Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket

[IndianaGreen]

Looks like the British security services lied to us...

Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket

Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier

Mark Honigsbaum
Thursday July 28, 2005
The Guardian

Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.

"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

Flanked by the de Menezes family's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and by Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner, she condemned the shoot-to-kill policy which had led to her cousin's death and vowed that what she called the "crime" would not go unpunished.

"My cousin was an honest and hard working person," said Ms Figueiredo who shared a flat with him in Tulse Hill, south London. "Although we are living in circumstances similar to a war, we should not be exterminating people unjustly."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537613,00.html

[Kathy in Cambridge]

1. The BBC had initially reported that he was wearing a windbreaker

which is not a heavy coat. it's a practical coat given London's climate.

[Monkie]

11. thanks for that bit of info..i had missed that at the time...

and yeah,you cant survive a UK summer without a windbreaker,more so than shorts anyways..

[Cha]

2. I thought it was really strange that

Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing "a winter jacket" in summer.

I took the info at face value and thought maybe it was cooler there or "what the hell was he thinking?".

It sounds like Jean Charles is going to be the poster kid for the overzealousness and absurdity of the British police.

Lied again? This is getting thicker and thicker and the police chief just happens to be named blair..no relation..I'm just sayin'.

[truthisfreedom]

3. guilty of running while brown?

[Guy_Montag]

39. Stats covering deaths with or after contact with Police 2003-2004

England & Wales only, by ethnic origin:


White: 90
Asian: 2
Black: 7
Other: 1

Total: 100

Population:

White: 92.1%
Asian: 4%
Black: 2%
Chinese: 0.4%
Other: 0.4%


Edited for population stats:

Sources:
www.IPCC.gov.uk
www.statistics.gov.uk

[Mairead]

54. Enviable even-handedness, much better than the US record (nt)

[Guy_Montag]

62. & only one was shot n/t

[tk2kewl]

97. how is that even handed?

blacks and asians were twice as likely to be killed than whites based on these stats.

[Guy_Montag]

99. The sample is, thankfully, very small

and so any death is makes a large statistical difference.

In fact Asians are 1/2 as likely to be killed as whites per head of the population.

Blacks are 3.5 x as likely.

Further details for those that cannot be bothered to read up:

38 were as a result of fatal road traffic incidents involving the police.

1 death was as a result of a fatal shooting incident involving the police.

38 occurred in or following police custody. Of these, 7 took place at police stations.

23 took place during or following other types of contact with the police.

[jwcomer]

95. Good data

So then for blacks, there were 3.5 (7/2) times as many deaths as a percentage of population as for whites. Hardly perfect, but probably more balanced than in the USA.

[Erika]

4. I think we've seen the end of the war on terror

Bush doesn't even want it referred to in those words anymore. He's talking about pulling our troops out of Iraq and leaving the U.N. in Afghanistan.

The pot has boiled over with all the hype and the London police shot an innocent man out of hysteria.
Aren't guns wonderful?

I believe you will see a return to the emphasis on intelligence and these misfit extremists (formerly known as terrorists) being channeled through the criminal systems of the world.

Which is how John Kerry thought they should be dealt with.

[PunkPop]

66. You're very optimistic

and I hope you're right.

But we have three more years of Bushco and remember, he never makes a mistake. Changing tactics would be admitting a mistake.

I think the change in terminology is typical Bushco "rebranding" for marketing purposes only. "Intelligence" and "criminal systems" don't put any money in the pockets of Bushco defense contractor buddies.

[osaMABUSh]

5. Not strange for a Brazilian (Equator) to wear a coat in London

Hey, I've been to England in the summer an it can get pretty nasty. Ever seen the British Open? I'm from the Northeast US and I wore jackets and sweaters in London. Now, this guy's was from Brazil which is on the freaking Equator! So he might need to wear a parka in July.

[soothsayer]

6. The bobbies lost their credibility when they let him get on a bus

after supposedly following him from a suspicious apt or house. Not worried about buses anymore? Hmmmmm.

[rman]

14. not bobbies, me thinks

ordinary police doesn't normally do stake outs and shadowing, nor do they conceal their presence by wearing plain clothes.

[Zhade]

137. Indeed. The bus thing is just perplexing.

I can't understand why they let him on (AFTER they checked their photos and KNEW he WASN'T their guy).

[lockdown]

148. It's been said they wanted to see who he might lead them to

in a few reports. Makes sense in itself for a possible suspect, but doesn't make sense given his fate. If they were just tailing him, how did that turn into "stop a suicide bomber"? The change seems to have come when it was realised he was getting on the tube. At that point, again according to reports, an order came from Gold Command in Scotland Yard to "stop" him getting on the tube. Why didn't they forsee he might get on the tube earlier, what prompted that sudden (and seemingly recklessly late) decision that he had to be stopped?

I don't know of course, but I have a suspicion of what one possible reason could be. I'm sort of loath to you know what, but I'll just post some links and let people draw their own speculation. If they're that way inclined.

The decision was taken to let him go, in the hope that he might lead his shadows to at least one of the bombers.

The bus journey was slow, as on any other Friday morning, but Mr Menezes seemed to be in no hurry. He was heading to Willesden Green to fix an alarm system. When it was obvious that he was getting off at the stop nearest Stockwell Tube station, the team on the bus alerted a three-man team of marksmen to move in.

As Mr Menezes waited to cross the busy main road, the decision was taken at Scotland Yard that he must not be allowed to get to the platform.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html

WHEN an alert flashed to the control room of Operation Kratos at Scotland Yard last week that a suspected suicide bomber was entering an Underground station, a senior officer was asked to make a snap decision.

His judgment that the London public were again under threat led to advice to officers at the scene that the man should be “neutralised”.

...

Last night the officer who fired the bullets was facing investigation and possible criminal charges. So, too, is the “gold commander” — a deputy assistant commissioner or above, according to police sources — who gave him the instruction to open fire if he felt it was necessary.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1706244,00.html

On the secure second floor of Scotland Yard, the nerve-centre of Britain's biggest manhunt, a senior police officer was running the unprecedented operation from "Gold Command."

Minute by minute updates flashed to-and-fro and adrenaline among the highly-trained surveillance squad would have been running high.

The same mixture of highly-charged adrenaline and anxiety surged through the police marksmen at the tube station who believed they were dealing with a would-be suicide bomber.

Under secret guidelines drawn up two years ago, and codenamed Operation Kratos, armed officers are under specific instructions to shoot to kill suspected suicide attackers before they can detonate bombs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=356937&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

Gold Command, which has the capacity to pick up images from 600 CCTV cameras, is under the control of Michael Messinger, an experienced Scotland Yard commander, who will be answering directly to Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Gold Command works from an operations and control room, known as GT, which is opened for major ceremonial occasions, big public order events and for extensive counter-terrorist operations.

The windowless suite of rooms is sealed from the rest of Scotland Yard on the second floor of the building, and will control the operations of thousands of officers on the streets. The floor is strengthened to take the weight of computer equipment and banks of consoles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/19/nbush519.xml

Up a lift and down a corridor at New Scotland Yard - the headquarters of London's police force - is the nerve centre of the security operation for President George Bush's visit.

It is called Gold Control and over the next few days it will have a key role to play in ensuring that Mr Bush's trip passes off peacefully.

At the centre of the room is a huge bank of 24 television screens, which beam images from 600 CCTV cameras across London.

More surveillance cameras are being put in place for the duration of the visit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3281295.stm

John Wheeler, appointed last month to head the review, said yesterday the London Resilience model, in which all agencies fell behind one "gold commander" during a security emergency, proved its worth after the London bombings.

...

In a British airport inquiry conducted in 2002, Sir John found an under-reporting of crime, poor security co-ordination and CCTV coverage and an insufficient police presence at airports.

His report resulted in sweeping changes, including regular staff baggage checks and aviation security committees, comprising police, Customs, immigration and airport officials, for each airport.

Yesterday, Sir John said CCTV was a valuable tool that, when well co-ordinated, could not only help solve crime but prevent it. But he warned that a thorough assessment of the threat posed by crime and terrorism for every major airport was needed before an overhaul of airport security could begin.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16047936%255E31477,00.html

Chief Superintendent Chris Allison had just had a busy six days. As 'Gold' commander of the Metropolitan Police he was in charge of policing the Live8 concert at Hyde Park the previous Saturday and ensuring that any anti-globalisation protesters passing through the capital on their way to Gleneagles did not cause any trouble.

Arriving at his office early on Thursday morning Allison could reflect on a job well done. But he had little time to do so. Shortly before 9am, Allison was told of a number of incidents on the underground. Although there had been no confirmation of any bombs at that time, he moved straight to the second floor of New Scotland Yard's headquarters and set up the so-called GT operation room. 'My initial thoughts were, "Could it be a terrorist attack?" Since 9/11 we had to be prepared for something like this,' Allison said.

...

As the drama unfolded Allison watched the bank of screens beaming images from around the capital and saw passengers emerging from the tube bleeding and in tears.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1525446,00.html

Should mention, Chris Allison in the last link wouldn't have been gold commander in this. There are different gold commanders for different organisations and tasks as far as I can tell, and if The Times source is to be believed this involved a deputy assistant commissioner or above which is higher than Allison.

[The Stranger]

180. So much effort to dramatize the poor police victims in this, . . .

. . . draft the fucking murder indictments.

[oscarmitre]

191. Yes of course

ignore the law - signed up with the White House yet?
Unfair? Of course it is. So is your garbage comment.

[The Stranger]

195. Pardon me? Someone has just probably committed murder,

and you are talking about "ignoring the law"? Who is ignoring the law here?

[lockdown]

199. Key word - capacity?

When I posted this I was a bit dubious about my point, that whoever made the decision in Gold Control might have been watching Menezes on CCTV when making his decision. Dubious enough to be coy about the point, which I shouldn't be, but it's a touchy enough subject.

I was mainly dubious because 600 CCTV cameras isn't many, there are 6000 on the tube network alone, and it seemed unlikely Stockwell would be covered by one of 600, unless they'd set some up specifically for the ongoing surveillance. But thinking on that, 600 is paltry for a city like London. Considering how many areas they might want to have covered, airports, government buildings, major train stations, in the event of a major incident they'd be lucky if one of 600 cameras was in the right place. Chances are, their high-tech centre coordinating an emergency response would be blind, and their banks of monitors wouldn't help much.

The Daily Telegraph link says "Gold Command, which has the capacity to pick up images from 600 CCTV cameras". Is it just me, or does it seem reasonable to think they wouldn't be using a fixed set of 600 CCTV cameras, instead they would have the capacity to get feeds from existing public CCTV networks that cover the city, like for instance London Undergrounds?

[Judi Lynn]

7. Inexcuseable brutal destruction of this man's life.

Undoubtedly it will be of such help to those who knew and loved him to learn there were drooling idiots in the States who took time out of their "busy" days to post on American message boards: "Why did he run," as if he forfeited his life the moment he tried to save it by trying to flee to safety.

I hope his consciousness was snuffed so swiftly he didn't have adequate time to realize what they had actually done to him.

[alarcojon]

70. Your last line is so poignant. eom

[Sterling]

93. "drooling idiots in the States "

Many of these people claim to be from the UK and were offended that we even questioned their government. Scary indeed.

[sattahipdeep]

94. "drooling bu$hites" stiring shit. (fuk em)

eom

[redqueen]

108. Not all, no.

I for one do not assume that *every. single. thing.* I read in papers is a lie.

Love being slagged off by my supposed fellow Dems though... that's really fucking helpful.

[redqueen]

109. Just wanted to thank you personally for the insult.

:eyes:

:puke:

[Judi Lynn]

8. Kick!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[I Have A Dream]

9. Kicked & nominated.

:kick:

[ngGale]

10. I'm more speechless every day over this ...

it boggles the mind.

[Hepburn]

42. My exact thought, too. n/t

[magellan]

12. Travel card

Could a Brit confirm if the travel card is the kind you stick in one end of a reader at a turnstile, and it gets spat out the other side after letting you through? I'm curious because it doesn't sound like de Meneze was running from the cops if he took the time to do this. If they didn't yell stop till after he'd gone through the turnstile and was making his way onto the platform, it would seem they left everything to the very last second.

[Frederik]

23. Yes

You have to wait a second for it to be spat out. His relative is only saying that he had a card, she doesn't now if he used it that day, of course.

[magellan]

128. Thanks for the answers, guys. (nt)

[Nihil]

25. Depends

There are two types: the sort of "travelcard" I would buy from outside
London is a thin card with a magnetic stripe that is put through a slot
spat out again. The "oyster" card that a lot of London-based people
have is usually just placed on the pad on the top of the turnstile
and is designed to be quicker (and less easily damaged).

De Menezes obviously had some kind of travel pass as he was allowed
onto the bus previously. This has little bearing to his actions
(or fate) at the station (other than the trivial one that he was not
a fare-dodger).

[Puglover]

13. Is that crickets I hear?

Where are all the people bleating about how we at DU beat up on the cops so badly?

On edit and while I say this I realize the problem springs from much higher up then the cops. It's the climate of "terror" that Bush, Blair etc. are bathing us in.

[oscarmitre]

16. I'll say it then

Yes you do beat up on the cops as you put it. The rush to judgement from some people here was surprising. I thought that facts would have been required before conclusions. Having said that I'll admit that the report which stirred this thread certainly makes it look bad for the police. So be it. I am confident that the true facts will be found out by the various inquiries and the justice system will deal fairly with the police. As I've said before in this and other threads, the rule of law is still in place in the UK. One thing to remember though is that if any police officer is placed on trial for this tragedy that they will be afforded the presumption of innocence - something sadly missing from some threads here and for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[mogster]

18. Hwo can you say this?

> The rush to judgement from some people here was surprising.

The 'rush of judgment' reflected the harsh reality. A man was followed into the metro and shot in the head many times.
If you call that rule of law, I'm bound to disagree with you.

To the contrary - this place took the piece of news, debated it, and condemned the rash shooting while trying to understand the police situation, all the time placing the blame upwards. To Blair and the UK government, who've had four years of planning to meet exactly such an attack - and utterly failing to prevent it.

Your criticism is totally misplaced.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. IMHO, the worst part of this nightmarish story is the fact that they....

...had the man under complete control...pinned to the ground...and could have easily hauled him off to the nearest police station where he would have been cleared rather quickly.

Instead, they played judge and jury on the spot, and proceeded to murder him in cold blood by shooting him repeatedly in the head.

And the more facts that come out about this story, the more nightmarish it becomes.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LibertyorDeath]

114. Excellent post MLD

[YapiYapo]

182. Let's pretend he was indeed a terrorist ready to blow himself

Let's suppose he was indeed a terrorist ready to blow himself :

They let him way too many good opportunity to do this :

1) while he was waiting for the bus
2) in the bus
3) on the tube station
4) in the train

They did nothing for 1 and 2 , only started to act at 3 and couldn't stop him before 4.
If he will have been a terrorist,that was 4 big opportunity for him to kill lot of people.

Basicaly if you beleive the official story,that he was clearly warned,you should be very concern about how amateur the police acted.They let him get as far as inside the train.There was no policemen to prevent him enter the station, desipe him being followed for more than 26min by a team of 3 who were in real time communication with a central command the whole time.

"As Mr Menezes waited to cross the busy main road, the decision was taken at Scotland Yard that he must not be allowed to get to the platform."

"As the three plain-clothes officers closed in on Mr Menezes, they say that they screamed their first warning that they were armed police. Their version is that he turned, ran into the station concourse, vaulted the ticket barriers and reached a waiting train before they could catch him. They shot him five times in the head when they believed that he was trying to trigger a bomb."

So Scotland Yard didn't allow him to reach the platform, yet not only he managed to reach the platform but he managed to get on a train.
He was an untrained innocent man ,what will have happen if he was a terrorist with a good training ? I have no doubt he will have succeed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-20749-1707480,00.html

Or maybe they didn't warn him ? THIS IS NOT MANDATORY FOR THEM TO WARN SUSPECTED TERRORIST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1536751,00.html

Then he was killed only because he looked suspicious (started running,skin color) ? How could he have a chance to explain himself ? He may probably didn't even seem them as he was running cause late for work.

I'm really curious of what the "better safe than sorry" beleiver think about this...

[Kelvin Mace]

86. Our "rush to judgement"

is academic. The police's "rush to judgement" was lethal

[oscarmitre]

163. No this place took the pieces of news

as they dribbled out and made a judgement - you referred to it "the rash shooting" - hardly objective. Condemned from your own keyboard as it were.

[IndianaGreen]

164. It is undeniable that the police had shoot-to-kill orders and...

that the public was totally unaware of this, putting innocent civilians in harm's way.

An innocent man died, that's important!

It is also important that Blair reverses his decision to form a commission of inquiry on the London bombings, the intelligence failures that led to them, and the subsequent actions by the security services that led to the death of the Brazilian electrician.

[YapiYapo]

185. Shooting to kill needs no warning

"Police have been given permission to shoot dead suspected suicide bombers without any verbal warning, the Guardian has learned.

The killing of an innocent Brazilian man in a London underground station on Friday has focused attention on new guidelines to defend against terror attacks.

Operation Kratos tactics say suicide bombers who are about to explode their devices can be shot in the head."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1536751,00.html

Another important point to keep in mind is that even with the shoot to kill policy ,if he had been a terrorist he will have succeed as he manage to reach the train.(see my previous post for more details)

[oscarmitre]

190. It is undeniable? You're kidding right?

Yes an innocent man died. It's not just important it's a terrible tragedy.

As for Blair, up to him. I think he's a Thatcherite anyway. And just in case I have to explain it I loathed Thatcher and everything she stood for.

[MadHound]

19. Amusing how you are complaining about attitudes at DU

That are the very ones displayed by the officers who shot this poor man.

"Rush to judgement" Yeah, I think a five tap to the head qualifies, don't you? "Facts would have been required before conclusions" One would hope that such a rule was applied by the police, after all, they are officers of the law. Instead they didn't bother with facts, they over-reacted and summarily executed an innocent man. "True facts will be found out by the various inquiries" Yes, they are being found out, dribbled out every day. And it doesn't look good for the officers involved. "Any police officer is placed on trial for this tragedy" Doubtful friend, given the track record both here and abroad. Sure, inquiries will be made, the officer or officers might be quietly fired, but a trial? No way in hell. Nope, it is becoming increasingly clear that if you where the badge, you can get away with murder.

And your reminder about presumption of innocence and the requirement that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt is truly, darkly funny. Since it was those very police officers, who had a man prone on the ground, pinned and of absolutely no threat to anyone, who dispensed with any presumption of innocence, and instead acted as judge, jury and executioner on that dark day.

Trust and respect are a two-way street friend, you've got to give some to get some. The police, both here in America and elsewhere have, for a long time, refused to give the public the trust and respect that we deserve, instead they treat us like inmates at an outdoor insane asylum where they are the wardens. How can respect and trust a police force that invades our houses, invades our privacy, bullies us around, and summarily executes us for being the wrong skin color, or in the wrong place, or simply because they feel like it?

Sorry friend, but the police are PUBLIC servants, and in order for them to earn our respect and trust back, they need to clean up their own act, badly. Until they do, they are only going to recieve back what they give out.

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. Thanks buddy - you said that better than I ever could

:kick:

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

47. Well said....thanks!

[William Bloode]

122. Madhound....

That third paragraph really hit how i feel about the police, and i used to be one.

One thing about it for sure. If or when this type of thing happens in the U.S. there will be hell to pay. With so many armed citizens here a "shoot to live"(:sarcasm:)will have many people shooting the police to live.

Thats one of the reasons i stand on the right to own firearms, as sadly you may actually one day need protection from your own government.

[MadHound]

123. Thank you for your service in the thin blue line

I have always had more respect for the police than others of my generation because my family has a number of officers in it, both historically and currently. Also, I worked as a firefighter for a number of years, and the police were there for us and vice versa when the shit was hitting the van.

But I have noticed for the past twenty five years that the attitude I spoke of has crept slowly but inexorably into the police force over time, until it is now rampant throughout the vast majority of police depts. Long gone are the old school cops of our youth, whose attitude was that of the public servant. And it really is a shame, for I think that we have experienced actually a greater increase in crime because of that.

Personally, I think that this attitude has its roots in the War on Drugs, and is now truly pumped up with the War on Terror. And it is only natural that the citizenry will respond with fear and loathing to such tactics and attitudes, and around and around we go in this vicious circle of mutal fear and hate.

How to end this? I don't know. I think that if we dropped these Wars on Nouns that such things would go a long way, but who knows, it is a complicated problem.

And I fully agree with your position on guns, and it is a position that I regret emotionally, being much the anti-gun person in my youth. Now I'm only half joking when I tell my wife that I want to set up a fully working cannon on the front yard:evilgrin:

Like I said, I don't know the full solution on this issue, but we need to find one, otherwise there will be a battle between the citizenry and law enforcement, and you're right, it won't be pretty.

[William Bloode]

127. Man do i understand.

I joined the police force with the naive yet cavalier notion of many, and that was i was going to make a difference. What i saw take place and some of the attitudes(on both sides)i encountered jaded me some. I ended up at the point where the thin blue line was becoming very fuzzy, and subsequently looked for a new career.

Yeah i fully agree about the war on drugs playing a big role. This has very much changed the way the police operate, and peoples attitudes towards them. For instance now days cops are more quasi military than public servant.

How to end it is simple, remove so many of the rules and laws that place the police so high on a pedestal, make police accountable for the things they do. Will it happen? I doubt it as they are now so fully entrenched as oppressors/suppressors. I have this funny idea that the police should be held more accountable for the law since they have the responsibility of enforcing it.

I myself ultimately believe in a gun free world where we don't need them for protection. I just do not see it coming to fruition as it is coming more clear that one day soon i may very well need my weapon to ensure i do not become a slave or prisoner.

I hope things change soon before it gets bad. With all i see and hear going on the future looks bleak. Sadly in that bleakness i see a looming war almost our own citizenry......i almost hope i am gone by then.

[Karenina]

130. Thanks so much for your posts, William!

I am soooo not interested in the guy that emptied his clip into Menezes' head, rather than the process that led up to him doing so.

Count me as one who does not, in principe, "blame the troops."

Organized "religion" is a bitch, eh? ;-)

[William Bloode]

135. You are welcome Kareina.

It's the thought of the policy that really kills me. As far as officers and their responsibility go, i see it like this. I personally quit because i saw the line blur before me. I was often uncomfortable with the things i was asked to do, or had to do, so i decided i would no longer do them.

I admit my threshold was probably low, yet i have laid awake nights wondering when crunch time comes here how many will refuse to oppress their fellow for a crooked government, just for the pay.

The pay thing plays a factor as well. As we all know when things are desperate and times are hard many have no qualms about doing whatever is asked just for the almighty dollar.

[Karenina]

141. Something about

"Core Values," eh? :hug:

[Zhade]

138. Excellent, excellent post.

Right the fuck ON, my friend!

[Sterling]

149. Great post.

nt

[oscarmitre]

165. Comparing attitudes of posters on a discussion forum

to the situation at hand is laughable. Sorry, I can't take that at all seriously. Here in this thread the evidence of presumption and prejudice is palpable. From the comfort of the keyboard without any repercussion other than perhaps a snarky response, people are making lofty judgements. Don't try and compare that to the decision those cops were forced to make.

[Judi Lynn]

168. Their minds were clouded by the fog of war, no doubt.

They absolutely should never be required to come to work as adult human beings with consciences. That's asking too much.

Requesting human presence in life from them is rude when it's so much safer to kill anyone you don't know personally.

[oscarmitre]

186. What does that mean?

When they went to work that day I'm sure they didn't expect to kill another human being. I'm also pretty sure they didn't want to. So, I don't understand what it is you're trying to say.

[MadHound]

184. Sorry friend, but that doesn't fly

These are police officers friend, public servants that are answerable to we the people. What they do, they do in our name. Mistakes they make reflect back on us. And quite frankly, they get paid to have cool heads in times of great stress, yet they failed in a moment of panic, fear and loathing, thus violating one of their main directives, and an innocent man paid for that mistake with his life. Yet what are the reprecussions for these officers going to be? Very little, if any, judging by past incidents.

I could understand shooting a fleeing suspect that you think had a bomb, but that is not what these officers did. Instead, they tackled this poor man, penned him to the floor, and emptied a gun into his head. This is stupidity on many levels. Say this man actually WAS a terrorist. By killing him, they possibly wasted valuable information that could have prevented the next attack. But instead, this man wasn't a terrorist, but an innocent immigrant, scared and confused. And these officers violated the primary rule of law, and acted as judge, jury and executioner, all in the space of a few seconds. That you are comfortable with these actions says a lot about the state of your soul and spirit, none of it good. Next time it could be your friend or family member instead of some anonymous brown skinned foreigner. Will you be so forgiving of the police then? Somehow I doubt it.

[Divernan]

24. The "Rush to Judgment" was in believing the police justification

without independent investigation. In my mind, and to my friends, I immediately questioned whether the victim was "wearing a heavy jacket". If he had, the cops would have produced it immediately for a photo op. Similarly, what was the noise level of the metro when this man was ordered to stop. Did he hear them? Did he speak English? Was he running for the metro car or running from the police?

As someone with a hearing loss, I am at a frightening disadvantage in airport terminals or planes, because the background noise makes my hearing aids very ineffective. When I go through security lines, I always point to my hearing aids and tell the screeners that I am hard of hearing, so please speak clearly. What if one of them told me to stop as I was walking away and I didn't hear them?

[oscarmitre]

167. I have never stated what I believe

about this incident. I'm simply asking for this orgy of blame to stop. Let the inquiries be made by the independent authorities. The UK is not Bush's America.

Your point about hearing loss is important. If you were in a security line and a security person told you to stop I would imagine that they would tap you on the shoulder. I know I would. But then that would be a normal random check in a security line and you would not have been caught up in a specific surveillance operation.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. "The rule of law is still in place in the UK"?? Does your definition....

...include plain clothes policemen holding someone down and shooting them several times in the head?

You seem to conveniently forget the large number of witnesses who saw this terrible act.

You also seem intent on glossing over the fact that someone has either lied to the BBC about the facts of this story, or the BBC itself has been generating a story for public consumption.

IMHO, your comment in terms of a "rush to judgement" by DU posters is totally out of line given the still-emerging facts of this cold-blooded, state-sanctioned murder. Sadly, for all concerned, a trial will be a mere confirmation of a yet another terrible act in the so-called "war on terror".

[oscarmitre]

169. I find your post without logic.

Do you understand what the rule of law means? As for the BBC - it's just another news outlet. You can go there and send them some information about this event if you wish, just log onto their website find the story and you can tell them whatever you wish.

My comments about rush to judgement are, sadly, only too well proven by the comments in this thread.

[qanda]

67. "Rush to judgment"

Hopefully you realize how ironic that statement is.

[oscarmitre]

171. Ironic?

Not at all. It was made within a specific and not a general context. Like any statement it has to be read within its direct context. It may suit you to misrepresent it for hyperbolic reasons but that's your choice.

[Karenina]

68. I am less concerned

with the "trigger man" than I am with the "POLICY," particularly as it was determined from photographs that Menezes was NOT the "person of interest" sought AS SOON AS HE EXITED HIS FRONT DOOR...

[Richard Steele]

74. That "presumption of innocence" was SADLY missing at the tubeway....

And now a man is dead. For no good reason.
With no trial, no "reasonable doubt" at all...

Why aren't you as upset by THAT?

[oscarmitre]

172. Why do you assume I'm not? n/t

[redqueen]

110. Unfortunately, liberals are also taking a "with us or against us" attitude

It's fucking sickening.

Civility is dead. Officially dead.

[oscarmitre]

173. Does that mean I have to suspend my own

critical thinking? Do I have to fall in lock step behind the prevailing opinion in the thread or here on DU?

[redqueen]

183. Of course not! It only means you shouldn't insult anyone who disagrees.

I meant "with us or against us" as in ... anyone who disagrees that everything in mainstream media is lies and cops are always wrong is a "drooling idiot" (or whatever other insults have been used... I quit paying attention... sooo not worth it).

[LibertyorDeath]

113. LMFAO!!

"So be it. I am confident that the true facts will be found out by the various inquiries ":rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[oscarmitre]

174. Apart from obvious mockery do you have a point?

[Pert_UK]

27. OK, I'll bite..........

A HELL of a lot of people on here (often with little knowledge of the UK police and restricted access to decent news coverage of the events) immediately leapt to the conclusion that the police were lying about everything.

Moreover, a number of people started making accusations about a completely "racist / fascist police force/UK government" and officers just DESPERATE to put some bullets in a brown person.

Some DUers (amongst them some UK DUers) suggested that maybe we should wait for more evidence before we leapt to conclusions and labelled an entire country and/or its police force as fascist. We also questioned whether it is right to automatically assume that people in authority are always lying about everything.

IF, as you claim, the police have been lying in this instance, I still don't agree that it was justified to pre-judge them as per the comments on here. In addition, IF there have been serious breaches of procedure then the massive investigation into the shooting ought to establish them and punish those responsible.

Some of the attitudes and comments displayed had the sickening feel of a lynch mob, with many people unable to even imagine that just MAYBE the cops had been left with no choice in this matter. I was hoping against hope that maybe people would wait for more information before forming such strong judgements.

I would have nothing but condemnation for any police officer who has abused his role and position and ended up killing an wholly innocent man, but the entire British police force was being painted as a bunch of blood-thirsty, racist killers. No matter what the result in this particular tragic event, I still refuse to accept the wholesale criticism of the British police force. For example, consider how many armed police have encountered backpack-wearing tourists since the 7th July bombings, and on only one occasion firearms have been used...One innocent life lost is one life too many, but you can hardly assert that there is a killing spree going on.

To conclude, as far as I know we STILL don't have an independent report on what happened at the tube station - we have the comments of the victim's relatives. We should add these to the evidence before us. I'm happy to have my opinions changed by evidence. This seems to be more than a lot of people around here, who prefer to decide on their opinion up-front and then stick with it in the face of conflicting opinion and facts.

[mogster]

31. Well...

> To conclude, as far as I know we STILL don't have an independent report on what happened at the tube station - we have the comments of the victim's relatives.

In one sentence you have summed it all up, and I agree.

My question is; WHY don't we know this? Why is speculation still going on wether he had coat, jacket or just a t-shirt? Why don't we see the release of pictures from the shooting when there are ample pictures from security cams containing the bomb suspects? It's not like there wasn't any evidence - the problem is that the UK govt. don't release it.
Add a phoney, lousy fascist prick as british PM, proven to be a liar and a cheat, with his cabinet of torture-excusing liars.

Then finally add the fact that the Met. police chief did all he could to avoid excusing himself and telling us all that this is only to be expected, and we will probably see more of it.

There are a lot of factors in this picture, and the shooting down of an innocent man deserves to be discussed.

If the Bristish police have a problem with that, why don't they prove their innocence by releasing the information we're all asking for?

[Puglover]

32. Pert

Just wanted to tell you, when I refer to people "bleating" about how we at DU treat police I'm NOT referring to you. Your arguments are clear and compelling. Nothing you say is hyperbolic or offensive.
You also have the tenacity of a bulldog and I respect that.
Cheers!

:toast:

Jeff

[Pert_UK]

34. Cheers fella...I genuinely appreciate your comments....

:toast:

Chris.

[Karenina]

33. I do understand your reactions, Pert_UK

IMHO, what we're seeing on all these threads is a manifestation of "culture clash." A man was executed (and I hope you take no offence at the use of that word) and the question is "Why?" We ALL have a stake in the answer.

[Pert_UK]

35. I agree with you, but........

answering the "Why?" by declaring that all Brit cops are fascist racists isn't, IMHO, justified.

[Puglover]

40. Pert help me out.

Where have you read that folks here think UK cops are facist racists? I honestly haven't seen it. And for the record if someone did state that, the statement is obvious bullshit.

[Pert_UK]

48. Here you go....

If you have the stomach for it, trawl through this thread....I would point you in the direction of specific posts, but unfortunately I've had to put so many people on ignore they don't show up for me any more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1652372&mesg_id=1652372

How about this one though? Not only accusing the UK of being under a fascist government, but also directly accusing any DUer who supported the shooting (bearing in mind that little evidence was available at that stage) of being a fascist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1656219&mesg_id=1656317

Sweet.

[Puglover]

55. Pert

Thanks. I think. I also think I need a shower.

[Pert_UK]

77. And as the Mod mentions.....

the WORST were deleted.

Can you see why I was a trifle miffed yesterday?

Thanks for you understanding.

P.

[Kelvin Mace]

91. I agree that tarring

ALL British police and the entire government as fascists for the actions of a few is wrong.

That said, I say the same thing I say to people who use the bad apple argument on this side of the pond. The good apples know who the bad apples are and tolerate them. This makes them just as guilty. The police will never trust the police as long as they excuse this kind of thing and protect the bad apples.

As to the "rushing to judgment" that upsets some people, as I said above, our rush to judgment is academic, the police's rush to judgment is lethal.

As more of this story comes out, the lies about the situation are unraveling. So far, based on what I have read, the government and police are arrogantly refusing to admit error AND promising to pursue the same idiotic policy of "shoot to kill".

The truth of the matter is that the police screwed up big time. Rather than come clean, they are blaming the victim (by lying) or declaring the man a "victim of terrorism" (funny, I thought the police shot him). To tell the public that you are NOT going to change your policy says to the public, "we will kill whoever we want, whenever we want, and we will not answer to you."

When the citizen grants to another citizen a gun and a badge and confers upon him the LITERAL power of life and death, I have a right and a duty to be quite upset when the power is abused.

Ironically, the IRA has just renounced violence and promises to pursue peaceful means to achieve its demands. The UK government has finally taken actions to defuse one terrorist groups as it incites another. And who will pay for this?

Ordinary British citizens as always.

[barb162]

120. Hi Pert!

Good job! Just remember, you have a lot of admirers too

[Pert_UK]

155. Thank you very kindly, ma'am....(tips hat, rides off into sunset)

:toast:

P.

[Moderator]

61. FYI

Moderators deleted the worst of them as they were broadbrush attacks.

[Pert_UK]

78. Thanks, and thanks for the Mods' work in keeping the worst under...

control.

P.

[Karenina]

50. The Amis have their own issues

re: police brutality and skin color. Ian Blair's declaration of "policy" and that more innocents may die likely contributes to the "hot button" response. However, anyone who posits that "All_____ are_____"is blowing steam out the butt and better ignored. ;-)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. It's interesting that the people making the comment that some DU....

...posters have been stating "All_____ are_____" have yet to link any specific posts reflecting that point of view.

Perhaps it is those people making such inflammatory statements that are "blowing steam out the butt and better ignored".

[sendero]

37. I think...

... a certain amount of the anger and mistrust you see here have some validity but are possibly somewhat misplaced.

You see, as Americans we have seen our country follow in the footsteps of other countries when finally faced with a real terrorist threat.

Those footsteps are a dark path that asks us to forfeit due process, accept a virtual police state, hunker in fear, and treat the "enemy" as some aggregate force - a "cure" that is decidedly worse than the disease and that has not worked for anyone anywhere in the world and never will.

We see abuse after abuse go unpunished and we watch as our own police force goes more and more out of control.

Now, the UK is not the US, but you have to admit it seems to be following our lead in many areas.

I think the reason so many jumped on this story with complete distrust and disgust is that even the facts as related by the police themselves would simply not justify this kind of execution.

People with judgement this poor have no business running around the city with firearms, much less under the aegis of the government.

[Mairead]

41. The police are trying to have it both ways, and that's simply not on

There is no doubt--we know this for certain--that they chose to merely follow Menezes over the course of his 2km trip, which included a bus ride. That, by itself, very clearly says that they did not believe he was an armed suicide bomber: the sine qua non of police training is to immediately restrict the freedom of movement of people suspected of planning catastrophic violence, and evacuate potential victims beyond the perimeter of harm. The police didn't do that. They simply followed him.

Which means they did not believe he was an armed bomber and thus had no legitimate reason to execute him.

[Karenina]

92. WHY did they follow him?

They were looking for a particular suspect.
They had photos of that suspect.
Menezes walks out and it is immediately clear HE IS NOT THEIR SUSPECT.
What "probable cause" did they have for following him in the first place, never mind for a moment executing him on a crowded train?
Is that "probable cause" tied to this "policy?"

[Divernan]

43. I agree it is grossly unfair to criticize wholesale the UK police force

because of this incident. The most shocking aspect of this incident to me was that it did occur in London/UK. where the police force have long been noted to operate with restraint compared to many other countries. My first thought was, when the US police heard about this (assuming the victim was in fact a bomb- carrying terrorist), that there would be a rash of shoot-to-kill incidents in the US, as well as vigilante actions by local self-styled "patriots."

I believe that the heart of the rule-of-law, in these stressful times in which we live, is the principle of proportionate response. A policy of shoot-to-kill or shoot-on-sight is the most extreme step which can be taken by a law enforcement agency, and should have very clear guidelines - such as confirmation of the existence of an explosive device by the officer who is planning to shoot. That doesn't mean he/she has to SEE it. It could be the verbal threat of the person believed to posess it. "I have a bomb." We have all heard of the US strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan on innocent people, triggered by others who simply wanted to take out their enemies/competitors for local power. so hearsay doesn't cut it for sufficient proof.

It is analagous to the principle of international law regarding "pre-emptive" war. If the enemy is massing troops on your border, you can fire the first shot (or thermonuclear device) in self-defense. Bush got around this re Iraq through elaborate lies and fabricated "evidence." I hate to see this approach trickling down to the lower levels of the "war on terror".

[IndianaGreen]

44. Ironic that Tony Blair refused to form a 9-11 style commission

when he was questioned during his press conference a couple of days ago. Blair's reasoning was that a commission of inquiry on the security failures that led to the London bombings (and the subsequent shooting of the Brazilian electrician) would be a distraction to the security services.

Blair is slicker than Bush, but he is as much of a liar!

[MisterP]

115. right after he gave the nonsensical "went to sleep after noyn-eleven's

weyk-up call." The pomade must be getting into his braincase, it seems.

[barb162]

117. There is a man investigating and I saw an interview

he did with Aaron Brown on MSNBC a few nights ago. He seemed quite sincere in thoroughly investigating the shooting and he was appointed by Blair.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. Very few DU posters, if any, reacted in the manner you describe.....

...In fact, the vast majority of the comments were directed solely toward the plain clothes policemen that killed the man in cold blood, and the faulty policy created by the UK leadership of shooting on sight with no warning.

You complain of some DU posters making statements without knowing the facts, when it is becoming readily apparent as this story unfolds that they were much closer to the truth than the comments contained in any of your posts that day or today.

I find your comments today, just as I did on the day of this terrible incident, to be way off base and more than a little inflammatory. contrary to the comments in your post, it is not just the victim's family that has been quoted in the press. More than a few eyewitnesses to the shooting have also been interviewed and have been consistently telling the same story...that it was a cold-blooded murder.

[redqueen]

111. Thanks for taking the time.

I'd rather not be labeled a "drooling idiot" so I'm going back to the friggin Lounge.

Disgusted...

[Violet_Crumble]

154. Independent reports...

I read an article this morning where a bystander who witnessed what was happening said that the police did not shout any warnings to stop. I'll try and find it and post it for you...

Violet...

[Nihil]

28. Probably pissed off at banging their heads against the wall

Anyone who has attempted to hold back the charge of the "They're just
goddamn fascists over thar" brigade has had to take so many deep breaths
just lately to avoid being banned that it is not worth joining the
debates these days.

I'm waiting for some evidence rather than responding to every new bit
of speculation and gossip that's being trumpeted around by people who
haven't a clue about the situation.

In brief, you can take your crickets and shove them.

[Puglover]

36. Nihil

I'll pass on the cricket. That's just wrong. But isn't this more then "speculation and gossip"?
If the cricket comment was abit snarky I apologize.

Jeff

edit spelling

[Nihil]

49. Thanks Jeff

At the moment, from everything I've read, this isn't any more than
speculation & gossip in as much as it is nth hand views from a very
involved party (the victim's family) who no-one would expect to be
unbiased. I'm not saying it is wrong, just not adding anything.

Sorry for being snarky myself - you weren't one of the people in mind
for my earlier comments so I shouldn't have posted it in reply to you.

:hi:

[Karenina]

15. Legal resident,

appropriately dressed, uses transportation pass to board bus and train after a stake-out determines he is NOT the suspect (of whom they have pictures).

Every representation the police have made about this man has been bogus. That leaves me with the single question, "Why did they execute Jean Menezes?"

[oscarmitre]

17. That isn't a question it's an assumption

and an offensive assumption at that.

[magellan]

20. Don't know why you're arguing with the word choice

Execution - to put to death, especially as a legal penalty.

de Menezes was killed on the suspicion of being a suicide bomber; the officers were acting on the legal authority of the Met's shoot-to-kill order. Therefore 'executed' is appropriate.

If he had been a bomber, would you argue over the use of the word 'execution'?

[oscarmitre]

22. I'm not going to play semantics

with you. Seeing as you know exactly what happened and have come to a judgement based on all the facts known to you I have to defer to your superior knowledge. If you say it was an "execution" then it must have been.

[Divernan]

26. Quoting the definition from a dictionary is NOT playing semantics.

What word would you substitute for "execute" that more accurately reflects the taking of a life by a police officer claiming to act under color of law? And when you select that word, please include the definition of it.

[Guy_Montag]

38. Perhaps you could use the word "killed"

which has no overtones, until the results of the IPCC enquiry, coroners inquest or any resulting trial.

[Mairead]

53. "Executed" is more appropriate: the cop performed the act ex-officio

Whether it was a legitimate performance of his office has yet to be determined, but he was acting in-rôle.

[Guy_Montag]

59. Right let's try this

Original statement:
"Why did they execute Jean Menezes?"

Dictionary references:
(Dictionary.com)

Why did they put to death Jean Menezes?

Why did they put to death as fulfillment of a judicial death sentence Jean Menezes?

Why did they put a condemned person {Jean Menezes} to death?

Finally & I think what you are wanting to imply:

Why did they unlawfully commit the premeditated killing of a human being {Jean Menezes} by a human being?

[Mairead]

64. Or this

'kill as a means of socially sanctioned punishment'

What makes a killing an execution, I think, is that it's the terminal punishment inflicted by the society as a whole, typically via a designated agent in cold blood, on someone who has transgressed that society's rules. The key element being its origin in a societal decision rather than in some private individual's head.

[Guy_Montag]

65. But he wasn't killed as a punishment.

We do not know many of the circumstances of the killing, but it was not a punishment - effectively it is one of two things: a murder or an accident, but not a punishment.

[Mairead]

71. I'm sure the cop who did it thought (or will claim) it was a punishment!

...since that's the only thing that might save him. (the offence being punished, of course, being the intent to blow people up or, less charitably, Putting Ill-Trained Police In A Panic. )

[Guy_Montag]

73. Why would he claim it to be a punishment?

he probably will claim something like he was acting with the best information at the time to prevent the suspect from detonating a bomb.

To claim he was punishing Menezes would be to invite a murder charge & conviction.

The alleged shoot to kill policy employed against suspected suicide bombers is not about punishing them, it is about preventing them detonating their bombs.

[Mairead]

76. Because unless the victim is construed to have committed an offence

there is no possible justification for killing him! Because unless he's construed to have committed an offence, he's ipso facto innocent and there's never any justification for attacking -much less shooting dead- someone who's innocent.

That's the whole basis for this shoot-dead-on-suspicion rule: that the victim commits a capital offence merely by strapping on the explosive or putting it in the satchel or rucksack.

If this cop gets off, then we'll understand that the bar is even lower and one need not have any involvement with explosives or terrorism at all. Sr Menezes will have committed the offence of Having Slightly Nappy Hair And Dusky Complexion In The Presence Of Badly Trained Police With Guns, and been duly punished for it.

[Guy_Montag]

79. Once again - our police do not hand out punishments

the victim does not need to have committed an offence, the police have to justify that they believed he was a threat to themselves or others. It is up to the IPCC enquiry to decide if they do this. If they fail the Crown Prosecution Service will gather evidence to take those involved to court & charge them with murder, manslaughter or any of various other crimes.

& yes the victim knows he is going to die when he straps on an explosive device - one way or another he believes he is doomed from the moment he does that. It is not a capital offence, simply that he will die when it explodes or he may be killed to prevent death & injury to others. If he is stopped & disarmed without being killed, he will be processed by the legal system & sentanced, but not to death, hence not a capital crime.

[Mairead]

83. What on earth do you call shooting someone dead, then???

You cannot simply ignore it, or say that it is an unmotivated, uncharacterisable act that exists sui generis, floating free in non-existential space.

The cop was acting from a sense of self-righteous purpose (on some level) when he pulled the trigger. He construed his victim to have committed some act that placed him outside the protection of the law, as far as that cop was concerned. You can't ignore that. Not and be taken seriously.

[Guy_Montag]

87. This was not a punishment!

Can you not understand this?

Is being handcuffed a punishment?

No, it's an action to prevent the suspect from harming himself or others.

The police will claim, that their actions were parallel, but are obviously tragically far more serious, to being handcuffed. Restrained (in the most extreme way) to prevent harm to others.

Is shooting a dog mauling a child punishing it? Shooting it after it has mauled a child is; shooting it during the mauling is about removing the threat to the child.

Menezes was perceived as a threat to others. That he was not a threat was only resolved after he was killed, that is a tragedy. But the police were neutralising a threat, not punishing him.

[Mairead]

88. We live in different worlds, evidently. (nt)

[jsamuel]

96. Using your own example...

He was tripped, knocked to the ground, and sat on.

He was subdued.

They THEN, AFTER HE WAS ALREADY SUBDUED, proceded to shoot him in the head 7 times.

Using your example of the dog, this is "punishing"...

[Guy_Montag]

98. Not necessarily

That is to say, we do not know whether he was restrained, the inquiry will look into this. If fact I suspect the inquiry will spend a great deal of time on this particular point.

All we have so far is media reports, not statements from witnesses to the inquiry. Bear in mind I have seen one media report, from the day, that he tried to take a hostage - blatently not true, but reported all the same.

Finally, how do you subdue someone with a suicide belt in a crowded area, there have been cases in Paletine & Israel, but they have always been in places that the bomber can be stopped distant from anyone else & made to take off his belt.

Speaking for myself, if I was doing this I would have a deadman's button that would go off when I took my finger off the button, but even to do it other way round, would require the smallest movement.

[Mairead]

101. There was no suicide belt and the police knew it

As I wrote in another post, the very fact that they followed him for 2 km including a bus trip without trying to contain him or clear the area says that they didn't for even a moment believe he was a suicide bomber.

It is the sine qua non of non-plod police training that they contain the suspect and shift all innocent people out of danger. That's SOP all the world over. These buggers didn't do that, so either they are stupifyingly ill-trained with no common sense--less well-trained and with less common sense than could be expected of any village constable in Orkney--or they didn't believe him to be a bomber.

[oscarmitre]

153. And from where is your expertise and knowledge drawn?

Consider this. The police thought he was a suicide bomber, running for the train. Possessed of that belief they pursued him. They took appropriate action - don' froth at the mouth at that statement and completely twist what I'm saying here - to deal with what they thought was a suicide bomber. They had no time to evacaute the carriage. They made a decision to neutralise - yes I'm waiting for the mockery of my use of that term but it's apt - what they thought was a suicide bomber to save the lives of everyone in that carriage. Without thought of their own safety they pursed a person they thought was a suicide bomber. And now they are being excoriated.

None of this brings back the man's life. I'm sure that every one of those cops involved would turn back time if they could. But I'm sure that given the circumstances they'd still risk their lives to stop a suicide bomber.

I don't understand the rank prejudice, the closed minds, the falsely assumed knowledge of some of the posters here. I also don't understand some of the contemptuous comments. Okay it's a discussion board and anyone can act like an idiot from behind the anonymity of a screen name, but some of the garbage being spouted here could be coming right of a right wing nutter site.

I'll come back and read and post and if I'm wrong about what I've posted, if I'm wrong about the rule of law prevailing over government in the UK and if there's evidence of a conspiracy by a bunch of cops to kill an innocent civilian because, well, they were hanging around a block of flats in South London and felt a bit bored and wanted to liven their day up a bit, then I'll eat crow and I'll post the pictures of me doing so but in the meantime I'll be happy to pinprick anyone's bullshit balloon.

[Mairead]

156. Rather than make yourself seem puerile by empty bluster and namecalling

why don't you ring through to your local police headquarters and ask whether their standard policy is 'contain and evacuate' or 'follow and observe' in the case where someone appears whom they suspect of being an armed suicide bomber.

[oscarmitre]

157. Sorry I just can't take that seriously.

I know what the procedures are in my jurisdiction. And they aren't as simplistic as that. I'd be very surprised if they were like that in any jurisdiction. I'm quite familiar with the requirement to cordon and contain in certain circumstances, I also know what it's like to have a person mobile within a cordon. This situation didn't -on the face of it - lend itself to a cordon and containment.

Empty bluster and namecalling? Me? Check the thread.

[Mairead]

179. When you've got an authoritative statement from the police saying

that 'follow and observe' is their policy toward suspected suicide bombers, you'll have some basis for making your pronunciamenti. At present you're havering.

[oscarmitre]

189. Point taken

I'm probably all over the place because I'm speaking from personal knowledge and experience as to how I think it would be done. If the Met have a different view then so be it. I just need to see the reference to it - an exact reference, a reproduction of their general or specific orders would be good.

[jsamuel]

102. Actually there is at least one witness who said that he was on the ground

being held down. (I believe more said the same thing, but I am not sure) Then the police shot him. That is where I got it from. That is also the reason why people who saw this were so shocked, because he was subdued.

[Guy_Montag]

104. Someone made a statement to the media that hes being held down

someone else made a statement to the press that he tried to take a hostage.

The point is there are at least two conflicting reports, (the latter from a tabloid rag & sounding very much like bollocks to me,) let the inquiry interview the witnesses, watch the CCTV footage & do their best to find the truth.

All I ask, wait for the inquiry then decide if the inquiry stands up to scrutiny.

[Sterling]

151. "he tried to take a hostage."

Well that is a new one to me, got a link? At any rate it is obviously wrong because he was not armed.

[Warren Stupidity]

158. the endless stream of bullshit

from the government over this incident indicates that there is yet more crap that they haven't disclosed that is even more damaging than the current set of facts related to this incident.

The "whatever we are going to label the new system" apologists will have explanations and excuses and diversions to trot out whenever anyone dares to object to the summary execution of innocents in the name of security.

[Karenina]

103. On WHAT BASIS

was Menezes perceived to be a "threat?" The police had a photo of a suspect and Menezes was NOT the person in the photo. So, WHY did they follow him in the first place? If they had questions WHY did they not stop him before he boarded a bus? :shrug::shrug::shrug:

SOMETHING STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!! BIG TIME!!!

[jsamuel]

105. Why haven't they followed EVERYONE or ANYONE that had these same requir.

Why did they shoot HIM?
There are hundreds, if not thousands of other people who live in that area as well. That is the only reason we have been given on why they followed him.

Why the Brazilian Electrician?

[Peace Patriot]

116. Yeah, Karenina, that's one of the things that gets me, too. If they

thought he had a bomb, why didn't they stop him at his front door? They let him get on a bus! They were WITH him on the bus, in plain clothes! Then they let him get off the bus and go into the tube! A man with a suspected bomb! It makes no sense.

They said he was shot seven times pointblank in the back of the head (after he was subdued!) because they thought he had a bomb. And they let him get on the bus and then on the tube???!!!

I think it was either a racist lynching, or a deliberate execution for a reason that we don't yet know.

[Karenina]

132. Psssssttt.... PP

(They thought they'd got deyselves one o' dem British born "Asian" fellers. You know dem suicidal maniacs and all. Somebody low down on da food chain fucked up on the ID and NOW the Brit-cits know all about their secret "policy" and got deyselves a INTERNATIONAL INCIDENT!!! JC didn't die for nothin' when folks start asking some <pointed> questions and demanding ACCOUNTABILITY)

[Zhade]

144. Wow, I missed that they were ON the bus WITH him.

That makes it clear to me - they did not believe him to be a suicide bomber.

[alarcojon]

196. or they just screwed up

or they think tube riders are more worthy of having their lives saved than bus riders. :sarcasm:

A bus was blown up on 7/7!!!!

[Zhade]

143. Being handcuffed doesn't end your life.

By definition, this was an execution - else, the policeman who fired committed murder.

[oscarmitre]

152. Wrong

no police officer in the UK or in my country has any more right to kill than any other citizen.

[Warren Stupidity]

159. and yet

under the policy in place (unapologetically) the police in the UK, or more specifically specially trained teams of police in the UK, have orders that permit tackle and kill operations against suspected suicide bombers, orders that allow them to kill people without warning.

[Karenina]

29. This may interest you...

John Gardner is the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, and occasional Visiting Professor at Yale Law School.

Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police's Mossad-style execution of a 'suspect' (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one's friends than by one's enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority.

Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July:

(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg <1995> 1 A.C. 482.
(4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower!
(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.


http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0081/index.htm

[oscarmitre]

162. Yes it does interest me.

And in effect it says nothing.

(3) is a simple statement of the law as it is
(4) this is just a claim, it has not legal basis to it
(5) a criticism of the law as it is and a suggestion for it to be amended

interesting but of no effect.

[magellan]

30. No reason to be petulant

Clearly this man's death was wrong, and it appears, as more details emerge, it could have been avoided. I've said from the day we learned this was a Brazilian electrician and not a suicide bomber that the officers are not solely to blame; they got their orders from above. Do you agree that in the case of wrongful death someone should be held accountable or not?

I've never been about crucifying either the police or the Met for what's happened. Not my job. What happens to them -- or not -- is up to the independent investigator and his findings.

You didn't answer my question. If de Menezes had actually been a suicide bomber, would you still object to the word 'execution'?

[moodforaday]

45. kick

n/t

[TroglodyteScholar]

51. Sometimes it doesn't feel good to have your suspicions verified. eom

:(

[dArKeR]

63. Blair ordered an Arab corpse. He had all the evidence to convict this

bomber. The problem is that the Arab looking guy turned out to be a hard working Brazilian which Blair could in no way frame for the bombing. It sure is turning towards looking like Blair pulled a Bush/Cheney 9/11.

[sattahipdeep]

84. It's certainly possible n/t

[Romulus]

69. still waiting to hear why no police already at subway station

BEFORE de Menezes entered.

I mean, all I keep hearing is how the situation was so "tense" over in London that day, with police swarming the city looking for "terrorists."

You would think in that kind of lock-down that there would be police already posted, on duty, at the station who could have stopped de Menezes as he was being chased INTO the station! . . .

Even here in DC's burbs, after July 7 you couldn't walk into a metro station without bumping elbows with the Metro police.

[sattahipdeep]

82. Must have known something?

electricians work a lot of places.

[AzDar]

72. If they had Osama bin Laden pinned down and helpless, I would STILL

object to their actions. Isn't that what separates us from the terrorists? We don't kill(presumptively) innocent people, and then treat it as an evil necessary to our "cause"?
The truly frightening thing about this is that the Bush mentality ("no mistakes here")seems to have taken over Great Britain....not admitting that this "policy" is a dangerous disaster, and changing it immediately.

[daleo]

75. The police should produce the jacket

It is probably pretty gory, but an agreed upon witness (agreed upon by the family and the government) could view it and let the public know the truth, so that the deceased man's privacy is protected.

This event just grows more suspicious.

[Canadian_moderate]

80. Must be similar to executions in Brazil...

of loitering, poor homeless kids in the barrios of Rio.

This whole thing is shocking, but given the current situation in London, the police are very paranoid. The officer was clearly in the wrong, but I would hate to be in their position during a time like this.

[sattahipdeep]

81. What shocked many Londoners....

Beyond the killing itself, what shocked many Londoners was the
discovery that Menezes had been killed under instructions that
had never been publicly articulated, which allow officers to shoot
in the head someone they believe is about to commit a suicide bombing.
the policy was put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
in the United States

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1697662_3,00.html

[tuckessee]

85. Besides being brown

and being in a bad neighborhood I wonder just what made the cops think Menezes was a suicide bomber.

So far, all the "suspicious" behavior has been retracted by the authorities (They lied). No bulky jacket, no jumping the turnstile.

He probably only ran after the plain clothes goons whipped out their handguns and that had to occur sometime after Menezes calmly and legally entered the Tube station using his pass.

[sattahipdeep]

90. Or who did he know or who knew him

or was it because he was brown and lived in a "bad" part of town? u know
cheaper rents ect.

[RetroLounge]

89. Just one more lie by the British Police...

Shot 5 time? 8 times?

Jumped the turnstile? Didn't Jump?

Bulky Coat? Windbreaker?

Arab? Brazillian?

Whatever...

He was executed by the cops, plain and simple.

RL

[Guy_Montag]

100. Don't confuse media reports with police statements

that way lies misunderstanding.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

106. The media is usually relying on the police to give them information to....

...be used in their articles.

So far, in this case, the police reports have not been very accurate.

[Guy_Montag]

107. They may rely on individual policemen,

to give them their opinions or snippets, but I've been sitting glued to my radio since the first set of bombs - I doubt I've missed a single press conference or official statement, the police have been very careful in what they've announced - as they always are.

[melissinha]

112. I'm so f*ing mad!

Aquele canalha Bush e responsavel.... seu filho da puta sem vergonha, vai pro INFERNO!
That scoundrel Bush is responsible.... that shameless SOB ..go to HELL!
I have to vent in Potruguese for this one!
ANd this is all a result George Bush and the neo-con death cults web of lies!!!!

Son of a F*ing BITCH!

Now all the details are coming out, Meneezes seems to not have acted inappropriately at all.. but the details, as we have discovered are still not certain....

Check this link for a picture of the casket....
http://www.estadao.com.br/internacional/noticias/2005/jul/28/53.htm

In this article: Sounds like Brazil is sending its own investigators to London.

[Canadian_moderate]

118. I understand your anger and frustration

This was a horrible inexcusable incident; however, countless horrible incidents involving police (on or off duty) brutality have taken place in Brazil over the years.

I feel that it is unfair to smear the British cops, who are generally quite civil and well behaved, for this one incident. It is not exactly a pattern in the UK for the police to behave that way. These are extra-ordinary situations (terror attacks).

By co-incidence, this guy happened to be Brazilian. I doubt you would be equally outraged if the victim of this senseless act of violence were not Brazilian.

[melissinha]

121. yeah

I think this incident really brought it home to the poeple of the UK that their policemen were using the "shoot first" tactic. IN that I am not alone. Although I concede to your following points, I really do not see how the black and white tactics of the Brittish police is the best way to both secure the masses and individuals who happen to live in the wrong building. 8 shots is TOO much and you can't dispute that.

It is ABSOLUTELY true that so many people are murdered, kid-napped, etc in Brazil. Make no mistake. I know.

I understand and acknowledge that one of your own being killed really affects people more than a citizen of a another country. I am not denying that.. I know. But it really shows you how this ridiculous war on terror or whatever you call it know can strike a person from a far removed from the conflict country like Brazil.

did I mention that that SOB retard Dubya is gonna pay for this and all the deaths involved in his US Treeasury Scam?

[Canadian_moderate]

124. The police tactics were wrong...

and the result was horrible.

I don't agree with the actions of GWB either and his especially stupid decision to invade Iraq without just cause and with little international support. It has been a major setback/distraction in the war (or struggle) against terrorism.

That said, I personally believe that we are faced with a war on terror, whether we like it or not. Islamic fundamentalists/ extremists are a threat to liberal-minded societies because many live in our midst. The liberals of this world need to acknowledge this.

Without resorting to paranoid tactics like the one that resulted in this very unfortunate death, we need to take certain precautions and actions to ensure that terrorists know that we will not turn the other cheek. I believe that we cannot sit idly by waiting for the next terror attack. We need to infiltrate their terror networks to prevent future attacks.

[Laughing Mirror]

170. War on Terra ovah (it's official). Haven't you heard??

It is now to be called "the global struggle against violent extremism."

Bush Declares an End To Phrase 'War on Terror'

The Bush administration has apparently declared an end to the phrase "War on Terror." The White House has quietly changed the name to "the global struggle against violent extremism." The New York Times cites administration officials as saying that the phrase "war on terror" may have outlived its usefulness, because it "focused attention solely on the military campaign." Gen. Richard Myers, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." Administration and Pentagon officials say the new name grew out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January. It also comes as Bush appoints one of his most trusted aides, Karen Hughes, to lead the administration's international propaganda and PR campaign.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/28/149232

So stop saying War on Terror. The politically correct term is now "the global struggle against violent extremism." I know it doesn't exactly pour from the lips, but it is the correct term from now on. On orders from above!

[daleo]

198. "global struggle against violent extremism" = GSAVE

A snappy new acronym to use, implying that the government will save you (or perhaps God will save you, to get the religious vote).

[alarcojon]

140. RIP Jean Charles

[barb162]

119. Light or heavy jacket?

"Police said Menezes attracted police attention because he left a building that was under surveillance after Thursday's attacks. They said he was then followed by surveillance officers to the station, and his clothing and behavior at the station added to their suspicions. Menezes was wearing a heavy coat while temperatures were in the 70s."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-07-24-london-shooting_x.htm

I saw a witness who said he was no more than 15 feet from Menezes. He said he had on a heavy bulky jacket and it was a warm day.

When the police release the jacket everyone can make their own determination about whether it was heavy or not heavy.

[endarkenment]

125. As the pile of official bullshit mounts higher and higher

The same sorry bunch of clowns rush to defend the realm and to attack all of us who called this incident out for exactly what it was.

Carry on.

[Tom Bombadil]

126. Come on then mate,

Imagine you're the head of the Metropolitan Police. What policy would you introduce to prevent suicide bombers from committing mass murder on the London Undergroud? If you can think of an alternative to the current one, I'm sure Sir Ian Blair would be delighted to hear it.

[rman]

145. I'd implement "shoot first, ask questions later", without telling citizens,

and certainly without asking their opinion.

And then proclaim that i'm defending democracy.

It's what any good neocon would do.

Any similarity with the Nazi playbook it entirely coincidental.

[Karenina]

146. What policy would you introduce

to prevent Ami-Anglo alliances from committing GENOCIDE in Iraq?
Hmmm... let's send 'em a CLEAR signal "over here" that if they dare try the shit we been doing to them WHOLESALE "over there" "over here" we'll summarily execute dey jenky butts jes' like we be doing "over there" even if we ain't got the right guy, FUCK ALL Y'ALL if you even resemble "them" in any way YOU ARE ALL FAIR GAME.

Sweetiekins, THIS is the shit TPTB want you to swallow. THINK! :think:

[Karenina]

129. Beeeeeeeeep!

This is a test. This is only a test. For the next week we will be testing your core values for summary executions of the "other" in crowds to keep you "safe." (Please pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. We meant to get a B/P. OOPS!!!) Had this been a real alert you would have been instructed to tune in to your local media propagandist who would have assured your that the "culture clash" requires such "global extremist" measures. To keep you "safe," of course. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Tom Bombadil]

133. What??

Have you been drinking?

[David Zephyr]

131. Q: What was "suspicious"? A: His skin color and his rushing to a train.

The media, of course, made everyone believe that he:

1.) knew that he was being chased by the police,
2.) resisted arrest
3.) was wearing a "bulky jacket" in the summer


AND

4.) he was actually rushing to catch his train. I guess that this means that Dagwood who chronically was chasing his train would have been a "prime terrorist suspect", huh?

The media, of course, once again helped the government lies by spreading the "news" it was fed by its police state.

This reminds me of the poor medical students who were chased down from Georgia to Florida because a nosy, nutbag woman in a Shoney's reported them to the police ONLY because they were Arab. In that case, every single television news organization in the United States falsely reported over and over again that the students were racing through every single toll stop on the freeway without stopping. Later, it was quietly reported that they had actually stopped at every toll stop and paid the fee.

This young man was shot only because of the color of his skin. Nothing else.

[alarcojon]

139. A reminder about that case

I've thought about it too these last few days.

Do you think we have enough to bring it down?

If we don't have enough to bring it down, I have contacts and we can get enough to bring it down.

Sounds like enough reason to close down 20 miles of highway, detain the men for 17 hours, and scare the crap out of a lot of people. If they even said it. And when they were released, did the cops exonerate them completely? Of course not:

At the time of their release, authorities called the incident a prank by the men, but officials were backing off that theory a few hours later.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/13/alligator.alley/

[Karenina]

147. Yo, Davey-dah

Someone wanted a B/P corpse. Those from whom it was demanded made a falsche ID, putting "skin color" and their untrained perception of and assumptions about it above photographic evidence, gait, language... That is all.

[barb162]

150. And you missed

5. he was coming out of a surveilled building. He was shot for a combination of things most probably but then again I will await the official investigation conclusions and I hope the police display the jacket so we can all make up on minds on that.

[Warren Stupidity]

160. a combination of two things

de Menezes was a dead man the moment he walked out of the wrong door being not quite white enough.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. Let me restate my position.

As the poster who, in a moment of unrestrained outrage, labeled the UK a fascist state and those here on DU who have been adamant in their disingenuous support for summary execution 'fascist apologists', I regret having overstated the case.

I do not know what sort of government it is that issues secret orders that allow the police to execute people without warning, without mercy, and it seems without much in the way of evidence to justify their actions, which actions do not, in my opinion, appear to be justifiable in practically any circumstances and are certainly not compatible with a civilized modern liberal democracy.

I do not know how to categorize people who support and/or defend and/or excuse the sort of policies in force in Great Britain, and undoubtedly in force right here in my own country. Fascism is not the right word. But at the moment, the right word escapes me.

My disgust at the stubborn defense of the indefensible here on DU by a small group of posters remains unmitigated.

[oscarmitre]

175. Show some evidence that those policies are in place

and I will completely change my views. But until the evidence is there that the UK has adopted these policies expect some opposition to your views.

[Warren Stupidity]

177. Just crawl out of a hole?

Try google. The police not only admitted that these tactics were in place, but that they continue to be in place and that there may be more such collateral damage. Totally unapologetic regarding the policy, just a 'big oops, my bad' concerning the first victim that we know of.

Here I'll help you out. Google: de Menezes Kratos

Get back to me with that apology anytime.

[Warren Stupidity]

178. ah heck I couldn't wait

Here ya go:

"After the suicide bomb attacks in London on 7 July it is thought the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch implemented its own pre-arranged response to suicide bombers, based on Acpo advice.


Harry Stanley was walking home with a table leg in a plastic bag
Codenamed Operation Kratos, and based on the experiences of the Israeli security forces, the guidance reportedly states that an officer can shoot a suspect in the head if it is thought he is a suicide bomber who poses an imminent danger to police or the public.

Eyewitnesses at Stockwell station on Friday said they saw police officers fire five shots into the head of the suspect.

If Operation Kratos is being used, it would be the first time a shoot-to-kill policy was officially allowed on British streets."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

Keep on googling, you will be all caught up in no time.

[oscarmitre]

188. Instead of telling me to google

why don't you post the links to the evidence?

[Warren Stupidity]

192. I did

you can provide your apology anytime.

[Zhade]

136. You mean, lied to us AGAIN.

And people wonder why many of us aren't willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt in this case!

[Blue_Tires]

142. i just wish the real story would come out

why isn't there security footage of this incident or at least the victim anywhere? A story like this about the coat can be EASILY verified/denied...

[IndianaGreen]

161. Blair has refused to have a commission of inquiry

Blair was asked at his Wednesday press conference if he was going to form a 9/11 style commission of inquiry to look into the London bombings, any intelligence failures, and subsequent actions by the security services including the shoot-to-kill orders. Blair flatly refused saying that any inquiry would take take away from the work at hand.

[cthrumatrix]

166. of course there is video --- but that would reveal the LIES

[oscarmitre]

176. What I do know is that an innocent man lost his life

and that is a tragedy. And it can't be undone.

Now for the inquiries. If the police are exonerated, if they are found to have been justified in their actions will anyone here believe it?

And will anyone understand that these police officers believed that this man was capable of detonating a bomb that could have killed them as well as everyone in the carriage, yet they went ahead and did what they thought was necessary?

[Karenina]

181. The team member who pulled the trigger

should not be made the "fall guy" for this horror.

Please ask yourself, Oscar, WHY Menezes was not allowed to go about his business in peace when he DID NOT MATCH THE PHOTOS, and was CLEARLY NOT the suspect they were seeking.

What are these "POLICIES" and WHO is affected?

[oscarmitre]

187. I don't have to ask myself these questions Karenina

because they will be asked by individuals and organisations with far better resources and intellectual ability than me.

Now let me address your questions.

He didn't match the photos? Describe to me the differences between him and the suspects.

Now tell me why he was clearly not the suspect they were seeking.

On the question of the policies.

Personally I am troubled by any talk of "policies" when the law clearly lays down what is required. I would be disturbed if someone in officialdom told me that there was a "policy" when I knew what the law requires.

I would be thinking either (a) it's a government takeover of the system or (b) I am being fitted up.

[Warren Stupidity]

193. go for option (a)

[oscarmitre]

194. Makes sense

and no I'm not being a smart-arse. Think about it.

[Karenina]

197. If I understand "fitted up" properly

then (b) works too... ;-)