News The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties: Innocent Man Shot Dead in UK

  • Thread starter Thread starter alexandra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Civil Loss Uk
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian man mistakenly identified as a terrorist following recent bomb attacks in London. His family expressed outrage, emphasizing that there was no reason to suspect him of terrorism. The police admitted regret over the incident, describing it as a tragedy. Participants in the discussion debated the justification for the use of deadly force, with some arguing that the police acted out of panic and fear, while others suggested that the circumstances—such as de Menezes wearing a heavy coat in warm weather and fleeing from plainclothes officers—raised suspicions. Eyewitness accounts described the chaotic scene, where de Menezes was pinned down and shot multiple times. The conversation highlighted concerns about police protocols in high-stress situations and the implications for civil liberties, questioning whether the police's actions were warranted given the context of recent terrorist threats. Participants emphasized the need for a thorough investigation into the incident and the broader implications for public safety and police conduct.
  • #541
arildno said:
Now, I am not quite certain about the legalistic finery concerning the "shoot-to-kill" policy, however I would like to say that we must grant our police the right to shoot to the point of killing in clear, unequivocal emergency situations (say, a hostage situation, or armed robbers opening fire against police forces).

While I believe that the UK policy here has gotten out of hand, we shouldn't espouse a view that there are never any circumstances in which the police may be justified in killing someone, in the line of duty.
I don't. As I've stated many times before, where a scenario in which STK would be the only means of resolution were to crop up, I would endorse it. This is a roundabout way of saying I accept the police should have the right to shoot-to-kill. However, it is a policy that should be used with intelligence, not instead of intelligence.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #542
Daminc said:
My point is simple. To people like us life is relatively simple. The desisions we have to make rarely have wide effecting consequences. 'Leaders' however have to make desisions that effect the lives of many. It's their responsibility to keep the whole machine running smoothly not placitate individuals.

That type of position can lead to a certain amount of detachment that is necessary to continue the job of leading.

This detachment is seen by the majority as 'not caring' or 'non decent' etc
To echo Smurf's sentiment in part, no-one is arguing about the need for detachment and objectivity (although seven bullets in the head to stop a suspect does not come across as detached to me). This does not, however, allow Blair to launch what amounts to a character assassination to obfuscate the ineffectiveness and gross negligence of his staff, especially when the information he employs is fabricated. Not caring about the consequences of such an action is not 'detachment', but downright indecent and callous.
 
  • #543
It appears that the police have clearly overstepped their boundaries in this case... and then tried to cover it up... shame. I will be away from PF for a few days. have fun.
 
  • #544
arildno said:
I think so, too.
However, I do not know the legal ramifications of the so-called STK-policy well enough to know whether the police action against De Menezes crossed the line as drawn up in that policy (which will be a crucial point in determining the legal culpability of the officers involved, however much I regard them as mere executioners of an innocent man).
The legal ramifications are basically that if the surveillance team does not back up the CO19 officers responsible, criminal proceedings may (and should) follow. To employ STK, there must be evidence that the target poses an immediate threat. However, when CO19 turned up on the scene, this judgement had been made by one man and one man alone, and he was of the view that he did not pose a threat. The target had already been apprehended, and CO19 had no directives other than to detain the target. The shooting occurred with no intelligence justification, and the surveillence team at present seem reluctant to pretend there was. The main point here is that no intelligence as to the security risk of the target had been disclosed to the shooters, so they had no just cause to use arms. The shooters acted on their own, without directive from their commander (I forget her name) or information from surveillance, thus a crime has been committed.

Just in case anyone's wondering exactly who is requesting support from the surveillance team, it is not the shooters. Both are on holiday, one was pre-planned, the other was fast-tracked by Blair himself after the shooting. Seems an odd time to take unplanned leave, huh? Unless, that is, somebody wants them out of the way. After all, if you're implementing a cover-up, the last thing you want is the people who know the truth getting in the way and opening their big, stupid mouths. No, that's just absurd isn't it. Much less absurd that no-one has anything to hide and just by amazing coincidence Blair felt the shooter needed some well-earned rest, no doubt after a job well done, right when the shooters and Blair are involved in the biggest human rights and police cock-up scandal in many years. Hmmmm, I could get used to this fingers-in-ears, wilfully ignorant, blind,-naive-faith-against-blatent-truth way of thinking.
 
  • #545
El Hombre Invisible said:
The legal ramifications are basically that if the surveillance team does not back up the CO19 officers responsible, criminal proceedings may (and should) follow. To employ STK, there must be evidence that the target poses an immediate threat. However, when CO19 turned up on the scene, this judgement had been made by one man and one man alone, and he was of the view that he did not pose a threat.
So THAT's why "Hotel3" said that it was because he was fearing for the public's safety that he laid hands upon De Menezes!
That's basically a judgment that he had "evidence" for De Menezes being an immediate threat, right?
 
  • #546
El Hombre Invisible said:
All of these things advised the opinion of myself and others and as time has progressed our opinions have been proven more and more well-founded. Your 'counter balance' consistently took the view that the police's actions were, while unfortunate, justified under the circumstances. Where was your evidence for this? From facts (e.g. the man was not carrying anything that could have concealed a bomb, or that he did not behave in any way that suggested he was involved in terrorist groups or was planning a terrorist attack), or in fact from invented suppositions on your part?
The comments I made were valid at the time I made them based on what information I had at the time. As time has progressed more information has come to light which has made things a lot more dodgy.

Smurf said:
Daminc, this isn't about "Detachtment". This is about the CHIEF OF POLICE, one of the highest authorities in london, Flat-out LYING to the people to cover his own arse and the arses of the people who committed a heinous crime. Oh yeah, POOR HIM. He's the real victim here, all that stress from having to choose which fake testimonies to go with.
I won't even bother replying to that.

El Hombre Invisible said:
Your entire angle on this thread has been that whatever reasons the police had, they were justifiable at the time. Why? Could it be because of your endorsement of the STK policy perchance? No, not biased are you?
I am aware of the military law with regards to discharging a weapon. Based on the information I had at the time (wrong information as it's turned out) then there would have been justification. However, in the military if a soldier discharges his weapon without express permission they are automatically court-martialed to give an account. If the evidence supports their justification then they are let go.

As far as I'm concerned the person who shoot the victim should be held accountable to try and justify his/her actions. If he cannot then he should be punished.

El Hombre Invisible said:
To echo Smurf's sentiment in part, no-one is arguing about the need for detachment and objectivity (although seven bullets in the head to stop a suspect does not come across as detached to me). This does not, however, allow Blair to launch what amounts to a character assassination to obfuscate the ineffectiveness and gross negligence of his staff, especially when the information he employs is fabricated. Not caring about the consequences of such an action is not 'detachment', but downright indecent and callous.
1) I wasn't referring to the person who shot the victim.
2) Character assassination is pathetic which is probably why I have zero respect for politicians.
3)Callous...probably. Indecent...I'm not so sure. Is it indecent for the leaders of this country to allow the homeless to remain without homes? Was it indecent to send our boys to war? Is it indecent to have alcohol and tabacco legally available considering how many deaths are directly linked to it.

We can discuss morals and ethics if you like :wink:
 
  • #547
Daminc said:
I won't even bother replying to that.
Good. It was a joke and doesn't warrant a reply.

2) Character assassination is pathetic which is probably why I have zero respect for politicians.
Then why are you defending him for doing just that?
 
  • #548
Daminc said:
The comments I made were valid at the time I made them based on what information I had at the time. As time has progressed more information has come to light which has made things a lot more dodgy.
Not really.
You knew that De Menezes was innocent, but deemed that as irrelevant.
However, an innocent man will act differently from a guilty man
(unless you basically assume that De Menezes was mentally unstable).

Thus, when the police description you had at your disposal tried very fervently to portray De Menezes as acting suspiciously, then you essentially concluded that De Menezes must have been insane, rather than that the official report was wrong.

However, you also knew that De Menezes had been capable of holding a job as an electrician; if you think about it, the ability to hold a job makes it improbable that De Menezes had serious mental problems.

That is, from what you knew of De Menezes' character, the whole police story ought to have sounded very fishy.
De Menezes' innocence was never irrelevant here, although many in these threads dismissed it at such at the beginning.

EDIT:
Note that one of the major facets where explicit doubts were raised here at PF was whether the police had in fact challenged him at all.
We could have accepted the chase, but NOT if the police had properly identified themselves!
It simply didn't fit.

At the time, I was at the verge of posting a theory of mine as to why De Menezes would have run if he hadn't been challenged properly:
It is a sad fact that many Latin Americans have worked as drug traffickers in the past, and this was almost certainly well-known to De Menezes.
Hence, if a gang of civilians comes rushing at you, wouldn't your first thought as a Brazilian be "Oh my god! These are mobsters who have misidentified me as a disloyal drug trafficker!"
In such a scenario, I at least, would have sprinted for my life..
 
Last edited:
  • #549
Daminc said:
The comments I made were valid at the time I made them based on what information I had at the time. As time has progressed more information has come to light which has made things a lot more dodgy.

I am aware of the military law with regards to discharging a weapon. Based on the information I had at the time (wrong information as it's turned out) then there would have been justification. However, in the military if a soldier discharges his weapon without express permission they are automatically court-martialed to give an account. If the evidence supports their justification then they are let go.
You had the exact same information as the rest of us - de Menezes was not concealing a bomb. The possibility he may have been is the ONLY justification for his killing. However, NOT based on the information you had available, more based on wishful thinking, were your many suppositions that there were behind-the-scenes dialogue and extenuating circumstances unknown to us that justified the shooting. This is WHY, as time has progressed, your assertion has proved invalid - there was no basis for it other than blind faith in the capability of our police force.

Daminc said:
1) I wasn't referring to the person who shot the victim.
2) Character assassination is pathetic which is probably why I have zero respect for politicians.
3)Callous...probably. Indecent...I'm not so sure. Is it indecent for the leaders of this country to allow the homeless to remain without homes? Was it indecent to send our boys to war? Is it indecent to have alcohol and tabacco legally available considering how many deaths are directly linked to it.
1. It was an aside comment. Notice the parentheses?
2. Agreed. And that lack of respect for politicians is why I don't swallow every bit of misinformation they cascade.
3. Well, it depends on whether you consider yourself a compassionate person or not. de Menezes' family had just lost a loved one, brutally slain for no reason. That, a compassionate person may think, is bad enough. They then had to suffer Blair's attempts at character assassination of de Menezes. If you don't consider that indecent, then...

Daminc said:
We can discuss morals and ethics if you like :wink:
... I doubt you are capable.
 
  • #550
arildno said:
So THAT's why "Hotel3" said that it was because he was fearing for the public's safety that he laid hands upon De Menezes!
That's basically a judgment that he had "evidence" for De Menezes being an immediate threat, right?
That would be news to me. In all reprints of his interview I read, he did not say he was fearing for the public's safety. Can you point me to your source?
 
  • #551
It's in this link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

Here's the relevant passage:
"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the SO19 officers. He appeared agitated and I noticed that his hands were held below his waist and slightly in front of him. The man did not stand still and advanced to within about three or four feet of myself and the SO19 officers. Assessing that I may be dealing with a terrorist subject and fearing for the safety of the public on the carriage the SO19 officers and myself, I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had previously been sitting with right hand side of my head pressed against the right hand side of his torso.
 
  • #552
I thought we'd sorted most of this out about 10 pages ago but obviously not:
You knew that De Menezes was innocent, but deemed that as irrelevant.
However, an innocent man will act differently from a guilty man
(unless you basically assume that De Menezes was mentally unstable).
No I didn't. One side was saying he's innocent the other side guilty. I didn't know for sure.
Thus, when the police description you had at your disposal tried very fervently to portray De Menezes as acting suspiciously, then you essentially concluded that De Menezes must have been insane, rather than that the official report was wrong.
As far as I knew at the time, he had ran. I think I referred to fear not insanity.
However, you also knew that De Menezes had been capable of holding a job as an electrician;
I didn't know he was an electrician at the time.
Note that one of the major facets where explicit doubts were raised here at PF was whether the police had in fact challenged him at all.
We could have accepted the chase, but NOT if the police had properly identified themselves!
It simply didn't fit
The lack of challenge and the size of the team was what first made me think about the SAS.

You had the exact same information as the rest of us - de Menezes was not concealing a bomb.
No, I didn't. I don't have time to watch TV a lot of the time so I haven't had access to all the stuff you people had.
... I doubt you are capable.
You don't know me.
 
  • #553
Daminc said:
No, I didn't. I don't have time to watch TV a lot of the time so I haven't had access to all the stuff you people had.
Ah, so you were calling for us to await the evidence that you yourself were unaware of? And at the same time hypothesising invented scenarios to justify the killing. I see. Yes, we need to be more like you. :-p

Daminc said:
You don't know me.
I don't need to, or want to. If that constitutes decent behaviour in your book then I'm glad PF is the extent of our social interaction. I didn't know Fred West... I still judge him.
 
  • #554
Daminc said:
I thought we'd sorted most of this out about 10 pages ago but obviously not:

No I didn't. One side was saying he's innocent the other side guilty. I didn't know for sure.


I didn't know he was an electrician at the time.

What time are you speaking of here, Daminc?
The police went out the day after the incident and declared the shot-down man as having no links.
You (and others) have asserted your view that De Menezes' innocence was irrelevant long after this became public, also beyond the next day after that or so, when the dead man was identified as the Brazilian electrician De Menezes.

As far as I knew at the time, he had ran. I think I referred to fear not insanity.
A fear that a sane, mentally stable, innocent man capable of holding a job would not have felt, if he had been PROPERLY challenged by the police.
Hence, by implication, your statement is supportive of the statement that De Menezes was mentally unstable.
 
  • #555
arildno said:
It's in this link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

Here's the relevant passage:
Yes, I recall. No, that does not mean there was "evidence", merely that the officer was aware of why he had been asked to follow de Menezes "he may be a terrorist suspect". That was not a conclusion of his surveillence, but the reason for it - you are misrepresenting the facts. That he was a suspected terrorist wasn't a judgement of Hotel 3.
 
  • #556
El Hombre Invisible said:
Yes, I recall. No, that does not mean there was "evidence", merely that the officer was aware of why he had been asked to follow de Menezes "he may be a terrorist suspect". That was not a conclusion of his surveillence, but the reason for it - you are misrepresenting the facts. That he was a suspected terrorist wasn't a judgement of Hotel 3.
What I meant, is that by inserting that assertion (about fearing for the safety of the public) in his testimonial, he has basically created a loop-hole through which the killers of De Menezes might wriggle themselves out of.
It is a loyalist statement, that might be used to declare the killers not guilty of murder.

If he had testified that he didn't really regard De Menezes as an immediate threat, he would basically have said that he regarded the shoot-down as wrong.

Note that I wrote "evidence", rather than evidence.
 
Last edited:
  • #557
You people should listen to yourself.

I've tried to be rational and give comments to how I understood things at the time. Because my opinions differ from yours you want to attack me and my credibility. Why is that?
Ah, so you were calling for us to await the evidence that you yourself were unaware of? And at the same time hypothesising invented scenarios to justify the killing. I see. Yes, we need to be more like you.
Do you find this funny? At any time that I made a comment I did so using the information I had at that time. Assertions were made that, as far as I was aware, didn't have any facts to back it up only circumstantial evidence and a certain amount of prejudice. I proposed circumstances that may have explained what occurred based on what I knew at the time.
I don't need to, or want to. If that constitutes decent behaviour in your book then I'm glad PF is the extent of our social interaction
Perhaps you're right. I don't take too kindly to people with no manners.
 
  • #558
arildno said:
What I meant, is that by inserting that assertion (about fearing for the safety of the public) in his testimonial, he has basically created a loop-hole through which the killers of De Menezes might wriggle themselves out of.
It is a loyalist statement, that might be used to declare the killers not guilty of murder.

If he had testified that he didn't really regard De Menezes as an immediate threat, he would basically have said that he regarded the shoot-down as wrong.

Note that I wrote "evidence", rather than evidence.
Ahhhh, the penny drops. Sorry, I have a migraine and wasn't registering irony. I guess I'm grumpy today. Yes, it does smack of not wanting to rock the boat somewhat, and the 'fearing' for safety comment sounds like he was playing up his own heroism.

To nip any schadenfreude in the bud, though, by "and he was of the view that he did not pose a threat" ought to read "and he did not survey evidence that the target posed a threat."
 
  • #559
Daminc said:
You people should listen to yourself.

I've tried to be rational and give comments to how I understood things at the time. Because my opinions differ from yours you want to attack me and my credibility. Why is that?
Perhaps you should listen to yourself. You admit you didn't have all the information before forging your opinion, and yet insist that we all should. And you haven't been above the occassional snide or rude comment yourself, even before our run-in. You've been a tad hypocritical.

Daminc said:
Do you find this funny? At any time that I made a comment I did so using the information I had at that time. Assertions were made that, as far as I was aware, didn't have any facts to back it up only circumstantial evidence and a certain amount of prejudice. I proposed circumstances that may have explained what occurred based on what I knew at the time.
And we did the same, but with more information. The difference is, when your 'proposals' did not yield fruit, you came along to tell us we wrongly prejudged anyway, that we should have waited for facts that you, clearly, did not. You can't defend your ignorance and attack ours when yours was the greater. That's the point. It's not that you were wrong, it's that you've been pontificating about bias, prejudice and ignorance but not applying it to yourself. That's all I was saying when I told you to back off with the holier than thou BS. And, no, I don't find this funny.

Daminc said:
Perhaps you're right. I don't take too kindly to people with no manners.
What can I say? Your opinions bring out the worst in me.
 
  • #560
You admit you didn't have all the information before forging your opinion, and yet insist that we all should. And you haven't been above the occassional snide or rude comment yourself, even before our run-in. You've been a tad hypocritical.
When I came up with alternative senarios it was because a few people here came out and stated there opinions as facts. I never said that my senarios were correct only that the alternative scenario was possible (based on what was know at the time).

As for snide comments...maybe. I get exasperated when people seem to be bigoted and that also brings out the worst in me.

you came along to tell us we wrongly prejudged anyway, that we should have waited for facts that you, clearly, did not.
I have waited for the facts...I'm still waiting for the rest of them.

It's not that you were wrong, it's that you've been pontificating about bias, prejudice and ignorance but not applying it to yourself. That's all I was saying when I told you to back off with the holier than thou BS.
In what manner did I not apply it to myself?
 
  • #561
Daminc said:
When I came up with alternative senarios it was because a few people here came out and stated there opinions as facts. I never said that my senarios were correct only that the alternative scenario was possible (based on what was know at the time).
And this gets back to all those posts I made about the list of 'evidence' the police cited as reasons to blow his brains out which, at the risk of getting dizzy, I will recapitulate:
1. he lived in the same block of flats as terrorist suspects (who, since then, have turned out NOT to be terrorists);
2. he was wearing a big coat (which he wasn't);
3. he looked Asian (which he didn't);
4. he ran onto the tube.
These were the known "facts", many of them fabricated, and none of them suggesting he was a suicide bomber. Your 'alternative scenarios' (or senarios as you consistently spel itt) did nothing to escape the blinding truth - there was no evidence to condemn de Menezes. You can hark on with ifs and maybes but it doesn't change the fact that there was no evidence. Notably, he was not carrying a bomb (even our government-baiting UK media would not run stories about innocent lives being lost if de Menezes had been carrying a bomb on the tube). This wasn't a grey area then and it's even more black and white now. When people said that this was an unjustified killing, they were not prejudging - based on the evidence upon which we were told de Menezes was killed he SHOULD NOT have been killed. Period. Had there been an additional claim that de Menezes was carrying something that may have concealed a bomb, you'd probably have seen less outrage on this thread. But that would have been too big a lie even for the police and home office, more comfortable with spin, to promote.

Besides, proposing alternative scenarios does not constitute 'awaiting the facts'. And your clear and repeated defense of the shoot-to-kill policy sounded like you were doing more than playing Devil's advocate.

Daminc said:
As for snide comments...maybe. I get exasperated when people seem to be bigoted and that also brings out the worst in me.
Clearly I of all people am not condemning any shortage of patience on your part. I'm merely pointing out that, on yet another topic, you reproach others for your own sins.

Daminc said:
I have waited for the facts...I'm still waiting for the rest of them.
And so are we. But nothing new has contradicted out original position. The facts as they stood told us de Menezes was wrongly killed and told us that the British public were being misinformed. The only questions now are: "who exactly is to blame" and "to what extent have we been lied to".

Daminc said:
In what manner did I not apply it to myself?
To the extent that you did not await the facts before forging your opinion that under the circumstances the police behaved appropriately. Note, again, I'm not dissing you for coming to this opinion (well, not in this paragraph), merely for telling us we prematurely came to the opposite view, the view that actually stood the test of time.
 
  • #562
Daminc said:
When I came up with alternative senarios it was because a few people here came out and stated there opinions as facts. I never said that my senarios were correct only that the alternative scenario was possible (based on what was know at the time).

As for snide comments...maybe. I get exasperated when people seem to be bigoted and that also brings out the worst in me.


I have waited for the facts...I'm still waiting for the rest of them.


In what manner did I not apply it to myself?
One thing you fail to realize Daminc.

We have as much information now if not more than Ian Blair when he went to the media on the day after the shooting and made all his announcements.

You can criticize us for our statements and judgements however, WE are not the top guys working in the UK Police or Anti-Terrorist Squads. He is.
 
  • #563
  • #564
arildno said:
That is not entirely correct, TheSmokingMan:
From this article, it seems that Blair was not told that the person shot in all likelihood was innocent until AFTER he'd gone out publicly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1745084,00.html
This does not excuse his later behaviour, though.
Sorry for the way I put it ... You said what I meant however, nobody can claim Blair know this guy was a bomber since I would imagine one of the first things to go through everyone's headset at the time would have been 'SH!T, he's not wearing a bomb!'
 
  • #565
And now the infighting starts:
Sunday newspapers said undercover officers who followed de Menezes after he came out of an apartment block they were monitoring did not believe he posed an immediate threat.

They were therefore shocked when armed police arrived at the train at Stockwell underground station in south London and shot him, the reports said, citing senior police sources.

But the armed officers maintain they would not have shot the man if he had not been openly identified to them by one of the surveillance team.

Lawyers for the de Menezes family have voiced doubts that senior police officers were not aware of the truth soon after the shooting despite Blair's protestations that it took nearly a day to confirm the mistake.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050822/ts_nm/security_britain_dc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #567
The Smoking Man said:
Sorry for the way I put it ... You said what I meant however, nobody can claim Blair know this guy was a bomber since I would imagine one of the first things to go through everyone's headset at the time would have been 'SH!T, he's not wearing a bomb!'
While Blair must right away have been informed that the person did not have a bomb on him, it does not necessarily mean that the investigating officers had found out or told him that De Menezes had no terrorist links until after Blair had gone publicly.

However, what is rather strange is that De Menezes carried his ID with him, so they knew he was a Brazilian, rather than a Middle Eastern guy.
That ought to have alerted them that they had shot a guy who in all probability had never engaged in Moslem fanatics' acts like bombing innocents.
 
  • #568
To the extent that you did not await the facts before forging your opinion that under the circumstances the police behaved appropriately. Note, again, I'm not dissing you for coming to this opinion (well, not in this paragraph), merely for telling us we prematurely came to the opposite view, the view that actually stood the test of time.
I wasn't giving my opinion as such. I was just stating a possible alternative. This whole 'argument' started because people were stating their opinions as 'facts' when, at the time, they weren't.

Two things also influenced my opinion somewhat.

1) It's an extremely rare occurance when british police shoot a civilian.

2) The SAS deploying a hunt and destroy order against the IRA.

2.1) The mention the the CCTV 'being inactive' also enforced my thought that the SAS were involved because that would be standard procedure.

The fact that your opinions have been validated over the past few days does not justify stating them as facts in the beginning.

Anyway, this doesn't really matter does it? I disagree in the way you state things and you disagree with my methods. So what? I don't know you guys and I don't want to argue with you so let's just see what happens shall we.
 
  • #570
The Smoking Man said:
Curiouser and curiouser!
I agree; most curificational.
 

Similar threads

News Man whose Web site shows pictures of war dead is arrested
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K