Explosion On The Tube

Well I have a theory that you may just find these four in the Thames with their throats cut or something very similar if they don’t catch them very soon or they will try another bomb attack under cover of darkness.....

The reasoning behind my theory if one gets caught and it’s a bigger group of people rather than just these 4 or 5 people alone they won’t allow these to be caught and then sing!!!! it will then expose all of the group, its logical that they will act like this as there’s no way they want to be exposed and the reasoning why they are doing it, and who put them up to it etc etc !!

Think about it intently, and it becomes logical or they get them out of the country some way or another……………. :rolleyes:

Anybody got any other ideas regards these bombers??????
 
This was a terrible event that with hindsight, shouldn't have occurred. But I do agree with AC that we shouldn't be too harsh on the police - they are paid a relatively small wage in comparision to the huge burden of responsibility that is placed on their shoulders in these times. It must be a terrible decision to have to make; and in a split-second too, remember. What if it had happened differently - the suspect did have a bomb, the policeman hesitated & in doing so allowed a bomb to be detonated?

This is such a horrible, horrible situation that the UK & London in particular is in at the moment & it is despicable to think that there are people out there celebrating the state of almost disarray that the country is in at the moment. It is also very hard to say what to do that is right - situations like this one are inevitably going to occur again if more armed police are put on the streets, which cannot be a good thing. Something has to be done though, & it is hard to say what. Do we really want to end up like the US, with all police armed & shootings like this one becoming less of a rarity? I sincerely hope it doesn't go that way.
 
The officer who actually took the shots was probably not making the decision entirely on their own, they would have been constantly fed information through their earpiece and may even have been given the order to shoot by that means.

I really don't see where their salary comes into it - is there some point at the low-end of the wage scale where it becomes ok to make mistakes that directly lead to the death of an innocent person?

If the victim had been found to have had a bomb, the police would be in deep shit for letting him get as far as onto a train having followed him all the way there, including letting him on a bus. This was not a lose-lose situation from the outset - the police allowed it to become one.
 
Gareth,

You are assuming that the police suspected he was carrying a bomb from the outset, rather than just a suspect who may lead them to others. Of course, if that assumption is correct then you are absolutely right in your critisism.

My guess is that suspicion grew out of control to the point of panic as he travelled to the station. A massive misjudgement without doubt, and by no means what you have the right to expect from a group endowed with that level of power, but understandable how it might have happened in the circumstances, perhaps?
 
Assuming the officers were acting on 'intelligence' and receiving messages through earpieces, I'm presuming - the enquiry will tell us more - he was instructed/oredered to shoot to kill.

If it were I in that position, believing it was him or me-and-fifty-others, I'd empty the magazine into his head too.

And I'd probably be in counselling for the rest of my life.
 
Being the coward that I am, I would have resigned on the spot, gone home, and watched sky news for the evening hiding behind my fingers. Not that I'd have ever applied for the job in the first place.
 
tube-warning.jpg
 
So the police arrested one of the four chaps in question that they were looking for who attempted to set off bombs last week. They used a Taser stun gun on him. Why oh why couldn't they have used a Taser on that poor Brazilian man? Obviously this morning they thought it'd be sufficient enough to disable this man long enough for him to be arrested safely. Why didn't they have the same 'shoot to kill' policy of last week?
 
One lives and learns..........hindsight is a very good thing to have... he could have had a bomb strapped to himself wearing a big coat like he was wearing in the hight of summer, and running away.. why did he run away?? thats not been answered as yet?? :rolleyes: he could understand English so why not stop instead of jumping a gate and not paying his fare etc strange really??
 
To be honest, a train station is a noisy place and he may not have heard them saying they were the police. If strange scarey looking men with guns were running towards me I'd probably run too. And also, if they thought he was carrying a bomb why on earth did they allow him to get on a bus?
 
Griff.. no one will know all the answers, why! But it seems lessons have been learned with reference to today’s action....

but I think if we have got to put up with these type of people!! I personally would endorse the shoot to kill policy its the only way, as a deterrent , you cant say anything different really...

its like the police cant/don’t touch these arsehole kids/youths that are reeking havoc everywhere give them a slap or two and get back some sort of equilibrium so they are respected again (the police that is)............they laugh at the police down here honest.....
 
The story now coming out about Mr. Menezes is slightly different from the first version. That said, a stun gun, or equivalent, could possibly have set off any device that they originally thought this guy was concealing. I suppose we can all talk around and round in circles about it, but what's done is sadly done. It was a very tragic accident, and although I feel desperately sorry for the victim, his friends and family, the police thought wrongly, that he was, at that time, a real threat. We cannot turn the clock back but it is a lesson learnt. Admittedly, one with tragic consequences, but for the first time in a long time, I am supporting the police action 100% as they try and rid this country of the scum that is desperately trying to destroy it.
 
A lot of people have rightly asked why Mr Menezes jumped a barrier leading to the Tube. It appears now that his family were told by police that he used a travelcard to get through the barrier. They also claim he was not wearing a "heavy, padded jacket" as claimed earlier, but a normal denim jacket.
 
That's what I meant about the change in story Rory. There is still no real evidence about who is telling the truth, but given the police version of events you could possibly understand their concerns about him jumping the barrier and the large padded jacket also mentioned by some witnesses straight after the shooting. I am sure there is alot more to come out about this story. Sadly all we can hope is to find out the truth, as nothing will bring Mr. Menezes back. I am sure there will be CCTV cameras to confirm his attire at the time of the incident, but it was not just him evidently jumping the barrier and wearing a padded jacket that caused them to shoot. He was "evidently" seen leaving a house they had under surveillence too.

Random terrorist activities requires quick thinking and quick action by our police force, and although I am sure many of us are perturbed that an innocent man lost his life, please don't forget for one minute about all the innocent victims of the bombs that were successful and the fact there could have been an indentical incident just two weeks later. There are still people with their loved ones in hospital badly injured and many people organising funerals, and if the police are to try to foil further terrorist attempts in this country, then I feel we must support them.
 
It is now looking like there was much less justification for the shooting than at first stated .

I remain sickened by the fact that they spun the story for hours that he was believed to be carrying explosives when they must have known almost immediately after they shot him eight times that he was not .
 
Good Morning.
According to an Israeli Official:

Shooting at the chest of a suspect Suicide Bomber is the preferred method.
(to set off an explosive belt,a direct hit on the detonator is required) Detonators are very small.

Shooting from the rear into a supects head is a nono. A very hard target to hit.

Having overpowered the suspect,without him having blown himself up leaves the likelyhood of a an explosion a distant possibility. Therefore there was no need to shoot to shoot the guy eight times in the head.

The capturing of a suspect alive is the preferred aim of the Israelis.

I think that i have got the gist of what the guy said correctly.

If i have made a an error,i am sorry.
 
I agree Ardross. The Police have a difficult job to do, and I wouldn't want to criticise individuals without knowing the full facts, and reluctantly then, but it saddens me when the truth becomes a casualty (excuse awful prose). Someone acting in good faith and making a mistake in a split second situation is forgivable. Inventing reasons why such events are justifiable in the cold light of day is inexcusable. If someone in authority has lied in order to fool the public then their position should be untenable. Unfortunately, experience of growing up in Northern Ireland tells me this won't happen.
 
A horrible and hugely regrettable error but ,in circumstances that I consider possibly worse than conventional war, the police have otherwise been extremely impressive.

I consider that I had a high stress job but the pressure on the police involved is on a vastly different scale. With clerics stating that there is no proof that Muslims carried out the attacks the police deserve the support of the general public and whilst they must be able to account for their actions should not be subject to the gibes of those that have the infallibility of hindsight and/or their belief in their own innate infallibility.
 
From The Guardian (interesting to see Gareth Peirce is their solicitor).


Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket

Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier

Mark Honigsbaum
Thursday July 28, 2005
The Guardian

Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.
Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.

"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

Flanked by the de Menezes family's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and by Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner, she condemned the shoot-to-kill policy which had led to her cousin's death and vowed that what she called the "crime" would not go unpunished.

"My cousin was an honest and hard working person," said Ms Figueiredo who shared a flat with him in Tulse Hill, south London. "Although we are living in circumstances similar to a war, we should not be exterminating people unjustly."

Another cousin, Patricia da Silva Armani, 21, said he was in Britain legally to work and study, giving him no reason to fear the police. "An innocent man has been killed as though he was a terrorist," she said. "An incredibly grave error was committed by the British police."

Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at 10am last Friday after being followed from Tulse Hill. Scotland Yard initially claimed he wore a bulky jacket and jumped the barrier when police identified themselves and ordered him to stop. The same day the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said the shooting was "directly linked" to the unprecedented anti-terror operation on London's streets.

The following day Sir Ian apologised when detectives established that the Brazilian electrician, on his way to a job in north-west London, was not connected to attempts to blow up three underground trains and a bus in the capital.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has began an inquiry which is expected to take several months. Yesterday it emerged one armed officer involved has been given leave, and two have been moved to non-firearm duties. Ms Figuerdo condemned Sir Ian's decision to authorise the leave, saying she wanted to see the man who shot her cousin, and he should be in jail.

The body of Mr de Menezes is being flown to Brazil tonight for a funeral tomorrow. Simultaneously, a memorial service will be held at Westminster Cathedral, with TV coverage beamed live to Brazil.

Ms Peirce condemned Sir Ian's statements on the case, saying there had been a "regrettable rush to judgment".

She was astonished that the phrase "shoot to kill" was being used as if it was a legitimate legal term; the family would demand "transparency" both as to the facts of what had happened and on the policy.

She added that the family were ready to cooperate with the complaints body, and she saw no reason for delay: "They know what their questions are and we see no reasons why they should not be answered.
Click to expand...
 
And now... his original student visa expired two years ago, not a couple of months ago, and officials are cagily implying that the 'stamp' granting him permission for a further stay with no termination date does not fit with any stamps officially used in 2003.

Additionally, the footage of the police around the block of flats before pursuing him shows all of them clearly in police uniform, with anti-stab vests, caps, and badges clearly displayed - not plain-clothesmen at all.

This is going to end up like JFK's assassination, full of statements and counter-statements, implications of conspiracy, and God knows where the truth will be found.
 
In these matters rumours abound and even officials give half proven information. Lets wait for the facts before we make a judgement and ,unlike those involved have no pressure on us to judge now.
 
Alternatively, the campaign to smear the late Mr Menezes has begun.

Jon - the policemen around the flats may not have been the same policemen as those at the station.

Probably ,as Tout Seul says, it is best to see what happens in the IPPC investigation though the fact that a retired Met officer is carrying it out might not give the family enormous confidence.
 
Back
Top