Did the officers responsible for Menezes death identify themselves

[baby_mouse]

As police officers?

THE ENTIRE ISSUE HINGES ON THIS.

I've gone through several threads and all I can see are reactions. I can't see any information with regard to this vital paRt of the puzzle. To me it's perfectly clear. Myabe I'm just skimming too fast, I'm slightly amazed that the police sympathisers haven't pointd THIS OUT REPEATEDLY if they did as then the case would be open and shut. It's the obvious explanation for their actions.

Where is the report detailing the police's actions with regard to identifying themselves? If they identified themselves, they are not at fault in any way. If they didn't, oooooh dear.

Because THEN we are simply supposed to stop and allow oursleves to be robbed by people with guns JUST IN CASE THEY ARE POLICEMEN!!!

[MSgt213]

1. I don't think there has been a complete investigation yet has it? But

even having said that. I don't think its as simple as saying well they yelled police. They are still responsible for following rules which allow them to use deadly force. Otherwise couldn't a cop pulling you over for a ticket yell police and then shoot you and be totally not at fault?

[baby_mouse]

7. Exactly.

Rather a bad precedent.

[CJCRANE]

2. Yes,

it's not clear if they said anything, or what they said. From what I've seen about the issue it seems that they do NOT have to identify themselves if the risk is considered too high.

[baby_mouse]

5. If that's true

I disagree with the policy.

I can see that a bomber might detonate on hearing the word "police", but I'm not sure how less likely that is on simply hearing the word "stop". Really I think either would trigger him if he was "trigerrable" by any challenges... but "police" might save an innocent's life, which obviously is the police's goal.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Yes, they identified themselves.

Witnesses at the Tube station reported that they shouted "Armed police! Get down!"

[baby_mouse]

4. AT the suspect?

At the initial challenge?

Was he in hearing range when they shouted this at the station and was being chased?

If so,

CASE CLOSED.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. He was certainly within hearing range...

as people in the vicinity of where he was heard it quite clearly. The Guardian also reports that he was ordered to stop by the police before entering the station, and instead chose to flee.

[baby_mouse]

8. CASE CLOSED.

Police not at fault.

Sigh... I am relieved.

Still. Silly guy... bloody awful, really. I wonder if he had other reasons for running?

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. No way of knowing.

Bad decision on his part, to say the least. Being accosted by a large crowd of men with guns might have thrown a scare into him, whether they identified themselves as police or not...mightn't have happened if they'd been wearing uniforms (but that would also compromise their ability to conduct surveillance, I'm sure)...no easy answers to this.

[Benbow]

14. He came from Brazil - yes, that Brazil, that corruption-free

South American country whose police never run death squads through the slums , and which doesn't terrorise its indigenous Amazonian population.

It is a pity that he seems to have reacted as if he were in Sao Paulo, not in London. Had he remembered that he was in London, he would still be alive today.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Fear and adrenaline can make it rather hard to think clearly, too.

Unfortunate for him that his conditioned response, so to say, was terror rather than compliance.

[baby_mouse]

20. :-/

Well, um.

Yes.

[baby_mouse]

15. No, there aren't.

For example -

I can easily imagine a situation where he was thrown into a panic and heard "Armed police! Down!" and thought it was some OTHER crowd of people about to do somthing about the scary robbers who were chasing HIM. If he wasn't facing in the right direction to hear the warning, he might not have been able to work out who said it, especially if he was panicking.

Having said that, even if there was no mention of their identity at the initial challenge, it seems like they did all they could to balance the possibilities that he was innocent against those that he was (about to be) guilty. If we're going to start splitting hairs over when they identified themselves I think we're getting into difficult waters...

Identifying your status as a policeman might trigger a detonation...
Of course, simply saying "STOP" might, as well.

Not clear on this yet in my head...

However, the police were following their instructions, it appears. If there is a way for this problem to be averted it is through policy change rather than through apportioning blame.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Well, there's going to be an enquiry...

which will doubtless lead to a review of the policy for dealing with situations like this. Hopefully there won't be any more such incidents before that happens...

[Benbow]

13. Possible other "reasons" for running - social conditioning

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."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

[Modem Butterfly]

17. They tackled him and had him on the ground when they shot him

I'm sure they identified themselves after they restrained him and before the killed him.

[baby_mouse]

22. Why are you sure of this?

And what do you mean by "restrained"? have you further information on this incident?

[Modem Butterfly]

23. I read the news

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/07/24/story213149.html

"Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot at point blank range on Friday after officers wrongly suspected he was linked to Thursday’s attempted bomb attacks on the London Underground."

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/07/24/story213150.html

"Sir Ian admitted there was a “shoot-to-kill policy” for tackling suicide bombers and it would not change, although the death of Mr de Menezes was a “tragedy”."

"“They have to be that because 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.

“It is drawn from experience from other countries, including Sri Lanka. The only way to deal with this is to shoot to the head.”"

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Have you a quote for 'restrained'?

Because 'tackled' doesn't mean 'restrained'. Neither does 'on top of'.

[MadHound]

9. Whether the police identified themselves or not doesn't matter.

This man was from Brazil, and couldn't speak English. The police, even in as cosmopolitan as London, never considered this. They reacted, that's all, they simply allowed the moment and their fear fill them and control them and they reacted with deadly force. And killed an innocent man.

Christ, they were sitting on top of this guy, who was prone on the ground. You would think that a cop trained in London would have learned how to KO somebody from behind. What, pistol whipping the guy wasn't violent enough for the cops? I'm sorry, but this isn't the vic's fault, that lies with cops. They, in the heat of their fear and loathing, when cooler heads were absolutely vital, assumed many things, and acted on those assumptions.

Yet the reality was much different, and an innocent man paid the ulitmate price for all of the wrong assumptions. Hopefully the police in London learned from this.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. He'd lived in the UK for three years, and COULD speak English...

according to relatives, his English was "quite good". So yes, it DOES matter whether the police identified themselves.

[baby_mouse]

12. pf.

So, what, the poilce are going to learn how to shout "STOP, POLICE" in 15 different languages?"

Christ, they were sitting on top of this guy, who was prone on the ground.

*Potentially* carrying a bomb. He wasn't, true, but given the current climate...

He was in a TUBE line. What would you have had them do?

They, in the heat of their fear and loathing, when cooler heads were absolutely vital, assumed many things, and acted on those assumptions.

It has been made perfectly clear many times during this debate across the boards that they were following a policy. Is this fear and loathing you describe in fact *your* fear and loathing of the police? Yes, many policemen have acting appallingly in the past but this situation is not easily polarisable in terms of blame.

[MadHound]

33. No, the police should restrain themselves

Especially when they have the man prone, are sitting on him, and could easily knock the man out for later questioning, rather than hitting with a five tap to the back of the head!

Following orders, following policy is no excuse. It just means that not only are the police who did the actual shooting immoral, it also means that the orders and those who gave them are immoral and overreacting. It means that the police are doing their job poorly, for a live terrorist to question is a hell of a lot more valueable than a dead one. If this man had been a terrorist that they summarily executed, they would have lost information to prevent future attacks.

But as you said yourself, given the current clime. The problem is that the police officers are supposed to be pros, working with cool heads at times of great stress. Instead, they let their emotions rule, and now an innocent man is dead.

[Modem Butterfly]

19. They shot him at point blank range

Five times. In the head.

Yes, the police are at fault.

[baby_mouse]

21. The alternative potentially being

Struggling with a someone carrying a bomb and detonating it, killing 10 nearby civilians. He was already under suspicion, mistakenly, but we must all act on the information we have at hand.

Once would have killed him. The number of shots doesn't cast anything on the police other than that perhaps they were frightened, too.

They must be allowed to protect the populace.

What would you have them do?

[Modem Butterfly]

24. The alternative being handcuffing him and evacuating the station

But then, the goal was exactly to kill him:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/07/24/story213150.html

"“They have to be that because 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.

“It is drawn from experience from other countries, including Sri Lanka. The only way to deal with this is to shoot to the head.”"

[baby_mouse]

25. sigh....

Handcuffing a combative suspect wearing a bomb...

Where's the trigger?

In his palm?

[Modem Butterfly]

30. He wasn't combative and wasn't wearing a bomb

And since they had him restrained, they could have ascertained whether he was a threat prior to shooting him five times point blank in he head.

Of course, someone wearing a bomb, having entered a busy train station, could just as easily detonate it at any time prior to being restrained by the police...

[LisaL]

26. Instead of protecting the populace, they killed one of the

populace. What would I have them to do? How about not killing off the populace?

[Lannes]

27. Were they plain clothes or uniformed cops?

[LisaL]

28. Plain clothes. No uniforms.

[Lannes]

29. That explains alot.

[Used and Abused]

31. In Brazil, what did it mean for 20 thugs to start chasing you?

This guy wasn't even from London. His reaction to what happened that day might have been based on his life experiences and knowledge gained in Brazil.