Comments on: So it was murder then

By: The Happy Rampager

The Happy Rampager — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:20:00 +0000

Looks like my faith that the police officers concerned were acting justifiably to prevent a terrorist bombing was more than a little misplaced. Even I've got to say WTF were these officers thinking?

This tells me that the police have no fucking plan to deal with a potential suicide bombing at all. No fucking plan and no fucking clue.

By: Hell Is Other People

Hell Is Other People — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:06:00 +0000

Sorry. What a fucking mess.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:04:00 +0000

HIOP: It’s not actually established that Cressida Dick did give the order to shoot; at least one newspaper this morning was claiming she gave exactly the opposite order to "detain".

By: Hell Is Other People

Hell Is Other People — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:04:00 +0000

What a fucking mess:

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:47:00 +0000

Tom Paine

You can have intent to kill, and kill, and it still NOT be murder in the legal sense. You can have intent to kill, and it can still be manslaughter.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:14:00 +0000

Thank you, HIOP.

By: Hell Is Other People

Hell Is Other People — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:58:00 +0000

Just to be clear: this week’s revelations come from police statements submitted to the IPCC investigators, so presumably are kosher – more kosher than Ian Blair’s statements to the press, although possibly misleading in isolation so will make more sense in the context of the IPCC report to the Crown Prosecution Service.

The order to proceed on the basis that Menezes was indeed a suicide bomber, as has been reported, came from the Gold Commander, who has the unenviable task of giving or withholding the order to shoot in these cases. The officer in question is one Cressida Dick, previously the Met’s diversity chief. Money’s got to be on her "retiring on health grounds" before Sir Ian, I would have thought?

By: dearieme

dearieme — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:10:00 +0000

One more one more: ‘But the "hideous situation" was entirely of the police’s manufacture. They should not have even been in the tube station with this guy, let alone shooting him dead on the train.’ This is just logically confused. You need to distinguish the moral, decision-making, knowledge-bearing agents – individuals – not rope everyone together into a bogus collective noun "the police". Thus you say the police manufactured the situation, the police were in the station, the police shot him dead. But these were different policeman and you’ll never think clearly about the case if you lump them together.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:01:00 +0000

Suppose that the leaks are true and – less likely – have no serious omissions. The surveillance chaps on the train identify the victim-to-be to the gun guys. The latter shout. Our victim gets up and walks towards them. One of the surveillance chaps is very brave and bear-hugs him, presumably to stop him setting off his bomb. (They have been instructed to assume that he has a bomb, I presume?) One of the gun guys sees the pair wrestling, presumably fears the bomb going off and, as instructed (or, at least, permitted) shoots the victim in the head. Have I got this right?

What a bloody tale of error and misunderstanding, but what my morning paper doesn’t make clear is who – if anyone – issued the instruction that the victim was to be treated as a bomber and who promulgated the procedure that lead to that decision. Responsibility surely lies much higher up the chain of command than the policemen on the train. Just one more thought: anyone who succumbs to the irrationality of complaining about the number of shots fired is in a particularly poor position to criticise the police’s decision-making.

By: HSASIACO

HSASIACO — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:23:00 +0000

hmm must have misread the rather smug headline then.

Trial by media AGAIN - in other comments - how do we know he was held down and shot? Intent on using the media to see this cop get banged up then - ok so why is Jean Charles pictured lying on the floor face down, no shoes and with his Oyster card (looks like) by his hand. WHO KNOWS?! THINK THE FACTS NEED TO BE CLEAR BEFORE THERE IS ANY PUBLIC HANGING. Is that so wrong? Dont think it is right to rush to judge a situation with the power of hindsight and sensationalist press clippings.

Looks like this mess will take years to clear up. Wouldnt think the cops would be charged with either manslaughter or murder though. Unlawful killing perhaps.

And interesting to see joe public still in favour of the shoot to kill policy in spite of the story on ITV poll.