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

[DM]

Smurf

No... Not a 'wrong doing' at all. You were totally right DM. Good Catch.

Validate your derision, please. I have heard in the news, two eye-witnesses, unequivocally stating that the "police shot 5 times".

 

[brewnog]

BBC news today says that it's since been discovered that 8 shots were fired, not 5.

I'll try and link you up.


Edit:

Here you go.

Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, at Stockwell Tube station, south London, on Friday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

 

[Art]

Smurf


Validate your derision, please. I have heard in the news, two eye-witnesses, unequivocally stating that the "police shot 5 times".

SHOT SEVEN TIMES IN HEAD

Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes was shot eight times by anti-terror police at Stockwell Tube station.

An inquest opened into the death of the 27-year-old at Southwark Coroner's Court heard he was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13394581,00.html

 

[Smurf]

Smurf


Validate your derision, please. I have heard in the news, two eye-witnesses, unequivocally stating that the "police shot 5 times".

Because it would be such a huge difference if it was discovered that was a lie. 5 Times is totally acceptable, don't you agree?

 

[brewnog]

I don't see the problem with 5, or even 8 bullets.

If you're shooting to kill as quickly as possible, what's a few extra bullets?

 

[DM]

Smurf

Because it would be such a huge difference if it was discovered that was a lie. 5 Times is totally acceptable, don't you agree?

To your question:

Hence why officers who believe persons are a terrorist threat are required to "kill the brain" with 5 shots to the head.

 

[Smurf]

I don't see the problem with 5, or even 8 bullets.

If you're shooting to kill as quickly as possible, what's a few extra bullets?

It's the shooting to kill in the first place that disgusts me. I'm insulted by DM's claim this is not a 'wrong doing' at all. An Innocent man gets killed for no reason by the police who are supposed to be protecting him. If that happened in my town I'd be down town egging the police station right now. I'm shocked how people can take this stuff so calmly, not only accepting it, but defending these acts. It's disgusting.

 

[Smurf]

To your question:

Hence why officers who believe persons are a terrorist threat are required to "kill the brain" with 5 shots to the head.

Yeah... Again, doesn't change a single thing, an innocent man still got his head blown off.

 

[brewnog]

It's the shooting to kill in the first place that disgusts me. I'm insulted by DM's claim this is not a 'wrong doing' at all. An Innocent man gets killed for no reason by the police who are supposed to be protecting him. If that happened in my town I'd be down town egging the police station right now. I'm shocked how people can take this stuff so calmly, not only accepting it, but defending these acts. It's disgusting.

It's very sad that an innocent man was killed. I'm sure that no amount of sympathy will console his family.

However, I firmly stand by the actions of the police, and firmly support the shoot-to-kill policy which has been introduced for these circumstances. Obviously we don't have a full story yet, but suggestions have been that the man was knowingly running from armed police (for reasons which have been suggested), and had failed to comply with their demands.

If this had happened differently, and the suspect had detonated a bomb on that train, those highly trained police officers would have had hell to pay for not doing what they did on Friday. It's just a great shame that an innocent man died.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Nothing is really fair enough...

 

[DM]

Smurf

I'm insulted by DM's claim this is not a 'wrong doing' at all. An Innocent man gets killed for no reason by the police who are supposed to be protecting him.

What? don't manipulate information.

Delta

When told to "stop, armed police" he began to jump the barriers and run (why the hell run from armed police in this state of climate especially considering how often tube trains arrive at the station)

My response:

Precisely the reason I don't construe this as "barbaric" or "wrong doing".

The police was alarmed by his behaviour, hence were led to believe he could've been a potential terrorist after he was challanged. This is not wrong doing.

Yeah... Again, doesn't change a single thing, an innocent man still got his head blown off.

Yes, very regrattably an innocent man has been killed but this does not overule the fact at the time of considering him as a potential terrorist where hundreds could've been killed.

 

[DM]

brewnog

It's very sad that an innocent man was killed. I'm sure that no amount of sympathy will console his family.

However, I firmly stand by the actions of the police, and firmly support the shoot-to-kill policy which has been introduced for these circumstances. Obviously we don't have a full story yet, but suggestions have been that the man was knowingly running from armed police (for reasons which have been suggested), and had failed to comply with their demands.

If this had happened differently, and the suspect had detonated a bomb on that train, those highly trained police officers would have had hell to pay for not doing what they did on Friday. It's just a great shame that an innocent man died.

Totally agree.

 

[Art]

It's very sad that an innocent man was killed. I'm sure that no amount of sympathy will console his family.

However, I firmly stand by the actions of the police, and firmly support the shoot-to-kill policy which has been introduced for these circumstances. Obviously we don't have a full story yet, but suggestions have been that the man was knowingly running from armed police (for reasons which have been suggested), and had failed to comply with their demands.

Seeing as how apart from an initial flurry of misinformation, the police have been extremely reticent in providing any information in regard to their brutal execution of this innocent man it is hard to see how you can claim to "firmly stand by the actions of the police"??
Is this part of the new pre-emptive philosophy? We've had pre-emptive wars, pre-emptive executions and now pre-emptive exonerations. So hundreds of years of law just gets flushed down the toilet?

 

[Delta]

We seem to be getting mixed reports over when he started running and if the police actually did give warning. A classic case of chinese whispers I think.

All I know is I wouldn't trust the news reports of other countries ( e.g. sky news or CNN). And of the news reports of the UK I would put my beliefs in eye witness accounts (below) over police press conferences. And that still leads to suspicious circumstances by the victim.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=400
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=399
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

Smurf

An Innocent man gets killed

. Only in hindsight. The police could have let the person on the train and allowed another 56 or more to be killed.

This is a very regretable mistake but in light of what could've of happened ...

 

[DM]

Art

Is this part of the new pre-emptive philosophy? We've had pre-emptive wars, pre-emptive executions and now pre-emptive exonerations. So hundreds of years of law just gets flushed down the toilet?

I fail to comprehend, Art, why you regard this as an exonoration. The police conducted the enshrined policy, there are no culprits. Furthermore 'pre-emptive' is indeed the appropriate the term.

 

[Art]

And of the news reports of the UK I would put my beliefs in eye witness accounts (below) over police press conferences. And that still leads to suspicious circumstances by the victim.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=400
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=399
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

Yes eye witness reports are always so reliable

Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".

 

[stoned]

BBC says that this poor Brazilian had expired visa. so now they gona kill lots of people there.

 

[Art]

Art
I fail to comprehend, Art, why you regard this as an exonoration. The police conducted the enshrined policy, there are no culprits. Furthermore 'pre-emptive' is indeed the appropriate the term.

Brewnog claimed

However, I firmly stand by the actions of the police

Despite a dearth of actually facts surrounding both the actions and the circumstances he is exonerating the police of culpability whilst not having a clue whether they were justified or not. In fact the longer it goes without the police making a formal statement backed by video footage of such things as the victim 'jumping the ticket barrier' etc. the more suspicious it becomes that the police are now operating in coverup mode.

 

[Art]

BBC says that this poor Brazilian had expired visa. so now they gona kill lots of people there.

This is an example of the unsubstantiated, unattributed comments the police are leaking to the media to try and set the scene to accord with how they want people to believe this execution went down.

These are the exact same tactics the police used to obfuscate their blinding incompetence during the Hillsborough stadium disastor when the police officer in charge informally briefed the press with the appalling lie that the Notts Forest fans looted the bodies of the dead Liverpool fans. He admitted during the inquiry that he invented this to deflect the public's anger from his officers.

 

[Delta]

Ok, I feel a poll coming on here.

 

[stoned]

so, if british now execute people for visa violations, i wonder what are penalties for parking infringements ?

 

[The Smoking Man]

It's very sad that an innocent man was killed. I'm sure that no amount of sympathy will console his family.

However, I firmly stand by the actions of the police, and firmly support the shoot-to-kill policy which has been introduced for these circumstances. Obviously we don't have a full story yet, but suggestions have been that the man was knowingly running from armed police (for reasons which have been suggested), and had failed to comply with their demands.

If this had happened differently, and the suspect had detonated a bomb on that train, those highly trained police officers would have had hell to pay for not doing what they did on Friday. It's just a great shame that an innocent man died.

There are a few things that are reprehensible about this whole thing that few people take into consideration.

This has been expressed in an Iraqi news service:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/2074.shtml]What[/PLAIN] is already known, therefore, is that almost 24 hours before they saw de Menezes emerge from his house, police had put it under surveillance based on information they found at the scene of one of the attempted bombings at lunchtime the day before. If the overriding goal of the police is to prevent further attacks, why did they not raid the house right away? They might have discovered sooner what they found out too late -- that de Menezes was totally uninvolved in any terrorist plot. The police clearly had more than a "split-second" to act and they need to explain why they did not act.

That was an analysis of people who face bombings on a daily basis.

This person was spotted leaving a house and followed for all the reasons described.

Why was he not challenged while he was not near a populated area?

In Evo's link, witnesses stated that the police did not identify themselves vocally but put on their blue baseball caps.

Some of you have stated he rode a bus to the station ... Nope. But even if he had, this was a target on a previous bombing. Don't you remember the top ripped off a London bus a few days earlier?

The padded coat is now a 'fleece jacket' ... Translation ... Sweatshirt for you Americans. He was wearing a baseball cap, sweatshirt and a pair of baggy pants.

They say they challenged him while he stood in a line to purchase tickets on the tube. So ... that means he was surrounded by probably 20 people at one of 4 ticket machines minimum. Why didn't he detonate.

Why wasn't he shot going down the escalators? If he ran down them, there was nobody else on them. Anyone else ever run for the tube before?

One of you has stated they shot him because a train was entering the station ... no, he was shot ON THE TRAIN.

When they speak of a 'toroso shot' vs. a 'head shot' they are talking about over a distance... sniping him. In this case, they had control of his person. Two police were holding him down while the shot between 5 and 8 bullets into him.

One of you has described the handgun as a Glock 18 set to fully automatic. Have you seen one of these things? http://www.glock.com/g18.htm So tell me what kind of a jacket the plain clothes policeman was wearing to hide this thing that he criticises the suspect.

Also ... FULLY AUTOMATIC ... In a TUBE STATION? A head shot is a precisions shot, not something that is squeezed off with a fully automatic handgun. If there is fear of detonating explosives or shooting bystanders, why fully automatic?

Try an experiment right now. Cock your finger 8 times and see how long it takes. Your finger must travel a full half inch and exert 2.5kg pressure.

I just heard a repoet on Fox News ... they jokingly said, "There are more cameras in these tube stations than they are in this building".

Yeah? So where are all the pictures to back up the story of the police?

Now, about the nature of the explosives ... So far, all the explosives have been delivered in napsacks containing a 1.5 gallon tupperware container for the liquid explosive. EVERY BOMBING WITHOUT EXCEPTION. So did the police suddenly think they got access to better explosives and technology? If so, again, why did they not raid the premesis 24 hours earlier when they had secured the address?

 

[Andy]

I think everyone should stop assuming that what they read or hear about this story is correct, the truth about this will never come out now.

And the reason why i brought up how many innocent people get shot in america is because your police officers are supposed to be some of the best but i bet they still make mistakes.

Art, your long list of incidents happens to contain two incidents and that's including this one. Like to show me some more? i doubt you will find that many and with the few that you do find you will also be able to see how the officers could have made a mistake in the heat of the moment.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think everyone should stop assuming that what they read or hear about this story is correct, the truth about this will never come out now.

And the reason why i brought up how many innocent people get shot in america is because your police officers are supposed to be some of the best but i bet they still make mistakes.

Art, your long list of incidents happens to contain two incidents and that's including this one. Like to show me some more? i doubt you will find that many and with the few that you do find you will also be able to see how the officers could have made a mistake in the heat of the moment.

Not quite Andy.

In the UK, CCTV especially in the tube station ensures that every one of these incidents is yet another 'Rodney King' video.

Until the video is released, the police will always be considered to be covering-up.

 

[Andy]

Funnily enough i know all about the CCTV in the UK, i happen to live here. And i can almost guarantee that thos video tapes are locked away somewhere nice and safe until the 'authorities' decide to let it see the light of day. Snapshots will probably be released but nothing to give people enough information to see what went on.

 

[Art]

I think everyone should stop assuming that what they read or hear about this story is correct, the truth about this will never come out now.

Do you mean one should disbelieve anything that contradicts your theories or do you mean in general, irrelevant of the source? Should we not believe for instance this whole incident ever happened?
I agree the truth probably never will come out.

And the reason why i brought up how many innocent people get shot in america is because your police officers are supposed to be some of the best but i bet they still make mistakes.

My police officers? This is a quintessential example of how you reach conclusions without any supporting facts. I am not american and nor do I reside in America.

Art, your long list of incidents happens to contain two incidents and that's including this one. Like to show me some more? i doubt you will find that many and with the few that you do find you will also be able to see how the officers could have made a mistake in the heat of the moment.

Andy the quote;

the latest in a long line of controversies involving firearms officers

came from the BBC. Here's the link (again) if you wish to research further http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

 

[Smurf]

There are a few things that are reprehensible about this whole thing that few people take into consideration.

This has been expressed in an Iraqi news service:That was an analysis of people who face bombings on a daily basis.

This person was spotted leaving a house and followed for all the reasons described.

Why was he not challenged while he was not near a populated area?

In Evo's link, witnesses stated that the police did not identify themselves vocally but put on their blue baseball caps.

Some of you have stated he rode a bus to the station ... Nope. But even if he had, this was a target on a previous bombing. Don't you remember the top ripped off a London bus a few days earlier?

The padded coat is now a 'fleece jacket' ... Translation ... Sweatshirt for you Americans. He was wearing a baseball cap, sweatshirt and a pair of baggy pants.

They say they challenged him while he stood in a line to purchase tickets on the tube. So ... that means he was surrounded by probably 20 people at one of 4 ticket machines minimum. Why didn't he detonate.

Why wasn't he shot going down the escalators? If he ran down them, there was nobody else on them. Anyone else ever run for the tube before?

One of you has stated they shot him because a train was entering the station ... no, he was shot ON THE TRAIN.

When they speak of a 'toroso shot' vs. a 'head shot' they are talking about over a distance... sniping him. In this case, they had control of his person. Two police were holding him down while the shot between 5 and 8 bullets into him.

One of you has described the handgun as a Glock 18 set to fully automatic. Have you seen one of these things? http://www.glock.com/g18.htm So tell me what kind of a jacket the plain clothes policeman was wearing to hide this thing that he criticises the suspect.

Also ... FULLY AUTOMATIC ... In a TUBE STATION? A head shot is a precisions shot, not something that is squeezed off with a fully automatic handgun. If there is fear of detonating explosives or shooting bystanders, why fully automatic?

Try an experiment right now. Cock your finger 8 times and see how long it takes. Your finger must travel a full half inch and exert 2.5kg pressure.

I just heard a repoet on Fox News ... they jokingly said, "There are more cameras in these tube stations than they are in this building".

Yeah? So where are all the pictures to back up the story of the police?

Now, about the nature of the explosives ... So far, all the explosives have been delivered in napsacks containing a 1.5 gallon tupperware container for the liquid explosive. EVERY BOMBING WITHOUT EXCEPTION. So did the police suddenly think they got access to better explosives and technology? If so, again, why did they not raid the premesis 24 hours earlier when they had secured the address?

QF ****ing E


They botched the entire job in so many ways, and someone should be held responsible. Personally I blame the police for not giving out any information nor holding anyone responsible, and the media for not putting any pressure on the police to do so.

Edit: Where ARE you from anyways Arty?

 

[Andy]

That long line is what 4 instances? Not including the SAS because they don't happen to be police.

I assumed that you where american my apolagies.

Do you mean one should disbelieve anything that contradicts your theories or do you mean in general, irrelevant of the source? Should we not believe for instance this whole incident ever happened?
I agree the truth probably never will come out.

I mean in general the only people who know exactly what happened are the officers involved, and their seniors. No reporter is going to be able to dig up this can of worms.

 

[Art]

That long line is what 4 instances? Not including the SAS because they don't happen to be police.

Direct your complaints to the BBC; it's their article.

I assumed that you where american my apolagies.

Why? Have you not seen the hate mail I receive from the US neocons??

I mean in general the only people who know exactly what happened are the officers involved, and their seniors. No reporter is going to be able to dig up this can of worms.

That's why forums such as this are useful. They allow people to share information and resources and so people can formulate opinions based on a greater evidential base rather than accept the spoonfed versions of 'what happened' slanted to represent a particular broadcasters political bias.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Funnily enough i know all about the CCTV in the UK, i happen to live here. And i can almost guarantee that thos video tapes are locked away somewhere nice and safe until the 'authorities' decide to let it see the light of day. Snapshots will probably be released but nothing to give people enough information to see what went on.

Yup ... and I was born there.

We all kow that when the video is not released, they are covering up, don't we.

If you flick on the news or even some television programs you'll see this footage aired all the time.

Remember the woman who pushed another woman out of a parkeing spot with her car when she snuck in? That was on a program called 'Britain's worst Drivers'. It also included a person who drove through a Zebra crossing and hit about 3 people.

Remember them airing the footage of missing children moving around at night?

The police are covering their asses.

They could settle this whole thing in about two minutes if all their procedures have been followed.

Unfortunately they haven't.

 

[Smurf]

The Emerald Isle

do you know the wizard of oz?

 

[The Smoking Man]

do you know the wizard of oz?

Prime Minister John Howard?

 

[Smurf]

Prime Minister John Howard?

Pfft. No! John Howard is the wicked witch of the east dummy.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I take it from the suttleties in your story, you believe the officer was at fault.

Consider the circumstances:

• 8 explosions happening all over london killing 56 so far, luckily the last four were unsuccessful. The terrorists of the last four still at large.

• The residence that the man came from was already under surveillance.

• The man wore a large coat (maybe he was cold, but it nonetheless adds to the suspicions)

• He headed for the underground (again common place to go but given the underground seems to be a prime bombing target)

• When told to "stop, armed police" he began to jump the barriers and run (why the hell run from armed police in this state of climate especially considering how often tube trains arrive at the station)

• Even when given a bodyshot, (especially who may have been trained to be committed to dying and taking as many with you as you can), they could still strain every muscle to reach for a button. Hence why officers who believe persons are a terrorist threat are required to "kill the brain" with 5 shots to the head.

Also consider the implication of not shooting and allowing the victim to reach for the button, two trains had just pulled in, full of passengers.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but you never have it until it is too late. The circumstances may be unrelated to a suicide bomber on their own, but put together in this kind of climate, what would you have done if you saw this man run from you towards a station full of commuters.

There are further subtleties you are missing:

1. The man was innocent.

2. We used to have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this case the man was presumed guilty until proven innocent.

3. He was proven innocent by being shot in the head (while being held on the ground) at point blank range 8 (it transpires, not 5) times.

4. The man was wearing a big coat. No previous attempts, successful or otherwise, to detonate bombs on public transport involved big coats. They all involved bags.

5. It was a block of flats he was seen emerging from. Only a retard would presume either a) every person in that block was a terrorist; or b) no non-terrorist would actually leave by the front exit.

6. Almost everyone who lives in London uses the tube, most daily. To cite the fact that he was headed for the Underground as grounds for suspicion is the most dim-witted argument I've ever heard.

7. Other eye-witnesses at the scene claimed not to have heard the police shout "Stop, armed police." Does that make them terrorists too?

8. Killing people in big coats just in case they might be terrorists will lead to more deaths than even the terrorists can manage. The amazingly skilled British police forces will be doing their job for them.

9. Hindsight is not required when all the information you have is:
1 - he lives near terrorists (well, someone has to)
2 - he wears big coats
3 - he uses the tube

"what would you have done if you saw this man run from you towards a station full of commuters" - I would have thought - hey, a man running towards a train. How unusual. I mean, I've only ever ran to catch the tube like TWO HUNDRED TIMES! Jesus shi--ing Christ, what is this world coming to?!? I doubt you would have found this sheer wealth of evidence that he was a terrorist you cite quite as overwhelming had he been a friend or relative of yours. What kind of psychopaths are we?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

so, if british now execute people for visa violations, i wonder what are penalties for parking infringements ?

Unrelated, but talking of which... from this year's Darwin awards (a special mention):

"A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car
during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his Vehicle to find a woman
had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her."

 

[The Smoking Man]

Unrelated, but talking of which... from this year's Darwin awards (a special mention):

"A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car
during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his Vehicle to find a woman
had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her."

Not quite that bad in the UK yet. They just have the congestion charge.

But once every cop is watching all the tube stations and the blocks of flats, they will start with the car bombs.

 

[Smurf]

4. The man was wearing a big coat. No previous attempts, successful or otherwise, to detonate bombs on public transport involved big coats. They all involved bags.

8. Killing people in big coats just in case they might be terrorists will lead to more deaths than even the terrorists can manage. The amazingly skilled British police forces will be doing their job for them.

As it turns out it wasn't a 'big coat' so much as a 'fleece jacket'. In other words, a sweatshirt with a zipper down the front. And apparently it was 20 celcius outside.

What kind of psychopaths are we?

We're turning into sheep, unfortunately. Whatever the government wants us to believe, the government gets us to believe. Right or wrong.

 

[Smurf]

Unrelated, but talking of which...

"A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his Vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her."

I would highly object to the word 'understandably'. There were better ways to deal with that situation.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I would highly object to the word 'understandably'. There were better ways to deal with that situation.

Hit her with the shovel?

 

[Smurf]

Ask her to leave?

If she refuses wait for her to leave then break into her car, drive to the edge of a hill, put it in neutral and hope it's not a Lamborghini.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ask her to leave?

If she refuses wait for her to leave then break into her car, drive to the edge of a hill, put it in neutral and hope it's not a Lamborghini.

If she is driving a Lamborghini in the snow ... go back to plan a ... Shoot the beeeatch.

 

[Smurf]

If she is driving a Lamborghini in the snow ... go back to plan a ... Shoot the beeeatch.

Point. Game. Match.

 

[DM]

Art

This is an example of the unsubstantiated, unattributed comments the police are leaking to the media to try and set the scene to accord with how they want people to believe this execution went down.

Are you claiming the Visa did not expire?

The Smoking Man

Why wasn't he shot going down the escalators? If he ran down them, there was nobody else on them. Anyone else ever run for the tube before?

How on Earth do you expect officers to accurately shoot an individual in the head whilst running? Doesn’t this also tell you that the police challenged him over and over again?

 

[Art]

UK to speed compensation claim for Brazil victim
By Katherine Baldwin | July 25, 2005

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain promised on Monday to deal "sympathetically and quickly" with a claim for compensation from the family of a Brazilian who was shot dead by police in London after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/07/25/uk_to_speed_compensation_claim_for_brazil_victim/

IMO the gov't wants to settle this quickly out of court to avoid the details surrounding the shooting from coming out during a court case.

 

[Art]

Art

Are you claiming the Visa did not expire?

It would appear it had not expired

The Home Office is expected to provide further details of Mr Menezes’s immigration status today. His family say that he became legally entitled to stay in Britain four months ago, and had been here for about three years.

Alex Pereira, the dead man’s cousin who also lives in South London, said that Mr Menezes had recently returned from a holiday in Brazil and had no problems at immigration.

“He’s just come from Brazil,” Mr Pereira said. “I went to his home three months ago and he showed me the passport, the visa and the Home Office letter.

“He had a residency visa, the letter confirms that. I have no idea where it is now. But he was legal. He wouldn’t run.”

Gésio César D’avila, a friend of the dead man, said that Mr Menezes kept a letter from the Home Office in his wallet to prove his status if challenged.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1708378,00.html

Mr de Menezes had been working legally in Britain for three years after moving here from Brazil.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13394581,00.html

 

[The Smoking Man]

How on Earth do you expect officers to accurately shoot an individual in the head whilst running? Doesn’t this also tell you that the police challenged him over and over again?

No, it proves to me that if he had been challenged properly at the entrance to the Tube Station with enough people to contain him, it would never have gone this far.

THAT's what it proves.

Look at the logistics... they say they suspected he was a suicide bomber with the intent of blowing up the subway so ... instead of challenging him from between himself and his target, they must have challenged him from the street side and herded him towards the train.

Did they calculate the odds as they were running? ... A man running full tilt down an escalator which must have been empty for him to achieve this feat. What do we know about suicide bombers? ... When they are challenged, they take out the military target ... He runs AT the POLICE challenging him and as many people as they can who are at the ticket machines.

It was also stated that he CALLED HIS COWORKER FROM THE STATION to tell him he would be late ... nobody got close enough to listen to the call? This had to have happened BEFORE he was challenged!

Brazilian Running Late When Killed by UK Cops
Brits Link Bombs to Iraq War

SAO PAULO, Brazil, July 25--The Brazilian electrician mistakenly killed by British plainclothes police may have run from them because he was afraid they were hoodlums, or simply because he was late for work, his friends told Brazilian newspapers in articles published Sunday.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot dead Friday in a subway train after being chased by police through Stockwell Underground station in south London, AFP reported.

Gesio de Avila, a co-worker, said Menezes had called him when he entered the station to tell him he would be a little late for work.

The two were to install a fire alarm in a building in northwest London, Avila said.

“If he ran, it was simply because he was late,“ Avila told O Estado de Sao Paulo from London.

Menezes’ family earlier said he was on his way to work when he was killed.
Fausto Soares, who lives in London and was a friend of the victim, told O Globo newspaper that Menezes probably ran away from the plainclothes officers because he thought they were attackers.

“He was assaulted by Englishmen (two weeks earlier) and because of that he may have been scared,“ said Soares, who is

So these police are not aware of the difference between Brazilian Portugese and Arabic?

How far away from him were they when they challenged him? He bolted and vaulted the turnstiles. Was he just a fare dodger?

Just who were these police that called this farce if blown procedures. Were there only three of them? Tell me they didn't call for armed backup from the dozen or so people stationed at the entrance to EVERY tube station in the city.

I've been in this station. It is one of the first 'deep level tubes' and has a http://www.vauxhallsociety.org.uk/Stockwell%20Station.html at the bottom capable of housing 8,000 people (Built for WWII)

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

No, it proves to me that if he had been challenged properly at the entrance to the Tube Station with enough people to contain him, it would never have gone this far.

THAT's what it proves.

The problem with being challanged with 'enough people' so a terrorist is contained is that he/she is more compelled to detonate a bomb as they find themselves surrounded. That's my view anyway.

The Smoking Man

Look at the logistics... they say they suspected he was a suicide bomber with the intent of blowing up the subway so ... instead of challenging him from between himself and his target, they must have challenged him from the street side and herded him towards the train.

I thought he was challanged inside the station, I recall hearing in the news and reading a number of articles that he was by the ticket machine, supposedly with the intent to purchase a ticket, when officers challanged him. But again this is not concrete.

The Smoking Man

Did they calculate the odds as they were running? ... A man running full tilt down an escalator which must have been empty for him to achieve this feat. What do we know about suicide bombers? ... When they are challenged, they take out the military target ... He runs AT the POLICE challenging him and as many people as they can who are at the ticket machines.

Very speculative.

The Smoking Man

It was also stated that he CALLED HIS COWORKER FROM THE STATION to tell him he would be late ... nobody got close enough to listen to the call? This had to have happened BEFORE he was challenged!So these police are not aware of the difference between Brazilian Portugese and Arabic?

This view is highly flawed. How do you know the gentleman spoke in English for anyone to listen to the call? Put yourself in the officers' shoes, how would they know he was informing his cousin about being late for work and not for instance finalising the bomb plot by phone?

The Smoking Man

How far away from him were they when they challenged him? He bolted and vaulted the turnstiles. Was he just a fare dodger?

Now this is where things get obscure. The man is challanged, he fails to obey police intructions and to exacerbate things further, he decides to hurdle the ticket barriers. To me this would've been a highly suspicious act that could not be ignored and interpreted as a 'fare dodger'.

 

[Art]

Now this is where things get obscure. The man is challanged, he fails to obey police intructions and to exacerbate things further, he decides to hurdle the ticket barriers. To me this would've been a highly suspicious act that could not be ignored and interpreted as a 'fare dodger'.

There has been no evidence presented whatsoever that he hurdled a ticket barrier. If he had done so do you not think the video of the incident would have been aired by now?

 

[DM]

Art

There has been no evidence presented whatsoever that he hurdled a ticket barrier. If he had done so do you not think the video of the incident would have been aired by now?

Yes, good point but even if you omit the barriers, running away because he was challanged by police officers sounds peculiar. I'm unable to see 'fear' as the main contributing factor for his fugitive behaviour. It sounds more plausible to me that his Visa was expired and therefore provided him with a motive to run away, even though this is proving to be controversial.

 

[Art]

Art


Yes, good point but even if you omit the barriers, running away because he was challanged by police officers sounds peculiar. I'm unable to see 'fear' as the main contributing factor for his fugitive behaviour. It sounds more plausible to me that his Visa was expired and therefore provided him with a motive to run away, even though this is proving to be controversial.

Or here's another possible scenario, The police were tailing him in the station the guy broke into a run to catch his train. The police presumed he had spotted them and charged after him, shooting him once they caught up.
Or he saw men drawing guns and fearing a terrorist attack ran for his life bearing in mind eye witnesses have claimed the police did NOT identify themselves or challenge him to stop as they are required to do.
Either of these scenarios is more believable than the 'unofficial' leaked police version because as I said if they had a shred of evidence to back up their claims that the victim through his actions 'brought it on himself' it would be plastered all over the media by now.