Obelix Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Read what you like. I've given the reasons, I don;t intend to play a game of "what if" tag with someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 If you have a split second to make a decision, your instincs and any drilled in training will be what your working from. Which is fine, providing that you have a positive ID, which was not the case in this instance. Therefore, your training should teach you to use a different approach). If the guy who was shot gave any indication that he was not just a regular guy Which he didn't. the instincs of the officer will be he COULD be trouble and could leads to doubt and doubt leads to second guessing, second guessing in this case could have led to a hundred or so losing thier life. But that doesn't account for the masses of lies propagated by the police (he was running, he jumped a turnstile, he had a rucksack...) about what happened until they finally had no alternative but to "come clean". It was a lot more than that ……… they aren’t going to shoot someone on a hunch ……… the property was staked, he fitted the description, backpack, tube, ran when challenged ………. All the pieces where there to leave the officer on the spot with no alternative. None of which are true (other than he entered the London Underground and boarded a train): Er,. didn't the chap staking out the residence have a pee, and thus failed to identify the man in the slightest as he walked past? He didn't run when challenged, he was allegedly challenged when he was sat reading his newspaper (that he bought before walking onto the platform) He didn't fit the description, other than being male and non-white. That's just scratching the surface - the whole list of blunders becomes a tedious litany. Saved me a job:thumbsup:. I would not rule that possibility out totally. Four little letters, that mean so much => CCTV some witnesses said he was running while carrying a back pack. They're wrong. I read though there was missing CCTV footage from the time of this incident? This youtube montage may help (CCTV footage). Oh, before some brain dead fool decides to label me as "anti-police", then that would mean I would have to be against my brother (which I'm not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Lets get real!! I think you would be able to tell the difference between 6 armed cops with POLICE written all over them and some bum with a gun. What about a group of men, variously dressed in jeans, t-shirts and fleeces, who you had no reason to assume were police officers? What about if they made no attempt to challenge me verbally or identify themselves? What if I didn't run at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Here's a picture of de Menezes alongside one of the man the police should have been tailing, even Nick Griffin couldn't claim all non whites look the same. http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_03/hussmenezsplit1710_468x353.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Well as the police suspected him as a suicide bomber, It would of been stupid anyway to start shouting halt armed police??? he would of just blew him self up killing him self and many more people. So they waited until he got on an underground train full of passengers? Should the police routinely shoot people they suspect of things despite not identifying them or having any evidence? Is that the world you want to live in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 or is this just a lie from people on the other side of the story saying he was not running, I would not rule that possibility out totally. No. It's evidence given by impartial witnesses at the inquest. Every time someone lies about Jean-Claude's actions that day they are compounding the hurt done to his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 How many of the things you listed are simply not true. I think you should go and find out, because it's greater than zero. My response was to the post about making a "split second decision” , hindsight is a wonderful thing but unfortunately those on the scene cant trawl the internet before making that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 No but I know how inaccurate a pistol can be and hitting a moving target is a lot harder than hitting a stationary one. The first though you do if someone points a barrel at you is move off to the side, fast and unexpectedly. As you know about "how inaccurate pistols are" you will be aware of the double tap. The clue is my avatar. If not here it is for you to peruse. "A double tap or controlled pair is a shooting technique where two well-aimed shots are fired at the same target with very little time in between shots. Instruction and practice of the double-tap improves overall accuracy as shooters often don't have the gun fully extended on the first shot meaning the second of a double-tap is usually the better." Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishcake Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Is anyone watching this on ITV at the moment - about the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes - it appears that the whole operation was a catalogue of errors. no you are wrong, he was not white and therefore had no human rights and deserved to die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 My response was to the post about making a "split second decision” , hindsight is a wonderful thing but unfortunately those on the scene cant trawl the internet before making that decision. So those on the scene would need to trawl the internet to find out that he wasn't running? Something you were using to justify their mistake. No. They made that particular lie up afterwards to try to avoid blame. Those are the facts I'm suggesting you get straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.