IPCC & de Menezes shooting - were military involved?
hummingbird
the death of Brazilian de Menezes? Afaik this is the first mention.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4624794.stm
"Police and soldiers were watching the block of flats where Mr Menezes
lived, believing a man suspected of the 21 July attacks lived there."
"A soldier saw the electrician leave his flat and thought he resembled
the suspect. He suggested it was "worth somebody else having a look"."
--
"It [Blair's government] has exploited the mood of insecurity
to push through a law protecting itself from public protest."
How freedom of speech is being curtailed in Britain under Blair:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1937539,00.html
TD
"hummingbird" <ZYLYDW...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:kfnts1duqsci48d5j...@4ax.com...
> Is this the first drip-drip clue that the military were involved in
> the death of Brazilian de Menezes? Afaik this is the first mention.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4624794.stm
> "Police and soldiers were watching the block of flats where Mr Menezes
> lived, believing a man suspected of the 21 July attacks lived there."
>
> "A soldier saw the electrician leave his flat and thought he resembled
> the suspect. He suggested it was "worth somebody else having a look"."
>
IIRC, shortly after the event some media coverage speculated that the
military were were involved in some way. There was speculation from unnamed
'security sources' [i.e. the Editor] that military shot de Menezes. There
was, IIRC, a little more concrete speculation that some surveillance
officers were military, not police. I believe that was the extent of the
speculation over military involvement.
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
Yes, that about sums up what I've read/heard/seen. I've never heard
any official admission by the police/govt that soldiers were involved;
I even heard the police say that the shooter(s) had gone on holiday
immediately after the incident which I take to have been a diversion.
The mode of killing clearly suggests the military were involved and
it continues to look to me like Kratos is an illegal police policy
approved by government but I'm not hopeful that anybody will be
held to account.
Freeman
hummingbird wrote:
> Is this the first drip-drip clue that the military were involved in
> the death of Brazilian de Menezes? Afaik this is the first mention.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4624794.stm
> "Police and soldiers were watching the block of flats where Mr Menezes
> lived, believing a man suspected of the 21 July attacks lived there."
>
> "A soldier saw the electrician leave his flat and thought he resembled
> the suspect. He suggested it was "worth somebody else having a look"."
According to BBC Radio 4 news yesterday, the soldier was of the "SRR",
the "Special Reconnaissance Regiment".
According to Geoff Hoon, this regiment was set up just before the
arrest of two soldiers in Basra, disguised as Arabs, alleged by the
police to have had a carload of explosives and a detonator. They have
been variously described as of the SAS, or the SRR.
http://us.geocities.com/libertystrikesback/sep05.html#SAS
The "SRR" is claimed to be a revamped "Force Reconnaissance Unit"
(FRU), another "shadowy special forces group" which, in conjunction
with MI5, was said to have given hi-tech explosive technology to -- the
IRA -- in the early 1990s. It has subsequently been claimed that Iran
has supplied this technology to terrorists in southern Iraq, used to
kill British soldiers.
So it seems the "FRU"/"SRR" -- which may well be front-covers for
long-established special terror units -- have branched out into both
domestic and foreign intrigue. The latter, presumably, to set Iran up
as the next Mideast oil-producing conquest.
Freeman
Freeman wrote:
[...]
> The "SRR" is claimed to be a revamped "Force Reconnaissance Unit"
> (FRU), another "shadowy special forces group" which, in conjunction
> with MI5, was said to have given hi-tech explosive technology to -- the
> IRA -- in the early 1990s. It has subsequently been claimed that Iran
> has supplied this technology to terrorists in southern Iraq, used to
> kill British soldiers.
This according to The Independent on 16 October 2005. See
http://us.geocities.com/libertystrikesback/oct05.html
under 16 Oct. 05, second Independent article.
TD
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:59:01 -0000, "TD" <tdef...@hotmail.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>
>>"hummingbird" <ZYLYDW...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:kfnts1duqsci48d5j...@4ax.com...
>>> Is this the first drip-drip clue that the military were involved in
>>> the death of Brazilian de Menezes? Afaik this is the first mention.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4624794.stm
>>> "Police and soldiers were watching the block of flats where Mr Menezes
>>> lived, believing a man suspected of the 21 July attacks lived there."
>>>
>>> "A soldier saw the electrician leave his flat and thought he resembled
>>> the suspect. He suggested it was "worth somebody else having a look"."
>>>
>>
>>IIRC, shortly after the event some media coverage speculated that the
>>military were were involved in some way. There was speculation from
>>unnamed
>>'security sources' [i.e. the Editor] that military shot de Menezes. There
>>was, IIRC, a little more concrete speculation that some surveillance
>>officers were military, not police. I believe that was the extent of the
>>speculation over military involvement.
>
> Yes, that about sums up what I've read/heard/seen. I've never heard
> any official admission by the police/govt that soldiers were involved;
> I even heard the police say that the shooter(s) had gone on holiday
> immediately after the incident which I take to have been a diversion.
IIRC/AIUI it is standard procedure for a shooter to be removed from firearms
duty while they investigate the shooting.
> The mode of killing clearly suggests the military were involved
Why?
> and
> it continues to look to me like Kratos is an illegal police policy
> approved by government but I'm not hopeful that anybody will be
> held to account.
Police policy in this context is a matter for the police authority and it is
legal in as much as they are allowed to have such a policy. But in
'shooting to kill' the police are subject to the same law as the rest of us:
they may only use such force as they believe to be reasonable in order to
defend themselves or others against imminent danger. Of course, you can
argue that they may not be held to account in the same way as us, but that
is a different matter.
Specifically WRT this issue over the killing of de Menezes is, in my mind,
how (or indeed if) the police came to the conclusion that they or others
were in imminent danger of being harmed by him.
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>"hummingbird" <ZYLYDW...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kfnts1duqsci48d5j...@4ax.com...
>>>> Is this the first drip-drip clue that the military were involved in
>>>> the death of Brazilian de Menezes? Afaik this is the first mention.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4624794.stm
>>>> "Police and soldiers were watching the block of flats where Mr Menezes
>>>> lived, believing a man suspected of the 21 July attacks lived there."
>>>>
>>>> "A soldier saw the electrician leave his flat and thought he resembled
>>>> the suspect. He suggested it was "worth somebody else having a look"."
>>>>
>>>
>>>IIRC, shortly after the event some media coverage speculated that the
>>>military were were involved in some way. There was speculation from
>>>unnamed
>>>'security sources' [i.e. the Editor] that military shot de Menezes. There
>>>was, IIRC, a little more concrete speculation that some surveillance
>>>officers were military, not police. I believe that was the extent of the
>>>speculation over military involvement.
>>
>> Yes, that about sums up what I've read/heard/seen. I've never heard
>> any official admission by the police/govt that soldiers were involved;
>> I even heard the police say that the shooter(s) had gone on holiday
>> immediately after the incident which I take to have been a diversion.
>
>IIRC/AIUI it is standard procedure for a shooter to be removed from firearms
>duty while they investigate the shooting.
But the investigation didn't start for 5 days after and the guy went
on holiday (according to Ian Blair at the time IIRC) the day after.
This may have been a desire to get him out of the way and close down
any debate on who he was. It succeeded at the time.
>> The mode of killing clearly suggests the military were involved
>
>Why?
Seven shots into the head at close range with equal timing between the
shots, coupled to a *real* police officer who was holding the victim
in a bear hug shouting "what the fcuk are you doing?".
Either it was a military guy or police gunmen are trained assassins.
We should be told.
>> and
>> it continues to look to me like Kratos is an illegal police policy
>> approved by government but I'm not hopeful that anybody will be
>> held to account.
>
>Police policy in this context is a matter for the police authority and it is
>legal in as much as they are allowed to have such a policy. But in
>'shooting to kill' the police are subject to the same law as the rest of us:
>they may only use such force as they believe to be reasonable in order to
>defend themselves or others against imminent danger. Of course, you can
>argue that they may not be held to account in the same way as us, but that
>is a different matter.
But the Kratos policy's about more than shooting-to-kill a suicide
terrorist isn't it. It's about killing someone who they *think* might
be a suicide bomber, as we saw in the de Menezes case.
I believe Ian Blair & Co are of the view that they can execute someone
in such situations and then receive official non-action on the grounds
that it was 'to save us' from body parts all over the streets.
Put another way, I have heard both Blair's - and others - make
comments of this nature without ever indicating that any such killing
must be within existing law. Therefore, IMV they have written their
own law, by-passing Parliament and this point has been raised w/r/t
Kratos.
>Specifically WRT this issue over the killing of de Menezes is, in my mind,
>how (or indeed if) the police came to the conclusion that they or others
>were in imminent danger of being harmed by him.
Indeed. But if the police believe they have their own law on killing
suspect suicide bombers by way of Kratos, this issue will not be of
relevance to them. Plus we have seen a bit of the IPCC report leaked
saying that Cressida Dick had not had much sleep the previous night,
plus there were *communications problems* during the operation, plus
we are being reminded that the CPS will consider 'if a prosecution is
in the public interest', plus the report will not be made public until
after the CPS deliberations ... it all suggests to me that we're being
set up for a "no action will be taken" statement sometime later.
Quite apart from the de Menezes case in detail, I believe there should
be an independent criminal investigation as to whether the Kratos
policy was in fact a conspiracy between the Executive and the police
to by-pass Parliament, which would amount to a conspiracy to subvert
the law or summat similar.
TD
Because Ian Blair delayed it, Sir John Gieve over-ruled him (see the letters
on the Home Office website)
> and the guy went
> on holiday (according to Ian Blair at the time IIRC) the day after.
> This may have been a desire to get him out of the way and close down
> any debate on who he was. It succeeded at the time.
What difference does his being 'on holiday' make to the perception of
whether he is a policeman or military?
>>> The mode of killing clearly suggests the military were involved
>>
>>Why?
>
> Seven shots into the head at close range with equal timing between the
> shots, coupled to a *real* police officer who was holding the victim
> in a bear hug shouting "what the fcuk are you doing?".
> Either it was a military guy or police gunmen are trained assassins.
> We should be told.
IIRC it was seven or eight shots, including three misses. A 'surveillance
officer' was restraining de Menezes. What does that tell you about the
shooter?
>>> and
>>> it continues to look to me like Kratos is an illegal police policy
>>> approved by government but I'm not hopeful that anybody will be
>>> held to account.
>>
>>Police policy in this context is a matter for the police authority and it
>>is
>>legal in as much as they are allowed to have such a policy. But in
>>'shooting to kill' the police are subject to the same law as the rest of
>>us:
>>they may only use such force as they believe to be reasonable in order to
>>defend themselves or others against imminent danger. Of course, you can
>>argue that they may not be held to account in the same way as us, but that
>>is a different matter.
>
> But the Kratos policy's about more than shooting-to-kill a suicide
> terrorist isn't it. It's about killing someone who they *think* might
> be a suicide bomber, as we saw in the de Menezes case.
How is that different from what I wrote?
> I believe Ian Blair & Co are of the view that they can execute someone
> in such situations and then receive official non-action on the grounds
> that it was 'to save us' from body parts all over the streets.
I'm inclined to believe Ian Blair worries about the consequences of his men
being held responsible for their actions.
> Put another way, I have heard both Blair's - and others - make
> comments of this nature without ever indicating that any such killing
> must be within existing law. Therefore, IMV they have written their
> own law, by-passing Parliament and this point has been raised w/r/t
> Kratos.
policy <> law
>>Specifically WRT this issue over the killing of de Menezes is, in my mind,
>>how (or indeed if) the police came to the conclusion that they or others
>>were in imminent danger of being harmed by him.
>
> Indeed. But if the police believe they have their own law on killing
> suspect suicide bombers by way of Kratos, this issue will not be of
> relevance to them. Plus we have seen a bit of the IPCC report leaked
> saying that Cressida Dick had not had much sleep the previous night,
> plus there were *communications problems* during the operation, plus
> we are being reminded that the CPS will consider 'if a prosecution is
> in the public interest', plus the report will not be made public until
> after the CPS deliberations ... it all suggests to me that we're being
> set up for a "no action will be taken" statement sometime later.
>
> Quite apart from the de Menezes case in detail, I believe there should
> be an independent criminal investigation as to whether the Kratos
> policy was in fact a conspiracy between the Executive and the police
> to by-pass Parliament, which would amount to a conspiracy to subvert
> the law or summat similar.
What's the point? It would reveal what we already know: that this policy
was discussed with ministers; that at the end of the day such polices are a
matter for the police authority; and that the law for everyone is the same
(although it may not be equally enforced).
I believe you need to apply Hanlon's Razor.
hummingbird
Quite but I think you're missing my earlier point which is that the
shooter apparently went on holiday within the 5 days before the
inquiry started and ...see below
>> and the guy went
>> on holiday (according to Ian Blair at the time IIRC) the day after.
>> This may have been a desire to get him out of the way and close down
>> any debate on who he was. It succeeded at the time.
>
>What difference does his being 'on holiday' make to the perception of
>whether he is a policeman or military?
There's a subtlety you're missing in the comments...
The inference I draw is that Blair wanted us to believe the shooter
was a policeman working for him, not a military man, else he might
have said something different, like "he's returned to his army unit".
Bear in mind that Blair's comments were in response to media questions
as to who the shooter was. He said nothing at all to indicate that the
shooter was a military man but he obviously knew.
Whether he was a policeman or military, it's possible that the man had
not gone on holiday at all but was quietly spirited away from media
attention.
>>>> The mode of killing clearly suggests the military were involved
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> Seven shots into the head at close range with equal timing between the
>> shots, coupled to a *real* police officer who was holding the victim
>> in a bear hug shouting "what the fcuk are you doing?".
>> Either it was a military guy or police gunmen are trained assassins.
>> We should be told.
>
>IIRC it was seven or eight shots, including three misses.
Yes, seven in the head and one in the shoulder. I'm not aware that
any of them missed.
>A 'surveillance
>officer' was restraining de Menezes. What does that tell you about the
>shooter?
Nothing, except that he was determined to kill the guy whatever.
>>>> and
>>>> it continues to look to me like Kratos is an illegal police policy
>>>> approved by government but I'm not hopeful that anybody will be
>>>> held to account.
>>>
>>>Police policy in this context is a matter for the police authority and it
>>>is
>>>legal in as much as they are allowed to have such a policy. But in
>>>'shooting to kill' the police are subject to the same law as the rest of
>>>us:
>>>they may only use such force as they believe to be reasonable in order to
>>>defend themselves or others against imminent danger. Of course, you can
>>>argue that they may not be held to account in the same way as us, but that
>>>is a different matter.
>>
>> But the Kratos policy's about more than shooting-to-kill a suicide
>> terrorist isn't it. It's about killing someone who they *think* might
>> be a suicide bomber, as we saw in the de Menezes case.
>
>How is that different from what I wrote?
Quite a bit. You said it's legal for them to have such a policy and
that they are subject to the same law as the rest of us.
That is open to question.
>> I believe Ian Blair & Co are of the view that they can execute someone
>> in such situations and then receive official non-action on the grounds
>> that it was 'to save us' from body parts all over the streets.
>
>I'm inclined to believe Ian Blair worries about the consequences of his men
>being held responsible for their actions.
That depends on what private assurances he's been given.
I'd also think he's more worried about his own consequences.
>> Put another way, I have heard both Blair's - and others - make
>> comments of this nature without ever indicating that any such killing
>> must be within existing law. Therefore, IMV they have written their
>> own law, by-passing Parliament and this point has been raised w/r/t
>> Kratos.
>
>policy <> law
Sorry don't quite get you here. Police policy should be derived from
law. In this case I'm beginning to think the police/Executive may have
jointly wrote their own policy without reference to the law.
>>>Specifically WRT this issue over the killing of de Menezes is, in my mind,
>>>how (or indeed if) the police came to the conclusion that they or others
>>>were in imminent danger of being harmed by him.
>>
>> Indeed. But if the police believe they have their own law on killing
>> suspect suicide bombers by way of Kratos, this issue will not be of
>> relevance to them. Plus we have seen a bit of the IPCC report leaked
>> saying that Cressida Dick had not had much sleep the previous night,
>> plus there were *communications problems* during the operation, plus
>> we are being reminded that the CPS will consider 'if a prosecution is
>> in the public interest', plus the report will not be made public until
>> after the CPS deliberations ... it all suggests to me that we're being
>> set up for a "no action will be taken" statement sometime later.
>>
>> Quite apart from the de Menezes case in detail, I believe there should
>> be an independent criminal investigation as to whether the Kratos
>> policy was in fact a conspiracy between the Executive and the police
>> to by-pass Parliament, which would amount to a conspiracy to subvert
>> the law or summat similar.
>
>What's the point? It would reveal what we already know: that this policy
>was discussed with ministers; that at the end of the day such polices are a
>matter for the police authority; and that the law for everyone is the same
>(although it may not be equally enforced).
There's a lot of point. I'm surprised you can't see that. If a
conspiracy was hatched to by-pass Parliament that would be a very
serious matter for which someone should be held to account.
-it was not discussed with *ministers* afaik; only the Home Secretary
and doubtless PM Blair.
-such policies are *not* a matter for the police if a policy exceeds
what the law permits.
The Executive and police have no legal powers whatsoever to produce
a policy which seeks to override the law. We have already seen Ian
Blair attempt to do this immediately after the killing.
>I believe you need to apply Hanlon's Razor.
I wish I shared your belief. Given the utter lies that PM Blair has
told Parliament and everybody else during his time in office and his
steady drift towards authoritarian government, writing his own laws
as he sees fit is well within the capacity of his evil mind.
TD
or he was removed from firearms duty, which AIUI is standard procedure when
people are shot by the police.
>>> and the guy went
>>> on holiday (according to Ian Blair at the time IIRC) the day after.
>>> This may have been a desire to get him out of the way and close down
>>> any debate on who he was. It succeeded at the time.
>>
>>What difference does his being 'on holiday' make to the perception of
>>whether he is a policeman or military?
>
> There's a subtlety you're missing in the comments...
>
> The inference I draw is that Blair wanted us to believe the shooter
> was a policeman working for him, not a military man, else he might
> have said something different, like "he's returned to his army unit".
> Bear in mind that Blair's comments were in response to media questions
> as to who the shooter was. He said nothing at all to indicate that the
> shooter was a military man but he obviously knew.
What were his comments about the shooter?
> Whether he was a policeman or military, it's possible that the man had
> not gone on holiday at all but was quietly spirited away from media
> attention.
I wasn't aware the shooter had any media attention - i.e. I wasn't aware the
media suspected any specific person of being the shooter.
>>>>> The mode of killing clearly suggests the military were involved
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>> Seven shots into the head at close range with equal timing between the
>>> shots, coupled to a *real* police officer who was holding the victim
>>> in a bear hug shouting "what the fcuk are you doing?".
>>> Either it was a military guy or police gunmen are trained assassins.
>>> We should be told.
>>
>>IIRC it was seven or eight shots, including three misses.
>
> Yes, seven in the head and one in the shoulder. I'm not aware that
> any of them missed.
>
>>A 'surveillance
>>officer' was restraining de Menezes. What does that tell you about the
>>shooter?
>
> Nothing, except that he was determined to kill the guy whatever.
Exactly. We have no evidence that the shooter was military. There has been
plenty of speculation, such as the professor who claims that this number of
bullets being fired isn't part of police firearms officer training and
therefore must be military... well, maybe the guy panicked? Or maybe he
wanted to make sure? Or maybe he had a muscle spasm?
We need to remember that this was the first suicide bombing in Western
Europe.
>>>>> and
>>>>> it continues to look to me like Kratos is an illegal police policy
>>>>> approved by government but I'm not hopeful that anybody will be
>>>>> held to account.
>>>>
>>>>Police policy in this context is a matter for the police authority and
>>>>it
>>>>is
>>>>legal in as much as they are allowed to have such a policy. But in
>>>>'shooting to kill' the police are subject to the same law as the rest of
>>>>us:
>>>>they may only use such force as they believe to be reasonable in order
>>>>to
>>>>defend themselves or others against imminent danger. Of course, you can
>>>>argue that they may not be held to account in the same way as us, but
>>>>that
>>>>is a different matter.
>>>
>>> But the Kratos policy's about more than shooting-to-kill a suicide
>>> terrorist isn't it. It's about killing someone who they *think* might
>>> be a suicide bomber, as we saw in the de Menezes case.
>>
>>How is that different from what I wrote?
>
> Quite a bit. You said it's legal for them to have such a policy and
> that they are subject to the same law as the rest of us.
> That is open to question.
see below
>>> I believe Ian Blair & Co are of the view that they can execute someone
>>> in such situations and then receive official non-action on the grounds
>>> that it was 'to save us' from body parts all over the streets.
>>
>>I'm inclined to believe Ian Blair worries about the consequences of his
>>men
>>being held responsible for their actions.
>
> That depends on what private assurances he's been given.
> I'd also think he's more worried about his own consequences.
I was referring to the story about him supposedly holding his head in his
hands, after Gieve said the IPCC must go ahead, claiming that the people
above him didn't understand that the Met firearms officers would go on
strike if the shooter was held to account.
>>> Put another way, I have heard both Blair's - and others - make
>>> comments of this nature without ever indicating that any such killing
>>> must be within existing law. Therefore, IMV they have written their
>>> own law, by-passing Parliament and this point has been raised w/r/t
>>> Kratos.
>>
>>policy <> law
>
> Sorry don't quite get you here. Police policy should be derived from
> law. In this case I'm beginning to think the police/Executive may have
> jointly wrote their own policy without reference to the law.
Police policy is not equivalent to the law. They cannot write their own
law. They can write policy and procedure but the law on 'reasonable force'
applies, regardless of policy. The policy is not a defense.
In other words, the policeman must make a decision as to whether or not
shooting to kill is 'reasonable force' under those specific circumstances.
Yes of course it would! But you don't need conspirators to draw up police
policy, you need a police authority.
"Operation Kratos is a response developed by the police following 11
September which Ministers were not asked to approve but were told about"
"All police use of firearms is subject to the usual law on the use of force.
In particular, the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that the police may use
such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to effect an arrest or to
prevent crime."
<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-11-21b.24747.h>
> -it was not discussed with *ministers* afaik; only the Home Secretary
> and doubtless PM Blair.
> -such policies are *not* a matter for the police if a policy exceeds
> what the law permits.
>
> The Executive and police have no legal powers whatsoever to produce
> a policy which seeks to override the law.
>
> We have already seen Ian
> Blair attempt to do this immediately after the killing.
Apparently Ian Blair acted unlawfully in attempting to stop the IPCC inquiry
but that is the focus of a separate IPCC inquiry.
>>I believe you need to apply Hanlon's Razor.
>
>I wish I shared your belief. Given the utter lies that PM Blair has
> told Parliament and everybody else during his time in office and his
> steady drift towards authoritarian government, writing his own laws
> as he sees fit is well within the capacity of his evil mind.
IIRC there is a type of legislation doesn't have to go through Parliament.
But that is not what has happened here.
We don't need to worry about a conspiracy. There is plenty of real stuff to
worry about in this case. I don't understand why you've reached the
conclusions you appear to have reached, given the evidence.
hummingbird
I'll take your word on that but Ian Blair said he'd gone on holiday.
>>>> and the guy went
>>>> on holiday (according to Ian Blair at the time IIRC) the day after.
>>>> This may have been a desire to get him out of the way and close down
>>>> any debate on who he was. It succeeded at the time.
>>>
>>>What difference does his being 'on holiday' make to the perception of
>>>whether he is a policeman or military?
>>
>> There's a subtlety you're missing in the comments...
>>
>> The inference I draw is that Blair wanted us to believe the shooter
>> was a policeman working for him, not a military man, else he might
>> have said something different, like "he's returned to his army unit".
>> Bear in mind that Blair's comments were in response to media questions
>> as to who the shooter was. He said nothing at all to indicate that the
>> shooter was a military man but he obviously knew.
>
>What were his comments about the shooter?
See earlier comments above.
>> Whether he was a policeman or military, it's possible that the man had
>> not gone on holiday at all but was quietly spirited away from media
>> attention.
>
>I wasn't aware the shooter had any media attention
No because he was spirited away! ...sorry went on holiday!
>- i.e. I wasn't aware the
>media suspected any specific person of being the shooter.
The media were asking questions about who he was etc.
>>>>>> The mode of killing clearly suggests the military were involved
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>> Seven shots into the head at close range with equal timing between the
>>>> shots, coupled to a *real* police officer who was holding the victim
>>>> in a bear hug shouting "what the fcuk are you doing?".
>>>> Either it was a military guy or police gunmen are trained assassins.
>>>> We should be told.
>>>
>>>IIRC it was seven or eight shots, including three misses.
>>
>> Yes, seven in the head and one in the shoulder. I'm not aware that
>> any of them missed.
>>
>>>A 'surveillance
>>>officer' was restraining de Menezes. What does that tell you about the
>>>shooter?
>>
>> Nothing, except that he was determined to kill the guy whatever.
>
>Exactly. We have no evidence that the shooter was military. There has been
>plenty of speculation, such as the professor who claims that this number of
>bullets being fired isn't part of police firearms officer training and
>therefore must be military... well, maybe the guy panicked? Or maybe he
>wanted to make sure? Or maybe he had a muscle spasm?
No. I don't see the odd links you draw between your two statements.
I've already said the nature of the shooting suggests he was a
military guy or police trained assassin. It appears from another
poster in this thread that he's actually a military guy from some
special unit. Surprise surprise.
>We need to remember that this was the first suicide bombing in Western
>Europe.
So? Does that mean he's more likely to get a muscle spasm?
If he panicked, that's serious for the police.
I wasn't aware of that story ...but my heart bleeds for him. The
notion that justice should be influenced by whether the police
shooters will go on strike if held to account for what they do is
risible and unacceptable but ISTM it's one excuse being lined up.
>>>> Put another way, I have heard both Blair's - and others - make
>>>> comments of this nature without ever indicating that any such killing
>>>> must be within existing law. Therefore, IMV they have written their
>>>> own law, by-passing Parliament and this point has been raised w/r/t
>>>> Kratos.
>>>
>>>policy <> law
>>
>> Sorry don't quite get you here. Police policy should be derived from
>> law. In this case I'm beginning to think the police/Executive may have
>> jointly wrote their own policy without reference to the law.
>
>Police policy is not equivalent to the law. They cannot write their own
>law. They can write policy and procedure but the law on 'reasonable force'
>applies, regardless of policy. The policy is not a defense.
More than the use of reasonable force...*the shooter* personally must
be able to convince others that he believed he and/or others were in
mortal danger and thus used lethal force. Personally I cannot see him
being able to do this given the details so far revealed.
I do not believe 'following orders' is enough.
But as said, it may be that the police/Executive jointly wrote the
Kratos policy which may seek to override the law (or ignore the law
if you prefer), thereby turning the police into *the law* and maybe
Ian Blair was given assurances previously about impunity.
>In other words, the policeman must make a decision as to whether or not
>shooting to kill is 'reasonable force' under those specific circumstances.
Well that's what the law says but it's by no means certain that this
will be applied by the CPS when reviewing the case and deciding
whether to press charges. There's the "not in the public interest"
get-out of jail free card to play or "it was a communications problem
don't yer know, so we can't blame any one individual."
But we already know this policy was drawn up by the Met police and
the Home Office, hence the possibility of a conspiracy. Quite where a
police authority came into it is a mystery.
>"Operation Kratos is a response developed by the police following 11
>September which Ministers were not asked to approve but were told about"
Not quite right.
IIUC the then Home Secretary (one Blunkett) personally approved it
and he would have done so with PM Blair's tick and star.
>"All police use of firearms is subject to the usual law on the use of force.
>In particular, the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that the police may use
>such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to effect an arrest or to
>prevent crime."
><http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-11-21b.24747.h>
>
>> -it was not discussed with *ministers* afaik; only the Home Secretary
>> and doubtless PM Blair.
>> -such policies are *not* a matter for the police if a policy exceeds
>> what the law permits.
>>
>> The Executive and police have no legal powers whatsoever to produce
>> a policy which seeks to override the law.
>>
>> We have already seen Ian
>> Blair attempt to do this immediately after the killing.
>
>Apparently Ian Blair acted unlawfully in attempting to stop the IPCC inquiry
>but that is the focus of a separate IPCC inquiry.
Quite and it points to Ian Blair not being opposed to making his own
law when it suits him.
>>>I believe you need to apply Hanlon's Razor.
>>
>>I wish I shared your belief. Given the utter lies that PM Blair has
>> told Parliament and everybody else during his time in office and his
>> steady drift towards authoritarian government, writing his own laws
>> as he sees fit is well within the capacity of his evil mind.
>
>IIRC there is a type of legislation doesn't have to go through Parliament.
Statutory Orders? Such a significant new law as Kratos would require
primary legislation afaik - if indeed it is a new *law* and not just a
v/careful, close to the wire interpretation of existing law.
>But that is not what has happened here.
>
>We don't need to worry about a conspiracy.
I don't share your optimism given the facts so far and PM Blair's
record.
>There is plenty of real stuff to
>worry about in this case. I don't understand why you've reached the
>conclusions you appear to have reached, given the evidence.
Perhaps you haven't cottoned on yet to what PM Blair is doing in
Britain? He is arguably not averse at breaking the law when it suits
him. See Iraq.
Alex Flaherty
as a homeowner, if I put seven bullets into the head of an intruder
because I believed he was a mortal danger to my family and I (hey,
let's go the whole hog, I believed he was a suicide bomber intent on
blowing up my neighbours and entire street), do you not think I'd have
been charged with murder by now?
and would I have been able to simply drift away on holiday whilst the
facts were investigated?
one rule for the Police................
hummingbird
<vanessa...@webtribe.net>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>here's a thought:
>
>as a homeowner, if I put seven bullets into the head of an intruder
>because I believed he was a mortal danger to my family and I (hey,
>let's go the whole hog, I believed he was a suicide bomber intent on
>blowing up my neighbours and entire street), do you not think I'd have
>been charged with murder by now?
You would have been charged quite soon after the event without a six
month investigation.
>and would I have been able to simply drift away on holiday whilst the
>facts were investigated?
Not at all. You'd have likely been held on remand or had your passport
removed and told to keep in close contact or whatever they do.
>one rule for the Police................
It looks like it more and more on a range of matters.
Freeman
Searches of Google News and BBC News online reveal nothing for "SRR"
and "Menezes" jointly. But I heard what I heard, on BBC Radio 4 news
on 18 January 2006.
Freeman
hummingbird wrote:
> Is this the first drip-drip clue that the military were involved in
> the death of Brazilian de Menezes? Afaik this is the first mention.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4624794.stm
> "Police and soldiers were watching the block of flats where Mr Menezes
> lived, believing a man suspected of the 21 July attacks lived there."
>
> "A soldier saw the electrician leave his flat and thought he resembled
> the suspect. He suggested it was "worth somebody else having a look"."
Already, in August 2005, it was being reported that special forces were
involved in the incident:-
"Several commentators suggested that special forces may have been
involved in the shooting. Professor Michael Clarke, Professor of
Defence Studies at King's College London, went as far as to say that
unless there had been a major change in policy it was likely that it
was not the police who had carried out the shooting, but special
forces:
""To have bullets pumped into him like this suggests quite a lot about
him and what the authorities, whoever they are, assumed about him. The
fact that he was shot in this way strongly suggests that it was someone
the authorities knew and suspected he was carrying explosives on him.
[...] You don't shoot somebody five times if you think you might have
made a mistake and may be able to arrest him. [...] Even Special Branch
and SO19 are not trained to do this sort of thing. It's plausible that
they were special forces or elements of special forces." [43]
"... Later, on 4 August 2005, The Guardian reported that the
newly-created Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), a special forces
unit specialising in covert surveillance, were involved in the
operation that led to the shooting. The anonymous Whitehall sources who
provided the story stressed that the SRR were involved only in
intelligence-gathering, and that Menezes was shot by armed police not
by members of the SRR or other soldiers. Defence sources would not
comment on speculation that SRR soldiers were among the plain-clothes
officers who followed Menezes on to the No. 2 bus[44]."
Freeman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1542186,00.html
"A new army special forces regiment was involved in the operation that
led to the killing of an innocent man at Stockwell tube station in
south London last week, the Guardian can reveal.
"The Special Reconnaissance Regiment, set up in April to help combat
international terrorism, was deployed in the surveillance operation
which led to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian
electrician, on July 22, according to Whitehall sources. ...
"Yesterday Whitehall sources told the Guardian that soldiers of the
Special Reconnaisance Regiment, modelled on an undercover unit that
operated in Northern Ireland, was engaged in "low-level intelligence
behind the scenes" when the Brazilian was shot. There was "no direct
military involvement in the shooting", the sources said.
"It is believed to be the first time the new regiment was engaged in an
operation.
"The regiment absorbed 14th Intelligence Company, known as "14 Int", a
plainclothes unit set up to gather intelligence covertly on suspect
terrorists in Northern Ireland. Its recruits are trained by the SAS.
"Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, said the unit had been formed
to meet a worldwide demand for "special reconnaissance capability".
..."
Others have said it was a successor to the NI "FRU", (the Force
Reconnassance Unit"). Waht's in a name ...?