Disappointed

[AFF]

I think that its safe to say that he's dead, Bad Egg.

 

Its also a matter of fact that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has offered his condolences to the man's family and confirmed unequivocally that the man had no connection with any terrorist organisation.

 

Any right minded person should be able to acknowledge the horror of the events with extreme regret. That does not compromise the person's view that the so-called 'shoot-to-kill policy is the right one, if indeed, he or she holds that view.

 

I, too, will wait for the investigation and its results published.

[Steph]

Quote:

Bad Egg said:

Quote:

Steph said:
"3. It has not been denied he ran, why did he run?"

Where did you get your information from. I have not seen a source for this information. There you go spreading rumour and gossip again.

It hasn't been stated that he didn't run either. Nor has it been proven that he was murdered. Someone mentioned 7 shots were fired...I'll wait until the investigation is finished thanks.

The tabloids reported that he ran. In fact so did the BBC and Sky News. I remember clearly an 'eye-witness' stating that was the chain of events.

I think the guardian reporting of the inquest can be relied upon as factual,

"Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian man killed by police after being mistaken for a suicide bomber, was shot eight times at Stockwell Tube station on Friday, not five times as had previously been reported.

The details of the number of rounds emptied into the 27-year-old Brazilian electrician after his pursuit through Stockwell station by an armed plainclothes squad emerged at the opening of an inquest into his death yesterday."

I dont expect an apology from you. That would be totally out of character.

[Gazza]

Quote:

AFF said:
"I think we all know why". WHAT? Speak for yourself

He may have run to catch a train, Gazza.

There is no evidence that the police issued the correct challenge.

There is video footage of the man putting his ticket through the machine thing to gain access to the station, and walking towards the stairs. He stopped to pick up one of thoose free newspapers. So he didn't vault the machines as was originally reported.

He was wearing a denim jacket. Not a padded jacket as originally reported.

And you "still find it hard to have any sympathy".

For the love of Jesus!

"He may have run to catch a train"

I wish I lived in your world, things would be so much simpler.

As for loving Jesus, please dont go there!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Gazza]

Quote:

.....I think the guardian reporting of the inquest can be relied upon as factual...

Now I know your on a wind up!

[Tom S]

Quote:

Bad Egg said:
The tabloids reported that he ran. In fact so did the BBC and Sky News. I remember clearly an 'eye-witness' stating that was the chain of events.

Yes but the initial "eye-witness" reports have been largely discredited, at least if the PCC leaks are accurate. But we've gone through all this more than once...

[Tom S]

Quote:

Gazza said:

Quote:

.....I think the guardian reporting of the inquest can be relied upon as factual...

Now I know your on a wind up!

When it coes to factual reporting I know which I'd trust out of the Sun or the Guardian. At least the Guardian leaves its prejudices in the opinion columns.

[AFF]

An interesting response Gazza.

 

Often, I wish that I live in yours where everything is black and white. The good guys wear white hats, the bad guys black. The forces of Law and Order, whether on the streets of Stockwell, Basra or Guantanimo Bay play it absolutely by the book, and our leaders have all bases covered in the best interests of each and every one of us. The bad guys either wear T shirts with arrows printed on them, a black mask over their eyes or tea-towels around their heads. The newspapers print only facts, not opinions.

 

That's fairly simple. Not much can go wrong there!

 

If only.

[MK James]

Quote:

Steph said:

I think the guardian reporting of the inquest can be relied upon as factual,
1. I disagree. Just because The Guardian is a broadsheet doesn't mean its reporting is more factual than the news channels or even the tabloids. They have an agenda,and their reporting reflects that. If anything the news channels have a duty to be impartial and to refrain from any left or right wing bias.

2. If you read your quote carefully which you claim is factual, you will see the word pursuit. How can it be a pursuit if he calmly walked towards the train? Did the armed police follow at a leisurely pace also? Is it technically a pursuit if only one of the parties involved is chasing? Or, perhaps just maybe The Guardian isn't as accurate as you first thought. I await your reply eagerly, as I'm interested on your take on this.

[JKiF]

Quote:

Gazza said:

Quote:

.....I think the guardian reporting of the inquest can be relied upon as factual...

Now I know your on a wind up!

well said Gazza

sorry Steph you've just made a schoolboy error
as you were

[BladeRunner]

Quote:

AFF said:
An interesting response Gazza.

Often, I wish that I live in yours where everything is black and white. The good guys wear white hats, the bad guys black. The forces of Law and Order, whether on the streets of Stockwell, Basra or Guantanimo Bay play it absolutely by the book, and our leaders have all bases covered in the best interests of each and every one of us. The bad guys either wear T shirts with arrows printed on them, a black mask over their eyes or tea-towels around their heads. The newspapers print only facts, not opinions.

That's fairly simple. Not much can go wrong there!

If only.

Sorry AFF I'm in full agreement with gazza on this one , Dont forget the police have a near impossible job to do,what if he had been a terrorist and managed to board the train and killed 20/30 people .What would people like you and steph have said then ? No dont tell me Its the police's fault. It was unfortunate that this happened but it did The police have a duty to protect but at the end of the day they are only human beings like the rest of us and mistakes can be made. All the facts will be known at the Inquest.

[lovely stuff]

Quote:

At least the Guardian leaves its prejudices in the opinion columns.

 

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

 

Their opinion column must be the longest in the world. It seems to run through the entire 40 pages. (By the way Tom.Is the smaller sized Guardian to your liking? I've heard a rumour that it may start becoming popular, once it's pocket sized. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

 

Regarding the conclusion by some on here, that the leak must be accepted a 'fact', until it is proved wrong,THAT IS CORRECT.Just as it was CORRECT to accept the reported early sequence of events to be 'fact', until THAT was proved to be wrong.

 

Ie.. It is not wrong to base opinions on the perceived and commonly accepted facts,at any given time.As such no apology is needed.Just as it will not be needed by the likes of Tom and Steph..etc, if it comes to light that their 'take' regarding the course of events at Stockwell, turn out to be off the mark.Their comments are made in good faith, just those made at the time of the shooting were, by the other side.

 

Anyway,lets cut the crap.We all know how the two sides differ on this issue.Its all down to politcal and social ideology.

 

Those that instictively want to side with the police over an illegal immigrant , on one side of the fence.

 

Those that instictively want to side with an illegal immigrant over the police, on the other side of the fence.

 

As long as both sides accept that this is the polital angle that both factions are coming from.We can maybe find some common ground.

[Bad_Egg]

 

Steph said

 

Quote:

I don't expect an apology from you. That would be totally out of character.

 

Nice use of sarcasm in the last sentence there Steph. I'm suprised someone of your eloquence felt the need to stoop so low.

 

I'll refrain from apologising because as far as I'm concerned I have nothing to apologise for. I'd love to be as sensitive and self-righteous as your good self, but I'm limited by the human frailties that society has given me.

[AFF]

Whoa Blade.

 

With respect, you have misunderstood the basis of the debate. As far as I am concerned, the issue with Gazza has been the shooting of the Brazilian guy Menenses. Not, repeat NOT the rights or wrongs of a 'shoot to kill' policy. That is an entirely separate issue as far as I am concerned and as far as my contributions to this thread are concerned.

 

My eye was first caught by a posting from Gazza on the page above [which, if I look at now, I will lose what I have just typed, so I wont] when he said words to the effect 'Yes. I applauded the police action at the time of the shooting and, notwithstanding that an innocenty man was killed, I wont take that back'.

 

I said that there is every reason to express remorse [which words like this can't of course] at the death of an innocent man and doing so does not compromise the principle of continuing support for a 'shoot-to-kill policy.

 

Then. gazza suggested that the guy was running away from the police because he is/might be an illegal immigrant and I read into that statement that, in those circumstances, there is even less reason to feel remorse.

 

And that sent me off.

 

Turning to the detail of your message, Blade, this was a horrible, terrible, tragic accident, a nightmare from Hell for all of those involved. If, and that's if, mistakes were made by misjudgement of individuals, systems or equipment, or just 'pilot error', that will be revealed in due course. I will have a debate with you concerning a 'shoot-to-kill' policy and my views, of which you are not yet aware, may surprise you.

 

For now, I have beeen contributing to a thread concerning the death of an innocent man.

[Bad_Egg]

Well put Lovely Stuff. Good points, well made and without any particular political leaning. Different class.

 

P.S. Your secret is safe with me!

[AFF]

Lovely stuff! I've just read yours!

 

This guy was shot because the police believed that he was a suicide bomber. Not because they thought he was an illegal immigrant.

 

They were horribly and tragically wrong. It is entirely right that the incident is the subject of a thorough Inquiry and once the facts are revealed, there will be time for further debate. I'll be back!

 

Please don't typecast me as pro or anti police, or pro or anti illegal immigrants just because I will stand up and express horror, remorse and all the rest of it at the killing of an innocent man.

[Man From Mars]

Secret ! is he a raving Iron ?

[MK James]

Is that a secret ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only joking LS!

 

And no, it doesn't matter if he is, before someone gets on their high horse.

[MbrunoB]

Quote:

AFF said:
Lovely stuff! I've just read yours!

This guy was shot because the police believed that he was a suicide bomber. Not because they thought he was an illegal immigrant.

They were horribly and tragically wrong. It is entirely right that the incident is the subject of a thorough Inquiry and once the facts are revealed, there will be time for further debate. I'll be back!

Please don't typecast me as pro or anti police, or pro or anti illegal immigrants just because I will stand up and express horror, remorse and all the rest of it at the killing of an innocent man.

And then again he might have been trying to get away because he thought they were after illegal immigrants, its all they way you look at the facts.

[lovely stuff]

Quote:

Man From Mars said:
Secret ! is he a raving Iron ?

No. It's because certain people think they know who i am.Recently i have had at least 4 people claiming they know who i am.They have ALL been wrong.
Only two fellow ETFC supporters know my true identity. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/whistling.gif" alt="" />

[Steph]

Quote:

MKJames said:

Quote:

Steph said:

I think the guardian reporting of the inquest can be relied upon as factual,
1. I disagree. Just because The Guardian is a broadsheet doesn't mean its reporting is more factual than the news channels or even the tabloids. They have an agenda,and their reporting reflects that. If anything the news channels have a duty to be impartial and to refrain from any left or right wing bias.

2. If you read your quote carefully which you claim is factual, you will see the word pursuit. How can it be a pursuit if he calmly walked towards the train? Did the armed police follow at a leisurely pace also? Is it technically a pursuit if only one of the parties involved is chasing? Or, perhaps just maybe The Guardian isn't as accurate as you first thought. I await your reply eagerly, as I'm interested on your take on this.

Your argument is worthy of a reply. The point I was making to Bad Egg was that it is demonstrable that he was killed by 7 bullets to the head and 1 to the shoulder. That is not leaked as that is the report of an inquest and. I think has to be accepted by all posters. (If this point is not accepted they are basically saying that we are in an anarchical state and we had all better get a gun).

The "pursuit" issue did concern me. At the time I probably thought the same as everyone else that the police were in pursuit of a suspect who was "probably" running away. That was the official police lie after all.

As it is now I think that this was lazy jounalism.

The purpose of the inquest, as I understand, is to identify the corpse and to determine the cause of death. The inquest was adjourned as the identity was clear and he died from 7/8 bullet wounds. Now all the jury have to consider is was this, accidental death, death from causes unknown, self inflicted, death by misadventure or unlawful killing.

At the present the only two alternatives, since he didn't kill himself and that 8 bullet wounds seem to rule out an accident and establish that it was not "causes unknown" leaves death by misadventure or unlawful killing.

I suppose, and this is conjecture, that if he was running from the police then there is still the possibillity of "death by misadventure". As Gazza and others seem to suggest that if he was hailed and didn't stop but ran then he deserved what was coming to him. (I dont agree with this view but am prepared to wait for the result of the inquiry/inquest)

Whether the police were in pursuit could not be determined by the inquest at that time as there is a lot of evidence to collate, but that is not a reason to hold the body so, therefore, they had to establish who the guy was and the basic cause of death so that the body could be released and the inquest adjourned pending the result of the inquiry.

Regards