This didn't happen when I was at school...

quote:

Originally posted by munch:

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

quote:

Horses for courses and you cant impose UK policing approaches on the US.

A Brazilian family may disagree.

STOP in a universal word. He chose to Run.

But not faster than a speeding bullet or seven.

No judgement implied but he was here after his visa had expired, thus he should not have been here. Wrong place + wrong time + twitchy trigger fingers = bad time all round.

I am glad not to be too close to sort of place or the States where to be honest the quantity of guns in circulation would scare me.

Jono

quote:

STOP in a universal word. He chose to Run.

Jean Charles De Menezes did nothing wrong (including running); shame on you for suggesting otherwise Munch!
JCM was executed by a Met police team formed to deal with suicide bombers.
Their actions in killing JCM were the last in a long sequence of blunders.

Is it not somewhat strange the members of this team claim to have shouted a warning,
but witnesses sitting very near-by heard nothing?
Perhaps the police claim is even stranger considering their Israeli trainers operate a policy of not shouting a warning,
so the suicide bomber doesn't have an opportunity to detonate?

The coroners court jury found this a case of unlawful killing, & JCMs death at the hands of the state is a national disgrace IMO.

quote:

The coroners court jury found this a case of unlawful killing,

If that is what an open verdict means? OK they weren't allowed a verdict of unlawful killing, but they may not have necessarily brought that verdict, saying anything else is a lie.

Just hope you or members of your family are not in a crowd where the police shout a warning and the bomber explodes his device. Not a job I'd want to do or a decision I'd want to take, as easy as it is from the side lines.

quote:

If that is what an open verdict means

Sorry - bad use of language on my part. They didn't find for 'Lawful Killing", so IMO the jury concluded JCMs death was unlawful.
I hope none of your family members are mistaken for a suicide bomber Biggy.
At the time of those bombs & JCMs death I was living in the 'burbs & commuting to central London.
In 1994 I copped some shrapnel from an IRA bomb.
We didn't need a 'shoot now, ask questions later' policy to deal with the IRA, & I don't see the need now.
State sponsored summary execution make us as bad as the bombers IMHO.
It's not a job I'd want to do either, but if you're going to do it best not go for a piss when you should be watching the exit from the bombers building.

quote:

I think the Police did a good job.
Ok he didnt have a bomb, but if he had of.

No independent witnesses (i.e. other than police) heard any warning shouted,
even though some of these were sitting opposite JCM when the police entered the train.
The various apparently false police claims such as JCM vaulted the ticket barrier, ran to the train, was acting agitated, lunged at the police when they entered the carriage, was wearing bulky clothing, etc, leave many questions unanswered.
On 18 August 2005, the IPCC issued a statement in which they alleged that the
"Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the investigation".

Do you really think the police did a good job Munch?
They have a difficult job to do at the best of times, but that day was a complete fcuk up.

I see where you are going Stu,
but JCMs death didn't prevent any deaths.

quote:

Did It Not?
Are you a 100% sure about that?

Yes, because hindsight is easy.
There were no bombers on that tube train.
On the contrary if anything JCMs death has fueled extremism,
provided more recruits for Al Qaeda & provided succor to terrorists.
The killing of JCM was a 24 carat cock-up that achieved nothing good for anyone, except terrorists.

It's interesting all this.

I'm very interested in the mindset of people who are armed, whether by themselves illegally, or as a police officer, army etc.

I suspect that pointing a weapon at someone and having to follow through with the threat, is a very, very difficult thing to do.

The person that can do this without pausing to think is surely disturbed.

There is a book I would love to read, called 'On Killing'. Apparently it's by a chap that did a psychoanalysis of people when forced to kill others. It seems he found that the vast majority really find it extremely distressing - even trained soldiers - so a regular police officer just isn't equipped to deal with the stress of having to shoot someone. That stress would lead to catastrophic errors, surely.

I know two guys that saw a lot of active duty with the SAS, and they're seriously messed-up by the things they've done, even though they were 'lawful' and necessary.

Not apologising for anything, but we need to be sympathetic to all sides of such things, because it's a very dirty business for both the perpetrator AND the victim.

quote:

It's interesting all this.

I'm very interested in the mindset of people who are armed, whether by themselves illegally, or as a police officer, army etc.

I suspect that pointing a weapon at someone and having to follow through with the threat, is a very, very difficult thing to do.

The person that can do this without pausing to think is surely disturbed.

I think that those illegal users of firearms may well have a different mindset than those legally armed and trained and so they may well be seriously messed-up and judging from the number of sayings and woundings reported this would seem to support this view.

I would expect that lengthy and expensive training would be aimed expressly at ensuring that thinking took place prior to making the decision to discharge a weapon. The knowledge that the person discharging a weapon would have to account for their actions would also figure in the decision to fire or not.

This post reminds me of a story that I saw a few years ago. There had been a school shooting in the US and some people quoted in the press seemed to be of the view that if the school had allowed the carrying of concealed weapons would have reduced the impact of the incident. The logic being that if "good people" had access to weapons then the gunman could have been "taken out" much earlier by a member of staff or perhaps by a student , thus saving some lives.

I was quite astonished to read of this twisted view, and how it ignored the fact that the VAST majority of gun deaths are individual acts of retribution. School massacres, whilst tragic and made highly public don't even rate statistically. However, it did make me think (again) about how we perceive risk and what we REALLY should do about it. We agonise and stress (spurred on by the lazy media) over rare but deemed newsworthy incidents but seem to virtually ignore the real perils.

Want to really reduce risk to your children? Teach them to swim. Keep them from driving (or being driven by their peers) until they are much older. Feed them a healthy diet. Encourage them to get some exercise. Mitigate the big risks. The odds of being shot in a school shooting are truly miniscule. Many of my school friends died in car and motorbike accidents at a young age. Most people I know had the same experience. I don't know anyone who knew anyone shot in a school massacre?

Winky,

Spot-on. Avoid and remove the "tools" must remove the threat.

I know that there are people who are besotted with guns, and these are the ones to identify early. Once this is done hopefully they can be kept away from them.

I have had a go on a live fire pistol range, in Alabama of all places, and I could understand the intoxicating power that they provide, BUT I would not want one near me or my family.

Jono

Taking a stand R4 via bbciplayer

quote:

Fergal Keane talks to people who have taken risks and made sacrifices to stand up for what they believe in. Lana Vandenberghe saw files in her job at the Independent Police Complaints Commission that made her feel that the facts of the Jean Charles de Menezes were being misrepresented to the public. Her decision to take a stand and leak the story to the press would change the course of the investigation and contribute to the pressure on Sir Ian Blair to resign, but it would have huge personal consequences for her.

The phrase For the greater good is used a bit too often for my taste but that is her call, I am not too sure if her employers the IPCC were ever considering to hide or were hiding the full account of what happened on that day but thanks to her we will now never know.

quote:

I would expect that lengthy and expensive training would be aimed expressly at ensuring that thinking took place prior to making the decision to discharge a weapon. The knowledge that the person discharging a weapon would have to account for their actions would also figure in the decision to fire or not.

Me too Roy, but the evidence suggests generally the opposite occurred in the Met on the day JCM died.

quote:

All i want to do is play my new 180g Joy Division LP's before the new year.

That's the best argument so far you've given for me getting a TT Munch!
Have a good time yerself.

Jono

quote:

Spot-on. Avoid and remove the "tools" must remove the threat.

I know that there are people who are besotted with guns, and these are the ones to identify early. Once this is done hopefully they can be kept away from them.

A laudable aim but one that is almost impossible to enact in the US due the enshrinement of the right to bear arms in the constitution allied to hundreds of years worth of cultural acceptance.

So identifying the ones that are besotted by guns is all but impossible to do in a culture where guns are accepted as a way of life by around 50% of the population.

A thorny issue to say the least.

Jim

quote:

Me too Roy, but the evidence suggests generally the opposite occurred in the Met on the day JCM died.

Not too sure about that at all, I would suggest that the firearms officers did as instructed in their training (kratos and all that) but the information they were acting upon was not of acceptable quality and the providers of that information may well have a few questions to answer. I do believe that on the day in question parts of the Met did not act as well as we would expect but I do not think this can be or should by applied to the firearms officers at Stockwell.

Jim,

A sad but true state of affairs. The right to bear arms was important once, but is it still relavent today I wonder?

Jono

quote:

I do not think this can be or should by applied to the firearms officers at Stockwell.

From the evidence submitted at the 2nd enquiry, & in the coroners court either the police or members of the public lied about events surrounding JCMs death.
The Met has a long history of telling porkpies to try & cover up mistakes.
I can't see why members of the public would lie about what they witnessed.

The fact that the reports differ between what the Met say happened and what members of the public say happened seems at first rather hard to reconcile but one or two points may be explained.

The reported challenge or lack of challenge issued by the firearms officers in the tube train is something that depends upon members of the public under great and unexpected stress realising what they were witnessing, accurately memorising it and recalling such information after a long period of time has passed. I feel that even a trained observer would have a hard task recording and recalling correctly what exactly took place, so I wonder how would an ordinary member of the public perform in such circumstances?

All I can say is that the reports do differ for whatever reasons and a court of law has decided what happened.