Shootings

[BritinBritain]

A bit more evidence:-
SOCIETYFEATURE
Self-Defense: 12 Cases Where Law-Abiding Americans With Guns Saved Lives, Prevented Crimes
Chrissy Clark / March 29, 2018 / 0 Comments

Gun control advocates often don't acknowledge the many instances where guns in the right hands have saved lives.
In the gun control debate that reignited after the Feb. 14 shooting at a Florida high school, much of the mainstream media appears to have joined in calls for stricter laws restricting gun ownership for Americans.

What the media pundits aren’t talking about so much, however, is how often guns in the right hands have saved lives. Here are 12 such instances in the past 12 years.

1. Don’t Mess With Texas

Earlier this month, Robert Rodriguez and his wife awoke to an intruder with a knife in their home in Austin, Texas. Rodriguez, a former sheriff’s deputy, held the intruder at gunpoint until authorities could reach his house. (Restoring Liberty)

2. Gun Turns a Victim into a Victor

In February, a woman and her daughter used personal firearms to save each other from an armed robber at their family-owned liquor store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The would-be robber was shot in the leg, and the two women were not harmed. (ABC6)

3. ‘Grab a Gun and Go’

In February, a man in Oswego, Illinois, used his AR-15 rifle to intervene in an argument in which someone had been stabbed. Dave Thomas saw a man stabbing another person and ran to his house to get his gun. The assailant fled, but was quickly caught by police. (WGN-9)

4. A Gun Is a Girl’s Best Friend

In March 2016, a 22-year-old woman pulled her gun on men who had followed her to her car and threatened to steal her belongings outside a Dollar Tree store in Oklahoma City. The presence of a gun sent the three would-be robbers running. (KOCO 5 News)

5. Add ‘Hero’ to His Resume

In September 2014, Mark Vaughan, a reserve sheriff’s deputy and chief operating officer for Vaughan Foods, used his personal firearm to wound a man who was a former employee in Moore, Oklahoma. The fired employee had returned to the workplace and beheaded one employee and seriously injured another. (The Washington Times)

6. Veteran’s Wife Scares Off Intruder

In June 2013, Jan Cooper, 72, possibly saved her life and that of her wheelchair-bound husband, an 85-year-old veteran of World War II. A man was breaking into the Coopers’ home in Anaheim, California, when she fired her revolver and scared off the intruder. (NBC4)

7. Armed Guard Disarms School Shooter

In January 2013, a student opened fire at Prince Middle School in Atlanta. After wounding another student, the suspect was disarmed by an armed guard stationed at the school. (The Washington Times)

8. Internet Cafe Gunmen Logged Off

In July 2012, Samuel William, 71, may have saved the lives of innocent bystanders at an internet cafe in Ocala, Florida. Two would-be robbers had entered the cafe with weapons when William pulled out his gun and shot and wounded them. (The Washington Times)

9. Unhappy New Year’s Home Invasion

On New Year’s Eve 2012, Sarah McKinley, an 18-year-old mother of a 3-month-old, may have saved her life and that of her baby in Blanchard, Oklahoma. Two intruders, one of whom had a knife, were attempting to enter McKinley’s mobile home just a week after her husband had died of cancer. McKinley fatally shot one intruder and scared off the second one. (The Washington Times)

10. Take-Down at Trolley Square Mall

In February 2007, Kenneth Hammond, an off-duty police officer, drew his weapon and confronted a shooter who had opened fire in a shopping mall. Sulejman Talovic had entered Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City armed with a shotgun and a backpack full of ammunition. With the help of another officer, Hammond was able to stop the gunman, who killed five before being fatally shot. (CBS News)

11. Sunday Service Interruption

In December 2007, Jeanne Assam, a former police officer and volunteer security worker, saved the day at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Thousands of congregants were leaving Sunday services when a shooter opened fire. Assam ran toward the line of fire, fatally shooting the gunman and potentially saving countless lives. (The Washington Times)

12. Media Madhouse Employee Brings Down Madman

In January 2006, an employee of Media Madhouse in Elkhart, Indiana, shot a man who entered the building holding a gun on an employee and demanding money. The armed employee shot the intruder, potentially saving other employees and customers. (The Washington Times)

 

[Capt Frogman]

Where is your evidence? Again you are talking nonsense.

When there are people in the vicinity who are armed and trained, thev prevent loss of life, thats fact. There is a shite load of evidence out there, but you wont look for it because it doesnt suit your agenda.

Just one example:-
On Defensive Gun Uses And How They Outpace Gun Deaths
Posted at 4:00 pm on July 10, 2018 by Tom Knighton

Anti-gunners love throwing numbers around. They like big numbers and to present them without context. They’ll tell you how many people were killed by firearms last year, a big enough number that people will balk and start thinking, “Maybe we should do something.”

Of course, they fail to note that most of those are suicides. If it’s pointed out, they’ll pretend it doesn’t matter, that they should still be included, but it does nothing to defend the disingenuous nature of the numbers as presented.

Something else they tend to do is fail to note that “gun deaths” are still a drop in the bucket compared to defensive gun uses.

Thankfully, the data is on their – and our – side, and this is far from an outlier event. In an age where we’re told that firearm-related homicides are skyrocketing, we are actually experiencing a marked decline from a high point of seven per 100,000 people in 1993 to around half that. The Washington Post in 2015 noted the decline but attributed it to every possible factor, from the police using computers to an improving economy to lead removal, but leaves out the fact that the statistics exist despite more and more guns being produced and owned by Americans. They also conveniently leave out the hundreds of thousands of instances of defensive gun use.

Just how many times do Americans use weapons to defend themselves every year? It’s a tough number to nail down for a variety of reasons, but depending on the source it’s anywhere from upwards of 2 million per year to the Washington Post’s “more reasonable” (read: lowball) estimate of 100,000. But either way, it’s more than fair to say that more lives are saved by guns used in self-defense than are taken by the criminals who use them for nefarious purposes. And if you count homicides and not suicides, we’re talking about around 10,000 deaths per year, or one tenth of the Post’s lowball estimate.

Even if you don’t exclude suicides for some reason, the number of defensive gun uses still outpaces gun deaths by a rate of three to one.

In other words, guns save a whole lot more lives than they supposedly take, even with these “more reasonable” numbers. However, that number is far below what the Centers for Disease Controls found in their own study, one that went unpublished because it apparently failed to advance the narrative.

The CDC found that almost 2.5 million people used a firearm defensively within a 12-month span. That’s well beyond what the Washington Post claims, and I trust the CDC’s resources more than even a large newspaper’s.

Despite this fact, anti-gunners continue to peddle the nonsense that guns are somehow responsible for all of these deaths. The truth of the matter is that most, if not all, of these deaths, would likely still have occurred if the weapon were something different. Someone who wants to kill another will find a way. You can’t make people behave simply because you made it difficult to use one particular tool.

Yeah, lots of self defence going on.....

In 2014:

- There were 7,670 criminal gun homicides. There were 224 justifiable homicides involving a gun.

- Only 1.1 percent of victims or intended victims of a violent crime used a firearm in self-defense.

- Only 0.2 percent of victims or intended victims of a property crime used a firearm in self-defense.

- For every time a person used a gun to kill in a justifiable homicide, 34 innocent lives were ended in criminal gun homicides.

 

[MontyB]

Using Tom Knightly as a source of impartial firearms data is a little like using Adolf Hitler as an impartial source on Judaism.

There are large holes in his theories not the least of which is the idea that non-illegal uses of firearms were of a defensive nature which is frankly ludicrous.

 

[MontyB]

This is gonna be a bit long...

The reality is, the US quit giving a crap about what other countries thought back in 1776....

Which is why I made the point in my very first post in this thread of saying I honestly don't care how many mass killings you have, slaughter each other by the bus load and I promise not to lose a minutes sleep over it all I care about is that your nation's deranged views on this issue stay in the USA and are not exported to the sane world.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I find it amusing that the entire anti-gun crowd in this thread are also the resident members of the Blue Oyster Club....
Besides not being from the US....

Hey! I'm not a marine so I cannot be a member of the Blue Oyster Club.

 

[Capt Frogman]

Hey! I'm not a marine so I cannot be a member of the Blue Oyster Club.

You'd like it there.

 

[BritinBritain]

Yeah, lots of self defence going on.....

In 2014:

- There were 7,670 criminal gun homicides. There were 224 justifiable homicides involving a gun.

- Only 1.1 percent of victims or intended victims of a violent crime used a firearm in self-defense.

- Only 0.2 percent of victims or intended victims of a property crime used a firearm in self-defense.

- For every time a person used a gun to kill in a justifiable homicide, 34 innocent lives were ended in criminal gun homicides.

More figures from the anti gun brigade?:sarc:

How many homicides in the UK with legally held Firearms? Now compare that with deaths cause by armed police in the UK. If you wish I can give you chapter and verse of innocent victims of police incompetence, like the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was assassinated by armed Met police using hollow point bullets.

As I stated Anti-gunners love throwing numbers around. They like big numbers and to present them without context. They’ll tell you how many people were killed by firearms last year, a big enough number that people will balk and start thinking, “Maybe we should do something.”

You have sucked figures out of the air yet again. I can give you chapter and verse yet because of your blinkered attitude you will never accept that legally held firearms save lives. I have been researching this for over ten years, how much research have you done? Five minutes?

Florida was the rape capital of the USA until concealed carry was introduced, rapes statistics have dropped liked a brick. Washington DC was the murder capital of the US because of handgun bans, since the ban was lifted murders have declined drastically.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...18-school-shootings-this-year-not-even-close/

 

[BritinBritain]

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.


“Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.

As a result, a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control” was lifted. Finally, anti-gun proponents—and presumably the Obama Administration—thought gun owners and the NRA would be met with irrefutable scientific evidence to support why guns make Americans less safe.

Mainstream media outlets praised the order to lift the ban and lambasted the NRA and Congress for having put it in place.

It was the “Executive Order the NRA Should Fear the Most,” according to The Atlantic.

The CDC ban on gun research “caused lasting damage,” reported ABC News.

Salon said the ban was part of the NRA’s “war on gun science.”

And CBS News lamented that the NRA “stymied” CDC research.

Most mainstream journalists argued the NRA’s opposition to CDC gun research demonstrated its fear of being contradicted by science; few—if any—cited why the NRA may have had legitimate concerns. The culture of the CDC at the time could hardly be described as lacking bias on firearms.

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Does Rosenberg sound like a man who should be trusted to conduct taxpayer-funded studies on guns?

Rosenberg’s statement coincided with a CDC study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, who argued guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The study had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed. It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually. However, the damage had been done—the “43 times” myth is perhaps gun-control advocates’ most commonly cited argument, and a lot of people still believe it to this day.

So, the NRA and Congress took action. But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.

Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”

The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda.



Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/#ixzz5Lz0srHSi

 

[Capt Frogman]

More figures from the anti gun brigade?:sarc:

How many homicides in the UK with legally held Firearms? Now compare that with deaths cause by armed police in the UK. If you wish I can give you chapter and verse of innocent victims of police incompetence, like the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was assassinated by armed Met police using hollow point bullets.

As I stated Anti-gunners love throwing numbers around. They like big numbers and to present them without context. They’ll tell you how many people were killed by firearms last year, a big enough number that people will balk and start thinking, “Maybe we should do something.”

You have sucked figures out of the air yet again. I can give you chapter and verse yet because of your blinkered attitude you will never accept that legally held firearms save lives. I have been researching this for over ten years, how much research have you done? Five minutes?

Florida was the rape capital of the USA until concealed carry was introduced, rapes statistics have dropped liked a brick. Washington DC was the murder capital of the US because of handgun bans, since the ban was lifted murders have declined drastically.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...18-school-shootings-this-year-not-even-close/

My figures came from The Violence Policy Center (VPC) who released Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, which uses available federal data to determine that, despite the myths propagated by the firearms industry and gun lobby, private citizens rarely use guns to kill criminals or stop crimes.

What has the British armed police use of firearms got to do with American civilians using firearms to defends themselves? :roll: :???:

Jean Charles de Menezes wasn't assassinated. Don't make a fool of yourself.

 

[BritinBritain]

My figures came from The Violence Policy Center (VPC) who released Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, which uses available federal data to determine that, despite the myths propagated by the firearms industry and gun lobby, private citizens rarely use guns to kill criminals or stop crimes.

Violence Policy Center
ORGANIZATION

Gun-control study organization founded 1988 by author/activist Josh Sugarmann as the New Right Watch. Receives most of its funding from the Joyce Foundation. VPC will issue false or misleading information ("Barrett sells firearms to al-Qaeda") which can then be quoted by others supporting the same agenda.

Official Website:
http://www.vpc.org/

Founding Date:
1988

Fact, VPC use false information, so that blows your theory out of the water

It proves firearms in state hands is far from safe. Firearms are far safer in civilian hands

Of course you'd say that being a policeman .He wasnt? then you want to read about his killing in depth.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) launched two investigations. Stockwell 1, the findings of which were initially kept secret, concluded that none of the officers would face disciplinary charges. Stockwell 2 strongly criticised the police command structure and communications to the public. In July 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service said that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any named individual police officers in a personal capacity, although a criminal prosecution of the Commissioner in his official capacity on behalf of his police force was brought under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, on the failure of the duty of care due to Menezes. The Commissioner was found guilty and his office was fined. On 12 December 2008 an inquest returned an open verdict.

The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later reports indicate he was not challenged.[12] According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. He shouted "Police!" and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.

Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty-second period, at three-second intervals. A separate witness reported hearing five shots, followed at an interval by several more shots.

It emerged that hollow-point bullets had been employed, and a senior police source said that Menezes's body had been "unrecognisable". These bullets are widely used in law enforcement, where it may often be necessary to quickly stop an armed assailant while minimising the risk of collateral damage posed by the use of full metal jacket ammunition. A full metal jacket bullet is more likely to exit the target, while still retaining lethal force. A Home Office spokesman said, "Chief officers can use whatever ammunition they consider appropriate for the operational circumstances.

The day after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police identified the victim as Jean Charles de Menezes, and said that he had not been carrying explosives, nor was he connected in any way to the attempted bombings. They issued an apology describing the incident as "a tragedy, and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets".

The Menezes family condemned the shooting and rejected the apology. His grandmother said there was "no reason to think he was a terrorist". Although it was initially reported that they were offered almost £585,000 compensation, the Menezes family eventually received £100,000 in compensation from the Metropolitan Police.

His cousin, Alex Alves Pereira, said: "I believe my cousin's death was result of police incompetence." Pereira said that police claims regarding the incident had been conflicting, and took issue with their pursuit of Menezes for an extended period and their allowing the 'suspected suicide bomber' to board a bus. 'Why did they let him get on a bus if they are afraid of suicide bombers?… He could have been running, but not from the police… When the Underground stops, everybody runs to get on the train. That he jumped over the barriers is a lie

On 18 August, lawyers representing the Menezes family met with the IPCC and urged them to conduct a 'fast' investigation. The lawyers, Harriet Wistrich and Gareth Peirce, held a press conference where they lamented the 'chaotic mess'. They stated their desire to ask the IPCC 'to find out is how much is incompetence, negligence or gross negligence and how much of it is something sinister.'[34]

On 18 August, the IPCC issued a statement in which it said that the Metropolitan Police was initially opposed to them taking on the investigation.[35] It also announced that the inquiry was expected to last between three and six months. The IPCC announced it took over the inquiry on 25 July;[36] however, the inquiry was not handed over until 27 July.

The police lobbied MPs to try to influence the inquiry into the shooting. Unsolicited e-mails were sent by Nick Williams, the acting inspector at the Metropolitan Police's Diamond Support Group, to Labour MPs.The Met declined repeated requests by the IPCC to disclose hundreds of pages of internal papers that gave the Met's private assessment of the operation, including discussions about how much compensation the Met thought it should pay to the Menezes family; the risk that individual officers might face murder or manslaughter charges; the vulnerability of Blair and the Met to an action for civil damages; and whether Special Branch officers altered surveillance logs.

In May 2006, the Metropolitan Police Federation released a 12-page statement which was highly critical of the IPCC in general, and specifically criticised the handling of the 'Stockwell inquiry'

On 13 October 2008, at an inquest into the death, a police surveillance officer admitted that he had deleted a computer record of Cressida Dick's instruction that they could allow Menezes to "run on to Tube as [he was] not carrying anything." At the inquest he told the court that "On reflection, I looked at that and thought I cannot actually say that." The IPCC announced that it would investigate the matter '[at its] highest level of investigation'.

During the trial an allegation was made that the police had manipulated a photo of de Menezes so as to increase his resemblance to a 'terrorist', Hussain Oman. A forensic specialist concluded de Menezes' face 'appeared to have been brightened and lost definition'. However, when asked if there had been any manipulation of any of the primary features of the face he replied "I don't believe there has been any... but making the image brighter has changed the image

On 13 October, the IPCC launched an investigation after a Metropolitan police surveillance officer named only as 'Owen' admitted that he had altered evidence submitted to the inquest. The officer had deleted one of his own computer notes which quoted deputy assistant commissioner Cressida Dick as concluding that Menezes was not a security threat. The note said 'CD – can run on to tube as not carrying anything'

On 2 December, Sir Michael ordered of the jury, shortly before they retired to consider their verdict, that they might not return one of 'unlawful killing', leaving their options as 'lawful killing', or an open verdict. He said that the verdict could not be inconsistent with the earlier criminal trial. As well as the short-form verdict of 'lawful killing' or 'open',

An open verdict was brought, basically the police officers concerned would not be guilty of murder.

 

[BritinBritain]

Questions of fact
Did firearms officer C12 shout 'armed police'? No
Did Mr Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor? Yes
Did Mr Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by Ivor? No
Possible contributory factors
The pressure on police after the suicide attacks in July 2005. Cannot decide
A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of failed bomber Hussain Osman to surveillance officers. Yes
The general difficulty in providing identification of the man under surveillance in the time available. No
The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and firearms officers. Yes
A failure by police to ensure that Mr Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport. Yes
The innocent behaviour of Mr Menezes increasing suspicion. No
The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known by the command team as firearms teams were approaching Stockwell Tube. Yes
Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams on the ground. Yes
Failure to conclude at the time that surveillance officers could have been used to carry out the stop on Mr Menezes at Stockwell. Yes
The officer identified as 'Ivor' was a member of a SO12 Special Branch covert surveillance team who had followed Menezes on the bus and attempted to identify him. He has also been designated as 'Hotel 3'. The officer identified as 'C12' or 'Charlie 12' was a member of a CO19 firearms unit who first opened fire and killed Menezes.

In November 2009, the Metropolitan Police reached a compensation deal with the family of Jean Charles de Menezes. This marked the end of litigation between the parties. The amount of compensation was not disclosed.

Police initially stated that they challenged Menezes and ordered him to stop outside Stockwell station. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said in a later press conference that a warning was issued prior to the shooting. Lee Ruston, an eyewitness who was waiting on the platform, said the police did not identify themselves. The Times reported 'senior police sources' as saying that police policy would not require a warning to be given to a suspected suicide bomber before lethal action was taken.[105]

The leaked IPCC documents indicated that Menezes was seated on the train carriage when the SO19 armed unit arrived. A shout of 'police' may have been made, but the suspect never really had an opportunity to respond before he was shot. The leaked documents indicated that he was restrained by an undercover officer before being shot.

During the 2008 inquest into Menezes's death, passengers who were travelling in the same carriage also contradicted police accounts, saying that they heard no warnings and that Menezes gave no significant reaction to arrival of the policemen. One passenger said that Menezes appeared calm even as a gun was held to his head, and was clear that the police officers did not shout any warnings before shooting him.

In its open verdict on 12 December 2008, the jury decided 8 to 2 that no shouted warning had been given.

Initial UK media reports suggested that no CCTV footage was available from the Stockwell station, as recording media had not been replaced after being removed for examination after the previous day's attempted bombings. Other reports stated that faulty cameras on the platform were the reason for the lack of video evidence. An anonymous source confirmed that CCTV footage was available for the ticket area, but that there was a problem with the platform coverage. The source suggested that there was no useful CCTV footage from the platform or the train carriage.[111]

Extracts from a later police report stated that examination of the platform cameras had produced no footage. It said: "It has been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists." It also reported there was no footage from CCTV in the carriage where Menezes was shot, saying 'Although there was on-board CCTV in the train, due to previous incidents [7 July bombings], the hard drive had been removed and not replaced.'

The platform CCTV system is maintained by the Tube Lines consortium in charge of maintaining the Northern Line; the company made a statement to The Mail on Sunday insisting that the cameras were in working order.

During the inquest, evidence confirmed that the video tapes had been changed by a station supervisor in three video recorders monitoring the station CCTV, at 3:09am on the morning of the shooting. These machines emit an audible noise if they are not receiving an audio/video signal, but there was no indication the supervisor heard an alarm. Three days later the equipment was tested and it was found that a cable transmitting the CCTV images to the video recorders had been damaged or cut, possibly during refurbishment work (the cable may have been severed when a workman stepped on it); the following day a communications expert confirmed that the alarm was sounding as a result of this loss of signal.[113]

CCTV footage from the #2 bus Menezes caught to the station was also shown during the inquest; it too, was incomplete. The IPCC claimed this was due to excessive vibration which prevented several cameras on the bus from working This is BS

It was initially stated by police that Menezes was shot five times in the head. Mark Whitby, a passenger on the train Menezes had run onto, said: "one of [the police officers] was carrying a black handgun—it looked like an automatic—He half tripped… they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him." Another passenger, Dan Copeland, said: "an officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, 'Everybody out!' People just froze in their seats cowering for a few seconds and then leapt up. As I turned out the door on to the platform, I heard four dull bangs."[117] Menezes's cousin Alex Pereira, who lived with him, asserted that Menezes had been shot from behind: "I pushed my way into the morgue. They wouldn't let me see him. His mouth was twisted by the wounds and it looked like he had been shot from the back of the neck." Later reports confirmed that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot a total of eight times: seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

The leaked IPCC documents also indicated that an additional three shots had missed Menezes. One witness claimed that the shots were evenly distributed over a timespan of thirty seconds. This has not been substantiated by other witness reports or the leaked IPCC documents.

Similar incidents
Main articles: Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom and List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom
Comparisons have been made between the death of Menezes and other innocent or unarmed people shot by British police officers in disputed circumstances,including Stephen Waldorf, James Ashley, Harry Stanley, and the 2 June 2006 Forest Gate raid.

So yes Jean Charles de Menezes was assasinated

Deaths after contact with the police
The police service is sometimes criticised for incidents that result in deaths due to police firearms usage or in police custody, as well as the lack of competence and impartiality in investigations (in England and Wales only) by the Independent Police Complaints Commission after these events. The Economist stated in 2009:

“ Bad apples ... are seldom brought to justice: no policeman has ever been convicted of murder or manslaughter for a death following police contact, though there have been more than 400 such deaths in the past ten years alone. The IPCC is at best overworked and at worst does not deserve the “I” in its name.

No I'm not making a fool of myself, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes was assassinated by armed Met police.

 

[Capt Frogman]

I'm not going to bother quoting your cut and paste posts BritInAfrica. Aren't you capable of posting your own thoughts?

The shooting of Jean Charles da Silva de Menezes was unfortunate and avoidable. However, I do not blame the police firearms officers who pulled the trigger as they genuinely believed that he was a suicide bomber based on the intel passed to them. The police are at fault, but not those who pulled the trigger.

It's very rare that police firearms officers ever shoot anyone. One failure out of thousands of deployments doesn't prove anything. It also has zero relevance to civilians in America.

Besides, it's easy for you to sit in your chair and criticise the police, but have you ever been in their position? Have you ever shot someone? Have you ever shot someone and killed them?

 

[-- Dusty]

Froggy, over here in the states it's bad. I know a few places where I can be totally unarmed, fully cooperative, hands in the air, and every cop that gets "there" to the call out site, EVERY COP will have their weapon drawn on me. In fact. that is exactly what happened when I reported a theft from my truck.
If cops are so damned trigger happy, they need to find a different job. Some of them are looking for an excuse to kill someone.

 

[BritinBritain]

'

I im not going to bother quoting your cut and paste posts BritInAfrica. Aren't you capable of posting your own thoughts?

Yet you copy and post false information, I post facts, facts that you don't like

IThe shooting of Jean Charles da Silva de Menezes was unfortunate and avoidable. However, I do not blame the police firearms officers who pulled the trigger as they genuinely believed that he was a suicide bomber based on the intel passed to them. The police are at fault, but not those who pulled the trigger.

BS The officers who shot Jean Charles da Silva de Menezes failed on many points, including not declaring who they were. during the investigation evidence was suppressed, CCTV went missing. At the inquest the coroner Sir Michael Wright, took the verdict of Unlawful killing off the table, leaving only Lawful killing or Open verdict. The jury decided the shooting was not lawful by bringing an open verdict. Once again again a policeman has got away with murder. Not one police officer who has killed someone has been convicted.

IIt's very rare that police firearms officers ever shoot anyone. One failure out of thousands of deployments doesn't prove anything. It also has zero relevance to civilians in America.

Again total BS. Here is a list of police shooting since the year 2000. I know you wont look at them, but I dont care, maybe other people will read this post will and see how cavalier British armed police are. Yes it does prevalence to civilians in America, it shows how dangerous it can be when only the state have firearms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom

IBesides, it's easy for you to sit in your chair and criticise the police, but have you ever been in their position? Have you ever shot someone? Have you ever shot someone and killed them?

Yes I have been in that position twice, the first time I stopped a serious assault, and the second time I stopped two armed youths intent on breaking into a neighbours house, where a woman and her daughter were cowing, which could have ended in rape and possibly murder if I hadnot stopped them. Thankfully I didnt have to fire a single shot during incidents.

 

[Capt Frogman]

'

Yet you copy and post false information, I post facts, facts that you don't like

It's not false info that I post, it's facts that you cannot accept.

The officers who shot Jean Charles da Silva de Menezes failed on many points, including not declaring who they were. during the investigation evidence was suppressed, CCTV went missing. At the inquest the coroner Sir Michael Wright, took the verdict of Unlawful killing off the table, leaving only Lawful killing or Open verdict. The jury decided the shooting was not lawful by bringing an open verdict. Once again again a policeman has got away with murder. Not one police officer who has killed someone has been convicted.

I didn't know you'd been a police firearms officer or that you were present at the shooting? You seem to be able to judge them but in actual fact, you don't know what you're talking about. Just your usual armchair critique bollocks.

The clue is in your copy and paste, the coroner ruled out unlawful killing. So it wasn't unlawful then? Surely if it was unlawful then that would have been the final conclusion?

Again total BS. Here is a list of police shooting since the year 2000. I know you wont look at them, but I dont care, maybe other people will read this post will and see how cavalier British armed police are. Yes it does prevalence to civilians in America, it shows how dangerous it can be when only the state have firearms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom

You do realise that not all of those deaths listed are police shootings? If you'd actually bothered to read your own link, you'll find that most of those shot was because they were brandishing a weapon or had stabbed/killed someone.

I find it odd that you're so against the police having firearms (all of whom have extensive training and are held fully accountable for their actions) but you aren't bothered about untrained civilians shooting anyone or anything. What a strange way to think.

So that's a no then, you haven't faced a suicide bomber or shot and killed someone. Just as I suspected.

 

[Capt Frogman]

Here BritInAfrica, here are the latest stats for police shootings:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...cs-england-and-wales-april-2016-to-march-2017


There were 15,705 police firearms operations in the year ending 31 March 2017, an increase of 1,056 (7%) operations when compared with the previous year

In the year ending 31 March 2017, 84% of firearms operations involved Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs), compared with 85% in the previous year

There were ten incidents in which police firearms were discharged in the year ending 31 March 2017, up from seven incidents in the previous year

There were 6,278 armed officers on 31 March 2017, an increase of 639 (11%) armed officers when compared with the previous year

Looks like that blows your theory about lots of police shootings right out of the water then. Nearly 16,000 police firearms incidents and they only discharged their firearms 10 times. Yes, 10 times in 16,000 incidents. :lol:

 

[Capt Frogman]

Froggy, over here in the states it's bad. I know a few places where I can be totally unarmed, fully cooperative, hands in the air, and every cop that gets "there" to the call out site, EVERY COP will have their weapon drawn on me. In fact. that is exactly what happened when I reported a theft from my truck.
If cops are so damned trigger happy, they need to find a different job. Some of them are looking for an excuse to kill someone.

Not a problem in the UK, 99% of our cops don't carry a firearm.

Your cops are very trigger happy. They have completely the wrong approach.

 

[BritinBritain]

It's not false info that I post, it's facts that you cannot accept.

Absolute nonsense, I proved to you those figures were false

I didn't know you'd been a police firearms officer or that you were present at the shooting? You seem to be able to judge them but in actual fact, you don't know what you're talking about. Just your usual armchair critique bollocks..

Again your arrogance and ignorance is showing through, were you at the shooting to be able to judge them, no you wasnt. Of course you will defend your colleagues.:roll:

The clue is in your copy and paste, the coroner ruled out unlawful killing. So it wasn't unlawful then? Surely if it was unlawful then that would have been the final conclusion?.

Yes he ruled out unlawful killing, the jury ruled that the killing was not lawful which brought an open verdict, thereby preventing the police shooters from being prosecuted. Not one armed copper has ever been brought to justice for killing

You do realise that not all of those deaths listed are police shootings? If you'd actually bothered to read your own link, you'll find that most of those shot was because they were brandishing a weapon or had stabbed/killed someone..

Yet again BS, everyone of those is a police shooting. The heading gives it away:-
List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom
You say and I quote ""You do realise that not all of those deaths listed are police shootings?"" Yet in the next breath you say "" you'll find that most of those shot was because they were brandishing a weapon or had stabbed/killed someone."":-?

I find it odd that you're so against the police having firearms (all of whom have extensive training and are held fully accountable for their actions) but you aren't bothered about untrained civilians shooting anyone or anything. What a strange way to think..

Are held accountable? thats b******te and you know it, as I keep proving to you not one armed copper has been brought to justice for killing someone. Civilians have proven to be safer with firearms then the so called trained police

So that's a no then, you haven't faced a suicide bomber or shot and killed someone. Just as I suspected

No I havent faced a suicide bomber yet you ignore the fact that I defended lives by NOT shooting someone, unlike trigger happy police.

Where shall we go next regarding British police?

 

[BritinBritain]

:sarc:

Here BritInAfrica, here are the latest stats for police shootings:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...cs-england-and-wales-april-2016-to-march-2017


There were 15,705 police firearms operations in the year ending 31 March 2017, an increase of 1,056 (7%) operations when compared with the previous year

In the year ending 31 March 2017, 84% of firearms operations involved Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs), compared with 85% in the previous year

There were ten incidents in which police firearms were discharged in the year ending 31 March 2017, up from seven incidents in the previous year

There were 6,278 armed officers on 31 March 2017, an increase of 639 (11%) armed officers when compared with the previous year

Looks like that blows your theory about lots of police shootings right out of the water then. Nearly 16,000 police firearms incidents and they only discharged their firearms 10 times. Yes, 10 times in 16,000 incidents. :lol:

That proves nothing this is a government report. :sarc: Apart from that it fails to list the shootings and the reason behind them. Again you are talking absolute rubbish.

 

[BritinBritain]

Not a problem in the UK, 99% of our cops don't carry a firearm. .

Thank goodness for that.

Your cops are very trigger happy. They have completely the wrong approach.

Now you're an expert on American policing?

:sarc: