Menzies killing verdict limitations

Arrrrrgggh, that's not the point! The problem most people here have is that it should never have gotten to that point in the first place, because de Menezes was a completely, provably innocent man!

Stop twisting the argument.

I'm not making an argument, I'm genuinely curious.



All the details are the same dodgy intelligence etc etc, however down to some fluke occurrence he happened to b e a bomber with a bomb.

Would you criticise the police for not shooting him and letting him kill the passengers?

Pretty simple question because no other details have been changed it should be pretty simple for you to answer.
 
No, he was directly pointed at by two members of the surveillance team as the armed unit reached the tube train. I'd suggest reading up on the timeline on the BBC site if you actually want to know how it happened.

Just looked through the background thing on BBC. I'm scratching my head even more now. The final moments seem odd. I wonder why they took Ivor away and didn't shoot him, since he's dressed almost identically? The most disturbing this is that they had heaps of chances to see he wasn't the right guy.
 
The simple fact is that no one is responsible except the officer in charge of the operation. They had command, it was their call, the buck stops at them. As they assumed command, they accepted that the responsibility for all the equipment and command screw-ups that not only led to an innocent man being killed, but shame being brought upon our police service and it's reputation tarnished.

At worst they should be fired, at best criminal charges brought against them.
 
I dunno, after looking at this, I have a feeling the surveilance team were largely to blame (after all, that's where the intelligence was coming from), but also poor communication. Having said that, BBC's timeline raises more questions than it answers. There's so much we don't know.
 
As I said earlier though, if your surveillance team ****s up, as commander, you have to take responsibility for them.
I'm not making an argument, I'm genuinely curious.

All the details are the same dodgy intelligence etc etc, however down to some fluke occurrence he happened to b e a bomber with a bomb.

Would you criticise the police for not shooting him and letting him kill the passengers?

Pretty simple question because no other details have been changed it should be pretty simple for you to answer.
No other details have changed, yet he just happened to be a terrorist with a bomb that the police had no information on, that the police don't shoot this time. :confused:

I'm not entirely sure what I'd think of the police in that situation, as it sounds somewhat contrived, but for what it's worth, very few people seem to blame the police for not catching the July 21st bombers before they struck, so I can't see why there's be a massive outcry against them in your scenario.
 
No other details have changed, yet he just happened to be a terrorist with a bomb that the police had no information on, that the police don't shoot this time. :confused:

Yes "other" it means that everything else is still the same the investigation etc...



The circumstances are the same, it should be fairly simple for you as you say you arn't basing your criticism on the trigger pull but on the case before hand...




I'm not entirely sure what I'd think of the police in that situation, as it sounds somewhat contrived, but for what it's worth, very few people seem to blame the police for not catching the July 21st bombers before they struck, so I can't see why there's be a massive outcry against them in your scenario.

'm not asking what other people think, I'm asking what you would say.


As I said earlier though, if your surveillance team ****s up, as commander, you have to take responsibility for them.

why you're not the surveillance team. By this logic the Pm should responsible as it was his police force that ****ed up.

And actually if you take the logic to conclusion it should be you who are responsible as it was your pm that ****ed up ;)
 
What I've always wondered is, why do the terrorists not have the bomb rigged to their vital signs? It's not exactly difficult to do.

Because it's not quite as simple as may be assumed, and anything that increases the complexity of the bomb increases the chance that it'll either not go off (remember the two bombings that failed to), or will go off early., especially if it's related to the trigger mechanism.

It also makes it much easier to track down other people involved later, the more complex it is, because you get more potential unique/unusual pieces and there is more chance of it being tracked down to a particular bomb maker/original design.

And whilst a suicide bomber might be planning to die, they generally won't want to die when in the car driving to the target on their own/with another suicide bomber.

IIRC during the 80's a partiicular type of IRA bomb tended to use a simple mechanical cooking timer (a sort of keyring sized one that could be set for up to 60 minutes), and that helped locate where they were being made/who was making them as it was a particular one.
 
IIRC during the 80's a partiicular type of IRA bomb tended to use a simple mechanical cooking timer (a sort of keyring sized one that could be set for up to 60 minutes), and that helped locate where they were being made/who was making them as it was a particular one.

was a parking meter timer iirc.

You used to get them on key chains so you'd know when your meter expired.

The ira also used to use basic clocks (same principal) you stick a nail/contact through the face then another contact onto one of the fingers once they meet..boom.

Not sure if it was the IRA or the PIRA though.
 
Isn't it really as simple as this, if you truly believe they intended to murder this man in cold blood for no reason, they knew it wasn't him and blew him away because of his colour, because he said something rude or they just wanted to kill someone fine, they should go to jail.

If at the end of the day you believe that it was a horrific accident but in reality they had no malice or intent to hurt an innocent man but truly believed they were doing the right thing and trying to save lives then how you can want them to be done for unlawful killing I don't know.

The premeditated or reactionary murder of someone for no reason and in no way trying to help anyone and without real reason should be punished in society. Punishing those that made an honest to god mistake, no matter how severe the consequences of said mistake is just being petty.

In war time you don't punish or jail a soldier who in the middle of a fire fight with people shooting at him, a kid runs out of a building into the line of fire and gets shot. You could call it murder, the bullet came from the soldiers gun, he did kill the child, and while its the mother of all consequences the action wasn't immoral or unjustified when it took place, just the result. You can't base your opinion on the result but the action as it was taken and the reason it was taken, which in this case in know way appears "wrong".

Now the fact is they are probably all decent men, all people who will live with the guilt and trauma of such an event for life as it is, the idea of putting them in jail for trying to do the right thing is ridiculous.

If you look just at the result and not at the reason, then take a case of a woman killing a man who was beating her and thought he would kill her. reasonable person would deem this self defence and justified, if you ignore the reasoning and simply look at the fact that he's dead and she's not you'd send her to jail. Someone dying doesn't automatically mean someone should be put in jail to rot for life.

if someone can come up with a reason as to why they killed him other than trying to do the right thing, in this case they'd been led to believe, however wrongly or badly it was communicated, that this man could well be about to kill dozens/hundreds of people and in that second you decide to shoot and hopefully save them all, or wait 5 seconds see yourself aswell as hundreds die in a bomb.


Its a tragic accident, but it wasn't random, and if you can't see that eventually innocent people get caught in the crossfire then you're blind, its tragic, but it was inevitably going to happen sometime, and will happen again. If you want no protection and no risk of police accidentally catching mistaking you, live in a country without a police force, of course your risk of dying in a violent crime is massively increased that way. This is life, its not perfect, its not perfectly safe, never has been and never will be.
 
why you're not the surveillance team. By this logic the Pm should responsible as it was his police force that ****ed up.

And actually if you take the logic to conclusion it should be you who are responsible as it was your pm that ****ed up ;)
No, because the PM wasn't in charge of the operation. The operation going wrong was what led to an innocent man's death. The PM didn't give the armed team the order to kill. Neither did I. You're being contrary for the sake of it.
 
I dunno, after looking at this, I have a feeling the surveilance team were largely to blame (after all, that's where the intelligence was coming from), but also poor communication. Having said that, BBC's timeline raises more questions than it answers. There's so much we don't know.

Actually after watching that I am more convinced than ever that this whole thing is solely Dick's fault.

It says:

0947: Senior firearms advisor tells Operations Room that Surveillance Teams say it (JCDM) is not Osman.

0949: Ops room asks for 'percentrage certainty' that target is Osman. Surveillance officer James says question is ridiculous.

1002: Surveillance officer James asks ops room for instructions. He waits 86 seconds for a reply (though we're not told what that reply was, it certainly wasn't an order to stand down).

1004: Firearms teams arrive at stockwell tube and Dick orders them to stop JCDM declaring 'code red'.

Not once were the surveillance and firearms teams told to stand down when the ops room were told that the target was not Osman at 0947. The command team failed to act upon the intel they were given, dilly dallied because they were unsure of what to do. Dick then panicked and essentially ordered JCDM's death with a 'code red'.

Clearly, this was not the fault of the comms equipment or the surveillance teams, this was because Dick failed to tell the teams to stand down when her surveillance teams told her it wasn't Osman. She then hesitated, not wanting to let him go in case he actually was Osamn and asked for a percentage chance it was osman, to which the SO obviously replied that was a stupid question. She then blurtered out the order to kill him, contrary to her intel from her surveillance teams.

Essentially, she acted in opposition to the intel that was coming in and confused her teams by not issuing clear and precise commands in time. She failed in her duty to manage her teams and the intel coming in and then failed to act in the appropriate manner. She should be stripped of her position and I feel charges should be brought against her for such incompetent actions. Stupid bloody woman.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand, is the surveillance officers were presumably the ones which had the most information on who they were looking for.

So why, if they were 'sure' it wasn't Osman, did they point JCDM out on the tube to the firearms officers? They would have been right in his face, not even like it would have been obscured, surely they should have recognised whether it was him?

Also, I don't understand why it's a 'ridiculous' question to ask for a percentage certainty, you're a surveillance officer, isn't it your job to give an idea of how likely you think the person you're following is the suspect?
 
Last edited:
i agree nero120. Dick is the operational Commander she is the one who is responsible for this entire mess imho.


There isnt actually any evidence at all linking to de menezes.


-----------------------------
at 0933 Not identified as Osman.

0934 Operations are apparently told he DOES match Osman

HOW? WHO? tells them De Menezes matches Osman? (the real target)

0939 - Surveillance officers says he is "possibly identical" to Osman.

How can anything be possibly identical??? wtf. He is or he isnt. You dont kill a man on "possibly"

0947 DICK asks why De Menezes is still being followed (he repeatedly cannot be identified as Osman by officers following him)

She should have called it off at this stage

0949 Operations room asks for certainty that it is Osman Surv Officer James says question is ridiculous

WTF does that mean? Ridiculous because they cant answer because they dont know? or ridiculous because it is Osman??
------------------------------

After this it all goes to hell.... i dont blame the firearms teams on the ground. I think surveillance teams are partly to blame because it is their job to clearly identify the target and they failed to do so. One of them should have had the balls to express this to Commander Dick.

She should be at the very least sacked from her job...but i believe she got a promotion? And the police during the inquest changing their story as well..like covering up their mistakes...absolutely shocking.

Despite the controversy around 22 July, Cmdr Dick was promoted to deputy assistant commissioner in September 2006 - placing her close to the inner circle of police chiefs running the Met



I think at the end of the day all the Metropolitan police have been found guilty of are of breaching health and safety laws...fine of around £100k (guess whos paying for that ;) )

shocking beyond belief....

I'll say it again - there was ZERO evidence and the police thought that was enough to kill a man.
 
What I don't understand, is the surveillance officers were presumably the ones which had the most information on who they were looking for.

So why, if they were 'sure' it wasn't Osman, did they point JCDM out on the tube to the firearms officers? They would have been right in his face, not even like it would have been obscured, surely they should have recognised whether it was him?

Because at that moment they were commited to stopping him, ordered by Dick. The fact that they were unsure as to his exact identity took second priority to that direct order.

Also, I don't understand why it's a 'ridiculous' question to ask for a percentage certainty, you're a surveillance officer, isn't it your job to give an idea of how likely you think the person you're following is the suspect?

It's a ridiculous question because it's meaningless. The point is they were unsure as to his identity, and that question was both difficult to answer and confusing in the heat of the situation. It was the wrong question to ask, the right question should have been:

"Can you confirm that you are 100% sure that the target is Osman"

then if the answer was "no", command should have taken greater steps to confirm his identity. Regardless, the actions of the surveillance and firearms teams were not inappropriate to their orders or a matter or misconduct. The outcome of the operation was purely down to the commands given to those teams. If command was unsure they should have taken steps to apprehend the target before he was allowed to get on the tube.
 
She should be at the very least sacked from her job...but i believe she got a promotion? And the police during the inquest changing their story as well..like covering up their mistakes...absolutely shocking.

Are you serious?! That really does make me sick to my stomach. Such obvious corruption should not be tolerated, if I was JCDM family I would not rest until that woman's career and reputation were aflame.
 
Because at that moment they were commited to stopping him, ordered by Dick. The fact that they were unsure as to his exact identity took second priority to that direct order.
No, the surveillance teams did not have any orders about stopping him. Why did they point him out if they knew it wasn't him - should they not have informed the firearms officers?
 
Back
Top Bottom