Officers who killed innocent Brazilian may face charges

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by frenchperson, Jan 19, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From Sky News tonight.

    If they do face charges, it's only right. We can't have a secret shoot-to-kill policy in a so-called democracy, and we need to nip the advance towards a police state in the bud... they can't be trusted!
  2. And if he had been a suicide bomber and 20 people had died the same officers would loose their jobs its a loose loose situation.
  3. OK, OK, you're right. Let them loose on the underground in the rush hour to spray bullets around.

    In this particular instance, he WASN'T a suicide bomber. But for the shoot-to-kill policy, there'd be nobody dead on the day.
  4. Preferably on the Paris Metro....

    I cannot say I am surprised at the outcome of the report; I suspect it's just what Bliar ordered. A foregone conclusion - someone must be blamed, and certainly no mention must be made of governmental shortcomings in lowering the security level. Of course it's very sad that anyone died - the Brazilian and the 57 innocents killed before. My sympathy for the Brazilian is lessened by the fact that he was an illegal immigrant, and should not have been in the country at all.
  5. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes

    Yes. Sadly, I missed reading about the vote when this became a capital offence. Could you post a link?
  6. I wouldn't get too excited Frenchperson. The report only says they 'may' face charges according to a 'sky news source'...,,30000-13495341,00.html

    Incidently, do you accept it is possibe for police officers to make an honest mistake and that if they do they should not face charges?

    If you do accept this then how do you know they were negligent in this case?

    Think I'll wait to read the report before jumping to any conclusions. Although again why does it take so long for the CPS to make a decsion on this?
  7. Just remember those blokes had a split second to make a decision based on intelligence that indicated they were facing a credible threat.

    I'm sorry that an innocent died, but I'm more sorry that 57 innocent people died shortly before.

    I may be old fashioned and will probably be howled down by all the bed wetting, undercover liberal journos who seem to post on this forum, but I'm glad that there is some swift and awful rozzer out there who is prepared to pepper anyone who threatens my home city. I feel sorry for the lads who have to face the inevitable witch-hunt.

    Just remember it was not so long ago that John Stevens was fixing to throw half the British Army in clink for a "Shoot to Kill" policy!
  8. Most amusing.

    The fact remains that had the Brazilian not been here illegally he would not have met his end in this unfortunate way. I trust that any compensation paid to his family will be reduced by the amount of tax he should have paid, the cost of any NHS treatment he had, and so on.
  9. Good point MM - whether it was a legal shoot or not, got to feel for the officers involved. Damned if you do, damned if you dont!!!

    guru - careful with rumours like that buddy
  10. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes


    it wasn't a cheap attempt at humour. You are one of the contributors whose posts I generally knod to and think "very well said". On this one though your point is, frankly, specious.

    You would have had more sympathy had it been a South American here legally but shot slowly and deliberately whilst restrained?
  11. I can't be bothered to find the link but somewhere (some national newspaper) they had been complaining that he was shot with "dum-dum" bullets, which the army isn't allowed to use in warfare as it's against the hague convention. Apparently his was "unrecognisable" when they'd finished with him. I believe he was shot twelve times (???), dum dum bullets or not it doesn't really seem to make a difference.
  12. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Yeah, but it gives you a couple of good stories down the lodge... :lol:
  13. But thats the point mate.

    In this particular case he wasnt a suicide bomber. But what if he was? The whole story would have been so much more different.

    Because of a bungle further up the line, these guys were under the impression that De Menzes WAS a suicide bomber and would have detonated his device (if he had one that is).

    Would it have been correct for them to allow him a chance to detonate the bomb, or would it have been more prudent to the general publics security to have one man shot by accident?

    It's a really hard question to answer, but im afraid my sympathy lies with the officers who were put into that position of responsibilty by others who bungled.

    Lets not hang them out to dry, lets learn from the mistake and move on.
  14. I think that they probably acted responsibly, given the information that we're given. However there were mistakes all up the chain of command and in the intelligence. Any gross incompetance should be dealt with, but not just those on the front line.
    Don't forget however that this person was not carrying a rucksack and contrary to earlier reports he was wearing a light denim jacket, not a huge padded jacket. I'm not flaming them, and to take a decision like that instantly carrys a lot of responsibility, but they've been picked because they're believed to be good enough. They weren't.
    Reports were that the SAS aren't exactly impressed by the armed police, perhaps we should have just let the SAS run wild? :p
  15. Different Headline then though knowing past patterns

    "Brazillian kicked in by Armed thugs on London underground and grenade shoved in mouth. Brazillian "Resisted arrest"