assassinated by Scotland yard

[Churchill]

Well, like I said, accident in terms of cars crashing. Is that not also an example of incompetence...

Do we really need to know all this information? Giving out such information publically will also enable the terrorists to commit their crimes.

Now I know you're trolling! Playing the "National Security" card is out of order on this one Threaded!

[OwlHoot]

They shot him seven times in the head, once in the shoulder and missed with three rounds.

The multiple shooting makes the incident sound much worse and somehow more frenzied than a single pop in the head, although it probably would have made little difference to the victim.

But in case anyone isn't aware, an armed official, whether anti-terrorist or other law-enforcement, in that situation is trained to aim specifically for the brain _stem_ (if facing the target, the mouth), as this is the only way they can be fairly sure the victim won't twitch and activate a bomb or something via a muscle spasm even after death.

So in a sense the eight shots were just as methodical, for want of a better word, as some sniper calmly slotting the guy with a single shot from half a mile away.

I agree entirely the incident was a monumental cock-up. My only point is that it is misleading to think of the multiple-shot aspect per-se to indicate some out-of-control amateur who lost it and simply let rip.

[Not So Wise]

An accident might be shooting an offender and having the bullet go though him and kill an innocent standing behind or not realiseing there was an innocent there at all.
Intensionally pumping an outnumbered,restrained innocent full of bullets at point blank range can never be an "accident". It's a monumental cock up performed by the very people who's training is meant to prevent just that very kind of thing happening.

And yes we should know these things, police/military tactics are pretty standard worldwide so by revealing where things went wrong and who screwed up in a past case dealing with an innocent person is not really "enableing the terrorists to commit their crimes"

[AtW]

Now you're repeating the Police Commissioner's carefully chosen but not necessarily genuine words.

Nope -- PC did not say the guy jumped the barriers etc -- it was all in papers/TV, ie leaked unofficial information that turns out to be wrong. There should be investigation to find out whether it was intentionally misleading and whether it came from the top.

As I already said - you did a tad worse than that.

Like what?

[BobTheCrate]

Like what ?

You accepted in totality the explanation given by the Police despite aspects (known at the time) that should have given rise to your reserving judgement. Instead you arbitrarily (and viciously) condemned Menezes in the same way the Police did.

Examples:

If he is not connected to terrorists then he is too fecking stupid to live, he is bound to make Darwin's awards of this year.

I could tell them [Menezes family] this in straight face -- what he did (if he is not related to terrorist attacks) is completely stupid and he deserved to get shot.

The Police 'told' us they challenged the suspect. Witnesses at the time contradicted that account. They never heard or saw any such challenge. Your opinion was based soley on Police accounts, not on information that was available at the time.

[AtW]

You accepted in totality the explanation given by the Police despite aspects (known at the time) that should have given rise to your reserving judgment. Instead you arbitrarily (and viciously) condemned Menezes in the same way the Police did.

Based on available information that was correct opinion. If investigation turned out the same facts that were reported then I would not have changed my opinion, its as simple as this: if input is incorrect, then output won't be right either.

Your opinion was based soley on Police accounts, not on information that was available at the time.

I formed opinion based on all information available at the time -- investigation was imminent and I was not going to wait few months until detailed investigation reports.

I however not stubborn to stick to opinion for reasons like "police can shoot anybody", my opinion is based on available information and if information changes considerably so will my opinion as this matter is not matter of principle, but matter based on circumstances.

[BobTheCrate]

Nope -- PC did not say the guy jumped the barriers etc ..

The PC said: "Based on information available at the time".
(It remains to be seen how sincere that phrase was.)

Interestingly exactly the same words you chose to use repeatedly only minutes ago.

Your opinion matches what the Police tell you. Not on what information is available at the time.

[AtW]

The PC said: "Based on information available at the time". It remains to be seen how sincere that phrase was.

I agree it has to be investigated and it is imperative to learn why exactly information in papers differed so much with reality -- if someone lied to cover up then harsh punishment should be used: the police should either shut up or tell the truth.

Your opinion matches what the Police tell you. Not on what is available at the time.

It is not unreasonable that two different parties will come to the same conclusion given same input information. If the information was incorrect (due to whatever reason), then it is not suprising that both parties are wrong.

Since I am not the police I am not responsible in any way for the information they provided, so I am afraid the only lesson that I learn is to not jump to conclusion that fast, however if the facts remained true then my original opinion would have been correct.

[wendigo100]

Well, Tony Blair is hardly at fault for this shooting in principle

Yes, but my point is that, although we invaded Iraq to remove a ruthless government, we are now taking our first tentative steps to adopting their policies. Presumably because they work.

[BobTheCrate]

so I am afraid the only lesson that I learn is to not jump to conclusion that fast

Not a bad lesson to learn AtW.

The way you attacked and condemned this poor kid did not IMO put you in a favourable or flattering light. It was as though you were angry at him even after he'd paid a price for a mistake with his life. Discounting any reasonable possibility that it was the Police at fault and not this poor kid.