PDA

View Full Version : OOOPs:man killed by London cops wearing denim jacket...


memyselfI
08-16-2005, 09:28 PM
not that 'winter coat' police originally claimed he was wearing. Also, it appears that he was acting normal, contrary to what police claimed. He was perhaps seated instead of running from the trigger happy cops. Luckily, it appears there are witness statements that discredit the police claims. So perhaps these killer cops might be charged with a crime yet. :clap:

http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html

Mistakes led to tube shooting
11.05PM, Tue Aug 16 2005


ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.

The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.

The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.

Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.

The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.

He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.

He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police had agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.

A document describes CCTV footage, which shows Mr de Menezes entered Stockwell station at a "normal walking pace" and descended slowly on an escalator.

The document said: "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat.

"Almost simultaneously armed officers were provided with positive identification."

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.

"I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting. I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage."

The report also said a post mortem examination showed Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but three other bullets missed, with the casings left lying in the tube carriage.

Police have declined to comment while the mistaken killing is still being investigated.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html?gusrc=rss

New claims emerge over Menezes death

· Brazilian was held before being shot
· Police failed to identify him
· He made no attempt to run away

Rosie Cowan, Duncan Campbell and Vikram Dodd
Wednesday August 17, 2005
The Guardian


The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night.
It also emerged in the leaked documents that early allegations that he was running away from police at the time of the shooting were untrue and that he appeared unaware that he was being followed.

Relatives and the dead man's legal team expressed shock and outrage at the revelations. Scotland Yard has continued to justify a shoot-to-kill policy.

Jean Charles de Menezes died after being shot on a tube train at Stockwell station in south London on July 22, the morning after the failed bomb attacks in London.

But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.

It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:

· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;

· was unaware he was being followed;

· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;

· never ran from the police;

· and did not jump the ticket barrier.

But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: "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 [firearms squad] officers ... I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting ... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."

The leaked documents and pictures showed the failures in the police operation from the time Mr de Menezes left home.

A surveillance officer admitted in a witness statement that he was unable to positively identify Mr de Menezes as a suspect because the officer had been relieving himself when the Brazilian left the block of flats where he lived.

The police were on a high state of alert because of the July 7 and July 21 bombings, and had been briefed that they may be called upon to carry out new tactics - shooting dead suspected suicide bombers in order to avoid another atrocity.

The IPCC investigation report states that the firearms unit had been told that "unusual tactics" might be required and if they "were deployed to intercept a subject and there was an opportunity to challenge, but if the subject was non-compliant, a critical shot may be taken".

But it now appears, that contrary to earlier claims, Mr de Menezes was oblivious to the stakeout operation. On the morning of July 22, police officers were in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, watching a property they believed contained one or more of the would-be bombers who had tried to detonate four bombs on London transport less than 24 hours before.

One firearms officer is quoted as saying: "The current strategy around the address was as follows: no subject coming out of the address would be allowed to run and that an interception should take place as soon as possible away from the address trying not to compromise it."

But the report shows that there was a failure in the surveillance operation and officers wrongly believed Mr de Menezes could have been one of two suspects.

The leaked papers state: "De Menezes was observed walking to a bus stop and then boarded a bus, travelling to Stockwell tube station.

"During the course of this, his description and demeanour was assessed and it was believed he matched the identity of one of the suspected wanted for terrorist offences ... the information was passed through the operations centre and gold command made the decision and gave appropriate instructions that de Menezes was to be prevented from entering the tube system. At this stage the operation moved to code red tactic, responsibility was handed over to CO19."

CCTV footage shows Mr de Menezes was not wearing a padded jacket, as originally claimed, and that he walked calmly through the barriers at Stockwell station, collecting a free newspaper before going down the escalator. Only then did he run to catch the train.

A man sitting opposite him is quoted as saying: "Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me. He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man's head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man's head when the first shot was fired."

A senior police source last night told the Guardian that the leaked documents and statements gave an accurate picture of what was known so far about the shooting. But the IPCC refused to confirm the documents were genuine adding: "Our priority is to disclose any findings direct to the family, who will clearly be distressed that they have received information on television concerning his death."

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, said: "It is critically important for the integrity of the independent police investigating process that no pressure is put upon the IPCC before their full report is published and that no comment is made until that time."

Harriet Wistrich, lawyer for the family, said: "There is incompetence on the part of those watching the suspect and a serious breakdown of communication."

Asad Rehman, spokesman for the family's campaign, called for a public inquiry. "This was not an accident," he said. "It was serious neglect. Clearly, there was a failure both in police intelligence and on an operational level."

ChiTown
08-16-2005, 09:45 PM
Fuc king Bush. He's the debil.............

stevieray
08-16-2005, 09:47 PM
Fuc king Bush. He's the debil.............

go back to lurking, you chicken.

Henry
08-16-2005, 09:48 PM
Fuc king Bush. He's the debil.............


Bush now sets policy for Scotland Yard? :hmmm:

ChiTown
08-16-2005, 09:52 PM
go back to lurking, you chicken.

ROFL

I love this place!

ChiTown
08-16-2005, 09:53 PM
Bush now sets policy for Scotland Yard? :hmmm:

pff, like that's not common knowledge.....

Henry
08-16-2005, 09:56 PM
pff, like that's not common knowledge.....


Maybe he can fix it so the London police don't have to run around with a tit on their head.

petegz28
08-16-2005, 10:07 PM
Oops! Maybe the guy should of stopped when the Cops told him too??? WOW! What a fuggin' concept!!!!

jiveturkey
08-16-2005, 10:11 PM
Oops! Maybe the guy should of stopped when the Cops told him too??? WOW! What a fuggin' concept!!!!So the new law will state that if you don't stop running you'll die?

Deaf people are ****ed.

ChiTown
08-16-2005, 10:13 PM
Oops! Maybe the guy should of stopped when the Cops told him too??? WOW! What a fuggin' concept!!!!

Right, like he's supposed to understand the language of the country he's living in? You bunch of f'ing conservative, devil worshipping Bush-ites......

Bwana
08-16-2005, 10:17 PM
Opps! Shit happens.

petegz28
08-16-2005, 10:21 PM
So the new law will state that if you don't stop running you'll die?

Deaf people are ****ed.


A Deaf person wouldn't of run now would they fool? How in the hell would they of heard them say "stop, POLICE"???

That is when the guy started running. Unfortunate accident. But like I said, when the Cops say stoip and you don't you aren't doing yourself any favors.

Henry
08-16-2005, 10:21 PM
Oops! Maybe the guy should of stopped when the Cops told him too??? WOW! What a fuggin' concept!!!!

Oops! Maybe you should read the article. WOW! What a fuggin' concept!!!

petegz28
08-16-2005, 10:22 PM
Right, like he's supposed to understand the language of the country he's living in? You bunch of f'ing conservative, devil worshipping Bush-ites......


I know what a concept! Actually understanding the language of the country you live in!

Next thing ya know you will have to actually follow the laws of the country you live in. Even if you don't understand the language they were written in! :banghead:

Henry
08-16-2005, 10:23 PM
A Deaf person wouldn't of run now would they fool? How in the hell would they of heard them say "stop, POLICE"???


Um,

CCTV footage shows Mr de Menezes was not wearing a padded jacket, as originally claimed, and that he walked calmly through the barriers at Stockwell station, collecting a free newspaper before going down the escalator. Only then did he run to catch the train.

A man sitting opposite him is quoted as saying: "Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me. He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man's head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man's head when the first shot was fired."

petegz28
08-16-2005, 10:26 PM
Oops! Maybe you should read the article. WOW! What a fuggin' concept!!!


I did ASS! And the guy did not stop when the cops told him too I don't care what the Guardian says. I wanna know how a dead man told him that he was only running to catch the train?

Amazing.

Henry
08-16-2005, 10:45 PM
I did ASS! And the guy did not stop when the cops told him too I don't care what the Guardian says.


I see. If a source disagrees with your preconceived notions and simplistic viewpoint, it should be discarded.

Okay.

Boyceofsummer
08-17-2005, 01:37 AM
· was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;

· was unaware he was being followed;

· was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;

· never ran from the police;

· and did not jump the ticket barrier.

One small isolated incident. Makes me wonder about all the facts involving the 911 attack.

memyselfI
08-17-2005, 08:01 AM
This should be an interesting exercise.

All the folks defending the police actions before the facts were known will now have to keep doing it in the face of their lies and mistakes, admit they were wrong about supporting the cops actions without the facts, or do like some have with DUHbya and the Iraq war...just fade into oblivion and become a lurker on the subject.

ChiTown
08-17-2005, 08:34 AM
·

One small isolated incident. Makes me wonder about all the facts involving the 911 attack.

What a putz....

petegz28
08-17-2005, 08:54 AM
I see. If a source disagrees with your preconceived notions and simplistic viewpoint, it should be discarded.

Okay.


Nope. I jsut trust the Guardian as much as I do the CBS Memos.

Bwana
08-17-2005, 08:57 AM
What a putz....

Um yeah.

Boyceofsummer
08-17-2005, 09:22 AM
Able Danger man identifies himself
Allegations regarding 9/11 intelligence expanded
From CNN Senior Producer Kevin Bohn

Wednesday, August 17, 2005; Posted: 7:18 a.m. EDT (11:18 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Publicly identifying himself for the first time, a former member of a classified Pentagon intelligence unit elaborated on what he claims were attempts he made to share information about potential al Qaeda operatives in the United States before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer claims he alerted the FBI in September 2000 about the information uncovered by the secret military unit "Able Danger," but he says three meetings he set up with bureau officials were allegedly blocked by military lawyers, according to Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., who has set up interviews for Shaffer.

Last week, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chairman and vice-chairman of the now-defunct 9/11 Commission, said in a statement that Able Danger "did not turn out to be historically significant, set against the larger context of U.S. policy and intelligence efforts that involved (Osama) bin Laden and al Qaeda."

Shaffer has refused to reveal his identity up until now. Weldon has discussed in the past week the allegations of the blocked meetings.

Shaffer and Weldon allege there was information developed in September 2000 by the Able Danger unit identifying Mohamed Atta as a potential al Qaeda operative in the United States.

They have said the information was developed from "open source" public material, but have not provided any details.

Weldon told CNN on Tuesday Shaffer set up the meetings with FBI officials at the time, but they were all canceled because lawyers for the Special Forces unit -- of which Able Danger was a member -- were allegedly concerned military authorities could not legally share information with domestic law enforcement about potential terror suspects in the United States.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Shaffer told The New York Times in Wednesday's editions.

Since the allegations gained renewed media interest last week, military officials have said they were looking into Shaffer's allegations and refused to comment further.

Shaffer also met with the 9/11 Commission when it was investigating the government failures that preceded the terror attacks.

After criticism from Weldon and others saying the panel erred in not including these allegations in its final report, Kean and Hamilton issued the statement last week.

Shaffer has identified himself now because "he wants to set the record straight," Weldon told CNN.

In their joint written statement, Kean and Hamilton said the 9/11 Commission first became aware of Able Danger on Oct. 21, 2003, when then-executive director Philip Zelikow and two staffers met at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan with three individuals doing intelligence work for the Defense Department.

One of the intelligence officers urged the commission to look into Able Danger and complained that Congress had "ended a human intelligence network he considered valuable."

Kean and Hamilton said the official memorandum from that meeting does not mention that Atta's name or any of the other hijackers' names were brought up during the conversation.

According to The New York Times, Shaffer claims he participated in the October 2003 meeting.

Separately, Kean and Hamilton said a senior 9/11 Commission staffer met with a "U.S. Navy officer employed at DOD who was seeking to be interviewed by commission staff in connection with a data mining project on which he had worked."

But they said the officer's "account was not sufficiently reliable" to include in the final report.

That meeting, they said, took place on July 12, 2004, when the commission's final report was already well into the final stages -- the final report was released on July 22.

The meeting included the senior commission staff member, another staffer, the Navy officer and another Defense Department representative.

According to the official record of the meeting, the officer "recalled seeing the name and photo of Mohammed Atta on an 'analyst notebook chart' assembled by another officer," Kean and Hamilton said.

"The officer being interviewed said he saw this material only briefly, that the relevant material dated from February through April 2000, and that it showed Mohammed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn," the joint statement said.

"The officer complained that this information and information about other alleged members of a Brooklyn cell had been soon afterward deleted from the document because DOD lawyers were concerned about the propriety of DOD intelligence efforts that might be focused inside the United States."

But the officer "could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification. Nor could the interviewee recall, when questioned, any details about how he thought a link to Atta could have been made by this DOD program in 2000 or any time before 9/11," the statement said.

Kean and Hamilton said Pentagon "documents had mentioned nothing about Atta, nor had anyone come forward between September 2001 and July 2004 with any similar information."

"Weighing this with the information about Atta's actual activities, the negligible information available about Atta to other U.S. government agencies and the German government before 9/11, and the interviewer's assessment of the interviewee's knowledge and credibility, the Commission staff concluded that the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation."

The commission did seek information about the covert operation, eventually resulting in the meeting with the Navy officer in July 2004, they said.

Although the final report did not mention Able Danger by name, the information the commission received about it "contributed to the commission's depiction of intelligence efforts against al Qaeda before 9/11."

Radar Chief
08-17-2005, 09:58 AM
This should be an interesting exercise.

All the folks defending the police actions before the facts were known will now have to keep doing it in the face of their lies and mistakes, admit they were wrong about supporting the cops actions without the facts, or do like some have with DUHbya and the Iraq war...just fade into oblivion and become a lurker on the subject.


:LOL: ROFL You’ve got room to talk. :loser:

Mr. Kotter
08-17-2005, 10:05 AM
Guardian?

And you whine about FOX? :spock:

ROFL

ChiTown
08-17-2005, 10:17 AM
Um yeah.

ROFL

That's awesome! rep

memyselfI
08-17-2005, 10:29 AM
Guardian?

And you whine about FOX? :spock:

ROFL

Oh, so the Guardian, who apparently knew that there was footage that dissproved the police, is not a valid source. Don't look now, they've been correct in their reporting.

Who's ROFL now?

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/london_bombings

Footage Contradicts London Police Reports
AP - 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
LONDON - A Brazilian shot to death a day after botched bombings in London had walked casually onto a train before being gunned down by undercover officers, according to leaked footage that appeared to contradict earlier police reports that said the man disobeyed police orders. Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was shot eight times last month in front of terrified commuters on a subway train, after undercover police tailed him from a house under surveillance.

memyselfI
08-17-2005, 10:33 AM
Guardian?

And you whine about FOX? :spock:

ROFL

Here ya go...

same story on a network that 'Dems' like yourself can trust.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165960,00.html

Uatu
08-17-2005, 10:42 AM
One small isolated incident. Makes me wonder about all the facts involving the 911 attack.

I totally agree. I think we should have a serious inquiry into everything the British cops did around the 911 attacks.

I hope you don't misconstrue my intent here, which I call you a complete moron. No malice intended. Just pointing out the obvious.

homey
08-17-2005, 11:02 AM
I initially gave the cops the benefit of the doubt on this one. But if he wasn't running and he didn't jump the ticket barrier and they didn't identify themselves, then I don't see how anyone could support the cops in this situation.

mlyonsd
08-17-2005, 11:05 AM
I initially gave the cops the benefit of the doubt on this one. But if he wasn't running and he didn't jump the ticket barrier and they didn't identify themselves, then I don't see how anyone could support the cops in this situation.

Yup, that's where I sit too.

Mr. Kotter
08-17-2005, 11:09 AM
Here ya go...

same story on a network that 'Dems' like yourself can trust.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165960,00.html

FTR, I'm not a FOX fan either....but the Guardian is to the left, worse than FOX is to the right. Yet you criticize one, while citing the other....

Boyceofsummer
08-17-2005, 11:43 AM
"It is neither sane nor responsible to have issues of such enormous public importance ... to be allowed to drift toward ... an unspecified and perhaps inappropriate hearing."

Pressure on London police grows over dead Brazilian By Michael Holden
Wed Aug 17, 8:45 AM ET



LONDON (Reuters) - London's police chief faced acute embarrassment on Wednesday after a leaked report revealed how a series of blunders led to a Brazilian man being shot dead by officers who wrongly thought he was a suicide bomber.

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot eight times by police on an underground train on July 22, the day after four would-be bombers failed in attacks on London's transport system.

A campaign group supporting de Menezes' family said the killing now resembled an illegal execution and called for the police's shoot-to-kill policy to be suspended.

"The police's version has not only been shown to be incorrect but the public were deliberately misled. It's evident we have been told lies and half-truths about how Jean died," Asad Rehman, a spokesman for the group, told Reuters.

Alex Alvez Pereira, de Menezes' cousin, said the officers involved should face murder charges.

"We won't rest until we have justice even if it takes years," he told the London Evening Standard newspaper.

Initial police reports said the Brazilian electrician was dressed suspiciously in a heavy coat, had fled armed officers, vaulted over ticket barriers and run onto a train.

But leaked documents obtained by ITV News said CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts showed he was not wearing a padded jacket which could have concealed a bomb, and walked calmly through the station, even stopping to collect a free newspaper.

According to witnesses and statements made by police officers involved, de Menezes then boarded a train and was restrained by a surveillance officer before he was shot.

The leaked report said the intelligence operation may have been botched because an officer carrying out surveillance had gone to the toilet when de Menezes left his home apartment block, which police suspected housed one of the suspect bombers.

London's Metropolitan police commissioner Ian Blair at first said the shooting was linked to the failed attacks on July 21, which came exactly two weeks after four suicide bombers killed 52 people on three underground trains and a bus.

He said de Menezes had been challenged but had refused to obey police instructions. He later apologized for the death.

"There must be serious questions raised about Ian Blair's position," campaigner Rehman said.

"CATASTROPHIC" REVELATIONS

Former London police commander John O'Connor said the reports were "catastrophic" and would put Blair under pressure.

"Whoever has leaked this report has caused him a great deal of embarrassment," he told BBC Television.

Police and the Home Office (interior ministry) have declined to comment on the ITV report until the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) completes a full investigation.

"The IPCC made it clear that we would not speculate or release partial information about the investigation, and that others should not do so. That remains the case," the IPCC said.

But campaigners said there should now be a full public inquiry to clear up whether CCTV footage had captured the dead man's final moments on film, or why cameras were not working as media reports have suggested.

"The de Menezes family ask for only one outcome and that that be swift; that is that the entire truth surrounding Jean Charles' death be made public now as a matter of urgency," the family's lawyers said in a statement.

"It is neither sane nor responsible to have issues of such enormous public importance ... to be allowed to drift toward ... an unspecified and perhaps inappropriate hearing."

Boyceofsummer
08-17-2005, 11:51 AM
I totally agree. I think we should have a serious inquiry into everything the British cops did around the 911 attacks.

I hope you don't misconstrue my intent here, which I call you a complete moron. No malice intended. Just pointing out the obvious.

so many on this board. So you don't agree. Either you are taking posts and reply's on this board personally or have guilt issues. Just my opinion. Have a nice day.

Radar Chief
08-17-2005, 11:52 AM
I initially gave the cops the benefit of the doubt on this one. But if he wasn't running and he didn't jump the ticket barrier and they didn't identify themselves, then I don't see how anyone could support the cops in this situation.

A perfectly reasonable response.

Ok, who are you and what've you done with homey?

BIG_DADDY
08-17-2005, 12:14 PM
A perfectly reasonable response.

Ok, who are you and what've you done with homey?

ROFL

Brock
08-17-2005, 12:56 PM
Denim is so 80s. Was it stone-washed?

|Zach|
08-17-2005, 01:00 PM
Seems this should be looked into further. There is very defined protocal for happenings like these. If those were not followed then they should be punished to the fullest.

Brock
08-17-2005, 01:03 PM
Seems this should be looked into further. There is very defined protocal for happenings like these. If those were not followed then they should be punished to the fullest.

Heh.

|Zach|
08-17-2005, 01:04 PM
Heh.What can I say, I got a laugh out of the "Yeah, whatever" response yesterday.

ChiTown
08-17-2005, 01:05 PM
Denim is so 80s. Was it stone-washed?

I dunno, but there was a rumor of a mullet.......

Pitt Gorilla
08-17-2005, 09:55 PM
I initially gave the cops the benefit of the doubt on this one. But if he wasn't running and he didn't jump the ticket barrier and they didn't identify themselves, then I don't see how anyone could support the cops in this situation.Exactly. Given the facts, I'm curious how someone could support the cop in this situation. Is there some sort of political stance on killing people for no reason?

Henry
08-17-2005, 10:04 PM
Exactly. Given the facts, I'm curious how someone could support the cop in this situation. Is there some sort of political stance on killing people for no reason?

Well, nobody wants to look like some kind of "Try telling the guy to stop before blasting him" liberal, you know.