It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Documents Released About Brazilian Mistakenly Shot On 22/7

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Yeah right, "secret documents" get leaked to ITN news.
Most of those facts came out during a meeting between the Metropolitan police and members of Menezes' family.


. . .was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday

Thursday July 28, 2005

www.guardian.co.uk...


This leak is no more than spin on a suspicious series of events and policies.

One of the surveillance officers relieving themselves whilst on duty is the reason why Menezes got shot. Well how convenient, the phrase: "taking the pi.." comes to mind.


As Jean Charles made his way out, a surveillance officer was apparently relieving himself and couldn't communicate his observations or video him.

www.channel4.com...


Why did they have a "positive identification" if these were the circumstances?

[edit on 16-8-2005 by shanti23]




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
edge.channel4.com...

the video is a good watch, pieces together all of the information. obviously someone decided that this was their suspect and the order was given to shoot to kill.

all of those eye witness statements that said the man was running, that police shouted, it is known that if anything they snuck up on him, grabbed him, and publically executed him.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
A shame, a tragedy, a sad affair...no words can tell the true horror of it. Or of the paranoia that led up to it.


It is the 'good' idea that men should be willing to live, die, and follow without fail those wonderful leaders of the nation, asking no questions, and acting without conscious.

Yes! Act for the general welfare of the people forgeting the general welfare is wholly dependent upon the individual welfare.

If we kill one innocent human being, we can as many as we like and claim it all by mistake, or chalk it up to the protection of the general welfare.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Something still does not add up.

If they had him 'cornered' in the train car, why the need to kill him?? He could have been disabled, shot in the knees.....he wouldn't have gone anywhere!

Even if he had turned out to be one of the terrorist, alive he would have been a source of information.... by the time they were that close, surely they could see his coat wasn't heavy enough to hide a bomb.....they would have been in no greater danger with him alive!

Shooting him in the head seems like an effort to silence him! Someone in an earlier thread was wondering if he knew something......if they killed exactaly who they had intended to kill. The more I hear, the more I wonder about this angle.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
There are accidental shootings on a dialy basis, this is jsut sensationalized because of the bombings in England. I am not stating that it is OK, but it was what the Britsh gov't have stated it was, an accident. A tragic accident.

When things like this occur, one can only think what if? Here you are , a Metro cop, and suddnely, mere weeks after a bombing, it is reported that the suspect is seen. THere was a shoot to kill order, and based on the intelligence they had, a decision was made and he was killed.

I watched the video also, and it all seems very biased. Plus, of course they snuck up on him, they thought he was strapped. Put 2 on the head, and it is over. 7 was a little overboard, but we weren't there. ADrenilin can do alot ot a person...



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I just watched the whole thing on ITV, they did a much better report and even showed an incident photo of him in the carriage.

It was a terrible, terrible, thing. But if you look at it unemotionally, then you can see how and why it happened. The firearms unit had a positive ID from surveillence, so they acted perfectly in keeping with the information they (thought) they had.

Surveillence made a big mistake, but in the circumstances you can understand why when everyone turns to ask one man if 'it's him or not' and there is the potential of so many lives at stake why he would make this mistake. And these people will probably pay for it more than they already have with the feeling of knowing what has happened.

They messed up big time, and understatement. But in these circumstances these things happen. It was the day after the botched attempts and everyone is on edge. Let's not forget that these people are only human beings like the rest of us.

And like the ex-policeman just on the news said, it's disgusting that someone who had access to this information released it prematurely when bound by the National Secrets Act.

All of you that think you could do so much better in a situation like this when so much is at stake, why don't you do us all the honour of tearing yourself away from your computer criticising everyone all the time and go join the police/MI5, etc - Your country needs YOU!

[edit on 16-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
This is crazy. I watched the video and I agree that it pretty much paints a picture where these cops acted on their "intel" and probably were fearing for their own safety.

I mean, if the situation has reached critical mass, and one of the officers is subduing the subject (holding his arms) I could see how one of the greener cops (fearing for his own immediate safety) would decide to fire, and once that happens, thanks to the LAPD school of shooting, everyone else has to get in on the action.

Remember the shoe bomber? Well, even if this poor dude wasn't wearing a trenchcoat, I could see the shooters being scared for their own skins because even a small bit of modern explosive would be fatal at that range.

What is most disturbing is the constant media reminders that "Police will hereafter be shooting people in the head first." which everyone just seems to be accepting as if it's needed. Oh, it's designed to prevent bombings (the origin of which bombings haven't really been explained correctly) and keep you safe. Yeah right. You'll never see me running for the subway again.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by picard_is_actually_a_grey
I was just going to bump the old thread for all the bastards who said he was stupid and deserved it.
With the evidence as quoted, they were correct.

Now with these documents its a whole new ball game, the police lied (no news there, theyre scum).

The whole case depends on if they identified themselves as police, if they did then they might be able to get off, if they didnt and just shot him then its murder, plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
There are accidental shootings on a dialy basis, this is jsut sensationalized because of the bombings in England. I am not stating that it is OK, but it was what the Britsh gov't have stated it was, an accident. A tragic accident.



Sorry, an accident is the cop trips over and shoots someone. An accident is someone thinks they see a gun and shoots the other person to find it was only a comb or a flashlight or a whistle.

An accident is NOT shooting someone 10 times, 7 in the head, while someone else holds him down.







Put 2 on the head, and it is over. 7 was a little overboard, but we weren't there. ADrenilin can do alot ot a person...


Again with the semantics - A 'little' overboard isn't 7 shots to the head - that would be more than a 'little' overboard in anybody's mind. They shot him at close range you see. How much of Storm Trooper shooter do you have to be to miss that closely and fire that many shots? Even the police who must now answer for this must be thinking they went more than a little overboard. And it certainly would not be a 'little' overboard for the poor man's family - regardless of compensation claims, cause that is nice but it does not bring him back does it?

To the other poster who asked who thought it was because he knew something - that was me leaping to conclusions some weeks back. I don't have any data to back that up, but it would make sense wouldn't it? He was an electrician - perhaps he knew something about the bombings. I don't buy this for one minute that three plain clothed policemen executed this man in public based on a 'mistaken' identity when they could have stopped him, held him down and scrutinized him or taken him in for interrogation.

They wanted him dead.




[edit on 16-8-2005 by nikelbee]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I've been tackled by police before, including armed police.
I've knew one guy who was in a house being raided and he dived for cover not knowing it was police and they shot him in the leg. His got the scars to prove it.

These thing happen, it's bound to you can;t ecpect these people to act like frikkin... I dunno Vulcans or something. This is real life not TV.
These people are picked to be the best becasue they make snap decisions and act on instinct instead of spending vital seconds thinking about daisy chains. It's not nice and bad things inevitably happen. I feel sicker than ever knowing what actually happened and I fear that one day it might be me. I've had the police pin me down before and I've had a gun at my head on more than one occasion - (Hazards of being in the sort of stuff I used to be involved in). I still have the same respect for them I always have. and if I was allowed to join up I would.

The firearms unit made their decisions based on the instructions of the surveillence team, who messed up because of bad timing and the guy needed a leak. They are all human beings and they are NOT infallible.

These people's decisions make the difference between life or death for any number of people ranging from 1 to 1000's, why don't you try it if it's so damn easy?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
nikelbee, I'm with you on that one.

Going back to John Bull 1's post.....too many discrepancies in the original story and the truth .....hard to believe that all was an accident.


....and I never said it was easy, but apparently, neither is catching the train these days.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by frayed1]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nikelbee

They wanted him dead.


Well if they thought he was a bomber, of course they did.
If you were running up on someone with the adrenalin of the chase running through you and you already had orders to kill when you got to them, expecially believing he may have the capability to blow himself up you would also probably suffer from overkill too.
And if you didn't your either a weirdo with some sort of inbalance in the brain who likes cooly killing people, or you shouldn't be doing the job becasue your too scared to pull the trigger anyway.

I know if it was my job I'd either freak out and not do it or I'd unload the frikkin gun to make sure I got to see my missus that evening..



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
it doesn't matter about whether the firearm unit acted on intelligence. it doesn't matter that they gave the firearm unit the wrong intelligence and the go ahead to kill.
what matters are the events surrounding the whole scenario, the amount of lies that were told to the public, even by the highest person in authority of the london metopolitan police, who publically announced these lies.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Frosty
Well, if there weren't laws against concealed weapons, something like this might not have happened. I guess they are learning their lesson.


What are you talking about now?


This immigrant would have been able to adequatly defend himself (with a concealed gun), except by law he was not able to and had to die a tragic death.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Watching the replay on the news he did say 'to his knowledge', so we don't know what he was speaking on, and the individuals concerned in the surveillence probably shat themselves at the beginning and not been too forthcoming with the story. So he was accurate and truthful in what he said.

Also the story propogated by the media was speculation based on the over-excited eyewitness acounts of civilians that were the ones that actually stuck up for and made the official story look better than was offically announced at any stage.

As someone already pointed out in this thread it had already been said he was only wearing a denim jacket and not vaulted over the barriers.

The media and Public propogated the initial story - not the Police.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Frosty
Well, if there weren't laws against concealed weapons, something like this might not have happened. I guess they are learning their lesson.


What are you talking about now?


This immigrant would have been able to adequatly defend himself (with a concealed gun), except by law he was not able to and had to die a tragic death.


Oh you mean he could have shot the Police doing their duty?

While I think we should be allowed CS Gas, Tasers, etc I hardly think this is a prime example to be using to further this cause - justifying the killing of police officers in the call of duty.

Anyway a civvy would hardly be a match for trained firearms officers and do you really think he would have survived if he had started shooting them anyway?



[edit on 16-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Is it at all possible this man was a terrorist but since he didn't fit the profile the authorities are hoping to find they waved it off as a 'tragic accident and failure in communication/events'?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Watching the replay on the news he did say 'to his knowledge', so we don't know what he was speaking on, and the individuals concerned in the surveillence probably shat themselves at the beginning and not been too forthcoming with the story. So he was accurate and truthful in what he said.

Also the story propogated by the media was speculation based on the over-excited eyewitness acounts of civilians that were the ones that actually stuck up for and made the official story look better than was offically announced at any stage.

As someone already pointed out in this thread it had already been said he was only wearing a denim jacket and not vaulted over the barriers.

The media and Public propogated the initial story - not the Police.


so why when the police gave their official statement, this is not an officer in the street, this is the head of the london police, they corroborated with the eye witness statements, of the bulky jacket, the vaulting of the ticket barrier and the running from police and failing to stop when shouted at?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Is it at all possible this man was a terrorist but since he didn't fit the profile the authorities are hoping to find they waved it off as a 'tragic accident and failure in communication/events'?


One minute your implying he should be shooting back at the Police and now your sticking up for them?

Well I guess I admire your ability to look at all angles.

No I think it's like they spelt it out in the leaked documents on the news tonight. They mistakingly identified him as a specific target involved in the attempted bombing the day before and killed him. End of story.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Well if they thought he was a bomber, of course they did.
If you were running up on someone with the adrenalin of the chase running through you and you already had orders to kill when you got to them, expecially believing he may have the capability to blow himself up you would also probably suffer from overkill too.
And if you didn't your either a weirdo with some sort of inbalance in the brain who likes cooly killing people, or you shouldn't be doing the job becasue your too scared to pull the trigger anyway.

I know if it was my job I'd either freak out and not do it or I'd unload the frikkin gun to make sure I got to see my missus that evening..


I don't really agree with this. So are those the only options of police? To be a cool killer or an adrenalin crazy madman pumping rounds into people because of lack of self control? I think in the US people have been dismissed in the police force for having either of the urges you just mentioned. Yes, fear is a part of our psyche and something that along with adrenalin keeps us alive. But you can't really be saying that in cases of extreme fear an armed policeman becomes a citizen's worst enemy do you?

Anyway - I agree with the poster who said the cover-up, the bogus media reports and the lies along with the killing of an innocent man are what makes this whole thing stink.

As tragic as his death is, we should be chalking one up for the conspiracy people. People were posting that something didn't smell right all along. Sometimes instinct and logic wins out over propaganda and blatant lies.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join