why would you wait until he is on the tube to confront him? don't you think letting him walk around for 29 minutes then waiting until he was amongst a high volume is people is stupid? or does that prove the surveillance team knew he posed no threat until the tube when the fire arms team took over and then BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG in the head.

BIG communications error, lies told after the event. Someone must be at fault.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Devil Wasp, This was not as simple as you seem to think. As above more information is coming out daily. This info shows more and more that he could have been detained, not shot SEVEN times in the face!

As I said, they made a mistake.
It doesnt matter if it was 7 or 27 shots fired.
1


My question to you also, why would you wait until he is on the tube to confront him? don't you think letting him walk around for 29 minutes then waiting until he was amongst a high volume is people is stupid? or does that prove the surveillance team knew he posed no threat until the tube when the fire arms team took over and then BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG in the head.

I was not part of the survialence team, they done what they thought was right, made a mistake I cant explain it since I dont have the facts.

Also the fire arms team fired as many times as they tought they needed to, you do know the theory about shooting?
Its to kill.


BIG communications error, lies told after the event. Someone must be at fault.
[edit on 21-8-2005 by 7th_Chakra]

The fact is, no one person is at fault, thats a common misconception.
There was an error, I cant explain it.
We will just have to see what the investigation brings up.

PS, I dont trust our newspapers, why?
They have lied before.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
The fact is, no one person is at fault, thats a common misconception.
There was an error, I cant explain it.
We will just have to see what the investigation brings up.

PS, I dont trust our newspapers, why?
They have lied before.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Sorry, by someone I ment group or individual. I agree the media are aren't the cleanest in town, but the fact he was allowed to walk for 29 mins then suddenly he was gunned in the most public place tells me something isn't right within the operation.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Sorry, by someone I ment group or individual. I agree the media are aren't the cleanest in town, but the fact he was allowed to walk for 29 mins then suddenly he was gunned in the most public place tells me something isn't right within the operation.

Yeah something wasnt right with the operation, someone died.






top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join