Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:39:08 on Wed, 27
Jul 2005, Nick Cooper
remarked:
Imagine you've left your flat and travelled three miles - including
part of the journey on a bus - and nothing unusual has happened to
you. You get inside the Tube station, and are in the process of
buying a ticket when suddenly a gang of men in plain-clothes come
running in waving guns and _not_ (apparently) identifying themselves
as police. Are you positive you wouldn't panic and run for you live?

Hypothetical, if what really happened was:

"As Mr Menezes waited to cross the busy main road, the decision was
taken at Scotland Yard that he must not be allowed to get to the
platform.

The marksmen were told: if you think he has explosives under his coat
and he fails to heed shouted warnings, then you must shoot to kill.

As the three plain-clothes officers closed in on Mr Menezes, they say
that they screamed their first warning that they were armed police.
Their version is that he turned, ran into the station concourse, vaulted
the ticket barriers and reached a waiting train before they could catch
him."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...707480,00.html

So? The same article states:

"As the three plain-clothes officers closed in on Mr Menezes, they say
that they screamed their first warning that they were armed police.
Their version is that he turned, ran into the station concourse,
vaulted the ticket barriers and reached a waiting train before they
could catch him. They shot him five times in the head when they
believed that he was trying to trigger a bomb."

We now know that he was shot eight times, not the five claimed here, so
why should we accept the rest of "their version" as accurate? Of
course, earlier it states:

"There are eight separate flats in the block. When Mr Menezes emerged
from the communal front door just after 9.30am, the police must have
realised from the photographs they carried that he was not one of the
four bombers. Even so they decided that he was "a likely candidate"
to follow because of his demeanour and colour, so one group set off on
foot after him."

So they knew he wasn't one of the bombers, but despite there being a
one in eight chance of him actually leaving the flat they were
interested in, they decided he was one based on "demeanour and colour."
Of course, the latter is clearly doubtful in light of the photographs
we have now all seen of de Menezes, but "demeanour"? What a huge
get-out clause that is. And, of course, the cousin with whom she
shared a flat is disputing the "bulky, padded jacket" even existed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711779.stm

"But cousin Patricia Armani said she did not remember him wearing a
padded jacket.

"He didn't use to feel cold. In the winter he even walked on the street
with T-shirt," she told the BBC Brasil.com "

In message .com, at
05:44:42 on Wed, 27 Jul 2005, remarked:
So if you were in a Tube station, buying a ticket and a load of men
came in screaming unintelligibly and waving guns, you would think,
"Now, what's happening here? Must look around to see if there are any
police officers I can ask for help..." Would you ****. Like most
people, you would run for your life.

On the other hand, if I were outside and started to be pursued by armed
police...
--
Roland Perry

In message .com, at
05:54:37 on Wed, 27 Jul 2005, remarked:
And, of course, the cousin with whom she
shared a flat is disputing the "bulky, padded jacket" even existed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711779.stm

"But cousin Patricia Armani said she did not remember him wearing a
padded jacket.

No doubt the inquest will be able to sort that one out. Whether he was,
I mean, not whether his cousin could remember him ever wearing one.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

No doubt the inquest will be able to sort that one out. Whether he was,
I mean, not whether his cousin could remember him ever wearing one.


This could be easily cleared up by releasing any surveillance photos
that were taken. Odd that none were released of Menezes yet.

Are all you people complete f**king idiots. Since the 7 July and
especially since the incident at the adjacent station on the previous
day, each tube station has been ringed by police in very, very bright
yellow jackets. Only a complete idiot could fail to have noticed them.
The guy was not in the ticket hall buying a ticket, he ran in and had
enough presence to vault the gates.
You are dead right that I would run for my life but past goodness knows
how many policemen, vault a 4 foot high barrier, get cornered in tube
train.
Lets face it the guy was a complete and utter (innocent for all the
liberals) idiot.
Reminds me of the idiotic scenaio that you see in so many films that
makes for good movies but you can't help thinking what a pratt, when
being chased you run up a fire escape to the top of a very tall
building and well get stuffed basicly.

Kevin

BCattivabrutto wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

No doubt the inquest will be able to sort that one out. Whether he
was, I mean, not whether his cousin could remember him ever
wearing one.


This could be easily cleared up by releasing any surveillance photos
that were taken. Odd that none were released of Menezes yet.

Not odd at all. If a murder or manslaughter charge is made, as the
title of this thread suggests, any surveillance photos would be vital
evidence, and should be presented at the trial, not before.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message . com, at
07:11:16 on Wed, 27 Jul 2005, BCattivabrutto
remarked:
No doubt the inquest will be able to sort that one out. Whether he was,
I mean, not whether his cousin could remember him ever wearing one.

This could be easily cleared up by releasing any surveillance photos
that were taken. Odd that none were released of Menezes yet.

Not really, as there's an investigation (of the incident) under way and
the public doesn't usually get fed the evidence that will be put before
such enquiries. The only photos at this stage are of wanted people.
--
Roland Perry

wrote:
each tube station has been ringed by police in very, very bright
yellow jackets. Only a complete idiot could fail to have noticed them.

Hands up the complete idiots then. Not every tube station, not every
day. Some stations, some days. Certainly not for all the times I've made
several journeys since.

Whether it was the case at Stockwell that day, I'm not sure I can say.
Have you read otherwise?

chris harrison wrote:
wrote:
each tube station has been ringed by police in very, very bright
yellow jackets. Only a complete idiot could fail to have noticed
them.

Hands up the complete idiots then. Not every tube station, not every
day. Some stations, some days. Certainly not for all the times I've
made several journeys since.

Whether it was the case at Stockwell that day, I'm not sure I can
say. Have you read otherwise?

I'm sure I read an interview with someone who used Stockwell station
daily, who said that after 7/7 there were always one or two uniformed
police there, but after the attempted bombings on 21/7 there were many
more. (Menedez was shot on 22/7.)
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Bob man" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
And another one who wont explain why this illegal immigrant in fear of
his life didn't ask the police at Stockwell for protection. When is one
of these ****s going to answer the question.

Kevin


Well said that man

Ian Blair keeps telling us that a policeman must make a life or death
decision in a split second and on this occasion they got it wrong. Why is
the same excuse invalid for an innocent man facing a gang of gun toting
thugs?
--
Malcolm