Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

6538

The Barrister Shot By Cops In Chelsea

Recommended Posts

Barrister shot

I see very little reason to shoot the guy. True he'd gone nuts and was pissed but he had a DB shotgun loaded with birdshot. The place was surrounded and the street cordoned off so he wasn't going anywhere and no one was getting in.

Surely in this situation you just wait it out? He was pissed and still drinking so the alternatives were that he either passed out or sobered up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrister shot

I see very little reason to shoot the guy. True he'd gone nuts and was pissed but he had a DB shotgun loaded with birdshot. The place was surrounded and the street cordoned off so he wasn't going anywhere and no one was getting in.

Surely in this situation you just wait it out? He was pissed and still drinking so the alternatives were that he either passed out or sobered up.

Never mind that. His house was worth £2.2 million. Shocking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind that. His house was worth £2.2 million. Shocking!

I wonder if they needed listed buildings/conservation area consent to shoot the windows out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take a pretty hard line on this. If you start waving a gun around and shooting it out of windows, expect to get shot. I don't see why the hell anyone else should put their life on the line in order to negotiate with someone pointing a shotgun at them. And "its only birdshot" doesn't hack it. He could have loaded with BBs quite legally, or he should have illegally loaded with a slug that has a range of 300 metres and immense penetrating power. You just don't know what is in the breech until he fires it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take a pretty hard line on this. If you start waving a gun around and shooting it out of windows, expect to get shot. I don't see why the hell anyone else should put their life on the line in order to negotiate with someone pointing a shotgun at them. And "its only birdshot" doesn't hack it. He could have loaded with BBs quite legally, or he should have illegally loaded with a slug that has a range of 300 metres and immense penetrating power. You just don't know what is in the breech until he fires it.

5 rounds in the head, heart and liver... not exactly a suicide bomber though, was he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take a pretty hard line on this. If you start waving a gun around and shooting it out of windows, expect to get shot. I don't see why the hell anyone else should put their life on the line in order to negotiate with someone pointing a shotgun at them. And "its only birdshot" doesn't hack it. He could have loaded with BBs quite legally, or he should have illegally loaded with a slug that has a range of 300 metres and immense penetrating power. You just don't know what is in the breech until he fires it.

This is true and I'm sure people on here know what my attitude to people waving guns about is. This situation is a little different though, from what I can gather. The guy was contained and didn't appear to have been much of a threat to anyone. Yes he could have shot at the cops but it would be interesting to know whether the cops actually needed to be where they were to keep him contained. If they didn't then surely they could have just waited it out?

Although, admittedly, I'm not at the inquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 rounds in the head, heart and liver... not exactly a suicide bomber though, was he?

It was several cops all shooting at once - 7 of them, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=Oh Well :(' date='23 September 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1285234370' post='2720110]

Two observations;

The Cops are trigger happy thugs.

The dead man was a nutter, we are well rid of him.

I'm not saying that the cops are trigger happy nutters - yet. Just wondering if waiting it out was the more viable option in this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes he could have shot at the cops but it would be interesting to know whether the cops actually needed to be where they were to keep him contained. If they didn't then surely they could have just waited it out?

I think that his problem was that he was in Central London - if he'd been on a farm, then isolation would be pretty easy. Setting up a 500m secure perimeter in London is hard. We also don't know what else he had in his gun cupboard - he could easily have had a deer rifle with quite a considerable range. Plod on the ground may have been asking the same question, their internal communication is absolutely atrocious.

As I understand it, he started firing out of the window, then looked like he was pointing it at the plod. Game over at that point IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really know much about this incident but dont the coppers have other non-lethal forms of weapons to incapacitate people rather than blow them to pieces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really know much about this incident but dont the coppers have other non-lethal forms of weapons to incapacitate people rather than blow them to pieces?

It's the same as the Menezes incident.You are asking people to make decisions that affect their lives and those of others while in possession of limited information.Then they are criticised with the benefit of hindsight.If they had not shot him and he had killed someone the opposite line would be being bandied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true and I'm sure people on here know what my attitude to people waving guns about is. This situation is a little different though, from what I can gather. The guy was contained and didn't appear to have been much of a threat to anyone. Yes he could have shot at the cops but it would be interesting to know whether the cops actually needed to be where they were to keep him contained. If they didn't then surely they could have just waited it out?

Although, admittedly, I'm not at the inquest.

I think the police would need to have eye contact on him if possible at all times and certainly on all the doors etc. to make sure he didn't get out endangering the public. So I'd say they'd have to be within viewing distance of him which IMO would put them in/very near harm's way.

Imagine if they'd done it differently and had been a lot further away, there is a small chance that he may have been able to get out unobserved. I believe he was in a terraced house, there is a tiny chance he could have gone into the loft and managed to break through to next door and so on until he was at the end of the terrace, from there he may have had the opportunity to take shots at passersby. It's unlikely but it could happen.

I can't but think that had this guy wasn't a upper class barrister it wouldn't have got the same attention and the current court case wouldn't be taking place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take a pretty hard line on this. If you start waving a gun around and shooting it out of windows, expect to get shot.

Like the police do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same as the Menezes incident.You are asking people to make decisions that affect their lives and those of others while in possession of limited information.Then they are criticised with the benefit of hindsight.If they had not shot him and he had killed someone the opposite line would be being bandied.

Negligence v Murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrister shot

I see very little reason to shoot the guy. True he'd gone nuts and was pissed but he had a DB shotgun loaded with birdshot. The place was surrounded and the street cordoned off so he wasn't going anywhere and no one was getting in.

Surely in this situation you just wait it out? He was pissed and still drinking so the alternatives were that he either passed out or sobered up.

If you wait you don't get to kill him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same as the Menezes incident.You are asking people to make decisions that affect their lives and those of others while in possession of limited information.Then they are criticised with the benefit of hindsight.If they had not shot him and he had killed someone the opposite line would be being bandied.

Same as Menezes? You're joking. Menezes who it turned out later, the coppers knew at the time wasn't armed, wasn't dangerous, made no threat and was still shot 11 times. That's serious premeditation, the coppers went out to execute someone.

And they get the wrong bloke (they claim). So who was the right bloke i wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as Menezes? You're joking. Menezes who it turned out later, the coppers knew at the time wasn't armed, wasn't dangerous, made no threat and was still shot 11 times. That's serious premeditation, the coppers went out to execute someone.

And they get the wrong bloke (they claim). So who was the right bloke i wonder?

Not sure you are right here.

How do you know that someone is not armed until you search them?

The Police on the ground were told that he was dangerous. (7/7 had just happened)

The making or not making of a threat in terrorist circumstances (suicide bombers) is not very relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as Menezes? You're joking. Menezes who it turned out later, the coppers knew at the time wasn't armed, wasn't dangerous, made no threat and was still shot 11 times. That's serious premeditation, the coppers went out to execute someone.

And they get the wrong bloke (they claim). So who was the right bloke i wonder?

I have never seen it contended that they knew all this and I would doubt that someone with the mindset of wanting to be an executioner would get past the controls to be an armed terrorist officer.Now had you said an SAS man wanted to execute someone I would agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen it contended that they knew all this and I would doubt that someone with the mindset of wanting to be an executioner would get past the controls to be an armed terrorist officer.Now had you said an SAS man wanted to execute someone I would agree.

its a fine line, presumably you would not get to be an armed officer unless they thought you had it in you to kill a man. On this basis I would have thought the selection criteria positively encourages those that are prepared to shoot without thinking about the consequences of the person at the other end that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure you are right here.

How do you know that someone is not armed until you search them?

The Police on the ground were told that he was dangerous. (7/7 had just happened)

The making or not making of a threat in terrorist circumstances (suicide bombers) is not very relevant.

The police originally said he was wearing a heavy jacket which they thought could hide a bomb. He was wearing a light denim jacket. The police said he jumped a ticket barrier and ran when challenged. The police did not issue any challenge, and neither did Menezes jump any barrier, he used his Oyster card.

From Amnesty International, my emphasis:

Initial police statements claimed that Jean Charles de Menezes was a suspect linked to the incidents of the previous day. It was also reported that he had tried to evade arrest and that, though it was summer, he had been wearing a thick jacket thought to conceal explosives. However, two days later, on 24 July 2005, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stated categorically that Jean Charles de Menezes had not been involved in any suspicious activities, and that he had been shot dead as a result of a mistake. The police later acknowledged that Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a denim jacket, and had not acted in any way as to arouse suspicion.

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police originally said he was wearing a heavy jacket which they thought could hide a bomb. He was wearing a light denim jacket. The police said he jumped a ticket barrier and ran when challenged. The police did not issue any challenge, and neither did Menezes jump any barrier, he used his Oyster card.

From Amnesty International, my emphasis:

My link

It's the "Initial Police Statements" that's the problem.

Amnesty cleverly then change to 'It was reported' (ie The Police did not say so, just the newspapers) but leave the impression that the Police said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the "Initial Police Statements" that's the problem.

Amnesty cleverly then change to 'It was reported' (ie The Police did not say so, just the newspapers) but leave the impression that the Police said it.

No, the problem is not the original police statement or what the press reported, it was this:

The police later acknowledged that Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a denim jacket, and had not acted in any way as to arouse suspicion.
The evidence contradicts claims from the Metropolitan Police at the time that the Brazilian’s "clothing and his behaviour at the station added to their [officers’] suspicions",
Sunday Times

So the police had, in their own (later) words, no suspicion, but shot him dead. No challenge. Nothing. Gunned down by surprise after he had sat down with nowhere to escape. Of course, they only said this after surveillance camera evidence was found. How inconvenient, I expect they'll be more thorough next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly OT, but one thing I found very puzzling about the De Menezes case was the absence of loud and sustained howls of protest from the Brazilian authorities. From his family, yes, but the Brazilian government kept more or less stumm and appeared to be distancing themselves from the family's campaign. I can think of two possibilities: either he was actually up to some serious no good (e.g. drug smuggling), and the Brazilians did not want to risk that becoming public knowledge, or NuLab pointed out somewhat forcefully to the Brazilians that De Menezes was here illegally (he'd overstayed his visa, which IIRC never allowed him to work here anyway), and that if they made too much of a fuss a large number of other Brazilians who were here illegally would be rounded up and put on the next plane back to Sao Paolo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.