No Prosecution For 7 Bullets In The Head?

So, is this in relation to the London rail station bombings and subsequent police shooting of a suspect last year? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

A top police spokesman who declined to be identified and denied he was a relative of the Prime Minister said: "Well, of course we have to gratuitously shoot someone occassionally or how would we instill the neccessary degree of fear? First you shoot and kill someone who is not even a likely terrorist suspect so that everyone knows deep down that they could be next. Then you organise a random raid on a couple of people who look like they could be terrorists and shoot one of them. I mean now, if we kick your door in and knock you about a bit you're not going to resist are you? Because you know we might shoot you just for the hell of it. We can shoot you and then say that someone was shot in a terrorist raid. Then we can hint that you shot yourself, or maybe that your brother shot you etc. Finally by the time that it's established that we shot you, well, public interest will have moved on and no-one will realise that we've never given an explanation as to why we shot you..."

In defense of the police, people were *VERY* twitchy right after the 7/7 incident, especially the police, so it didn't and doesn't surprise me that something like this happened. What pisses me off, however, is that, instead of just coming right out and saying, 'Yes, we [the police] were twitchy, we just had our city bombed by guys who looked like anyone else, we have no real way of protecting the public, so we overreacted and seriously effed up,' they put up a smokescreen. The fact that the smokescreen changed colours so many times ('he was wearing a coat/no he wasn't/he jumped over the turnstiles/no he didn't') simply dug their hole deeper. The fact Mr. Blair (Ian, that is) REMAINS Head of Met Police is the most egregiously wrong thing about the entire affair. The man doesn't seem to be able to tell the truth, when the truth ('yes, we effed up') would have at least soothed part of the disgruntled populace. Getting the police to 'pay' a fine for their errors is just political arse-covering.

Overall I agree with Archergirl on this one, in that these were very difficult circumstances, and tragic though it was, this was the sort of mistake that was almost bound to happen. And smokescreening is not going to help anyone. But what is the right form of justice? Prosecuting individuals is probably pointless, as they will just be used as scapegoats; but any action which actually damages the police force, either by reputation or, e.g., financially, is not the way to go either. Whatever criticisms one might have, we do need an effective police force, and when they say they are under-resourced and lacking the respect of “days gone by,” I am inclined to believe them. It’s a difficult one. Justice needs to be done and needs to be seen to be done. People (including the police… especially the police) need to be held accountable for their actions. But what kind of justice/punishment would be appropriate/cacceptable, whilst maintaining some level of respect for and belief in our officers of law enforcement? Would a genuine and heartfelt public apology be enough? I expect not for the friends and family of the person who was shot… *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

Can't really disagree with what others have said. I know that, to an extent, you have to allow for human nature. Plenty of incidents lately where the police have been on the receiving end of violence, and it does make you sympathetic to the danger they're frequently in. I was waiting for a train a short while ago when there was a game on, and there were police all over the shop. Some bloke sidled up to me and muttered something like, "Fucking pigs everywhere. Racist bastards the lot of them, all on a power trip. I'd like to fucking show them." Now, that's scary. I wouldn't want to be in a policeman's shoes if that's the attitude some people have. Nevertheless, we clearly can't trust them as an organisation, and nor can we trust an individual policeman to do the right thing. It's not a great situation to be in.

Absolutely with missi and RD. This disgusts me. The story, for those who don't know, was that an inteligence services fella was watching the flat of a suspect, he went for a leak and when he got back noticed that JCdM (who was not the suspect) had just left the same block of flats. He radioed that "oops, that might be our guy there, somebody better follow him," which somehow got understood as "that is our guy, follow him he might have a bomb" JCdM camly walked into the tube station, bought a ticket, and walked (not ran) down to the patform. Once the officers following went underground they were completely (and needlessly) out of contact with anyone else. When he got on the train they presumably decided they were in a die hard movie and shot him. Stories about him leaping the barrier was a mistaken report from a member of the public (a plain clothes policeman leapt the barrier), stories about him carrying a rucksack (he wasn't), or dressed in a puffy jacked with wires hanging out (he wasn't) were anonymously leaked to the tabloids in the following days. The Met knew they had killed an innocent man within a few hours of the shooting but kept pretending he was a terrorist for days after. As if this wasn't farce enough, not only was nobody found responsible for any of these catalogue of cock-ups, but the the met are now being prosecuted under, get this, health and safety legislation. It turns out you see, that shooting innocent brazillians in the face is kind of dangerous.

Foul ball George...A comparison to Wyatt Earp is unfair. Wyatt Earp was a far better peace officer than these clowns and much more selective with whom he shot. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

It is a difficult and complex situation, but... >>> an officer faced with an obviously armed and dangerous criminal has the right to disarm him/her ...so how do you define "obviously"...? A police officer faced with what may or not be a potential terrorist is in a similar situation to a soldier in the mess and chaos of war... he/she has to make a split second life/death decision, based on what may be very few facts. I wasn't there and I don't, in any way, condone the killing of innocents, but how do we know how any of us would react in a similar situation? If we are faced with someone who may be about to set off a bomb, killing dozens of people, and we have the means to stop it, what action would we take? If the man had been a terrorist, and the police hadn't stopped him, we'd be criticising them for that. Again, I think they should be accountable for their actions, and the situation needs to be seriously, openly and honestly investigated, but to suggest the police are little more than trigger-happy, power-crazed cowboys is a dangerous place to go... *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

Not thinking rationally is not a defense for murder. It was not accidental. It was not self defense. It was not preventing harm to others. On this theory, anyone is justified in killing anyone based on the theory of "oops" "oops your honor, I didn't know it was a 12 year old I was having sex with" "oops your honor, I didn't realize it was illegal to drive 158 miles per hour in a school zone" "oops your honor, I thought the money in the cash register was free to the general public" "oops your honor, I thought it was okay to poop in the salad bar" "oops your honor, I thought it was okay to shoot him 7 times in the head, after all, people died the other day somewhere else." Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

"If the man had been a terrorist, and the police hadn't stopped him, we'd be criticising them for that." Any one of us *might* be terrorists. "...to suggest the police are little more than trigger-happy, power-crazed cowboys is a dangerous place to go." Some of them are. Simple logic: if you happen to be someone besotted with the idea of having authority and weaponry, what organisation might you want to join?

Some paedophiles become teachers... On the whole, I have the greatest respect for the teaching profession. ...& is it really possibly they shot him on the off chance that he just might (with the likelihood of anyone else) be a terrorist? *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

Well, he was shot primarily for living in the same building (as in, a block of flats) as some terrorist suspects. That's far closer to 'off chance' than 'reasonable suspicion'.

Some comments I read at the time said that at the given point of Jean Charles leaving the building, the one officer on watch had turned around to relieve himself. As he turned around (apparenty) he saw the back of this man walking down the road. Only one officer? Where were the others? Off buying burgers? Skiving? There WAS an almighty cock-up and obvious lies told. He had a huge jacket on, leapt barriers when challenged etc.. It is very murky indeed. I was reminded of the night I spent in a pub opposite Hampstead nick, and to hear the braggarts in there getting drunk (not me) and talking about 'well I gave 'im a right dig and 'e went dahn, so I gave 'im a few kicks etc..' I realised that these guys were villains with a badge. I just wonder what kind of person wants to police his fellow man?

I was deeply in love with a policeman once, and I can vouch that he was upright and ethical and very concerned with doing things 'by the book'. I think this whole business of 'the police are corrupt' does have its merits, but you cannot blame the police, who, by and large, probably *aren't* possessors of PhDs in psychology or humanities or whatever, for overreacting in what was an extremely tense situation. Does police brutality exist? You betcha; but the police are also victims, time and again, of brutality at the hands of criminals, robbers, thugs, and football hooligans. I don't hold the police blameless in this incident; it was a typical scenario of Chinese whispers and poor intelligence (both of the people kind and of the spying kind); but they are also bound by the laws they are sworn to enforce and if the Chief of Met Police gave them permission to use whatever force necessary to bring down a potential terrorist (and okay, there are some gaping holes in this incident), then they will do it without much further thought. Trigger-happy men don't just occupy the police force, do they? What I don't understand about this is the whole scenario about trying to 'stop' him from 'running' and whether he actually 'ran'; and if he 'ran', why did he; wouldn't he have realised that he looked very suspicious and that there were men with AR15s chasing after him?

Sorry, I've forgotten now - why was it they didn't arrest him when he got on the bus to the tube, or when he got off?

Definitely worth a look to see how the story unfolded here on ABCtales! http://www.abctales.com/node/203972

It was an appalling ‘mistake’ that the police made (that no doubt devastated the dead chap’s family) – but why shoot a person in the head SEVEN times? Did they think the guy might start floating about so had to keep shooting him in the head? It’s ridiculous. When you’re shooting someone in the head, your intention is to kill them – you are not giving a person any chance at all to prove themselves innocent. Surely there was something else the police could’ve done, to temporarily stop the bloke moving around, if they wanted to question him? It seems they didn’t want to question him, instead they chose to take his life.

According to witnesses at the enquiry Jean Charles did not run, at all. The plain clothes officers that pursued him onto the tube did not identify themselves as policemen, or issue a warning. He was being held to the ground by ten large men when they shot him (ergo, completely incapacitated and no longer a threat, unless Al Quaida have invented a thought controlled bomb) There was no reason to suspect he was a terrorist apart from the fact he looked a bit foreign. Cock-ups happen, especially when people are nervous and out of contact. The point, surely, is that had a member of the public believed JCdM to be a terrorist and killed him while attempting to prevent whatever nefarious scheme they suspected. They'd be on their route to jail now.

Ah, I see that Jude has posted a quote on the past thread that helps answer my question ... although it makes less sense now we know he was not wearing a padded jacket! "As he waited at a nearby bus stop the reconnaissance team sought urgent instructions on whether to challenge him right away or let him board a bus. They were worried about the dark, bulky, padded jacket he had zipped up on such a muggy morning. The decision was taken to let him go, in the hope that he might lead his shadows to at least one of the bombers. The bus journey was slow, as on any other Friday morning, but Mr Menezes seemed to be in no hurry. He was heading to Willesden Green to fix an alarm system. When it was obvious that he was getting off at the stop nearest Stockwell Tube station, the team on the bus alerted a three-man team of marksmen to move in."

"When it was obvious that he was getting off at the stop nearest Stockwell Tube station, THE TEAM ON THE BUS alerted a three-man team of marksmen to move in."

Why didn't they arrest him? It doesn't take long to press a button (or whatever it is one does these days to set off a bomb). If you're a soldier and someone who you believe to be your enemy is pointing a gun at you, apparently with the intent to shoot it, you don't ask, "would you kindly mind not shooting that gun?" Again, agreeance with AG. Professions I wouldn't want to be in coz too many people think they are all corrupt/perverts/power-mad... 1. Police 2. Solider 3. Doctor 4. Teacher ...& probably others I haven't thought of yet. *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

"too many people think they are all corrupt/perverts/power-mad..." Well, much as I appreciate that the police do a very difficult job, and armed police a doubly difficult job. I rather suspect all the nice well adjusted people who just want to make the world a better place are becoming social workers, not cops. Any policeman who doesn't enjoy (at least a little bit) dealing with violent individuals, and responding to force with greater force, doesn't enjoy his/her job. The last time I didn't enjoy my job, I left it. Careers where you exercise power and authority are going to appeal to the sort of people who enjoy exercising power and authority, careers where violence is a regular part of the job are going to appeal to people who like a bit of violence. There's no way around that, and not necessarily anything wrong with it, but it's no use pretending that police and soldiers and nice kind gentle people. I'm just glad they are there to do it rather than me. But shooting a man dead for the suspision (without evidence) that he might be carrying a bomb is simply unacceptable. And pepsoid, they had him held down and incapacitated BEFORE they shot him, he wasn't going to be pressing any button.

"Careers where you exercise power and authority are going to appeal to the sort of people who enjoy exercising power and authority, careers where violence is a regular part of the job are going to appeal to people who like a bit of violence." I disagree with this strongly. There are people who join organisations like the police because they believe in a lawful and safe society; the job security is good (if you aren't killed on duty, that is), the benefits are *very* good, and police also get excellent pensions. This is well-deserved, IMO, as I wouldn't want to be in their shoes during a riot or in the aftermath of a bombing. "it's no use pretending that police and soldiers are nice kind gentle people." Sorry, maddan, I will disgree with this even more vehemently. This assessment must come from someone who has never had a cop either as a friend or neighbour (or beloved, for that matter). The vast majority of police ARE nice kind gentle people. I used to work for the police in civilian staff; they were lovely people, every one of them. They just have a code of ethics and behaviour in their job that necessitates a more rigid interpretation of right and wrong. Life may be shades of grey, but for an on-duty police officer it is by necessity black or white. That's just the nature of the beast. I suppose in this case we're discussing it was a choice between one man dying, or the *possibility* of several dying, including themselves. That doesn't make it right, especially in light of all the coverups, but if he *had* been carrying a bomb as they feared, and they did nothing, what on earth do you think the reaction would have been then? They were in a lose-lose situation.

I consider myself a nice, kind and gentle person, but put me in front of a violent videogame and I'm a crazyperson! OBVIOUSLY I'm not suggesting it's the same as having a real gun in one's hand, but circumstances changeth a man (or woman... or whatever...). Cops (and, as I have mentioned, soliders) don't have the luxury of contemplating whether or not to shoot someone in the safe, considered arena of an online forum. *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

For the last bloody time. HE COULDN'T SET OFF THE BOMB EVEN IF HE HAD ONE, THERE WERE TEN MEN SITTING ON HIM.

Yes, we have understood that. But surely that's what the police intended; to prevent him from detonating...? Being that terrorists are getting more and more clever with their detonation devices (shoes, mobile phones, backpacks) I'm sure the thought, if any thought flashed through the minds of the police at all, was that the only way to *ensure* he didn't detonate, was to kill him. It's horrific, but understandable, seeing, as Pepsoid said, that they didn't have the luxury of contemplating potential actions and repercussions from the safety of an online forum. So easy to be an armchair quarterback; a couch coach. It's different if you've only recently cleaned up the mess that was left on a bus by a backpack of explosives.

It's been a while but I can't let this one go...the decision not to prosecute the police on this occassion is WRONG for a number of reasons and they have been discussed long and hard. But I have yet to see anyone mention the case of the soldier who was prosecuted and imprisoned for shooting a joy-rider in northern Ireland in the 90s. This soldier shot at a car full of teenagers who wouldn't stop, were driving through a checkpoint and at the soldiers. I believe the car crashed resulting in death. His crime? He pulled the trigger a third time and didn't have the self-control to stop after shooting twice. This man was a trained soldier, on active service in a volatile situation and was himself considered to be a legitimate target. He was protecting himself so who can blame him for pulling that trigger once more - he aimed at the car speeding toward him, not the head of someone who didn't see him coming. For this reason I know the police should have accepted the situation, put their men on trial and let the justice system do its work. Not to do so was cowardly nd another abuse of power and cowardly and makes me ashamed to be British.

I'm definitely with Maddan on this. Why do you think the police lied about backpacks and padded jackets? How much explosive can you fit in a pair of shoes and still get your feet in? Perhaps they thought his head was full of explosives and fired at it to see. If they thought he was dangerous why not arrest him as he got off the bus?

Oh, whatever, Missi, I'll leave you and the others to your moral outrage.The guy was immobilised, yes, I understand that. What I also understand is, in that situation, there was just no telling *what* the guy could have done had his arms or whatever been released; how did they know that the detonator wasn't strapped to his belly or back or kneecap? It was a tense time; the police were wound up tight; they made a decision, and it was the wrong decision, but in the same circumstances I suppose you feel you would have done much better. I don't agree with the coverup and the lies told by the Met Police (I agree with Christine about letting the justice system do its job), but this case will be passed off as a mistake made under the auspices of national security. The outrage for me isn't that they shot the guy; the outrage is that they then lied about it instead of just admitting it was a mistake made under duress.

One thing I'm completely clear about is those concerned in the death of JCdM should have been prosecuted, whether for murder or criminal negligence. What's frightening is all the lies told afterwards in a bid to shirk responsiblity for killing a man in cold blood. They may be under pressure but so what, they had info on the 7/7 bombers and they didn't look into it, they seem to be shooting the innocents. In the case of Corporal Clegg, the Northern Ireland example, they weren't similar but also not the best example, I believe he was cleared at an appeal, he also, as pointed out, shot at the car after it passed. Missi, you were right in your earlier post about no police or prison officers ever being charged in connection with a death in custody, though in recent years they have declined due to very big left in in the coroners reports, (or whoever examines such events reports). The boys in blue are also one of the very few groups allowed to apply their right to silence without it being viewed negatively in a court of law , this is despite the arguement of if you have nothing to hide why use the right that was used to argue the loss of such a right. The belief that the police are angels is insane, whatever the reasons, they aren't all perfect. You only need to look at the Guilford Four case, everyone turned a blind eye, right the way through the ranks. If there was any officer involved in the case didn't smell a rat, that's perhaps more worrying. nobody

Don't get me wrong: I've never suggested that all police are angels, by any stretch of the imagination: there's too much well-documented evidence against that. I *do* object to blanket statements, however, about *any* group; saying 'we know the police are all corrupt' is just the exact equivalent of saying 'All Muslims are fanatical suicide bombers', which we know is patently untrue. That the police acted wrongly and under misinformation in this instance is clear. That they further effed it up by putting up smokescreens is even more wrong, and morally reprehensible. BUT, it's all too easy for we laypeople to make snap judgements about a situation where no-one seems to have all the facts, not us, not the press, not even the police, apparently. If there's anything positive to take out of this sad situation, it's that the police will come under closer and closer scrutiny for their actions; let's hope that they don't get scrutinised to the point where they are then afraid to act in emergency situations, 'just in case' someone out there objects to it.

Mississippi - the argument remains the same - it seems to be ok to prosecute a soldier for firing one too many rounds and send him to prison and fine to let off a policeman who shot an immobilised man, laying on the ground, seven times in the head. Whether the soldier fired the last shot into the back of a speeding car is irrelevant to me and I see no justification for the police decision...

Now I sound like the pain who always wants to have the last word but in this case I think I've not made my point clear enough. The police appear to have been 'allowed' to get away with out and out execution. One head, seven bullets - what more can I say? I raised the point about the soldier because it seems that the bar was much lower for him and he paid the penalty - I guess the decision was taken to appease the Irish at a time when peace was still being pursued. He defended himself, perhaps over-reacted but which of us can say we wouldn't have fired a third shot in his placed? The scenario of one man suddenly thrown to the ground in a crowded tube, with men holding him down while another shoots him in the head seven times seems beyond words... if a trial was good enough for the soldier it is certainly good enough for the police! At the time I thought the soldier didn't deserve the treatment he got and I still don't. But in my view the police should be held accountable and stand trial. This is just another whitewash by Blair's government.

_I_ am the pain who always wants to have the last word, Ms Ashby. Don't worry about it. It's _me_.

I accept that my memory of Lee Clegg's case was unintentionally selective - I put that down to my age! - and maybe, in hindsight, that it wasn't the best comparison for this argument. Thank you everyone for putting me right. Dr Jekyll - here's your opportunity to have the last word...

I don't remember the timing of the case Christine was talking about, but her conjecture that the question of whether or not to prosecute depended on the 'political' circumstances at the time, rings true. After all, Bloody Sunday remained dismissed for years. Possibly the powers that be in this case thought more damage would be done to the overall situation by owning up to the truth. Even that's probably too generous a take on it. More likely a case of knee-jerk, short-term, arse-covering. My 11-year-old does it all the time. Either way, they were wrong. It should have gone to trial.

I've just realised who Mississippi reminds me of! Sawyer from Lost! With absolutely no disparagement (?) meant to the place of your origin, AG, imagine him with a deep South drawl... from somewhere like... oh, I dunno... Mississippi... you see? (obviously this will be lost on non-Lost fans...) *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

OK............. *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

& I take you delightful appellation of "Haemorrhoid" as a compliment, Sweetness!! xxx *** pepsoid *** [[[ " It is a pickle, no doubt about it " - The Oracle (The Matrix) ]]]

"Is there no one within the Met with the moral fibre and sense of personal obligation to recognise that Jean Charle's fate was sealed by systemic failure?" The power to excercise ultimate force carries with it the responsibility to ensure all possible alternatives are exhausted, even in such a fast moving and fluid situation. These obligations were not fulfilled at Stockwell, annd Jean Charles paid the ultimate price for that failure". I find it repugnant, and an affront to common decency, that the establishment can get it so wrong and then close ranks to protect its members from accepting and excercising the obligations of office. It is simply not enough to accept the glittering prizes, whilst ignoring the failures. Where is the man of personal stature and integrity amongst them?" The shooting was followed by various leaks that intended to besmirch his character. The source of this information is questionable, but it most probably came from those in authority. An innocent man was shot dead, and it was thought appropriate to traduce his character." Quote from Richard Barnes a member and former deputy chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Nuff said, Styx.

Another anonymous police spokesman commented today: "I don't know, we can't win. We shoot someone on purpose and everyone complains. We shoot someone by accident and everyone complains. When will people realise the whole purpose of having guns IS to shoot people?" Still, we'll teach him to complain - if we don't get him on pornography we'll get him for loitering at the top of the stairs and obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty. I say it's all the fault of those Piranha Brothers - they've still got that thermonuclear device stashed in a hanger in Luton airport...Aarrgghh... it's Spiney Norman... call him off Dinsdale..." :O)

>>> "...the whole purpose of having guns IS to shoot people..." Hmm... there is a twisted kind of logic to what he says... Although by extension, is he saying that the purpose of having guns is to shoot people in the head? Because that would be like saying the purpose of having atom bombs is to destroy the whole world... which some may say is their purpose, defined by the gloomy prospect that this is what inevitably they will do, but I don't believe this was the intention behind their creators... (although I may be wrong)... ~PEPS~ “You do not truly know someone until you fight them.”