London Police Lied About Man Mistakenly Shot

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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?

'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.

'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?

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.

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

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.

'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.

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.

“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

Asad Rehman is a member of the National Stop the War Coalition and the political assistant of the former Labour MP George Galloway. Mr Galloway, who after his expulsion from the Labour Party fought and won a parliamentary seat for Respect on an anti-Iraq war ticket, memorably told Saddam Hussein, "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability" adding in arabic for good measure, "Until victory! Until Jerusalem!" Asad Rehman was also a member of the steering committee of Globalise Resistance, an organisation largely controlled by the trotskyist Socialist Workers Party in the UK, until a disagreement with the SWP leadership led him to resign from GR.

This does not invalidate what Mr. Rehman has to say, but does need to be taken into account when working out where he is coming from.

I will continue to wait for the outcome of the official report. As it is an independent report I have some confidence that we may get to the bottom of the matter and that should render all the speculation, left and right, pro and anti-police redundant.

'I would not apologize to you if my life depended on it!'
I imagine I'll muddle through somehow or other, drmiler!

According to 'The Guardian', the latest evidence supports the following ...

When you come up with a credible source, I will listen to you.  Until then, I would stop calling the kettle black, Mr. Pot.

'When you come up with a credible source, I will listen to you.'
Are you joking? It's pretty hard at the moment to find any source whatsoever that says anything to the contrary!
Still, once more with feeling ... let's just wait for the outcome of the investigation, shall we?

let's just wait for the outcome of the investigation, shall we?

A still picture taken from surveillance video on the subway car shows him laying on the floor. He is not wearing a padded jacket. So obviously the police lied about that much at least.

Are you joking? It's pretty hard at the moment to find any source whatsoever that says anything to the contrary

According to 'The Guardian', the latest evidence supports the following

No, by the very article itself, the Guardian is saying "The Evidence supports".  That means it is their theory, not facts, and I dont see where the others are hypothesizing, just reporting.

'No, by the very article itself, the Guardian is saying "The Evidence supports".'

I can find precious little 'hypothesising' or 'theorising' in the Guardian's news articles. eg. They report the latest evidence from CCTV as showing de Menezes carrying no rucksack and dressed in a denim jacket, picking up a free Metro newspaper and calmly passing through the station barrier. It hardly requires a great leap of faith / opinion / hypothesis / theory to conclude that this casts serious doubt upon previous claims that Menezes was running from the police / vaulted the barrier / was wearing a suspiciously thick padded jacket / was carrying a rucksack.

The words 'The latest evidence supports' are mine, not those of 'The Guardian'. I chose them carefully, on the understanding that no single report should be considered at this stage as constituting a definitive account of the truth. At the risk of repeating myself, all I am saying is 'let's just wait for the outcome of the investigation' before we pass judgement. Is that so very radical? Apparently Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, doesn't think so.