Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cocaine found in De Menezes' urine

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    MOH wrote: »
    Seems to be the other way around?

    Ok, we will have to split hairs here. then.



    TJ911...

    PS. How do you change the link name like the way you got Seems?


  • Options
    #63
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Trojan911 wrote: »
    PS. How do you change the link name like the way you got Seems?

    like this (remove space before "url":

    [ url=http://met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/other_information/corporate/so19_introduction.pdf]your text here[/url].


  • Options
    #64
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    rubadub wrote: »
    And symptoms of heavy caffeine use too. But if abnormal amounts of caffeine were in his blood I doubt it would have made the newspapers.

    Of course it wouldn't, caffeine is legal.

    TJ911...


  • Options
    #65
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    Ok, we will have to split hairs here then.



    TJ911...


  • Options
    #66
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Trojan911 wrote: »
    Of course it wouldn't, caffeine is legal.

    TJ911...
    Don't mind rubadub.
    In his eyes, all drugs are the exact same.
    To him, caffeine is the exact same as heroin, because they are both drugs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    Cheers Eoin, Terry...

    TJ911...


  • Options
    #68
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,978 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Introduced to shamelessly smear an innocent man who was murdered by the state

    The medical witness stated that there were no active traces of coke in the murdered man therefore all this waffle about how the coke may have affected the police decision to shoot is just that.. waffle.

    Now it has come out that the police manipulated images in an attempt to show that de Menezes was more like the proper suspect thereby allowing them to claim that it was not really criminal incompetence that led them to murder an innocent man.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7048756.stm


  • Options
    #69
    MrJoeSoap
    Registered Users Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭MrJoeSoap


    Savman wrote: »
    The way I understood it, he jumped the ticket barrier and ran from a bunch of guys with guns. I'm sure they were shouting "armed police" or something similar. Why the hell did he run?

    In the climate at the time, I can see why they took no chances but then again it was a senseless killing.

    I don't really know where I stand on this tbh.

    So misinformed I don't even know where to start. Before you decide where you stand, read up on it a bit.


  • Options
    #70
    Wertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,909 ✭✭✭✭Wertz


    The Met have been found guilty in this case.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7069796.stm

    Charged with failing to protect the public, £175K fine and almost 400K in costs.
    Looks like the whole drug thing had no bearing in the end, as well it shouldn't have....


  • Options
    #71
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    Breach of Health and Safety laws were the most extreme charges that could be laid against these officers? Would manslaughter or murder not have been more appropriate?

    And shame on whoever tried to turn the cocaine thing into a piece of spin in favour of the police.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Wertz wrote: »

    , £175K fine and almost 400K in costs.
    ....


    Whats the point of that? I assume that comes from their budget? All thats going to do is reduce policing in the Met area.

    Or are fine cheques and such cut from a seperate government chequebook?


  • Options
    #73
    Wertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,909 ✭✭✭✭Wertz


    Yeah that occured to me too....the judge said he would have imposed a much greater fine only for budgetary issues, which ultimately leaves the Met out of pocket and further unable to adequately protect the public.
    But then you can't exactly send the commisioner and his deputy to jail either...


  • Options
    #74
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,231 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    cornbb wrote: »
    Would manslaughter or murder not have been more appropriate?

    Considered and discounted. There was a lack of individual culpability: Anyone closely enough involved in the incident that they could be covered with such a charge (eg the shooter) was acting as best he could given the information available to him, it would have been unfair to charge him.

    NTM


  • Options
    #75
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    DonJose wrote: »
    When armed police tell you to stop, especially a couple of days after dozens of people were killed in suicide bombings, you f**king stop.

    Perhaps you haven't read the later reports of what happened, as shown on the video cameras. He walked leisurely through the station, bought a ticket, fed it into the machine, walked into an open Tube carriage and sat down.

    The cops raced through and jumped over the stile, and as they approached, he came towards them, smiling, showing no aggression.

    They then bundled him into the Tube carriage, lay on him and shot him repeatedly in the head.

    Latest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7069796.stm


    Police guilty over Menezes case
    Jean Charles de Menezes: Followed to train, then shot
    London's Metropolitan police force has been found guilty of endangering the public over the shooting dead of a man officers mistook for a suicide bomber.

    The force broke health and safety laws when officers pursued Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes to a Tube station and shot him seven times, a jury found.

    It was fined £175,000 with £385,000 costs over the 22 July 2005 shooting.

    <snip>


  • Options
    #76
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Considered and discounted. There was a lack of individual culpability: Anyone closely enough involved in the incident that they could be covered with such a charge (eg the shooter) was acting as best he could given the information available to him, it would have been unfair to charge him.

    NTM

    Unfair.Huh. What about the poor victim.It seems just don an official uniform and you get away with murder . The police failed to stop this man after leaving his flat , then 2 buses, and eventually the train station.Then just kill him and lie for 24 hours after and even in the trial tried to discredit the victim further . Who needs cops like that ? Unfair is an understatement. A cover up to protect the system and bungling incompetent cops who put everybody at risk .I hope they can live with themselves.


  • Options
    #77
    Binomate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,783 ✭✭✭Binomate


    It was self defence.


  • Options
    #78
    Wertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,909 ✭✭✭✭Wertz


    Binomate wrote: »
    It was self defence.

    Yes, the officers involved thought they were protecting themselves and the public...it's the support teams and their leadership that has to be called into question here...as was asked back on the day it happened and is still asked, why was a potential suicide bomber even allowed to board the first bus, let alone a subsequent one and then a tube train?
    After the fact it's primarily management and the press relations dept of the Met that have acted to cover it up (albeit temporarily)...as far as I'm concerned I couldn't have faith in top brass that moved to try and spin the whole thing to suit their story...so it's a resignation matter IMO.
    It would be wrong to punish individual officers when the guys in charge have as much or more to answer for than the ones doing the shooting...


  • Options
    #79
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Binomate wrote: »
    It was self defence.

    The man had no weapons.Incompetent cops badly trained ,if at all. gung ho.Do not elevate the cops in this case , they can be just as incompetent as the next man ( even resorting to dirty tricks in the trial and lies ,is that sort of Police society deserves.)Should all be sacked and if there was justice they would all be prosecuted What sort of person joins an armed tactical unit knowing they will have to kill at some point ?


  • Options
    #80
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,231 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    The police failed to stop this man after leaving his flat , then 2 buses, and eventually the train station.Then just kill him and lie for 24 hours after.

    Different issue. "The Police" is not an individual entity who can be charged with murder or manslaughter. There is little evidence that those most closely involved in the shooting acted in anything other than what they considered the best possible manner given the information they knew. That this information was wrong was not their fault, that lay elsewhere. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is an extremely dangerous route to take and will result in police (or whoever) not taking decisions for fear of possible negative reprecussions on the off-chance that they are shown to be wrong when information not then available is brought to light.
    What sort of person joins an armed tactical unit knowing they will have to kill at some point

    Courageous ones willing to put their own lives at risk for the benefit of society.

    NTM


  • Options
    #81
    Binomate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,783 ✭✭✭Binomate


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    The man had no weapons.Incompetent cops badly trained ,if at all. gung ho.Do not elevate the cops in this case , they can be just as incompetent as the next man ( even resorting to dirty tricks in the trial and lies ,is that sort of Police society deserves.)Should all be sacked and if there was justice they would all be prosecuted What sort of person joins an armed tactical unit knowing they will have to kill at some point ?
    Take it conspiracy theories.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    cranmore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 45 ✭cranmore


    kbannon wrote: »
    from http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhmhcwmhmhcw/
    Can someone tell me why it is relevant to reveal that a member of the public shot by police was a coke user. Personally I can't see the connection between snorting it and the police (who initially misled the public) releasing a barrage of hollow point bullets into his head!)
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)

    they're trying to tell us its the deadmans fault that he is dead.


  • Options
    #83
    Dr_Teeth
    Registered Users Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭Dr_Teeth


    This is a pretty good summary of what happened, with CCTV footage:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WARwDi-VQcI

    I don't blame the firearms officers tbh. They were told this guy was a suicide bomber who had just gotten on the tube.. to stop someone like that their training is to shoot them repeatedly in the head so they don't have a chance to trigger a bomb.

    I blame the leadership of the investigation, especially that police chief. They must have a process in their investigations to go from "random member of the public" to "suspicious bloke we are following" to "terrorist who must be shot in the head right now" - it's obviously they ****ed this up completely as there was zero evidence that Jean Charles was a terrorist.

    It was criminal negligence in my view, and person or persons at the top should have been charged.


  • Options
    #84
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Binomate wrote: »
    Take it conspiracy theories.

    Continue to live in your bubble and believe everything you are told , safe .


  • Options
    #85
    Binomate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,783 ✭✭✭Binomate


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Continue to live in your bubble and believe everything you are told , safe .
    I suppose you believe the world is run by shape shifting lizards as well.


  • Options
    #86
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Binomate wrote: »
    I suppose you believe the world is run by shape shifting lizards as well.

    No incomprehensible .I live in the real world and do not believe everything I read and dont blindly believe all I am told.


  • Options
    #87
    Binomate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,783 ✭✭✭Binomate


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    No incomprehensible .I live in the real world and do not believe everything I read and dont blindly believe all I am told.
    As do I. I've followed this case very closely and it was apparent that the police officers simply shot in self defence because they were being assaulted by someone who was off his head on coke, with a bomb. The real question you should be asking is who covered up the bomb and where did it go?


  • Options
    #88
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Binomate wrote: »
    As do I. I've followed this case very closely and it was apparent that the police officers simply shot in self defence because they were being assaulted by someone who was off his head on coke, with a bomb. The real question you should be asking is who covered up the bomb and where did it go?

    How can you possibly believe what the police claim in view of the lies and dirty tricks they even tried in the trial just finished and after the shooting lied for 24 hours to the press all fact. So your conclusion that is was self defense is based on conjecture in view of fact that victim had no weapon.
    The court found the police guilty of serious health and safety issues thus putting the public at risk.Fact.


  • Options
    #89
    Binomate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,783 ✭✭✭Binomate


    You're just splitting hairs now. If you're going to go on like this, I refuse to engage in this discussion.


  • Options
    #90
    blubloblu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭blubloblu


    The police were surveilling his block of flats where a suspected terrorist lived. One officer decided that it would be a good idea to have an uncovered break and take a leak. Out comes De Menezes and it all starts. They do a poor job in identifying him. Let him on a bus without shouting at him or stopping the bus to evacuate, let him on another bus (a suspected bomber on a bus, great) then see him sitting down in a tube, when the police arrives everyone gets out, Charles follows crowd, is forced back onto seat and shot after being restrained. (if he was a real bomber, you'd think he might have a bomb on him or have exploded himself by then). Begin cover-up: "police shot a suicide bomber" "he had big bulky ski jacket" "CCTV is missing"...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Binomate banned for trolling.


Advertisement