« Counting.. | Main | Mais Oui! »

Disturbing evidence

ITV news claims to have uncovered some disturbing evidence about the Met Police Shooting of the Brazilian:

Mistakes led to tube shooting

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 he 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.

Like a lot of people I gave Plod the benefit of a the doubt on this mistaken shooting but it feels like we were fed a dubious line about bulky coats, running away etc. I don't like the smell of this one at all.
And I think there will be a lot of trouble making over this. We need to get to the truth as quickly as possible.

Comments

Personally, I would like to see some evidence, or some rationale, to explain the difference between why the judicially sanctioned execution of an innocent bloke is considered less serious than the last resort of an English householder confronted by (armed?) burglars in his own home in the dark.

Did you ever really expect any other outcome?

The whole episode was like something out of a Keystone Cops epic - the stupidity of actually lowering the threat level, just three weeks prior to the attack, and then adding that 'there is no group capable of carrying out an attack on the Underground system, at this time'.

What a pathetic bunch of pension chasing bureaucrats!

As I put in my blog...Oh Well: Terrorists 52 / Good Guys 1

The problem here is now how as a civilised society do we deal with this in the courts. The rule of law must stand and the officer(s)who pulled the trigger and the senior officer who authorised the use of firearms must now be held accountable. The investigation if it is thorough should hand the completed evidence to the CPS and a prosecution should follow. As judicial execution is probably not on the statute books then murder or manslaughter is the only option. How can the upholders of the law be above it?
Before I get a slating I was a Infantryman and served 3 operational tours in Ulster. I was on the spot when the first British soldier to be charged for murder on duty committed his so called crime. If only the Army looked after its own as the plod do!

It seems as if a lot of the information released at the time was "mistaken"; at the time I supported the police, but there are clearly important issues that need to be raised. From the report in the ITV site, there does not seem to be anything that would justify the shooting even if he was the suspected terrorist.

It says a lot for the policies and procedures used by the police that suspecting he was a (named particular) terrorist they allowed him to use public transport without challenging him. As I said at the time, if the operational decision was to follow (a suspected terrorist) which if competently taken must have included the possibility of following him on public transport; then he should have been followed. If it was deemed operationally unsafe to permit suspected terrorists on public transport, then he should have been challenged before he even got on the bus.

Clearly concentrating on politically correct policies can only be done at the expense of operationally expedient ones. The police clearly didn't want to stop him before he was identified, why? The only reason I can think of is that perhaps he looked foreign, there was clearly no policy of following suspected terrorists to see where they went otherwise Mr De Menezes would have been followed; the only time an attempt to challenge him was made was when they were "sure" they had identified him. Perhaps if they'd been less keen on politically correct stopping of people, and keener on overriding issues such as public safety he would have been stopped much sooner, correctly identified and allowed to proceed with his business.

The search for justice in this case, must not stop with the officers on the ground, and those in command, but it must also examine the role (if any) played by politically correct doctrines in not stopping him in the street

plod with a gun.

There must have been dozens, if not hundreds, of witnesses to this whole episode. Why are they so silent? Surely they can't ALL have been "got at"?

Something stinks here.

Post a comment