London Police Lied About Man Mistakenly Shot

on Aug 17, 2005

Wow. What an amazingly shitty thing to happen. Nice catch, Ico.

One silver lining is that apparently, in an open society, surveillance cameras work for the citizenry as well as the government.

2

Ionolast

on Aug 17, 2005

One silver lining is that apparently, in an open society, surveillance cameras work for the citizenry as well as the government.

Yeah. Didn't the cops know they were on Candid Camera?

3

Myrrander

on Aug 17, 2005

Dude, it wasn't just that he wasn't wearing inappropriate clothing. The Guardian has a whole list of fuck-ups available.

The guy was apparently already being restrained when the first jack booted storm trooper...I mean London Police officer shot him from about 12 inches away. He was subsequently shot 6 more times.

Stutefish, my new vote for most distasteful blogger, has given us his usual soulful and compassionate response.

surveillance cameras work for the citizenry

Not if the citizen in question is, you know, dead.

4

Dr Guy

on Aug 17, 2005

It is a tragedy. And one that the officer will pay for in many ways. He was under pressure and the bombings were the reason. It is sad that mistakes happen. However, before hanging him from the closest yardarm, perhaps we should walk a mile in his shoes?

I would not want to be him, nor anyone on his jury.

5

stutefish

on Aug 17, 2005

Oh, absolutely. Myrr. That's why I called it a "silver lining", and not a "successful law enforcement operation".

For the rest of us who aren't dead, though, the surveillance cameras have exposed a cover-up by a government agency, which, you know, is a nice thing to have happen. Without the surveillance cameras, we would never have known what really happend on that tragic day. Say what you like; it's still a silver lining--especially for his still-alive family, who now have videotape evidence to support their claims. That's gotta be a huge win for them (though not enough to offset the loss of their son).

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear your feelings were hurt by the lack of attention paid to your serious article. I hope you feel better soon!

6

Furry Canary

on Aug 17, 2005

Just one more example that there are lies, damned lies, statistics ... and police reports. Time, I think, for all those bloggers who argued at the time that Jean Charles de Menezes 'got what he deserved' to eat their words.

7

drmiler

on Aug 17, 2005

Just one more example that there are lies, damned lies, statistics ... and police reports. Time, I think, for all those bloggers who argued at the time that Jean Charles de Menezes 'got what he deserved' to eat their words.

I had been planning on retracting all my statements about it and apologize for any hust feelings or bruised egos. But after seeing these lines.....I think not. "You" eat them instead. Want some salt & pepper?

8

Dr Guy

on Aug 17, 2005

Time, I think, for all those bloggers who argued at the time that Jean Charles de Menezes 'got what he deserved' to eat their words.

Now about the ones that said it was a mistake. A justifyiable one in light of the circumstances?

Did you put down on your science quiz that the solar system had 9 planets? Are you now ready to 'eat those words' since we either have 8 or 10? As now the facts support?

9

Furry Canary

on Aug 17, 2005

'But after seeing these lines.....I think not.'

At the time, despite suggestions that you should simply wait to see what would be revealed by the findings of any subsequent investigation, you, drmiler - among several others - refused to accept that the police's initial self-supporting account of the incident could be anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Consequently, on the back of a story that now transpires to have been a tissue of lies, you argued that de Menezes got what he deserved.

You were 'planning on' issuing a retraction / apology for this, but now, merely because I suggested you should 'eat your words', you won't. Well, that proves how heartfelt any such retraction / apology would have been, doesn't it? It's not me to whom you should be apologising. Shame on you.

10

Furry Canary

on Aug 17, 2005

'Now about the ones that said it was a mistake. A justifyiable one in light of the circumstances?'

According to 'The Guardian', the latest evidence supports the following ...
de Menezes didn't vault the barrier
he didn't run from police
he was unaware that he was being followed
he stopped to pick up a free newspaper
he was wearing a denim jacket, not a padded one
he wasn't carrying a rucksack
he was held in his seat by police before being shot in the head

... are THESE the circumstances you mean, dr guy?

11

Chakgogka

on Aug 17, 2005

Since it was admitted at the very beginning that Jean Charles de Menezes was innocent, this was always going to be a case of a major F@#$ up, but the new information reveals that it was actually worse than originally thought. However, as the original information about a padded jacket and 'vaulting the barrier' came from eye witnesses and press reports and the new information has come from an independent investigation that has not yet finished, but been leaked to the press, at what point have the police lied?

It is true that some of the initial press speculation was partly based on 'off the record' police comments, but as far as I am aware, at no point have the police issued an offical statement making the claims that have now been shown to be untrue. Feelings are running high on this issue, I am personally very disturbed by it, but as an outside observer (I haven't lived in the UK for a few years) I prefer to wait for the outcome of the official investigation.

12

Daiwa

on Aug 17, 2005

Bit of a cock up, there. What a horrible thing if true; was bad enough before. We really need to hear from witnesses and find out if the CCTV footage actually shows what's been leaked. I hope it can be sorted out.

Daiwa

13

Ionolast

on Aug 17, 2005

However, as the original information about a padded jacket and 'vaulting the barrier' came from eye witnesses and press reports and the new information has come from an independent investigation that has not yet finished, but been leaked to the press, at what point have the police lied?

“The police’s version has not only been shown to be incorrect but the public were deliberately misled. It’s evident we have been told lies and half-truths about how Jean died,” Asad Rehman, a spokesman for the group, told Reuters.Initial reports said the Brazilian electrician was dressed suspiciously, had fled armed officers, vaulted over ticket barriers and run onto a train.But leaked documents obtained by ITV News said CCTV footage and eyewitness accounts showed he was not wearing a padded jacket which could have concealed a bomb, and walked calmly through the station, even stopping to collect a free newspaper.

14

drmiler

on Aug 17, 2005

'But after seeing these lines.....I think not.'

At the time, despite suggestions that you should simply wait to see what would be revealed by the findings of any subsequent investigation, you, drmiler - among several others - refused to accept that the police's initial self-supporting account of the incident could be anything but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Consequently, on the back of a story that now transpires to have been a tissue of lies, you argued that de Menezes got what he deserved.

You were 'planning on' issuing a retraction / apology for this, but now, merely because I suggested you should 'eat your words', you won't. Well, that proves how heartfelt any such retraction / apology would have been, doesn't it? It's not me to whom you should be apologising. Shame on you.

I would not apologize to you if my life depended on it!

To everyone else "except" this asshat, I offer my humblest apology for what I said on the original thread about this subject.

15

Ionolast

on Aug 17, 2005

I offer my humblest apology for what I said on the original thread about this subject.

Apology accepted. I'm not sure I read yours, but I do remember believing what the police said and supporting them on someone's thread. I should have known better.