Mattyhill Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 They may of made previous incorrect decisions leading up to the final event, but they ended up in that situation needing to make a decision they were given the order to shoot and so they did. I do believe they may should of been punished for the 'lies' that they made after the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattyhill Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 We all make mistakes, we tend not to fill someone with lead as one of those mistakes and follow it with a litany of lies.. A bit like this thread you've created. Read facts then post threads, otherwise you'll get a roasting from those who do read the facts. Your wrong decisions like most other people probably don't lead to filling someone with lead, but that's because you are not needing to deal with the situations (life and death situations) that the armed police need to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Do you think the police made the correct decision in this case to open fire? At least get the poor buggers name right, it was Jean-Charles de Menezes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 The officers on the ground were getting increasingly desperate because of their inept superiors and poor strategy, bad use of intelligence, and one officer soldier on secondment going for a slash at the most crucial moment, the moment of positive identification of the suspect as he leaves his residence. The increasingly desperate officers were then cut-off from their dithering superiors in the tube station and believing the worst executed the unsuspecting electrician in a frenzied hail of bullets. At the inquest: Sir Michael stated that to return a verdict of lawful killing, the jury should be, "satisfied of two matters on the balance of probabilities: (a) that at the time they fired, Charlie 2 and Charlie 12 honestly believed that Mr de Menezes represented an imminent mortal danger to them and/or others around them; and (b) that they used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances as they honestly believed them to be. If the jury was not satisfied on both of these, they were to return an open verdict. The jury returned an open verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Which was a shame - I cannot see why a jury can have thier chioce of verdicts restricted. I suspect if they had been allowed they would have returned unlawful killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Your wrong decisions like most other people probably don't lead to filling someone with lead, but that's because you are not needing to deal with the situations (life and death situations) that the armed police need to deal with. And they did deal with it...badly, and against the law. Are you now suggestion their not only highly trained operatives in counter terrorism but lies also? If so they failed on both counts. Police have enough on their plate without you defending those that operate outside the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattyhill Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Which was a shame - I cannot see why a jury can have thier chioce of verdicts restricted. I suspect if they had been allowed they would have returned unlawful killing. No as I'm sure the jury would have more sence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Why would they have had more sense? As in why do you think it was unlawful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 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. Plus he supposedly ran off when police shouted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattyhill Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Why would they have had more sense? As in why do you think it was unlawful? Sorry correct me if I'm incorrect in the way I read your post but your the one that believes it was an Unlawfull killing? Im saying in my opinion the police made a correct decision in the time they had the situation they was in the information the officers (who finially shot him dead) was given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.