Germany has similar laws to here (though probably not quite as crazy police-state-ish*) in that they can hold suspected terrorists without charge for a certain period. The fact they've released him pretty much immediately means they are all but certain he isn't the guy. But i_b_b_o_r_g thinks it is him, from a 1000 miles away with no access to witnesses, evidence, the crime scene or the suspect, so they should probably hold him for a bit longer.
Do you realise how crazy that sounds? What are you basing your thoughts on that the local police aren't seeing?
*Over the last few years the amount of time the police can hold a suspected terrorists without charging them of anything has steadily risen, can't remember if it's 30 or 45 days currently, but certainly long enough to completely ruin somebodies life without ever having to charge them of any crime, without ever having judicial oversight.
And you think it definitely ain't him from a 1000 miles away?
Just like to point out that the bloke was released because of insufficient evidence, not because he proved his innocence.
Just like to point out there's no need for anyone to "prove" their innocence.
Okay, but you know what I mean
Not really.
One man was arrested, but the police don't have the evidence to back the assertion it was him, despite a potential mountain of forensic evidence.
Are you suggesting it *was* him? And that the police have issued alerts and warnings about ano armed terrorist on the loose, unnecessarily?
Yeah, my personal view is that it probably was him, but the police never had enough evidence to hold him. Like I said, it's a shame the culprit weren't killed in the attack and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Notwithstanding the fact you think it was him, you think it would have been better if the perpetrator was killed in the attack. To you, that would be better than arresting the perpetrator, questioning them, securing intelligence and therefore being able to thwart other planned attacks, would it?
I would imagine they've not just 'let him go', he's probably under close surveillance.
That's probably the understatement of the year. Not only will he be watched by the police and covert security, every news media outlet in Europe and many other parts of the world will want to get hold of him. I can't imagine he wil have any kind of "freedom" until the guy that did it is behind bars.
Just like to point out that the bloke was released because of insufficient evidence, not because he proved his innocence.
Just like to point out there's no need for anyone to "prove" their innocence.
Okay, but you know what I mean
Not really.
One man was arrested, but the police don't have the evidence to back the assertion it was him, despite a potential mountain of forensic evidence.
Are you suggesting it *was* him? And that the police have issued alerts and warnings about ano armed terrorist on the loose, unnecessarily?
Yeah, my personal view is that it probably was him, but the police never had enough evidence to hold him. Like I said, it's a shame the culprit weren't killed in the attack and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Notwithstanding the fact you think it was him, you think it would have been better if the perpetrator was killed in the attack. To you, that would be better than arresting the perpetrator, questioning them, securing intelligence and therefore being able to thwart other planned attacks, would it?
Germany has similar laws to here (though probably not quite as crazy police-state-ish*) in that they can hold suspected terrorists without charge for a certain period. The fact they've released him pretty much immediately means they are all but certain he isn't the guy. But i_b_b_o_r_g thinks it is him, from a 1000 miles away with no access to witnesses, evidence, the crime scene or the suspect, so they should probably hold him for a bit longer.
Do you realise how crazy that sounds? What are you basing your thoughts on that the local police aren't seeing?
*Over the last few years the amount of time the police can hold a suspected terrorists without charging them of anything has steadily risen, can't remember if it's 30 or 45 days currently, but certainly long enough to completely ruin somebodies life without ever having to charge them of any crime, without ever having judicial oversight.
And you think it definitely ain't him from a 1000 miles away?
No, but I trust the local police and special forces on the scene far more than somebody on a Charlton forum. As I said, they have various powers to hold the guy if they thought there was any possibility it was him. Even without special anti-terrorism powers they have the ability to ask a judge to allow them extra time to find evidence before charging the guy. The fact they've released him so quickly without (as far as we know) any attempts to keep him in custody longer would suggest they are certain the guy they actually want is still out there.
What your proposing is that the police should be able to hold people indefinitely when there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, that is an incredibly dangerous amount of power to give to the police and would inevitably lead to abuses of that power.
I've been thinking this morning: I could be wrong but I can only think of one attack by Islamist terrorists in Europe where the attackers made an attempt to escape rather than make martyrs of themselves and/or broadcast their politics. ISIS claimed responsibility but didn't name so it's not likely they planned it.
I still think it's most likely to be Islamist terrorists but Germany has a long history of far-right terrorism.
Very sad for everyone affected and hope the German police can find those responsible as soon as possible.
The only other time I can think of is Charlie Hebdo, where it presented the opportunity for them to go on and carry out secondary attacks - i.e the hostage takings whilst an associate attacked the Halal supermarket. Charlie Hebdo was not carried out by ISIS though, and was claimed by Al Qaeda IIRC.
ISIS claiming responsibility does seem a bit premature, generally they only claim responsibility when they have some confidence behind the claim - and there's methods of verifying the credibility. It's also worth mentioning that to be considered a "soldier of IS" I believe an individual only has to film themselves doing some form of pledge of allegiance, which is often why mobile phones are recovered unlocked - providing a means for investigators to confirm the claim. In this instance though.. unless something was left in the cab then it's pretty difficult for the security forces to confirm I guess.
Let's hope there is a speedy resolution though, and justice is served - not only for those killed and maimed at the Christmas market, but also for the loved ones of the poor HGV driver who was murdered for his vehicle.
Germany has similar laws to here (though probably not quite as crazy police-state-ish*) in that they can hold suspected terrorists without charge for a certain period. The fact they've released him pretty much immediately means they are all but certain he isn't the guy. But i_b_b_o_r_g thinks it is him, from a 1000 miles away with no access to witnesses, evidence, the crime scene or the suspect, so they should probably hold him for a bit longer.
Do you realise how crazy that sounds? What are you basing your thoughts on that the local police aren't seeing?
*Over the last few years the amount of time the police can hold a suspected terrorists without charging them of anything has steadily risen, can't remember if it's 30 or 45 days currently, but certainly long enough to completely ruin somebodies life without ever having to charge them of any crime, without ever having judicial oversight.
And you think it definitely ain't him from a 1000 miles away?
No, but I trust the local police and special forces on the scene far more than somebody on a Charlton forum. As I said, they have various powers to hold the guy if they thought there was any possibility it was him. Even without special anti-terrorism powers they have the ability to ask a judge to allow them extra time to find evidence before charging the guy. The fact they've released him so quickly without (as far as we know) any attempts to keep him in custody longer would suggest they are certain the guy they actually want is still out there.
What your proposing is that the police should be able to hold people indefinitely when there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, that is an incredibly dangerous amount of power to give to the police and would inevitably lead to abuses of that power.
Germany has similar laws to here (though probably not quite as crazy police-state-ish*) in that they can hold suspected terrorists without charge for a certain period. The fact they've released him pretty much immediately means they are all but certain he isn't the guy. But i_b_b_o_r_g thinks it is him, from a 1000 miles away with no access to witnesses, evidence, the crime scene or the suspect, so they should probably hold him for a bit longer.
Do you realise how crazy that sounds? What are you basing your thoughts on that the local police aren't seeing?
*Over the last few years the amount of time the police can hold a suspected terrorists without charging them of anything has steadily risen, can't remember if it's 30 or 45 days currently, but certainly long enough to completely ruin somebodies life without ever having to charge them of any crime, without ever having judicial oversight.
And you think it definitely ain't him from a 1000 miles away?
No, but I trust the local police and special forces on the scene far more than somebody on a Charlton forum. As I said, they have various powers to hold the guy if they thought there was any possibility it was him. Even without special anti-terrorism powers they have the ability to ask a judge to allow them extra time to find evidence before charging the guy. The fact they've released him so quickly without (as far as we know) any attempts to keep him in custody longer would suggest they are certain the guy they actually want is still out there.
What your proposing is that the police should be able to hold people indefinitely when there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, that is an incredibly dangerous amount of power to give to the police and would inevitably lead to abuses of that power.
When did I propose that then?
When you suggested the German's were wrong to release him, despite the complete lack of evidence, because you think he probably did it. Or did you mean, rather non-intuitively, that you completed supported his release due to lack of evidence despite thinking he did it?
Breaking News is that due to a ID card found at the scene police are looking for a Tunisian man.
It's fortunate that you are not judge, jury and executioner Ibborg
36 hours or so to announce an ID card found in the cab, that's pretty interesting. (I'm going to go out on a limb and give the uneducated guess that behind the scenes that's perhaps been used to substantiate the claims of responsibility?)
Germany has similar laws to here (though probably not quite as crazy police-state-ish*) in that they can hold suspected terrorists without charge for a certain period. The fact they've released him pretty much immediately means they are all but certain he isn't the guy. But i_b_b_o_r_g thinks it is him, from a 1000 miles away with no access to witnesses, evidence, the crime scene or the suspect, so they should probably hold him for a bit longer.
Do you realise how crazy that sounds? What are you basing your thoughts on that the local police aren't seeing?
*Over the last few years the amount of time the police can hold a suspected terrorists without charging them of anything has steadily risen, can't remember if it's 30 or 45 days currently, but certainly long enough to completely ruin somebodies life without ever having to charge them of any crime, without ever having judicial oversight.
And you think it definitely ain't him from a 1000 miles away?
No, but I trust the local police and special forces on the scene far more than somebody on a Charlton forum. As I said, they have various powers to hold the guy if they thought there was any possibility it was him. Even without special anti-terrorism powers they have the ability to ask a judge to allow them extra time to find evidence before charging the guy. The fact they've released him so quickly without (as far as we know) any attempts to keep him in custody longer would suggest they are certain the guy they actually want is still out there.
What your proposing is that the police should be able to hold people indefinitely when there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, that is an incredibly dangerous amount of power to give to the police and would inevitably lead to abuses of that power.
When did I propose that then?
When you suggested the German's were wrong to release him, despite the complete lack of evidence, because you think he probably did it. Or did you mean, rather non-intuitively, that you completed supported his release due to lack of evidence despite thinking he did it?
No, I said that because they have released him, doesn't mean to say that he wasn't involved, it means that they didn't have enough evidence to hold him.
Then I said that, in my opinion, he probably was involved.
I worked alongside the 'Polizei' for a few years some years ago. Probably the most efficient policing agency that I have worked with. If they released the fella it's because they did not have a single shred of evidence to detain him. If there was the smallest modicum of evidence (Forensic, strong witness evidence etc) he would have not been released and held under their legislation whilst they continued gathering such evidence until such a time that he could be charged and within their legislative timeframes. It is my strong hunch that they know it wasn't him.
Just been announced that they are looking fir a Tunisian suspect.
I've been thinking this morning: I could be wrong but I can only think of one attack by Islamist terrorists in Europe where the attackers made an attempt to escape rather than make martyrs of themselves and/or broadcast their politics. ISIS claimed responsibility but didn't name so it's not likely they planned it.
I still think it's most likely to be Islamist terrorists but Germany has a long history of far-right terrorism.
Very sad for everyone affected and hope the German police can find those responsible as soon as possible.
The only other time I can think of is Charlie Hebdo, where it presented the opportunity for them to go on and carry out secondary attacks - i.e the hostage takings whilst an associate attacked the Halal supermarket. Charlie Hebdo was not carried out by ISIS though, and was claimed by Al Qaeda IIRC.
ISIS claiming responsibility does seem a bit premature, generally they only claim responsibility when they have some confidence behind the claim - and there's methods of verifying the credibility. It's also worth mentioning that to be considered a "soldier of IS" I believe an individual only has to film themselves doing some form of pledge of allegiance, which is often why mobile phones are recovered unlocked - providing a means for investigators to confirm the claim. In this instance though.. unless something was left in the cab then it's pretty difficult for the security forces to confirm I guess.
Let's hope there is a speedy resolution though, and justice is served - not only for those killed and maimed at the Christmas market, but also for the loved ones of the poor HGV driver who was murdered for his vehicle.
Yes, Charlie Hebdo (attacks on the magazine office) was the only example I could think of.
I can't remember the exact timeline, but I had understood that the guy who killed a policeman and then took the Kosher restaurant hostage (Coulibaly?) was unconnected, just planned something himself and took the opportunity when he heard the news.
I remember there was something about buying a chocolate bar or coffee at a garage and they took two staff hostage at a print factory, but I'm not able to research it right now. I couldn't remember on whether it was ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram or whoever.
I've checked up quickly on Madrid bombings and they appeared to have left the scene so maybe it's not as unusual as it felt to me this morning.
I'm not going to say I agree or disagree with any one perspective on this (though I would be very surprised if the German authorities would have released any suspect about whom there was a reasonable concern).
In terms of ID, it is much more likely that it would be found at the scene of an attack, where the attacker sets out to conduct a "martyrdom operation" and deliberately leaves it. But it is also entirely possible that ID could be mislaid in the original attack upon the lorry driver.
Maybe the terrorist thought he'd die in the attack and wanted to be identified, but then if that is the case, it's strange he ran away towards the park without hanging around shooting at people, until he was finally shot.....
if they capture him they should just black bag him and hand him over to the russians, I am sure they wont mind a bit of waterboarding fun at the moment.
Just like to point out that the bloke was released because of insufficient evidence, not because he proved his innocence.
Just like to point out there's no need for anyone to "prove" their innocence.
Okay, but you know what I mean
Not really.
One man was arrested, but the police don't have the evidence to back the assertion it was him, despite a potential mountain of forensic evidence.
Are you suggesting it *was* him? And that the police have issued alerts and warnings about ano armed terrorist on the loose, unnecessarily?
Yeah, my personal view is that it probably was him, but the police never had enough evidence to hold him. Like I said, it's a shame the culprit weren't killed in the attack and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Notwithstanding the fact you think it was him, you think it would have been better if the perpetrator was killed in the attack. To you, that would be better than arresting the perpetrator, questioning them, securing intelligence and therefore being able to thwart other planned attacks, would it?
Be interested to hear in what ways they would be able to 'secure intelligence'. We wouldn't want it infringing their human rights would we.
Just like to point out that the bloke was released because of insufficient evidence, not because he proved his innocence.
Just like to point out there's no need for anyone to "prove" their innocence.
Okay, but you know what I mean
Not really.
One man was arrested, but the police don't have the evidence to back the assertion it was him, despite a potential mountain of forensic evidence.
Are you suggesting it *was* him? And that the police have issued alerts and warnings about ano armed terrorist on the loose, unnecessarily?
Yeah, my personal view is that it probably was him, but the police never had enough evidence to hold him. Like I said, it's a shame the culprit weren't killed in the attack and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Notwithstanding the fact you think it was him, you think it would have been better if the perpetrator was killed in the attack. To you, that would be better than arresting the perpetrator, questioning them, securing intelligence and therefore being able to thwart other planned attacks, would it?
Bore off Chizz, I told you what I think.
No need to be unpleasant.
I simply wanted to understand whether your preference would be *not* to have the opportunity to learn by gathering more intelligence and possibly avoiding further terrorist acts. It's a particularly odd preference, but you've confirmed that, so thanks.
Just like to point out that the bloke was released because of insufficient evidence, not because he proved his innocence.
Just like to point out there's no need for anyone to "prove" their innocence.
Okay, but you know what I mean
Not really.
One man was arrested, but the police don't have the evidence to back the assertion it was him, despite a potential mountain of forensic evidence.
Are you suggesting it *was* him? And that the police have issued alerts and warnings about ano armed terrorist on the loose, unnecessarily?
Yeah, my personal view is that it probably was him, but the police never had enough evidence to hold him. Like I said, it's a shame the culprit weren't killed in the attack and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Notwithstanding the fact you think it was him, you think it would have been better if the perpetrator was killed in the attack. To you, that would be better than arresting the perpetrator, questioning them, securing intelligence and therefore being able to thwart other planned attacks, would it?
Be interested to hear in what ways they would be able to 'secure intelligence'. We wouldn't want it infringing their human rights would we.
No. But if interrogation and incarceration result in further intelligence, that would be a good thing. No?
Comments
What your proposing is that the police should be able to hold people indefinitely when there is no evidence of any wrong-doing, that is an incredibly dangerous amount of power to give to the police and would inevitably lead to abuses of that power.
ISIS claiming responsibility does seem a bit premature, generally they only claim responsibility when they have some confidence behind the claim - and there's methods of verifying the credibility. It's also worth mentioning that to be considered a "soldier of IS" I believe an individual only has to film themselves doing some form of pledge of allegiance, which is often why mobile phones are recovered unlocked - providing a means for investigators to confirm the claim. In this instance though.. unless something was left in the cab then it's pretty difficult for the security forces to confirm I guess.
Let's hope there is a speedy resolution though, and justice is served - not only for those killed and maimed at the Christmas market, but also for the loved ones of the poor HGV driver who was murdered for his vehicle.
It's fortunate that you are not judge, jury and executioner Ibborg
Other reports say that they're looking to 2 people
It's just as likely that the ID found at the scene is a red herring. These terrorists aren't as stupid as some like to think.
Then I said that, in my opinion, he probably was involved.
Now, you lot, are having kittens.
Remind me to never play you in a game of cluedo.
Doubt very much the German Police would release him unless they were 100% happy he wasn't involved.
Or of course they could have 'turned' him to catch a bigger fish.
Just been announced that they are looking fir a Tunisian suspect.
I can't remember the exact timeline, but I had understood that the guy who killed a policeman and then took the Kosher restaurant hostage (Coulibaly?) was unconnected, just planned something himself and took the opportunity when he heard the news.
I remember there was something about buying a chocolate bar or coffee at a garage and they took two staff hostage at a print factory, but I'm not able to research it right now. I couldn't remember on whether it was ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram or whoever.
I've checked up quickly on Madrid bombings and they appeared to have left the scene so maybe it's not as unusual as it felt to me this morning.
In terms of ID, it is much more likely that it would be found at the scene of an attack, where the attacker sets out to conduct a "martyrdom operation" and deliberately leaves it. But it is also entirely possible that ID could be mislaid in the original attack upon the lorry driver.
I simply wanted to understand whether your preference would be *not* to have the opportunity to learn by gathering more intelligence and possibly avoiding further terrorist acts. It's a particularly odd preference, but you've confirmed that, so thanks.