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

[DM]

Alexandra

Please provide me with a URL to where it is stated that the officers pursuing the young man shouted who they were - is this what they shouted, in any case? Or did they just shout 'Stop!'. Would YOU stop if people with guns were chasing you?

You're right, I haven't read it in any credible source, but this is something in which I at least automatically assumed.

Alexandra

2. What do you (or anyone else) think "unable to comply" means? Why was he "unable to comply"? Was it because he did not know English very well? It is just a really oddly-worded statement. Perhaps if I read the whole news report (if that is where you got your information) the context will give me a clue as to the meaning of this statement.

It means that he failed to heed to police instructions, also notice that the killed innocent had inhabitated in London for the past 3 years. So in terms of communication, I gather he was able to speak the language.

Alexandra

The shooting gives this impression?

Are you implying the officers barbarically shooted the man without any motive? Is racism your view as to why this has happened?

Alexandra

He could have been wearing it for any number of reasons. In any case, whatever the reason – in a civilised society one does not get shot dead on the grounds of what one is wearing – in a barbaric society, anything goes.

Given the circumstances in which the event unfolded, I cannot agree.

Alexandra

That an ordinary civilian would panic when approached by a group of armed men. And we have not yet established whether or not he was instructed to stop, or whether or not he heard/understood the instruction, or whether he knew they were policemen.

To panic in such a way is, in my opinion, almost implausible. Surely, despite the absence of credible intelligence, the man had a serious motive or reason to run away. You claim he was scared, I have my doubts. I have yet to reach an opinion concerning his fugitive behaviour.

 

[alexandra]

An important clarification

It has just occurred to me that I have not made my position clear on one important issue: what it is that I consider to be barbaric. I am not calling the individual policeman/policemen (I'm not sure if only one policeman did the shooting) concerned barbaric - on the contrary, I empathise completely with the position this individual (these individuals) were in. What I consider to be barbaric is the 'shoot-to-kill' policy. I consider this barbaric because, until now, I have lived in a society in which people are considered innocent until proven (by legal institutions) guilty. I seem to be a bit 'behind the times' now, when things seem to have changed and guilt is assumed from the beginning. I guess they'll be changing the laws sometime soon to reflect this (or perhaps they already have - I suppose they have, in effect, if the policy being adopted is 'shoot-to-kill'). In any case, I don't blame the individuals concerned in this case; it could have happened to anyone put in that position.

 

[alexandra]

You're right, I haven't read it in any credible source, but this is something in which I at least automatically assumed.

Ok, DM - thanks for looking for the information, though. Perhaps we'll find out more details over time.

It means that he failed to heed to police instructions, also notice that the killed innocent had inhabitated in London for the past 3 years. So in terms of communication, I gather he was able to speak the language.

I guess he was able to speak the language, DM.

Are you implying the officers barbarically shooted the man without any motive? Is racism your view as to why this has happened?

Ah, no, I did not mean the officers were barbaric. Thanks for raising this so clearly - it's what made me realize how that statement I made could be misunderstood. I've clarified my position in the post just before this one. I meant the 'shoot-to-kill' policy is barbaric. Well, in my opinion it is barbaric - but obviously many people disagree with me. Never mind, it's just my opinion (I'm no great authority; I'm just stating what I think about these things).

To panic in such a way is, in my opinion, almost implausible. Surely, despite the absence of credible intelligence, the man had a serious motive or reason to run away. You claim he was scared, I have my doubts. I have yet to reach an opinion concerning his fugitive behaviour.

Sorry, DM, I continue to disagree with you about this. I would be terrified if I were in that situation. I have absolutely no doubts about that. And I would be even more terrified if I were living in a country where the language was my second language - say, for example, in France, or Germany. In moments of panic and terror, I imagine I may not cope with the second language. But anyway, it's no big deal - we can disagree about this. People will disagree in a discussion. As you can tell, this issue has really just gotten to me in a bad way. I can't help thinking about the waste - in the photos he looked like a really nice person. And he was totally innocent, and only 27 years old...

 

[DM]

Alexandra

But anyway, it's no big deal - we can disagree about this. People will disagree in a discussion.

Oh yes, absolutelly. In fact I don't like certain members who disagree and quarrel over a subject just so they culminate in being the right one. I'm not zealous in dogmatism, there's no point in being a bigot. I respect everyones opinions as long as they respect mine.

 

[Astronuc]

From what I heard from an eyewitness who saw the police shoot Jean Charles de Menezes and was interviewed by the BBC, de Menezes had fallen on the floor of the carriage. The police brought the gun up and shot de Menzes 5 times in the back of the head! 5 times!

If de Menzes was a bomber, he could have set the bomb off when he got on the carriage - but no, he didn't. He fell. That fact gives reasonable doubt that he was a bomber.

If this is the case, then the killing was unjustified!

 

[Evo]

According to this article the police did identify themselves. "When they drew their weapons and shouted “Stop, armed police”, the man looked over his shoulder and bolted. He was described as being very fit and agile."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147,00.html

"Another witness said that the suspect boarded the Tube and attempted to take a hostage before he was shot.

Dan Copeland, a Northern Line passenger, told BBC News: “The man burst in through the carriage door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me."

also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm

 

[Astronuc]

"Another witness said that the suspect boarded the Tube and attempted to take a hostage before he was shot."

Or having done nothing wrong, i.e. he is innocent (as the police now admit) and he is panicked because guys with guns are trying to kill him (quite possibly in his mind), he takes cover behind another person.

One who have never had a gun in one's face probably does not understand.

 

[Evo]

Or having done nothing wrong, i.e. he is innocent (as the police now admit) and he is panicked because guys with guns are trying to kill him (quite possibly in his mind), he takes cover behind another person.

One who have never had a gun in one's face probably does not understand.

I believe they are saying he's innocent of carrying a bomb, it appears that he had connections to a terrorist cell and had been followed as he left a house under surveilance. He was running from them because he was guilty of associating with suspected terrorists.

July 23, 2005

Suspect shot dead 'had no bomb'
By Adam Fresco, Rajeev Syal and Steve Bird

ARMED undercover police chased and shot dead a man directly linked to the London bombers’ terror cell after he ran into a South London Underground station and tried to board a train.

It is understood that he was found not to have been carrying a bomb.

Three officers had followed him to Stockwell station after he emerged from a nearby house that police believed to be connected with Thursday’s attempted bombings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147,00.html

 

[Andy]

and who said British are coolheaded/composed in difficult times ?

If the guys wherent cool headed they would have opened fire when he was running away and possibly killed other civilians.

Fact, 1 The police followed this guy from a house that was under surveillance because of suspected terrorist activity.

2, The armed officers shouted "Stop, armed police"

3, The guy ran away and jumped the ticket booth.

If they hadnt shot him and he had been carrying a bomb then there could have been many more deaths. To be honest i think those guys did their job and they did it well.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe they are saying he's innocent of carrying a bomb, it appears that he had connections to a terrorist cell and had been followed as he left a house under surveilance. He was running from them because he was guilty of associating with suspected terrorists.

I have heard that the house/building from which de Menezes exited was under surveillance. It is not clear now that de Menezes himself was considered a suspect.

He was described as 'Asian' in appearance - but he is Brazilian.

Although perhaps police in London assume anyone with dark skin . . .

I have a big problem with terms like 'judged', 'suspected', 'believed' - especially when deadly force is involved.

The Times UK does apparently claim the suspect has been directly linked to a terrorist cell. I'll reserve judgement pending confirmation.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Surely being a sniper, you have to be better at your job than anyone else. I mean, I'm a programmer. If I coded the wrong business rule, no-one's going to pat me on the shoulder amd say "you did the right thing under the circumstances". And people always complain about the weatherman getting it wrong. Surely killing the wrong person cannot be dismissed with a "... under the circumstances...". WHAT circumstances - like, not knowing who the guy was? Not knowing if he was a terrorist carrying a bomb or some Brazillian back-packer? Yeah, under those circumstances, leave the fugging safety on.

Although, Alexandra: it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot-on-sight policy. As far as I'm aware we haven't quite gone that way yet, but give it a couple of weeks.

 

[loseyourname]

I should have the right to wear a "thick padded coat" and enter a subway that is open for public access without being shot by the police.

But you do have that right. It's not written into British law that you will be shot if you wear a heavy coat on the subway in the summertime. I would venture the guess that there is no systematic effort to stem such behavior, either. This just sounds like a rogue cop did something stupid. It only becomes a civil liberties issue if the government sanctions this kind of thing. From the looks of it, they're condemning it, officially reaffirming that yes, you do have the right to wear a heavy coat on the subway in the summertime.

 

[Joel]

This just sounds like a rogue cop did something stupid. It only becomes a civil liberties issue if the government sanctions this kind of thing.

After page 1 in this thread I thought this is the most important comment that has to be made, but alas, you where there first. I also think it of outmost importance to remember that the british government has not sanctioned this killing and we are yet to see what kind of actions this will lead to. I don't think Britain should be declared a police state yet.

 

[Art]

I believe they are saying he's innocent of carrying a bomb, it appears that he had connections to a terrorist cell and had been followed as he left a house under surveilance. He was running from them because he was guilty of associating with suspected terrorists.

July 23, 2005

Suspect shot dead 'had no bomb'
By Adam Fresco, Rajeev Syal and Steve Bird

ARMED undercover police chased and shot dead a man directly linked to the London bombers’ terror cell after he ran into a South London Underground station and tried to board a train.

It is understood that he was found not to have been carrying a bomb.

Three officers had followed him to Stockwell station after he emerged from a nearby house that police believed to be connected with Thursday’s attempted bombings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147,00.html

BLAIR SORRY OVER SHOOTING

Britain's senior policeman has apologised to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian man shot dead at Stockwell Station. "This is a tragedy. The Metropolitan Police accepts full responsibility for this. To the family I can only express my deep regrets," Sir Ian Blair told Sunday with Adam Boulton on Sky News.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190065,00.html It appears as the police now accept he was innocent of anything to do with terrorism perhaps some posters on this thread should also accept he was innocent.
This was a cock up by the police and needs investigating to find out how it was allowed to happen. One question I have is why was he allowed to leave the suspect house, walk to a bus stop, board a bus and enter an underground station before being challenged?? If he had been a suicide bomber this incompetence would have meant many lives would have been lost. By leaving it until he was inside the station to apprehend him the police themselves created the high pressure situation that led to them shooting an innocent man dead.

 

[BobG]

Although, Alexandra: it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot-on-sight policy. As far as I'm aware we haven't quite gone that way yet, but give it a couple of weeks.

Yes, it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot on sight policy.

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Anti-terrorist police have a policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. At its most extreme, it involves shooting at the head

Armed officers in England and Wales aim at the chest, but bombers hit in the chest can still trigger explosives

Once a person is judged a serious risk to the public armed police can open fire

They can only open fire while on duty when absolutely necessary and when traditional methods have tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed

Police are expected to identify themselves as armed officers and warn of their intent to use firearms

They must give sufficient time for a suspect to observe the warning, unless that puts anyone at risk

I love the third and the last ground rule. How sure does the officer have to be before shooting? Is 50/50 equivalent to "serious risk" when the man is headed into a subway carrying maybe 50 people or more? Or does the officer just have to be more than 2% sure? Or does he have to be 100% sure even though that guarantees virtually all attacks will be successful?

Of course, the officer doesn't have time to come up with numbers like 5%, 50%, or 90%, which is the only reason ambiguous terms like "serious risk" and "puts anyone at risk" make any sense. He reacts the best he can, hopes he made the right decision, then analyzes the situation after the fact to figure out what he did right and what he did wrong.

 

[Evo]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190065,00.html It appears as the police now accept he was innocent of anything to do with terrorism perhaps some posters on this thread should also accept he was innocent.

This says no such thing, his link with the suspected terrorists is being investigated, the "tragedy" and "mistake" was assuming that he was a bomber, or that he was one of the four that they were searching for. He's still under suspicion of being linked with the terrorists.

 

[Art]

This says no such thing, his link with the suspected terrorists is being investigated, the "tragedy" and "mistake" was assuming that he was a bomber, or that he was one of the four that they were searching for. He's still under suspicion of being linked with the terrorists.

You are wrong. In the interview which I watched in full on TV the police accept unreservedly he had no links whatsoever to terrorism.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke described the shooting of Mr Menezes as an "absolute tragedy".

Mr Menezes, who lived in Tulse Hill, was completely unconnected to Thursday's attempted bombings, Scotland Yard has confirmed.

The shooting is being investigated by Scotland Yard's Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

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

 

[Andy]

bollocks, the officers followed the guy from a house under investigation for terrorism, that would appear to be a link right there. I very much doubt the guys that did the shooting where actually police officers, more likely secret service or SAS and they where in constant radio contact with their superiors. The shoot for the head policy has been in place for the past 3 years ever since the british governement has been advised by the isreali governement that aiming for the body could set off any explosive device.

 

[Evo]

That could be my misunderstanding of exactly what they are saying. I read it to say that he wasn't tied to last Thursday's attempts, not that they have completely ruled out any connections to suspected terrorists. If when they complete the investigation it is discovered that he had no ties at all, it still doesn't mean it is anything more than one officer using bad judgement and/or panicking. Unfortunately this happens.

 

[Andy]

i read in one of the british newspapers that the officers had followed the guy from a terrorist house, he may have been unconnected to thursdays attempts but he was still followed from a house under surveilence for the suspicion of terrorism.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes, it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot on sight policy.

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Anti-terrorist police have a policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. At its most extreme, it involves shooting at the head

Armed officers in England and Wales aim at the chest, but bombers hit in the chest can still trigger explosives

Once a person is judged a serious risk to the public armed police can open fire

They can only open fire while on duty when absolutely necessary and when traditional methods have tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed

Police are expected to identify themselves as armed officers and warn of their intent to use firearms

They must give sufficient time for a suspect to observe the warning, unless that puts anyone at risk

Is it just me or does this make no sense at all?

So the police identify themselves ... If they do this to a real bomber, won't he now just detonate as soon as the warning is yelled?

The only people they are going to get to 'shoot repeatedly in the head' ARE innocents who CAN'T detonate a bomb.

Shoot to kill will only stop a bomber if a warning is NOT yelled.

A real bomber is going to either detonate as soon as he hears the warning or comply and allow the police to approach and THEN detonate so he can kill the police who threaten him.

This is the biggest Catch-22 since the original was described to Yosarian himself.

The new approach to this is going to be to apply a 'deadman' switch... a switch that constantly must remain depressed by the bomber that, when released, detonates.

Shoot him in the head and he let's go.

 

[Art]

Just how many times do the British police have to say this man was innocent before others accept it? Seems like more of the usual 'never let facts stand in the way of a good theory'

A rainy, grey Sunday in south London but after police shot dead a man in an incident they are now calling a "tragedy", the atmosphere felt far from normal.

Maria Arbelaez said she now feels less secure in London

The streets of Stockwell are quiet, with a few people waiting for buses and others striding under umbrellas towards the Tube station.

At the station itself, where Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was killed by police hunting Thursday's would-be bombers, the atmosphere was muted, a mixture of sadness and anger.

Scotland Yard has now said Mr Menezes, who lived in nearby Tulse Hill, was completely unconnected to the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712961.stm

Police admit 'tragic' error: the man we shot on the Tube was no terrorist By Andrew Alderson, Charlotte Edwardes and David Harrison
(Filed: 24/07/2005)

Scotland Yard was facing a severe crisis last night after it admitted that the man shot dead at Stockwell Tube station on Friday morning had no links to terrorist attacks on the capital.

The victim, a Brazilian, was shot five times in the head as he ran on to an Underground train pursued by armed officers, including members of SO19, Scotland Yard's specialist firearms unit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/24/ixportaltop.html

 

[Andy]

Thats assuming that the suicide bomber is smart and its pretty obvious they aint.

 

[Andy]

He's innocent of not carrying a bomb on him, but not innocent of terrorist activity. Did the officers know that at the time? nope. They had to do what they did just incase he was carrying a bomb and when all the evidence suggests he may have been carrying a bomb what else could they do?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Thats assuming that the suicide bomber is smart and its pretty obvious they aint.

Ummm ... How 'smart' do you have to be to run a deadman switch if the very trigger is that it goes off when you ARE shot in the head?

See, the thing is, that suicide bombers don't actually make the bombs.

I heard a description of how they found a Palestinian 'cache' of vests hung on a garment rack like you find in the garment district of NY. They knew how many vests were out there by the number of empty hangers there were on the rack.

 

[Art]

He's innocent of not carrying a bomb on him, but not innocent of terrorist activity. Did the officers know that at the time? nope. They had to do what they did just incase he was carrying a bomb and when all the evidence suggests he may have been carrying a bomb what else could they do?

Really, Have you read ANY of the links I provided? Do you think the police are lying when they say the man is innocent? If so would you share your 'reasoning' as to why they are lying, with the rest of us?

 

[Evo]

Just how many times do the British police have to say this man was innocent before others accept it? Seems like more of the usual 'never let facts stand in the way of a good theory'

Their reason to go after him was based on the belief that he was carrying a bomb and/or a suspect from last Thursday. All I have seen them apologize for is their mistake on that belief. They would not have been given the "go ahead" if he was just suspected of having ties, which I believe is still the case. We don't know at this point. The police went on the fact that he left a house connected to suspects and he acted suspiciously, and he fled when they identified themselves. Ok, he acted stupid, not a reason to be shot, but if you act stupid under these circumstances, you are likely to wind up shot. Did the officer have reason to shoot? I don't know, I wasn't there.

I had a police officer pull a loaded gun on me in my own house, I froze, I'm not stupid, or guilty, so I had no reason to not freeze. (they thought possibly someone had broken into my house, it was a mistake) I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to run from police in the subway after what happened a few days ago.

 

[Andy]

If they where that smart they would plant the bombs and then walk away before they detonate. And if they where even smarter they might try to negotiate to get the things they want.

And yes i have read your links and all they confirm is that he didnt have a bomb, what they don't say is that he was followed from a house directly linked with terrorism.

 

[Andy]

ditto to what evo said, i would have said that but she's smarter than me.

 

[Evo]

Is it just me or does this make no sense at all?

So the police identify themselves ... If they do this to a real bomber, won't he now just detonate as soon as the warning is yelled?

The only people they are going to get to 'shoot repeatedly in the head' ARE innocents who CAN'T detonate a bomb.

Shoot to kill will only stop a bomber if a warning is NOT yelled.

A real bomber is going to either detonate as soon as he hears the warning or comply and allow the police to approach and THEN detonate so he can kill the police who threaten him.

This is the biggest Catch-22 since the original was described to Yosarian himself.

The new approach to this is going to be to apply a 'deadman' switch... a switch that constantly must remain depressed by the bomber that, when released, detonates.

Shoot him in the head and he let's go.

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you.