nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cocaine found in De Menezes' urine

Seth Brundle

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)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Latchy

The cops screwed up by not indentfying the suspect in the first place, .Apparently there was no senior policemen in charge at the time of the events leading up to the victims death, and it was officers acting on incorrect information, but can understand the pressure an armed policeman is under because he thinks he is dealing with a potential suicide bomber .

Eoin

So, the whole investigation should be behind closed doors? I don't think that would be any more comforting to the public.

Manic Moran

so why should this be released to the public eye, since the guy is not the one on trial here....or is he?

Unless there's cause for the case to be held in camra, or otherwise witnesses or evidence need to be kept secret, the default position in British law is that all proceedings are held in public, to ensure transparancy. They don't do a press announcement, there are reporters in the courtroom scribbling down notes in short-hand.

If you read what I quoted the user said you shoot to stop. Surely one shot in the head is enough to stop...thats why i said 5 times

No harm in making sure, I guess. Though rare, there have been instances of persons shot in the head who have survived. There was a notable case in Iraq two years ago of a US soldier shot square in the head by a pistol at close range under the helmet, but kept going to kill his shooter in close quarters. It's not a case where you've got a guy coming towards you with a knife and you just want to shoot enough times that the guy isn't going to make it to you. This was a case of "I want to be bloody sure he can't as much as close his hand around a trigger" which leaves very little wiggle room.

NTM

Wertz

eoin_s wrote: »

So, the whole investigation should be behind closed doors? I don't think that would be any more comforting to the public.

No probably not...and I see where you're going, I can't have my cake and eat it.
But the data presented by the pathologist doesn't show a conclusive determining of the dosage level involved, so how can conclussions be drawn such as what the guy said under examination (implying that it may have affected his behaviour)?
Perhaps when the prosecution gets to examine him, we'll hear the other side of the story...and maybe find out that it wasn't really the sneachta that ended up turning his head into a practice target.
But by that time the Sun or someone will have us all* believing that cocaine turns you into a suicide bomber...

*Idiots that read it

Savman

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.

Mr.Micro

The Police messed it up and will never admit it ,so they bring in a thing about drugs as this may sway the public and give credence to alleged erratic behaviour by the victim, or the victims non response to Police warnings .At the very least it puts doubt in the mind of a jury and judge ,hence increases the chances of the cops getting off.In the UK they have this cover all approach where it is often decided at high level that IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to pursue a case or investigation ,as the public must not loose faith in the law or the enforcers.It is virtually impossible for the cops to do wrong . A disgrace and a travesty .

Eoin

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The Police messed it up and will never admit it ,so they bring in a thing about drugs as this may sway the public and give credence to alleged erratic behaviour by the victim, or the victims non response to Police warnings .At the very least it puts doubt in the mind of a jury and judge ,hence increases the chances of the cops getting off.In the UK they have this cover all approach where it is often decided at high level that IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to pursue a case or investigation ,as the public must not loose faith in the law or the enforcers.It is virtually impossible for the cops to do wrong . A disgrace and a travesty .

It's the pathologist who said about the drugs, although the Police Force lawyer who asked about it.

>>IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to pursue a case or investigation
They are pursuing it at this very time, hence the thread.

Why not wait for the outcome of the investigation before venting all this conspiracy rubbish.

eth0_

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)

Smacks of a smear campaign to me. The poor guy's family have suffered enough!

As for saying it would have made him agitated - there is zero evidence of him behaving strangely, he walked into the train station like a normal commuter - which he was!

And couldn't the byproduct of cocaine found in his urine have come from something innocuous, like a dental anaesthetic?

Manic Moran

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?

That was the initial claim in the media, however they got it. Subsequent investigations found that this claim was not particularly well founded in truth. (Actually, I think it was later determined to be utterly false)

NTM

Mr.Micro

eoin_s wrote: »

It's the pathologist who said about the drugs, although the Police Force lawyer who asked about it.

>>IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to pursue a case or investigation
They are pursuing it at this very time, hence the thread.

Why not wait for the outcome of the investigation before venting all this conspiracy rubbish.

Read my post slowly maybe you will understand it then.
This case is a health and safety issue the original case against the police never got off the ground .GOT THAT .

Eoin

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Read my post slowly maybe you will understand it then.
This case is a health and safety issue the original case against the police never got off the ground .GOT THAT .

Try stringing a coherent sentence together. GOT THAT?

Mr.Micro

eoin_s wrote: »

Try stringing a coherent sentence together. GOT THAT?

Is that the best you can come back with .Burst your bubble did I?Its a court case( not an investigation), into health and safety breaches . Get your facts before you start posting .

Trojan911

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The Police messed it up and will never admit it

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-24-voa11.cfm?CFID=219483144&CFTOKEN=13177218

Ian Blair, Met Chief on Sky News 24 July 2005 (two days after shooting).

"The Metropolitan Police accepts the full responsibility for this. And to the family, I can only express our deep regrets," he said.

TJ911...

rubadub

Trojan911 wrote: »

It will add credibility to the police decision to shoot, possibly showing what state he was in before being held & being shot i.e. was he fidgety, sweating, nervous, anxious etc prior to
detention & shooting. These are some of the symptoms cocaine users display.

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.

Could be an attempt to be smear due to it being illegal- sure whats the harm just another scumbag junkie killed.

Fratton Fred

TheGooner wrote: »

If you read what I quoted the user said you shoot to stop. Surely one shot in the head is enough to stop...thats why i said 5 times.

You never shoot someone once, ask any armed officer. two shots is the usual requirement to stop someone, there were officers so one of them fired three times.

as I said, none of us can imagine what the london underground was like at the time, or the pressure on the police.

it was a total tragic screw up.

The judge needs all the evidence, cocaine in De Menezes blood is something to be considered and either taken into consideration or discounted.

Mr.Micro

"The Metropolitan Police accepts the full responsibility for this. And to the family, I can only express our deep regrets," he said.

TJ911...[/QUOTE]

Yes but the individual Police Officers were not to be prosecuted it was decided later. The Police had to say something after covering up the situation and telling lies for 2 days after the tragic incident.In hindsight the matter was closed apart from the health and safety case on now against the Met.Police where further discredtitation of Mr.Menzes appears to be taking place .He is not here to dispute any evidence.

Dinxminx

Oh, well if he was using cocaine that makes ALL the difference... No loss to the world there! The police were dead right to shoot him!

:rolleyes:

On 22 July last year the operation climaxed with the tragic killing of 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes, while sitting in a carriage deep under ground at Stockwell tube station in London.

The young Brazilian was totally innocent, shot seven times in the head by two undercover officers from Scotland Yard's elite firearms unit known as CO19

I asked Chief Inspector Martin Rush, who runs the Met's firearms training centre at Gravesend, whether his officers actually have to see a suicide jacket, or what they think may be a suicide jacket, before they open fire.

"No", he replied.

This is not the case in Israel where suicide bombers have been a fact of life for many years.

I put the same question to Major General Mickey Levy, the police commander in Jerusalem between 2000 and 2004, who dealt with 42 suicide bombers.

He said his officers had to be sure they could see a suicide vest or explosives before they opened fire.

So if the CO19 officers did not see any bomb, why did they open fire and how, if at all, were they authorised to do so?

F*ckwits, in fairness; trying to drag the guy's name through the mud to make themselves look less guilty. :mad:

Trojan911

The young Brazilian was totally innocent, shot seven times in the head by two undercover officers from Scotland Yard's elite firearms unit known as CO19

Interesting quote from that anonymous excert you placed in your post. CO19 is long gone & was replaced by SO19 many years ago. That's one item they have incorrectly reported, I wonder what else is incorrect?

TJ911...

Fratton Fred

Good job the Met Police didn't use Israel's tactics. They would also have bulldozed his family's home and launched a rocket attack against Rio.:rolleyes:

aidan24326

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.

Yeah damn right you do, which suggests to me that he wasn't given much of a chance, they just went ahead and shot him. Now if they firmly believed he was a suicide bomber that's not surprising, the real fcukup here was the ridiculously bad intelligence info. They actually put more than 5 bullets in his head, not just 5. Why is that relevant you may ask? Well it's a sign that the officers on the scene panicked, which is exactly what armed officers are not supposed to do. There wasn't necessarily anything deliberately malevolent but at the very least it was total incompetence.

This stuff about him having cocaine in his blood is absolutely irrelevant and is just the police trying to paint him in a bad light, oh he may not have been a terrorist but he was a junkie so now we feel a bit better, one more druggie off the streets. Don't be surprised if they make up more sh1t about him, or make some 'discovery' that links him to terror after all. They've been shown to be blatant liars already.

Gyalist

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?

Well, your understanding is totally incorrect. He never jumped the ticket barrier or ran from armed police. He used his Oyster card at the ticket barrier and boarded the train like any other normal commuter.

This article will be of some help to you.

Dinxminx

Trojan911 wrote: »

The young Brazilian was totally innocent, shot seven times in the head by two undercover officers from Scotland Yard's elite firearms unit known as CO19

Interesting quote from that anonymous excert you placed in your post. CO19 is long gone & was replaced by SO19 many years ago. That's one item they have incorrectly reported, I wonder what else is incorrect?

TJ911...

My quote was from a BBC News article. You can read the whole thing here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4782718.stm

[Deleted User]

rubadub wrote: »

Could be an attempt to be smear due to it being illegal- sure whats the harm just another scumbag junkie killed.

If it was your brother or a family member or someone close I dont think you'd be saying that....

At the end of the day if he was taking drugs its his own prerogative, and this looks like the cops trying to get a last-ditch "oh well he was on drugs" kind of attitude, I hope the courts throw the book at them.....

digitally-yours

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.

Could be an attempt to be smear due to it being illegal- sure whats the harm just another scumbag junkie killed.

Learn some manners and think before you type anything.

You never know when you are in the very same situation.

astrofool

It's a fact of the case, and therefore relevant, as is the fact that the Police shot him when they shouldn't have. If you are presenting the facts of a case, all of them need to be presented and it's then up to the Jury/Judge to decide to take them into consideration or not.

humanji

Fieldog wrote: »

I hope the courts throw the book at them.....

So that next time, if there really is a terrorist about to blow up the underground, no cop will go near them just in case they have the book thrown at them too?

MOH

Trojan911 wrote: »

The young Brazilian was totally innocent, shot seven times in the head by two undercover officers from Scotland Yard's elite firearms unit known as CO19

Interesting quote from that anonymous excert you placed in your post. CO19 is long gone & was replaced by SO19 many years ago. That's one item they have incorrectly reported, I wonder what else is incorrect?

TJ911...

Seems to be the other way around?

griffdaddy

I always get freaked out when i see the guys in train stations with guns. Here in Amsterdam they have a big generic Dutch-looking fúcker with a gun intermittently through-out the station. When i think of the De Menezes case i always get a little bit nervous, cause as i foreigner i inherently look suspicious by having to look at things for longer or backtrack all the time, makes me wonder what if one of these guys thought my college bag looked a bit out of place and opened fire, then again, that's probably the idea.

Terry

Kevlar hoodies are the only solution for this.

Manic Moran

digitally-yours wrote: »

Learn some manners and think before you type anything.

That was a satirical post, you know.

NTM