Sassenach wrote:Well I don't recall all of the circumstances, but it's certainly the case that they claimed a number of things about the events which were subsequently proven false. The one I can remember is the claim that Menezes jumped the barrier at the underground station and ran, whereas in fact he queued up and bought a ticket, which was confirmed by the CCTV footage.

Was their testimony that they saw him jump the turnstall or that the thought he had?

Sassenach wrote: They also claimed to have shouted a warning, which was contradicted by the other passengers on the train, and that he approached them threateningly, which again was directly contradicted by eyewitnesses.

So why is the contradicting eyewitness testimony more believable then the officers? Could it be that the officers did shout the warnings and the eyewitnesses either didn't hear or are actively lying?

Sassenach wrote:What typically happens though is that in the immediate aftermath of a serious incident the police will attempt to control the media presentation by releasing a completely fictitious account of events, knowing that if/when they eventually have to backtrack the story will not get much attention.

So you ascribe malicious intent to an action that may have none. Have you ever been in a situation similar to what the police may have been in that case? Could it also be that the police are giving an account of events given by the officers colored by their view of what happened in a high stress situation right or wrong?

theodorelogan wrote:My underlying point is "here are some examples of police doing egregious things" Not much to disagree with there Russ.

Ok so what is the point of posting them? What are you trying to say? You obviously have a point you are trying to make.

Or are you admitting that you are just troll baiting like NA usually does?

What is the point of posting anything? To talk about it. You in a bad mood today?

theodorelogan wrote:What is the point of posting anything? To talk about it. You in a bad mood today?

No I am not in a bad mood. Well, probably a little cabin fever. However, we have had this conversation before and I think you are being intellectually dishonest. What are you trying to say by posting these stories?

Nothing other than sharing stories of police abuse for discussion.

Sorry if I disbelieve you then.

I'm sorry I gave you reason to doubt my honesty Russ. What are you accusing me of lying about?

Was their testimony that they saw him jump the turnstall or that the thought he had?

Ok, well I decided to go back and refresh my memory of the details. It turns out that in respect of the turnstile thing it's not quite so clear cut.

Witnesses stated that up to twenty police officers in plain clothes pursued Menezes into Stockwell station, that he jumped over the ticket barrier, ran down an escalator and tried to jump on to a train.[99] The Menezes' family were briefed by the police that their son did not jump over the ticket barrier and may have used a Travelcard to pass through; this was subsequently confirmed by CCTV recordings shown at the Metropolitan Police trial.[92]

The pathologist's post mortem report, which was written five days after the shooting, recorded that Menezes “vaulted over the ticket barriers” and that he “ran down the stairs of the tube station”. Dr Kenneth Shorrock later told the inquest that he had been given this information by police during a "walk-through" with officers at Stockwell Tube Station but he could not remember who had given him this incorrect information, which had also featured in earliest eye-witness reports.[100]

It had been suggested that the man reported by eyewitnesses as jumping over the barrier may have been one of the police officers in pursuit

I guess we can cut the police a certain amount of slack over this one since they never repeated that claim in the inquest, although it should be noted that it was a police officer who first briefed the official pathologist about the barrier jumping incident during a walk through. This presumably didn't happen during the heat of the moment but some time after the shooting, so the police would have had ample time to establish the facts beforehand and still came out with a factually incorrect story which then made it into the official pathologists report, which is itself a cause for concern. But it doesn't constitute lying under oath.

So why is the contradicting eyewitness testimony more believable then the officers? Could it be that the officers did shout the warnings and the eyewitnesses either didn't hear or are actively lying?

Well it's more believable to me for the simple reason that the eyewtinesses were not giving evidence which could potentially see them prosecuted for unlawful killing, which can't be said for the police marksmen. It's notable that the jurors at the inquest didn't believe the police testimony either.

It should also be noted that the police initially claimed to the media that they had attempted to apprehend Menezes before he entered the station. They later backtracked on this claim. Furthermore, one of the officers involved has subsequenrtly admitted that he deleted data from his computer files before presenting it as evidence for the inquest. the data he deleted was an instruction from the coordinating officer to 'let him run onto the train, he's not carrying anything'. This is obviously significant because the justification they used for shooting him rather than trying to apprehend him was the belief that he was about to detonate a suicide bomb.

So you ascribe malicious intent to an action that may have none. Have you ever been in a situation similar to what the police may have been in that case? Could it also be that the police are giving an account of events given by the officers colored by their view of what happened in a high stress situation right or wrong?

Sorry, but this doesn't wash. Bear in mind that police do not routinely carry firearms in Britain. This was a specialised armed response team who set out to arrest this man specifically and who are trained in the use of firearms in pressure situations. It's extremely unlikely that they would all simultanously believe that an unarmed man had drawn a weapon and fired upon them, or that they would have been unable to determine the truth of the matter prior to filing their report and briefing the media.

Sassenach wrote:I guess we can cut the police a certain amount of slack over this one since they never repeated that claim in the inquest, although it should be noted that it was a police officer who first briefed the official pathologist about the barrier jumping incident during a walk through.

Ah but from your own quote it was based on eyewitness comments. So isn't more likely that briefing officer reviewed notes of the investigation prior to the briefing and learned that fact, rather then some malicious attempt to cover up the truth?

Sassenach wrote:This presumably didn't happen during the heat of the moment but some time after the shooting, so the police would have had ample time to establish the facts beforehand and still came out with a factually incorrect story which then made it into the official pathologists report, which is itself a cause for concern.

Why is this cause for concern? It appears to me the incorrect information was based on notes of the eyewitness statements but was corrected in the official records.

Sassenach wrote:Well it's more believable to me for the simple reason that the eyewtinesses were not giving evidence which could potentially see them prosecuted for unlawful killing, which can't be said for the police marksmen.

Yes but the common person isn't a trained observer and is often incorrect in the recall of observations. Haven't you ever played the game of looking street scene for a minute then turn away from it and describe it. Almost nobody gets it correct and this is without the adrenaline pump of a stress situation when you are diving for coverage.

Sassenach wrote:It's notable that the jurors at the inquest didn't believe the police testimony either.

Yes well that is an issue but again, what was the back ground of the jury? Do you think the Jury in the OJ trial was correct that OJ was more believable then Mark Furman or Kato Kalin?

Sassenach wrote:It should also be noted that the police initially claimed to the media that they had attempted to apprehend Menezes before he entered the station. They later backtracked on this claim.

Again, you are assuming a malicious intent where none is indicated. Could it be that your own opinion of police is coloring this presumption?

Sassenach wrote:Furthermore, one of the officers involved has subsequenrtly admitted that he deleted data from his computer files before presenting it as evidence for the inquest. the data he deleted was an instruction from the coordinating officer to 'let him run onto the train, he's not carrying anything'. This is obviously significant because the justification they used for shooting him rather than trying to apprehend him was the belief that he was about to detonate a suicide bomb.

I will agree that this is one instance of malicious intent on that officer and he should be charged with, at the least, tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice (assuming those are crimes in the U.K.). However, it doesn't show the rest of the officers involved in the shooting heard the coordinating officers instructions. Again, I am not familiar with the instance under discussion but is it possible that one or more of the officers involved in the shooting didn't hear the order?

Sassenach wrote:Sorry, but this doesn't wash. Bear in mind that police do not routinely carry firearms in Britain. This was a specialised armed response team who set out to arrest this man specifically and who are trained in the use of firearms in pressure situations. It's extremely unlikely that they would all simultanously believe that an unarmed man had drawn a weapon and fired upon them, or that they would have been unable to determine the truth of the matter prior to filing their report and briefing the media.

Bear in mind that officers in the U.S. are armed and regularly go through extensive training in proper firearms procedures and yet accident's still happen.

I have several friends that are police officers. You know what they say is the most stressful incident in their job. Traffic stops. You never know what is going to happen. Does the driver have a gun, will he shoot me. Will he try to run me over because he has drugs in the car. Every one I have ever met says they can feel the adrenaline surge as they approach the car.

Know imagine you are in a high pressure situation where you are chasing a wanted man that is considered highly dangerous. Human chemistry is human chemistry. The adrenaline will be surging. Your body reacts to that unconsciously. Now I am not saying that it justifies it. Rather I am just saying that it is not necessarily a malicious action or that there is any active malicious intent to cover things up. Rather, I am saying that perhaps the people who know things a little better then you do made the decision this was 1. justifiable, or 2. non-prosecutable because of an inability to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

theodorelogan wrote:I'm sorry I gave you reason to doubt my honesty Russ. What are you accusing me of lying about?

I think you post these articles to make the implications that all police are jackbooted thugs who think they are above the law and that the system we have reinforces this by not punishing those in law enforcement that violate the law.

That doesn't make any sense. Anecdotal evidence can't imply anything about an entire class of people.

In fact, even I don't believe that all police are "jack-booted thugs".

Then I guess I don't see the point of the thread then. Yes, while most law enforcement officers are honorable, ethic people with an interest in public service, some over step the bounds. It sucks. When it happens appropriate actions are usually taken. What else is there to discuss about it?

Why don't you have a thread that is specifically for posting articles about teachers that have sex with students?

I'm sorry you aren't finding value in this thread Russ. Perhaps your attention would be better spent in other threads then?

Here is an interesting one to comment on. On Jan 29 D.C. Park police tazed on of the Occupy D.C. protester. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, blogger Orin Kerr did a poll of whether the police actions were correct or not.

As of 6:30 yesterday (Jan 31st), with about 2,000 votes, it was split almost evenly (43% appropriately, 41% inappropriate & 16% need more info). He gives his opinion on why it was so close here. He attributes it to two different, often competing, narratives of police/citizen interactions, the equality narrative and the inequality narrative.