From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Dave Ings wrote:
> Well, what's happening with our "friends" in London who
gunned down that
> Brazilian in cold blood in the subway? When I checked the Manchester
> Guardian's summary page about a month, basically squat had happened, it was
> all tied up in bureaucracy and was going nowhere fast.
>
> I suspect at best the murderers will get at best at couple of years for
> something like reckless handling of a firearm.


ROFLMAO. Oh dear me you really are scraping a very small barrel if this is
what you can reply with (not to mention the fact that it appears that
massacring 25 or so Iraqis counts the same as 1 Brazilian).

1) The "shoot to kill suicide bomber" policy was a policy which
the police were duty bound to carry out were circumstance to suggest
suicide bomber in a public crowed place (e.g. a tube).

2) It was a cockup where the above was not. Wanderign around killing
everyone you can see out of anger is not the same as honestly believing but
being in error. What you had with De Menezes was a straight forward chinese
whisper cockup where someone could go from "man leaving building where
we think bombers might live" to "man is a suicide bomber on his
way to let off his device".

3) The people who should go down for that are those in control of the
operation i.e. those who should have been controlling it such tat "man
leaving building" stayed simply as "man who left building".

4) It is with the CPS. They have the IPCC report & their job is to
prosecute if they can. They will have to have evidence of criminal wrong
doing (including mens rea) to a sufficiently high std to convince a judge
& jury.

What happened in Iraq was a massacre of a minimum of 15 & possibly higher people.

Nice attempt at defending the indefensible though.

Here's a "Medal of Freedom" from Mr Bush for you.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5