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

[Art]

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.

Is there perhaps some subtle ambiguity in this statement that I am overlooking?

Police admit 'tragic' error: the man we shot on the Tube was no terrorist

If not can we stop with the "he probably deserved it anyway" type of argument and just accept as the police have that they made a tragic mistake and killed an innocent man.
As to the precise circumstances in which he was shot I have already posted my view of that which is that basically if the police did have serious suspicions about him they were incompetent for allowing him to a) board a bus and b) enter the underground station. Hopefully the investigation into the shooting will determine exactly what happened.

 

[Andy]

If the guy walked into a bakery they wouldn't have reacted the same way. Because he went direct from this house to a tube station gave them reason to try and aprehend him. When he ran away that gave them grounds to believe he may have been carrying a bomb.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050724/afp/050724161625top.html]He[/PLAIN] was one of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from around the world who have moved to London in recent years amid the capital's economic boom.

Menezes had emerged from "a block of flats" that was under surveillance in Tulse Hill, Blair revealed.

Armed police raided an address in Tulse Hill Saturday after days of surveillance. The Observer newspaper said Menezes may have left the same address on Friday.

You do understand that a 'block of flats' in American English does not translate to 'house' don't you? He left an 'Apartment Building'.

 

[Evo]

Is there perhaps some subtle ambiguity in this statement that I am overlooking? If not can we stop with the "he probably deserved it anyway" type of argument and just accept as the police have that they made a tragic mistake and killed an innocent man.
As to the precise circumstances in which he was shot I have already posted my view of that which is that basically if the police did have serious suspicions about him they were incompetent for allowing him to a) board a bus and b) enter the underground station. Hopefully the investigation into the shooting will determine exactly what happened.

I agree. The whole thing was botched in any scenario. It does not make sense to wait until he entered the subway to detain him. Unless they were under orders not to detain him unless he entered (I did read that right before he entered the officers were advised to get him and do whatever was necessary, which leads me to believe that this was botched at a higher level).

The police in the UK do not have a lot of experience carrying firearms, from what I understand. This was an automatic weapon. I have read no statement from either the officer or the police stating the circumstances leading to the shots fired. Could it have been panic? Could he have accidently pulled the trigger due to the struggle? It discharged 5 times, but if the officer was panicked and his finger was taught, it would easily discharge multiple times, correct? I have fired weapons at a firing range and it is very easy to fire a gun.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If the guy walked into a bakery they wouldn't have reacted the same way. Because he went direct from this house to a tube station gave them reason to try and aprehend him. When he ran away that gave them grounds to believe he may have been carrying a bomb.

So a person on his way to work leaving from 'an apartment building' and going directly to an underground station is ample proof for you.

Let this be a lesson to us all.

Stop for a coffee on the way if anyone ever gives Andy a gun.

Question: if he had made it into the station and onto a train ... presumably a real bomber's target ... and he still had not detonated, why did they assume he was still a bomber?

Are you familiar with the police in Brazil, by the way? Maybe this guy had been socialized into a different way of thinking about 'police'? Bolting to a place where there were witnesses may be a standard procedure where he comes from? You do note he did stop once he got there. You don't pump 5 bullets into a man's head while he is still moving full tilt.

 

[Andy]

Well i read in one of the newspapers that they guy left a house not a block of flats.

I think we aint going to hear exactly what went on with this, on thursday and friday from what i heard on the radio and read in various newspapers this guy was followed from a terrorist house into the tube station where they tried to aprehend him, what was said made him sound very guilty of some terrorist activity and i don't doubt that he had links with terrorist organisations.

As Evo said the police in the UK don't have much experience with firearms which is why i suspect that the guys that did the shooting where actually secret service or SAS personnel i very much doubt that an armed police officer in this country would have taken this action. The armed police would have been a visual ditterent (sp) outside the station.

 

[Evo]

You do understand that a 'block of flats' in American English does not translate to 'house' don't you? He left an 'Apartment Building'.

It is sounding more and more like they over reacted. I understand that they are in hightened alert due to the ongoing attacks. I can see them following him and then getting concerned about the things that were adding up. It was highly suspicious, the running was the clincher, he might as well have yelled out "I'm guilty" as far as the police were concerned. If he hadn't run he would be alive right now.

I'm still curious why I haven't read an official police statement on exactly what happened. Here in the US, a statement would have been made. What exactly did the officer that fired the shots say? Has that been released?

 

[Art]

I agree. The whole thing was botched in any scenario. It does not make sense to wait until he entered the subway to detain him. Unless they were under orders not to detain him unless he entered (I did read that right before he entered the officers were advised to get him and do whatever was necessary, which leads me to believe that this was botched at a higher level).

The police in the UK do not have a lot of experience carrying firearms, from what I understand. This was an automatic weapon. I have read no statement from either the officer or the police stating the circumstances leading to the shots fired. Could it have been panic? Could he have accidently pulled the trigger due to the struggle? It discharged 5 times, but if the officer was panicked and his finger was taught, it would easily discharge multiple times, correct? I have fired weapons at a firing range and it is very easy to fire a gun.

Yes, the British police do not normally carry guns and for those that do there is serious cause to wonder just what standard of training they have been given as this is by no means an isolated incident. There have been many instances of the police in Britain shooting innocent, unarmed people. Not because they are bad or evil I hasten to add but because they are incompetent which comes down to the selection procedures whereby these individuals are chosen to be allowed to carry guns and the training they receive with regard to their use.

 

[Andy]

The tube station was just as busy at the entrance as it was in the train itself. What i was saying was that the guy was followed from a suspected terrorist house directly to the tube station.

Put yourself in the officer's position.

1, You have a house/apartement under surveilance for terrorist activity.
2, You see someone wearing a large overcoat (on a very hot day) leaving the house/apartement.
3, He walks directly to a tube station
4, When told to "STOP ARMED POLICE" he turns see's the officers and then runs away towards the train jumping a barrier.

What would you do in that situation? Answer that question honestly considering the lifes off everyone on and around that train and tell me if you would have done anything different.

 

[Evo]

Well i read in one of the newspapers that they guy left a house not a block of flats.

I also read that it was a house. TSM's post says it's a block of flats.

TSM, walking directly to a tube station (the place of the attacks) after leaving a place under surveilance, wearing a heavy coat in the dead of summer, then running from police - equals trouble any way you look at it. It all adds up to no good. I can't blame the police for thinking the worst in this scenario. I think they should have stopped him sooner, but I think they were waiting on an ok from above.

edit: wow, Andy and I are psychically linked.

 

[Andy]

There have been many instances of the police in Britain shooting innocent, unarmed people.

Name those instances, and i bet the police officer involved had a justifiable reason to shoot.

How many innocent people get shot in america?

 

[Andy]

edit: wow, Andy and I are psychically linked.

Ain't it cool.

 

[Townsend]

How many innocent people get shot in america?

Good question... I would like to know.

 

[Andy]

I would put money on it being a hell of a lot more than in the UK. Anyways, some people are in a different timezone and need to sleep.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Put yourself in the officer's position.

1, You have a house/apartement under surveilance for terrorist activity.

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/content/images/2004_1575.JPG

2, You see someone wearing a large overcoat (on a very hot day) leaving the house/apartement.

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/content/images/2004_1575.JPG and he originates from Brazil living in London ... how hot is hot?

3, He walks directly to a tube station

This is 'suspicious' in any way?

4, When told to "STOP ARMED POLICE" he turns see's the officers and then runs away towards the train jumping a barrier.

I searched yahoo for the phrase STOP ARMED POLICE but didn't get a hit. Who are you quoting?

The most eloquent testimony came from Mark Whitby, 47, a water installation engineer from Brixton, who was sitting on the Tube train reading a newspaper while it was stationary with its doors open.

He said: "I heard people shouting 'get down, get down'. An Asian guy ran on to the train and I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit - he was absolutely petrified."

He added: "The man half tripped and was then pushed to the floor by three plain-clothes police officers who were pursuing him.

"One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand.

"He held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it all. He was dead, five shots. I was literally less than five yards away."

So he was pushed to the ground by three policemen one of whom unloaded 5 bullets into his head!?

In all of this NOBODY asked the question 'Why has he not detonated yet?'

Did they think that as a bomber he wouldn't have been happy only killing three police, a subway car full of people and taking out the subway itself?

 

[Art]

Name those instances, and i bet the police officer involved had a justifiable reason to shoot.

Scotland Yard's admission that an innocent man, Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead on Friday by plain-clothed police searching for the 21 July London bombers has focused attention on the record of British firearms officers.

Jean Charles de Menezes was not the first person to die by mistake at the hands of UK armed police.

His death, which came amid heightened tension caused by a string of bomb attacks on London by Islamic extremists, is the latest in a long line of controversies involving firearms officers.
Only a month ago two Metropolitan Police officers were arrested by detectives investigating the fatal shooting of Scottish-born Harry Stanley in Hackney, east London, in 1999. Family and friends of Mr Stanley have been campaigning for the officers who shot him to face a criminal trial. There have been two inquests and two judicial reviews during the saga.
In November 2004 members of SO19, the Met's firearms unit, staged an unofficial strike in protest after two officers were suspended following the second inquest.
The Stanley case revolved around the question of whether the officers had acted correctly in shooting the 46-year-old.
They claimed they shouted: "Stop, armed police" and fired when Mr Stanley turned around while carrying a bag which they believed contained a gun. In fact it only contained a table leg.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

How many innocent people get shot in america?

I have absolutely no idea. Is this relevant to this discussion?

 

[Art]

It is sounding more and more like they over reacted. I understand that they are in hightened alert due to the ongoing attacks. I can see them following him and then getting concerned about the things that were adding up. It was highly suspicious, the running was the clincher, he might as well have yelled out "I'm guilty" as far as the police were concerned. If he hadn't run he would be alive right now.

I'm still curious why I haven't read an official police statement on exactly what happened. Here in the US, a statement would have been made. What exactly did the officer that fired the shots say? Has that been released?

In the UK the officers involved in shootings NEVER say anything and in fact are rarely even identified. All communications are chanelled through the police press section or senior officers. It is also not unknown for them to lie in the first instance until the emotion dies down and then drip feed the truth over time. As it is they are being very vague over what warning was issued if any. It is even possible that the guy just started running to catch his train.

 

[Evo]

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/content/images/2004_1575.JPG
http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/content/images/2004_1575.JPG and he originates from Brazil living in London ... how hot is hot?
This is 'suspicious' in any way?

"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

I searched yahoo for the phrase STOP ARMED POLICE but didn't get a hit. Who are you quoting?

"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

So he was pushed to the ground by three policemen one of whom unloaded 5 bullets into his head!?

In all of this NOBODY asked the question 'Why has he not detonated yet?'

Did they think that as a bomber he wouldn't have been happy only killing three police, a subway car full of people and taking out the subway itself?

It's easy to think that in hindsight, these police are inexperienced in terrorism, they're scared, their thoughts are being based on the suspicious things they are seeing that are all adding up. I can see how they reacted as they did. I think this is a problem, but it is something that can only be gained with experience. Delaying and second guessing could take many lives, but this leads to what you brought up in an earlier post. They aren't dealing with rational people, expecting a suicide bomber to be rational is unrealistic. A suicide bomber is going to detonate rather than be captured.

 

[Art]

Well i read in one of the newspapers that they guy left a house not a block of flats.

Most people reformulate their theories as new facts come along but evidently not you.

An eyewitness captures the police raid on flats in Tulse Hill in south london on saturday, flats where the man shot dead by police on Friday - Jean Charles de Menezes - had lived.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=406

I think we aint going to hear exactly what went on with this, on thursday and friday from what i heard on the radio and read in various newspapers this guy was followed from a terrorist house into the tube station where they tried to aprehend him, what was said made him sound very guilty of some terrorist activity and i don't doubt that he had links with terrorist organisations.

Since the speculative reporting of Thurs/Fri new FACTS are now available. I suggest you absorb them and reformulate your ideas. Here's yet another link for you;

Apology for family of Brazilian shot by mistake
Frank Millar, London Editor

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has admitted somebody else could be shot as a result of a national "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" policy towards suspected suicide bombers.

He was speaking after formally apologising to the family of the innocent 27-year-old Brazilian electrician shot five times through the head by officers at Stockwell tube station on Friday morning.

On Friday, Sir Ian told a press conference that the shooting was "directly linked" to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation. But in a statement issued on Saturday afternoon the Metropolitan Police admitted they had got the wrong man and that the victim, Jean Charles de Menezes, had no terrorist connection.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0725/4017495578HM1MILLAR.htmland here's another,

Police mistakenly followed Mr Menezes on Friday as he left the same apartment block as one of the men suspected of last week's attempted suicide bombing.

His death has raised questions about the adoption of a shoot-to-kill policy by British police, who issued a statement saying they had the wrong man.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets," they said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10337437

As Evo said the police in the UK don't have much experience with firearms which is why i suspect that the guys that did the shooting where actually secret service or SAS personnel i very much doubt that an armed police officer in this country would have taken this action. The armed police would have been a visual ditterent (sp) outside the station.

The FACT the metropolitan police say it was their men is irrelevant to you then. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you choose to ignore what they say too as you are ignoring all the other FACTS that don't tie in with your own personal theory.

 

[Astronuc]

edit: wow, Andy and I are psychically linked.

Please forgive me, but that's worrisome.

Actually innocent people do get shot in America - see the example of Amadou Diallo - which I posted in this thread. It would take time to dig up statistics, assuming I could find the right ones.

We still need a statement from the police that he was/was not connected in anyway with a terrorist cell.

One must consider TSM's logic - if the guy was a bomber, wouldn't he have set off the bomb if he was going to be arrested - isn't that what suicide bombers have done. He got to the train and fell down, and still didn't set of the bomb - which presumably if he had - he would have detonated it once on the carriage.

He fell down, and the police put a gun near his head and shot him 5 times. There is no sense in that!

It would appear that training for officers with guns is very poor.

One more thing, presumably de Menezes did know that the house/flat was under surveillance. All he knew was that guys with guns were after him. This in a society where police do not normally carry guns, IIRC.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Alternate Scenario ...

How many other people ran if a warning was yelled!?

Try and put yourself into the scene.

____________________________________________________________

You live in London and are getting on the tube at a station a few hundred yards against a botched attempt at a suicide bombing.

You hear the fateful words, "Stop, ARMED POLICE'.

You immediately think, 'SH!T ... There's a suicide bomber nearby.'

Your first reaction ... put distance between you and the bomber in case he goes off.

Now, since you know you are not the bomber and the subway is crowded, you KNOW they can't mean YOU.

You run.
____________________________________________________________

Questions:

How many other people ran at the time 'STOP, ARMED POLICE' was yelled? Was he the only one and if so, why should he assume he was the object of their persuit?

Why was he not 'contained' by a ring before being challenged? The scenario almost sounds like he was pursued from one direction essentially herding him in the direction of the trains.

 

[The Smoking Man]

"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

"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

Thanks Evo.

This is really strange.

I watched the interview with the Police spokesman on BBC World (Satellite) last night and he distinctly said 'flats'.

I guess we will never know, really.

One thing is for sure, if they do not release CCTV footage of the incident, we KNOW the police are covering things up.

This whole incident took place in front of a London Tube Turnstile.

To gather evidence against 'fair dodgers', EVERY turnstile is covered by CCTV so they can fine fare jumpers.

 

[The Smoking Man]

One must consider TSM's logic - if the guy was a bomber, wouldn't he have set off the bomb if he was going to be arrested - isn't that what suicide bombers have done. He got to the train and fell down, and still didn't set of the bomb - which presumably if he had - he would have detonated it once on the carriage.

He fell down, and the police put a gun near his head and shot him 5 times. There is no sense in that!

It would appear that training for officers with guns is very poor.

Thanks Astronuc.

I might also add from my previous 'eyewitness account':

He added: "The man half tripped and was then pushed to the floor by three plain-clothes police officers who were pursuing him.

"One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand.

"He held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it all. He was dead, five shots. I was literally less than five yards away

He didn't just trip. He was then pushed to the ground by three officers which included the officer who shot him at point blank range.

 

[Evo]

Thanks Evo.

This is really strange.

I watched the interview with the Police spokesman on BBC World (Satellite) last night and he distinctly said 'flats'.

I guess we will never know, really.

Well, since your link showed the police official as saying "flats", then it probably was. It would be easy to clarify, it does change how I look at things.

One thing is for sure, if they do not release CCTV footage of the incident, we KNOW the police are covering things up.

That is a major concern of mine, why haven't I been able to find the official police statement? The longer they wait to issue one, the less credibility they have with me because it gives them time to "retrofit" a scenario which exonerates them.

This whole incident took place in front of a London Tube Turnstile.

To gather evidence against 'fair dodgers', EVERY turnstile is covered by CCTV so they can fine fare jumpers.

Why hasn't this been aired? If they are telling the truth, they should be airing this. Of course this is the British, I guess I can't hold them to US standards, which took a while, and a lot of pressure from the media, to get to where it is.

 

[Art]

Thanks Evo.

This is really strange.

I watched the interview with the Police spokesman on BBC World (Satellite) last night and he distinctly said 'flats'.

I guess we will never know, really.

One thing is for sure, if they do not release CCTV footage of the incident, we KNOW the police are covering things up.

This whole incident took place in front of a London Tube Turnstile.

To gather evidence against 'fair dodgers', EVERY turnstile is covered by CCTV so they can fine fare jumpers.

Here are extracts from the latest news report from the site EVO referenced,

Final minutes of the innocent man mistaken for a terrorist
IT TOOK 26 minutes for Jean Charles de Menezes to get from his flat in Tulse Hill to the entrance of Stockwell Tube station.

There are eight separate flats in the block. When Mr Menezes emerged from the communal front door just after 9.30am, the police must have realized from the photographs they carried that he was not one of the four bombers. Even so they decided that he was “a likely candidate” to follow because of his demeanour and colour, so one group set off on foot after him.

By far the most controversial claim comes from a number of witnesses who have cast doubt on police statements that they shouted a warning or identified themselves to the suspect before opening fire.

Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout “police” or anything like it. Mr Ruston, a construction company director, said that he saw two of the officers put on their blue baseball caps marked “police” but that the frightened electrician could not have seen that happen because he had his back to the officers and was running with his head down.

Mr Ruston remembers one of the Scotland Yard team screaming into a radio as they were running. Mr Ruston thought the man that they were chasing “looked Asian” as he tumbled on to a waiting Northern Line train.

Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.

Again, Mr Ruston says that no verbal warning was given.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html
And here is a good opinion piece from Tim Hames in the same newspaper;

Oops, sorry, won't do. We can't just shrug our shoulders over this shooting

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-1707225,00.html

 

[alexandra]

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.

I know, El Hombre - figured it out subconsciously in my sleep (this has really, really gotten at me; I can't even forget about it in my sleep) and woke up and edited straight away! The news was such a shock yesterday - every single news report I read, heard and saw on TV said that Jean Charles de Menezes had absolutely no connection to any terrorist organisation (I see some people still doubt that). At least there is some debate about this 'shoot-to-kill' policy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711769.stm

 

[The Smoking Man]

Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html

My god!

I was hesitating saying that because I had not backed it up.

So the two held him down while he was executed.

Let this be a lesson to all you fair dodgers out there!

On the trains they have ads trying to embarrass people by saying they will have a criminal record if they don't pay their fares.

Executions will probably drop the incidence of fare dodging quite a bit further.

 

[Townsend]

My god!

Very sad...

Five shots is what bothers me. What the heck is the point in dumping five rounds into someone's head? I mean...two shots in the base of the skull is more than enough to kill anyone.

Well, at least he didn't have to suffer any pain...I guess if I was to be killed for nothing I would want it to be quick and painless too.

 

[alexandra]

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'

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

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

Thanks for these links, Art. The least we can acknowledge now that the innocent man is dead is his innocence. How unfair that he should have been killed and then still be accussed of having been somehow guilty of something, even after the officials have publicly declared he was not. In all reports I heard and read yesterday authorities clearly proclaimed that Jean Charles de Menezes was innocent; in my opinion, it is disrespectful to both the victim and his family to besmirch his good name after such an injustice has already been done.

 

[Smurf]

Well, at least he didn't have to suffer any pain...I guess if I was to be killed for nothing I would want it to be quick and painless too.

Yeah, I guess you could call being terrified into running from armed men and getting tackled onto the floor of an underground station quick and painless.