Tony Bliar's explanation was that "the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

So the Muslim community is rightly concerned that the penalty for looking suspicious and failing to obey police is summary execution on the spot. And yet no words of reassurance have been forthcoming from the police or other authorities.

If the man had explosives strapped to his body, that fact would have been discovered immediately after his death, if not sooner. The police would also have been careful not to fire into his torso.

Clearly, the delay in explaining why the man was executed is to allow police time to spin the story. If they should now say they found a bomb on the man, we would have to ask, why did it take so long to say so? Why didn't Tony Blair say so in his explanation, instead of talking about failure to obey instructions?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
From the Associated Press: "If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them," said London Mayor Ken Livingstone.

---

. . before an incident at Stockwell in which a suspected suicide bomber was shot dead, Mr Livingstone paid tribute to tube workers who had "performed miracles" in restoring services after yesterday's failed bomb attacks.

quote:

---

Ken Livingstone, is meeting London Underground and union officials later today to discuss the tube's response to terrorism.

Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT union, said that, following the removal of guards, Tube drivers are alone on trains and responsible for the safety of as many as 400 passengers

He added: "Our members are down there 24 hours a day - eight and a half hours at a time - and it is their place of work and it is not as if they have got someone else on the train with them.

"They are the only person and they are responsible for 350 or 400 people. If you understand what kind of nerves they are going through ... "

Mr Crow said there had been "confusion" yesterday over whether drivers should continue to run services following the bomb alerts.

"Yesterday afternoon, Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner, said there was an orange alert and as a result of that ... he said that people shouldn't travel," he told The World At One.

"At the same time, London Underground was telling train drivers to drive normally.

"Either the system is safe for everyone to travel in or it is not safe at all. The Health and Safety at Work Act makes it quite clear that if a person believes they are in a place of danger, without refusing to work they should ask for alternative duties. That's what our lads and lasses asked for yesterday."

---

Ken Livingstone has said since the first attack "This is not an attack against the rich and powerful. It is not an attack on the politicians, but on the common working people of London - black and white, Muslim and Christian, young and old."

The standard of "reasonable force" is being stretched to permit the use of deadly force (shoot to kill) in the discretion of the police.

quote:

---

Solicitor Daniel Machover said that even if the suspect shot dead had no weapons or explosive, officers could have a defence against a murder charge. Mr Machover, who has has taken legal actions against police after shooting incidents, said: "If the perception in the officers' minds was that the suspect was posing an immediate threat to them or others, opening fire may well have been lawful. The test is the threat they perceived when they opened fire." He said a defence against a lesser charge would be more complex.

---

The use of instant capital punishment for the new crime of "running away while Muslim" is causing consternation among the Muslim community in Britain. It's also likely to stiffen the determination of the radical Islamist suicide bombers.

quote:

---

The moderate Muslim Council of Britain was deeply concerned. Its spokesman, Inayat Bunglawala, said: "From his press conference Ian Blair seemed to imply that the man shot dead was not one of the four attempted suicide bombers. That increases the urgency of the question of why this man was shot dead as opposed to being disabled or arrested. There may be good reason, but the police need to explain what their reasons are. There has been a marked increase of nervousness among Muslims today"

Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission said: "We have raised concerns about the Met sending officers to learn from the Israelis about suicide bombers. They have a policy of assassinating people - why should our police learn these tactics and these values?"

---

You say that witnesses have stated that the police fired into both head and torso. That surprises me. I have watched and listened repeatedly to the most detailed witness statement made to the BBC, and that witness, who seems to have been closest, is nowhere near that precise. He was right there, but what he saw was several officers "piling on"; he also saw the handgun that was pulled out; and then he counted the shots (five). But that's it.

Given the pile-on, I doubt that anyone could say for sure that that officer fired into the torso, and given their training, that seems unlikely to me.

quote:

---

The use of instant capital punishment for the new crime of "running away while Muslim" is causing consternation among the Muslim community in Britain. It's also likely to stiffen the determination of the radical Islamist suicide bombers.

---

While I think that all British citizens, especially visible minorities but not just Muslims, have great cause for concern to think that more armed officers are going to be about on their streets, some of them with shoot-to-kill training and instructions, I think that you've put this case in unnecessarily inflammatory terms.

The police have said that this suspect had been under surveillance. The chase itself, and the number of officers involved, gives that claim some verisimilitude, I think. He wasn't just anybody, "running away while Muslim." (How can anyone tell, anyway, just by looking, who is a Muslim?)

And if it's determined he's somehow guilty of something without a trial, how does that make it right?

And on the other matter, try a Google News search for a widely-syndicated (AP?) article by Paisley Dodds, which said:

quote:

---

Police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso, an eyewitness said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I have watched and listened repeatedly to the most detailed witness statement made to the BBC. He saw the handgun that was pulled out; and then he counted the shots (five).

---

Shot man not connected to bombing

quote:

---

A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.

A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.

The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.

Two other men have been arrested and are being questioned after bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus.

The statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

---

Maybe this will affect the very broad instructions that police have been given.

In answer to someone's question above about why the police didn't apprehend immediately: they say that they wanted to track him, believing that he would lead them to another suspect; but when he headed for the Tube station, they decided they couldn't afford that, and tried to stop him then.

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
An article by Vikram Dodd in today's Guardian, also published in the paper edition of the Globe and Mail, explains how police are learning their tactics (and apparently also their moral code) from the Israelis.

---

According to the

BBC not just the Israelis but the Sri Lankans as well:

quote:

---

However, the police have taken advice from officers in countries such as Israel and Sri Lanka which have long experience of suicide attacks.

Their advice is that if a suspect clearly has no intention of surrendering, the armed officer should attempt to aim for the head or lower limbs to prevent a suicide belt being detonated.

---

It would seem, well at least according to Rohan Gunaratna as reported by the Indo-Asian News Service:

quote:

---

The Tamil Tigers...have staged two-thirds of all the suicide bombings in the world, are driven by ethno-nationalism.]

---

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Drinkmore ]

quote:

---

The fatal shooting at Stockwell happened at 10am yesterday when armed plain clothes police officers shot a man as he tried to board a train at the underground station.

The Asian man then bolted down an escalator and tried to get on a train before he was, according to witnesses, shot five times in the head by an officer with an automatic pistol.

---

quote:

---

The Muslim Council of Britain tonight "expressed its deepest condolences to the family of the innocent man".

"While we accept that the police are under tremendous pressure to apprehend the criminals who are attempting to cause carnage on the streets of London, it is absolutely vital that utmost care is taken to ensure that innocent people are not killed due to over-zealousness," said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the council's secretary-general.

The council said it had "received numerous calls from distressed British Muslims" since yesterday's shooting.

The human rights organisation Liberty said no one should "rush to judgment"

Liberty's director Shami Chakrabarti said: "Our hearts go out to the family of the dead man and to the officers involved in this tragic incident ... These are knife-edge split second decisions made in moments of grave danger. We have a massive shared interest in the protection of innocent lives."

---

quote:

---

"The man emerged from a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police surveillance as part of the investigation into the incidents on Thursday July 21.

---

Sounds like this poor guy was just guilty of being near some people the police were suspicious of and had under serveillance. Sound familiar?

I guess Maher Arar was relatively lucky.

All this just illustrates the futility of trying to use force to stop these kinds of attacks. By the time someone decides they're going to commit random mass murder, it's already too late. They'll find some way of doing it. The problem is how to prevent them from getting to that point in the first place.

Seems to me that carrying out hair-trigger assassinations of random "suspicious-looking" Muslims -- using techniques pioneered by the Israelis, no less -- can only increase the resentment that leads to extremism in the first place. On top of that generated by brutally invading and occupying Muslim countries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

He also demonstrated the fallibility of eye-witness accounts by saying "I heard five shots. Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang. Five shots." (Well, maybe six?)

---

To be fair to witnesses, I was an ear-witness to a shooting near my apartment last winter and I initally told the police there were four or five shots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
To infer that the London police intentionally killed this person only because he was a Muslim, if he was a Muslim, is a stretch, to say the least. Every word that I have heard from the mouths of the police spokespeople have exhibited determination to apprehend the culprits, but also concern and respect for the Muslim community.

---

I guess it depends on whether this is an isolated incident or not. If they tone down their "shoot-to-kill" policies to prevent another outrage like this one, then the potential negative repercussions may be softened.

This behaviour on the part of the police is really scary! What if someone doesn't stop because they have a hearing problem? Will they be shot like a dog as well?

The police and the government is now scaring me more than the terrorists!

P.S. When I heard about the shooting yesterday I had a gut feeling that this guy was not guilty.
Besides why would they shoot at him if he is in the Tube, surrounded by commuters, if they thought he might have a bomb? This doesn't make any sense at all, at all!

quote:

---

they say that they wanted to track him, believing that he would lead them to another suspect; but when he headed for the Tube station, they decided they couldn't afford that, and tried to stop him then.

---

quote:

---

The police have called the incident a tragedy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
I am not suggesting anything here except I think we need to allow the police time to sort out what happened and they will explain to us what happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
Don't forget they are working at the moment under extraordinary circumstances and their priority is to try and prevent any more bombings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The police have had plenty of time to "sort out" what happened.

---

quote:

---

The man, who died at Stockwell Tube on Friday, has been named by police as Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27.

---

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Drinkmore ]

I don't think anybody would be quick to make excuses for the police if this was your brother or father or husband or son.

Sure, let's add more violence to an already violent, volatile situation!

Don't the cops have tazers or whatever they are called that take people down without killing them? Or a tranquilizer gun?

And maybe the guy was late for an appointment, in reality didn't hear the cops, and was running to catch the train?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuclearfreezone:

Besides why would they shoot at him if he is in the Tube, surrounded by commuters, if they thought he might have a bomb? This doesn't make any sense at all, at all!

---

Because if he had had a bomb the absolutely best chance of stopping him is to kill him before he has a chance to detonate the device.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The police have had plenty of time to "sort out" what happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Privateer:
No they haven't.

---

They took about 2.6 seconds to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner for one poor sap. That's some pretty fast "sorting out", don't you think?

quote:

---

Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
They overreacted to a crisis situation with the best of intentions I'm sure. I don't think very many police officers enjoy having to use their guns to kill people. It's a crappy job, obviously.

---

quote:

---

The problem is the extreme circumstances Blair and company put the country into, and which the police have to deal with as best they can.

---

That is absolutely right. The ironic thing, though, is that when the Americans have put a "shoot-first" policy into place, in Iraq (especially at checkpoints) the British have been critical:

quote:

---

British defence chiefs have warned United States military commanders in Iraq to change their rules for opening fire or face becoming bogged down in a terrorist war for a decade or more.

The Telegraph has learnt that the warning was issued last month in response to a series of incidents that led to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, mainly at checkpoints, after soldiers opened fire in the mistaken belief that they were being attacked by suicide bombers.

US soldiers secure the site of an explosion in Baghdad
The warning is said to have taken the form of advice from senior officers who accompanied Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the General Staff, on a recent trip to southern Iraq and Baghdad to visit British troops.

---

quote:

---

"The Government [of Brazil]awaits the explanation British authorities must supply about the circumstances which led to this tragedy."

London police, which at first said the shooting was linked to its probe of Thursday's failed attacks in London's public transportation system, later said he was not connected to the case after all.

---

So it looks like the "spin" actually began almost immediately. Jean Charles de Menezes had lived in London legally for three years and was heading to his job as an electrician when he was shot by police.

"The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public. This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility," he said.

Guardian story

Edited to add:

I can't help but ask: why is it OK to blame the terrorists for the actions of the police in shooting Jean Charles de Menezes in the face five times but NOT OK to blame the British Government for the deaths of its own citizens two weeks ago by the actions of the terrorists in the London underground? Didn't the British role in Iraq lead to the terrorists actions as surely as the police state measures led to the death of Menezes?

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

"By far the worst behaviour captured on the program, filmed secretly earlier this year was that of Police Constable Rob Pulling of the North Wales force. The constable was recorded as saying that black murder victim Stephen Lawrence deserved it, describing his parents as spongers and proclaiming that the murder suspects should have diplomatic immunity.

Constable Pulling, who resigned on Wednesday, admitted an unprovoked violent attack on an Asian man. He also placed a white pillowcase over his head and pretended to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and said he would bury an Asian under a train track. "

This story really, really bothers me. 27 is too young to die, without cause.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I can't help but ask: why is it OK to blame the terrorists for the actions of the police in shooting Jean Charles de Menezes in the face five times but NOT OK to blame the British Government for the deaths of its own citizens two weeks ago by the actions of the terrorists in the London underground? Didn't the British role in Iraq lead to the terrorists actions as surely as the police state measures led to the death of Menezes?

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

What the hell are you doing applying the same moral standard, within the same logical framework to all situations? Don't you realize that you must think on the basis that the state is the central moral standard in relation to which everything else is judged, and that all sumations of moral dilemas must result in it being above blame?

2+2=5... right?

[ 23 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Solicitor Daniel Machover said that even if the suspect shot dead had no weapons or explosive, officers could have a defence against a murder charge. Mr Machover, who has has taken legal actions against police after shooting incidents, said: "If the perception in the officers' minds was that the suspect was posing an immediate threat to them or others, opening fire may well have been lawful. The test is the threat they perceived when they opened fire." He said a defence against a lesser charge would be more complex.

---

The is the US police response to any use of deadly force against an unarmed and quite possible innocent suspect. The rationale is the cop has more right to get home at night to his/her family than the poor dumb schmuck who was in the wrong place at the wrong time has to their life. Sorry, very regrettable, but the lives of police outweigh the lives of civilians, is the unsaid assumption. If that assessment sounds harsh, I have sat in on trials and covered incidents like this as a journalist including one on a rural Illinois interstate where a local cop shot a driver who was stopped by the side of the road five times in the back for failing to respond to verbal commands. Did I mention the man's "crime" was driving off after not paying $12 for his gas? And that he had done it before? And that he was mentally challenged? And the cops knew him and where he lived and had dealt with this before?

Verdict: not guilty. Of course. The poor officer with the 9mm felt "threatened" because the guy was still trying to drive the car.

I've seen too much of this. Sorry, if my well of sympathy for cops ran out a long time ago. As long as they look at "civilian life" as being worth less than their own and their "thin blue line" that will close ranks and cover up and lie for fellow officers, than these things will continue.

We're also failing to note that the London cops that executed at point blank range, this unfortunate man, were plainclothes officers. So they started shouting at this Brazilian man - what was he to think? Its entirely possible that he believed they were not cops but criminals and tried to flee - language could have been a barrier here, especially with shouted commands.

BTW, how does one detonate a bomb if their hands are restrained? And at what risk do you take of setting off a bomb by tacking the supposed bomber (whose detonators could go off with the impact) and then pumping live rounds into his torso?

quote:

---

Pereira said that the most upsetting part of identifying his cousin was 'to see bullet wounds in his back and his neck when I went to the mortuary in Greenwich.' Source

---

quote:

---

guess it's lucky for the plainclothes cop who executed him that he wasn't packing explosives on his body.

---

I sense that you don't know the first thing about explosives.

quote:

---

We're also failing to note that the London cops that executed at point blank range, this unfortunate man, were plainclothes officers. So they started shouting at this Brazilian man - what was he to think? Its entirely possible that he believed they were not cops but criminals and tried to flee - language could have been a barrier here, especially with shouted commands.

---

Good point. Maybe he thought they were racist thugs out to lynch anyone who wasn't a WASP.

Hell, if a bunch of tough-looking, non-uniformed guys pulled guns and started yelling at me on the SkyTrain, I'd probably run too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dackle:
I sense that you don't know the first thing about explosives.

Watch a little more Mythbusters, will ya?

---

I'm sure the police know a hell of a lot more about explosives than I do, and it's their policy, when confronting a suspected suicide bomber, to shoot for the head, rather than the torso.

quote:

---

A former Scotland Yard commander, Roy Ramm, spelt out the rationale.

ROY RAMM: The fact is, that when you're dealing with suicide bombers, the only way you could stop them effectively and protect yourself is to try for a head shot, because the danger of shooting into the body is that you may detonate a bomb which is wrapped around somebody. Source

---

quote:

---

Because if he had had a bomb the absolutely best chance of stopping him is to kill him before he has a chance to detonate the device.

---

quote:

---

Don't forget they are working at the moment under extraordinary circumstances and their priority is to try and prevent any more bombings.

---

quote:

---

So if someone is pointing a gun at your family's heads, would you want a cop to wait a couple of days to see what happens before they react? I think the cops overreacted, but given what's been happening there its not so surprising

---

See how quickly we will surrender our civil rights and give away power of life and death to an unaccountable force?

quote:

---

It's a crappy job, obviously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
The issue for you is not your family being blown away but so long as it is done with the best of intentions?

---

Edited to add: I don't think it was right, rather understandable on the part of the cops. That doesn't make it any less stupid to defy the police in times of national crisis.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
The guy had it coming.[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

---

That's a bit much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
The guy had it coming. Only the stupidest of people would refuse to freeze when the cops say freeze, given the circumstances.

Edited to add: I don't think it was right, rather understandable on the part of the cops. That doesn't make it any less stupid to defy the police in times of national crisis.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

---

The police must have known right away that they shot an innocent man. In the case of the bombers, CCTV tape was released immediately. In this case it wasn't, even though the ruse the killing was terrorist-related was kept up for about a day.

I would have imagined if they really believed they'd got a terrorist, footage of this guy would have been all over the media in an effort to find connections to him. Instead, zero.

quote:

---

Only the stupidest of people would refuse to freeze when the cops say freeze, given the circumstances.

---

In many places, such as Brazil, the police are often criminals. And how do you know how he was approached? By plain clothed officers brandishing weapons (edited to add: Did you ever think he knew he was being followed and thought his life was in danger)? Running might have been his best bet. If he wasn't caught he would still be alive. He was murdered in cold blood by the police for the crime running while being brown.

If you run, do you expect to die?

Suddenly the summary execution of third world countries are acceptable. My God.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Cueball: What the hell are you doing applying the same moral standard, within the same logical framework to all situations? Don't you realize that you must think on the basis that the state is the central moral standard in relation to which everything else is judged, and that all sumations of moral dilemas must result in it being above blame?

---

It's the only way to be philosophically consistent. Either we apply the same standards to all or there are no standards.

Furthermore, your reply begs the question: are some states better than others? The answer must be "Yes" else democracy is a farce and terrorism becomes reasonable.

People expect their governments to behave rationally, reasonably. One must have some faith, after all. The best custodian of that faith is ordinary people, working people. And such people expect their governments not to kill them. If governments are unable to control themselves, if governments are unable to behave, then citizens have no such duty to be respetful towards their governments. All bets are off. It will be very interesting to see if the British authorities come clean...and acknowledge that Jean Charles de Menezes was "shot while attempting to escape", or "shot while suspicious", or, as some have already concluded, "shot while being brown and in the wrong place at the wrong time". Or will the UK authorities assert that the officers had itchy trigger fingers?

"Shot while attempting to escape" is the same explanation Major Hochstedder made in the TV series, Hogan's Heroes, for the death of every escapee. It was self-evidently wrong, just as the death of Jean Charles de Menezes is self-evidently wrong. We Winnipegers are very familliar with the vicims of officer homicides as is the family of J. J. Harper. Let's see if there is a proper investigation.

The police do have the right and the responsibility to put their own safety and that of the publie ahead of the safety of those they encounter. In many ways, its analagous to the right we all have to refuse to do unsafe work.

He didn't stop, he kept on running, they made the correct choice. They killed him to prevent many others from being killed. If it then turns out that this particular individual was unarmed, that's his problem. He should have listened, he should have stopped. He may well have decided to be a martyr, having calculated that people like some of the posters in this thread will have what looks like a useful occaision to trot out their favourite insincere theories.

quote:

---

The police do have the right and the responsibility to put their own safety and that of the publie ahead of the safety of those they encounter.

---

I haven't read that the dead man was an associate of the bombers, though I may have missed it.

I have read alternately that the man lived in the apartment block police were watching, or that he had been staying there over night.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
The man the police in London shot was an associate of some of the suspects. If he wasn't in fact wired with explosives he should have stopped.

---

You aren't up to date on this:

Man shot in terror hunt was innocent young Brazilian

quote:

---

A young Brazilian man, living and working in London as an electrician, emerged last night as the innocent victim shot dead by police in their hunt for the suicide bombers targeting the capital.

The dead man, killed at Stockwell tube station on Friday after fleeing from armed police, was named as 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes. His body was identified by Alex Pereira, a cousin who lives in London and who afterwards told The Observer: 'I can't believe they shot him, because he was not a terrorist. He was an honest man.

[SNIP]

Scotland Yard said last night that Menezes 'was not connected to incidents in central London on 21 July in which four explosive devices were partly detonated. An inquest will be opened to acknowledge formal identification and adjourned, while awaiting the outcome of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death.'

---

It sounds like he ran away from armed guys, who were chasing him because he was browner than other people.

quote:

---

The truth is that if any of the people who have called the police in this instance executioners were themselves injured by a terrorist they would soon have some ambulance chasing lawyer suing the authorities for not protecting them sufficiently.

---

I entirely disagree. I just had a conversation with an ex-girlfriend of mine who likely missed the previous bombings because she slept-in. Her and I both agreed that the advent of her death would not change the political reality, or its solutions. I find your line of thinking very regressive.

Many persons who had family members killed in 9-11 opposed all of the actions pursued by the US government, including the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq. Not everyone is turned into an arch-conservative lusting for revenge when personal tragedy strikes.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The man the police in London shot was an associate of some of the suspects.

---

No, he wasn't. That was a police coverup lie.

quote:

---

If it then turns out that this particular individual was unarmed, that's his problem.

---

Lesson learned. If you are brown in London, start packing. Shoot the pigs before they shoot you.

They let this guy, whom they were so concerned was carrying a bomb that they had to blow his brains out, get on a bus ...

quote:

---

He was followed by a surveillance team as he caught a bus to Stockwell Tube station where police told him to stop. According to witnesses, he tried to get on a train when he was shot five times in the head by an officer.

---

Wrong man shot

But you, know, they were trying to protect people ...

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
The police do have the right and the responsibility to put their own safety and that of the publie ahead of the safety of those they encounter.

---

quote:

---

In many ways, its analagous to the right we all have to refuse to do unsafe work.

---

quote:

---

He may well have decided to be a martyr, having calculated that people like some of the posters in this thread will have what looks like a useful occaision to trot out their favourite insincere theories.

---

quote:

---

The truth is that if any of the people who have called the police in this instance executioners were themselves injured by a terrorist they would soon have some ambulance chasing lawyer suing the authorities for not protecting them sufficiently.

---

Editted to add: Meanwhile, a Fox News commentator is licking his lips over the blooding.

quote:

---

Five In The Noggin

My faith has been renewed in the Brits. Even though they talk a good politically correct game out in public, evidently, behind the scenes they are as ruthless as I would expect from a civilized country under attack by bloodthirsty barbarians who have been brainwashed.

---

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

The most recent BBC reports are that Menezes spoke good English and had no reason to run from the police. This according to his brother back in Brazil.

Fair enough, but who wouldn't run from a guy in a nondescript T-shirt and jeans, waving a pistol, yelling "Ermedpleez!"? For fun, fill in your favourite thick British regional accent (I recommend Sarf London), and then you make the call.

Toof kwession, innit?

quote:

---

Originally posted by aRoused:
And no mention of any warning shots being fired, either.

---

My understanding is that the usual Metro Police regulations call for SO-19 armed officers to give a loud warning like 'stop, or I'll shoot,' but that firing warning shots in an enclosed or 'built-up' area has been found to do more harm than good. It causes general panic among the civilians and cops say the suspect is more likely to run than stop.

Then, of course, there's the question of where the bullet goes-- some people seem to have this idea that a bullet fired in the air simply evaporates at a great height.

Several US police agencies have done away with the practice of warning shots, as well.

Good point about the impenetrable accents, BTW.

'Stoop are ull fahr!'

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

quote:

---

"Ermedpleez!"

---

quote:

---

Another cousin, Aleide de Menezes, said Jean Charles de Menezes spoke English very well and would have understood police instructions, CBN radio reported.

---

i agree with the point of "why let him on the bus to get to stockwell tube", and the police need to explain why the house he emerged from was under surveillance. all houses with black folks within a few miles of oval tube? a call to police from a racist neighbour saying "black men next door do suspicious things, i thought you should know?"

the key thing is him running from police.

why did he run? wingnut's answer is plausible, i.e. corruption being associated with police in brazil.

it's a mess.

As posted on the news thread, from the BBC link there, confirmation of Wingy's thesis:

quote:

---

The BBC's correspondent in Brazil, Tom Gibb, said Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police.

He said: "The murder rates in some of these slums are worse than in a lot of war zones and that could explain why, when plain clothes officers pulled a gun on him, he may have run away."

---

As to 'stop' or 'halt', a few years back a Chinese exchange student was shot dead in the US after he approached someone's house looking for directions. He was instructed to 'freeze', and didn't understand. The homeowner's self-defense defense was successful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
from the ABC link further up:
why did he run? wingnut's answer is plausible, i.e. corruption being associated with police in brazil.

---

Plausible, yes. But I can easily imagine what happens to you in Brazil if you run from the corrupt police-- plain-clothes or otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
Do you see Bobbies frequently going around shooting randomly at people? Of course not. They overreacted to a crisis situation with the best of intentions I'm sure. I don't think very many police officers enjoy having to use their guns to kill people. It's a crappy job, obviously.

---

quote:

---

'[A friend says] the police stopped [Menezes] sometimes because he used the underground every day. They would ask him some things and then say 'sorry' for stopping him.'

---

It's just a scrap of info, but it does tend to auger against the idea that the fellow was flat-out scared of the police in every circumstance.

Of course, presumably he hadn't been challenge at gunpoint before (assuming that's what happend here.)

On another point, since the SO-19 armed response officers are generally formed in flying squads, perhaps the reason he was able to get to the Tube station before being stopped was in order to get an armed unit on the scene.

I suppose it depends on how 'high-value' the surveillance site was thought to be. If it was of high interest the SO-19s would likely already be there, no? If not, then probably not.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

The Telegraph says the man was followed at a distance, by a team of at least 10 armed officers.

When he got on the bus, did at least ten undercover (plain clothes) police follow him onto it surreptitiously at a distance? Hard to do?

But perhaps he saw nothing wrong until he

quote:

---

walked into Stockwell Tube station and went to buy a ticket. At about 10am, a senior officer gave the order for his armed men to challenge the suspect.

Instead of giving himself up, the man panicked, vaulted the ticket barrier and sprinted down the escalator to a platform where a train was already waiting with its carriage doors open. Several armed officers were in pursuit and, according to witnesses, the suspect stumbled as he tried to get into one of the carriages. By the time, he half-ran, half-fell on to the train, three officers, at least one of them holding a low-velocity pistol, pounced on him, shooting him five times in the head.

---

Did the police think he looked Asian? The only person I've heard on TV say that the man looked Asian was the shocked passenger Mark Whitby.

The Sunday Herald puts it in context:

quote:

---

The horror now is that not only are there still at least three suicide bombers at large from the Thursday attacks, but there could also be a third, fourth, or fifth cell waiting to strike. As police sources say, hunting down Thursday’s bombers is the biggest challenge British police and intelligence services have ever faced. “They [the bombers] have nothing to lose,” a police source said. “Their faces have been seen on TV. Britain is hunting them. They failed in their last suicide mission, they might not fail in their next.”

---

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Don't miss the implications here. I firmly believe that for a long time in both Britain and the US there have been elements in the government who have wanted this kind of more aggressive policing and have been moving the public forward, psychologically, to accept it.

The media reports seem to echo this psychological conditioning that is going on both in Britain and in the US with people like Gibson, who has a national audience for his Hitlerian rants.

This is the most critical aspect of this whole episode. If the Blair government can get away with this, then it sets a precedent in the public's mind the next time the police feel such a response is "necessary." And the next, and the next and so on.

Sir Ian:

quote:

---

Speaking on Sky News, Sir Ian said: "This is a tragedy. The Metropolitan Police accepts full responsibility for this. To the family I can only express my deep regrets."

He said there was no reason the believe the four men sought over the failed bombings - whose images caught on CCTV were released on Friday - had left the country.

He acknowledged that "somebody else could be shot" as the hunt continued, but added "everything is done to make it right".

But he said the "shoot to kill" policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers would remain in force.

"There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be," he said.

"There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it."

---

In Reuters:

quote:

---

"I think we are quite comfortable that the policy is right, but of course these are fantastically difficult times," Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair told Sky Television.

Asked if the instructions were to shoot to kill if police believed a suspect was a suicide bomber, he said: "Correct. They have to be that."

"It's still happening out there, there are still officers having to make those calls as we speak ... Somebody else could be shot," Blair added.

---

It all seems so surreal and unnecessary to allow a man whom you believe is carrying a bomb, into a crowded subway station when you have ample opportunity to take him down in other places less dangerous to the public at large.

Something is seriously wrong with this.

Of course in the US, we had the case of Mr. Diallo, whose murder was immortalized by Bruce Springsteen who was widely assailed for his efforts, even being called a "floating fag" by a representative of the NYPD union. The song disappeared after 9-11 when the entire NYPD was canonized.

Edited to add: and don't you love how "Red Ken" Livingstone turned into such a law and order Tory even before the facts were in?

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: Américain Égalitaire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Privateer:
This thread is a helluva lot more reasonable than it was 24 hours ago. There's less anti-police, racial hysteria that totally ignores the context of the situation.

Upon reflection, I believe a man with paler skin would have met the same sad fate in this scenario. Not only do we have the example of Mr. Stanley, but a few days ago I remember hearing a news report about "white" muslims - from the Balkans or even homegrown - possibly being recruited as terrorists since they would be less conspicuous. Surely, these specialized police were aware of that possibility.

---

Oh, I don't think we're ignoring the context of the situation at all. I hope you like the world you'll be living in shortly if we accept what happened in London as an acceptable response. And I disagree that your average white Briton would have been so profiled.

quote:

---

He may well have decided to be a martyr, having calculated that people like some of the posters in this thread will have what looks like a useful occaision to trot out their favourite insincere theories.

---

Well, that makes complete sense now, doesn't it! Next time I encounter police, I'll think "if only I could get these guys to kill me, I can be a martyr and they'll talk about me on Babble. My death will provide a useful occasion to trot out people's favorite theories. Sure, my kids will be fatherless, but it will all be worth it".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
It all seems so surreal and unnecessary to allow a man whom you believe is carrying a bomb, into a crowded subway station when you have ample opportunity to take him down in other places less dangerous to the public at large.

Something is seriously wrong with this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EFA:
Actually, I think cops love threatening people with guns. And wearing boots. And wearing uniforms. The vast majority of cops I come across are power-hungry thugs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
I know a lot of people who believe that. They also believe in vigilante justice, and carrying rifles and shotguns at all times ... on the grounds that if you can't trust the police, you have to defend yourself. Its a logical conclusion if you don't trust the police, and pretty common on the reservations. The problem is that it just leads to more violence. Most cops are decent folks just trying to do their best. It took me years to believe it, but for the most part its true (though there are some incredibly racist, power hungery exceptions). How many cops have been shooting civilians for kicks in Britain? Seems more likely that it was a tragic mistake than a bunch of cops deciding to shoot someone for the fun of it.

---

Just what the fuck is okay about that Gir? Maybe you have been spending too much time in the denizen of hatred over at FD.

BTW, the police do not give two shits and to top this off, if you read the Star article today, many more brown and 'asian' looking people are getting pulled over, stopped and searched for the crime of being brown.

Couple this shit here with what is currently going on in the US and I think we will be seeing some really nasty shit occurring for the next long while. Democracy? Please!

But it is worth remembering how many of them have been victims of the bombings; they have to live in London too.

From all I've read of the witness statements, this killing was done not at all in cold blood but much rather in very hot blood. The policy is the problem, and I hope that people will begin to speak out against it.

I also agree with M. Spector above, who notes that this kind of horrific "mistake" is happening daily in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. To me, that shouldn't diminish the horror of this murder -- the connection is important and should be made again and again.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Until the West understands how stationing troops in the Holy Lands to extract the oil that keeps the elite wealthy is viewed in the Muslim world, you will get more of this. The pictures of Abu Ghraib and Falluhaj will not be forgotten or forgiven. As I said in another thread, the die may be too deeply cast now and both Blair and Bush know this. A police state beckons for both countries.

---

Of *course* the Brazilian guy ran away. A bunch of guys in ordinary clothes pulled a gun on him! So what if they claimed they were cops? How did he know that? Why should he believe a bunch of armed gunmen when they say they are cops and pull a gun on him -- when he isn't doing anything wrong?? He must have been terrified. Some people might have frozen and done what they said; others might have done what he did and run away. It's hardly a decision he had time to consider.

Obviously, the police thought he was Asian, as passenger Mark Whitby did. (In Britain, "Asian" usually means "South Asian".) There aren't many Latinos in Britain, and anyway I have several South Asian friends in Toronto who are regularly mistaken for Brazilians (usually in the happy context of soccer, when Brazilians run up and embrace them, shouting, "We're going to win!"). It's normal that a Brit would assume a brown guy was South Asian.

Racial profiling *invites* this problem (as if it woulda been OK to shoot an innocent man if he really had been Asian). It's not as though police can tell the ethnicity of someone they're looking at -- but they think they can. As some charmer put it on that race-and-intelligence thread when I think it was jeff house challenged him to say how he knew whether someone was black, the charmer replied, "Come on -- you know what I mean." These cops know brown when they see it.

One more thing -- while Mark Whitby, the shocked passenger quoted at the greatest length on BBC Newsworld and the website, was very clear that the man appeared terrified and was running away from plainclothes men whom Whitby assumed to be police officers. Whitby said they gave no warning that he could hear (though they could have earlier). He also said the victim did not appear to be armed. But another passenger claimed to have seen an explosives belt under the man's thick jacket, with wires sticking out.

I don't doubt that the second passenger really thought he saw that. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. But that's what racial profiling does: it makes witnesses and police see danger when all they're seeing is an innocent brown or black person doing nothing wrong.

I was almost arrested once while moving *in* to a new house on an all-white street -- the neighbour told the cops that two black people were taking boxes of stuff *out* of the house. Complete fiction, but no doubt that's what she thought she saw. Black people = robbers. Brown people = terrorists.

The other thing racial profiling does is make it easier for the real terrorists to use Bosnian, Chechen, American or other white operatives to slip under the police radar.

I hope de Menezes' family sues the pants off the cops, and gets huge punitive damages.

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]

quote:

---

as ruthless as I would expect from a civilized country

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't they be more likely to shoot you?

---

quote:

---

It's just a scrap of info, but it does tend to auger against the idea that the fellow was flat-out scared of the police in every circumstance.

---

quote:

---

"everything is done to make it right" ... we have reanimation technicians working on him right now ...

---

quote:

---

I'm sure that Stockholm is far too fastidious to smoke

---

It was used on Friday by London police commissioner Ian Blair to praise the cops who shot Mr. Menezes.

quote:

---

At first, Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, was all smiles when he met a television camera crew after the shooting.

"The Met is playing out of its socks. I am very pleased with what is happening," he said. Source

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
One of the very rare sentient participants on another board is making the point that nowhere is it reported that the police verbally identified themselves as such.

Can someone who has following this more closely than I have verify that. If it is so, it completely nullifies the "He should've stopped" argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Can someone who has following this more closely than I have verify that. If it is so, it completely nullifies the "He should've stopped" argument.

---

quote:

---

The terse Scotland Yard statement did not indicate whether the victim — identified as 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes, who had lived in London for three years — spoke English or whether the plainclothes police officers identified themselves before opening fire.Source

---

Most police forces in the UK supply their firearms units with rules of engagement based on guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

These state that they:

Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).

Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.

Should reassess the situation after each shot.

These guidelines were introduced in the wake of the 1983 shooting of film editor Stephen Waldorf in Kensington, west London.

Mr Waldorf was shot five times but survived after being fired at by police officers who were on the trail of a dangerous escaped prisoner called David Martin.

The confusion apparently arose because police mistook Mr Waldorf for Mr Martin, partly because they both had long hair and partly because Mr Waldorf was accompanied by Mr Martin's girlfriend Sue Stephens.

Indeed the young man who was shot looked more "Portuguese" than "mulatto". So even southern Europeans in London will have to worry...

The Observer article mentioned that the "bulky" jacket the victim was wearing was actually one of thos polar fleece things. I checked the BBC weather; today anyway it is 19° and raining in London. As the victim's cousin said on the BBC site, Brazilians (and other people from tropical countries) can find a London summer morning chilly indeed.

As for Stockholm's comment, it constitutes outright denial of the Mideast policies that are nurturing the terrorist networks, even Bin Laden's. He wouldn't have found any operatives without them.

quote:

---

Privateer: ...I'm not going to jump to any conclusions too quickly. But if the police did something horribly wrong ...

---

lagatta has made a straightforward request, on behalf of people who cannot read threads that go over 100 posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
Now the we have a police state.

---

Hyperbole.

It's like decrying the dozen who died recently in Arizona due to heat (what's wrong with those stupid Americans?) when, two years ago, ELEVEN THOUSAND died of heat in France because they can't afford air conditioners over there.

It's a matter of magnitude or degree. East Germany was a "police state"; North Korea is a "police state"; Iran is essentially a "police state".

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
Now the we have a police state.

---

Hyperbole.

It's like decrying the dozen who died recently in Arizona due to heat (what's wrong with those stupid Americans?) when, two years ago, ELEVEN THOUSAND died of heat in France because they can't afford air conditioners over there.

It's a matter of magnitude or degree. East Germany was a "police state"; North Korea is a "police state"; Iran is essentially a "police state".