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

  • Thread starter Thread starter alexandra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Civil Loss Uk
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian man mistakenly identified as a terrorist following recent bomb attacks in London. His family expressed outrage, emphasizing that there was no reason to suspect him of terrorism. The police admitted regret over the incident, describing it as a tragedy. Participants in the discussion debated the justification for the use of deadly force, with some arguing that the police acted out of panic and fear, while others suggested that the circumstances—such as de Menezes wearing a heavy coat in warm weather and fleeing from plainclothes officers—raised suspicions. Eyewitness accounts described the chaotic scene, where de Menezes was pinned down and shot multiple times. The conversation highlighted concerns about police protocols in high-stress situations and the implications for civil liberties, questioning whether the police's actions were warranted given the context of recent terrorist threats. Participants emphasized the need for a thorough investigation into the incident and the broader implications for public safety and police conduct.
  • #301
DM said:
El Hombre Invisible


I have addressed this point several times.
Great. Now do it with a reasonable argument, because I haven't read one from anyone (not just you) yet. Quite a few people seem happy that the police did the right thing 'under the circumstances' in blowing the brains out of an innocent man because he aroused their suspicion. Take that to it's logical argument - anyone arousing suspicion on the Underground gets their brains blown out. You happy with that? If not, how can you justify one such case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #302
El Hombre Invisible
b)they caught him with a rucksack on his back in his flat at 4 am.

:rolleyes:

Police sources say that Omar, dressed in shorts and a T-shirt, had been lying on a settee. He made a grab for a dark rucksack lying on the floor a couple of feet from him. One of the officers fired a 50,000-volt shock from a Taser gun at his chest amid concern that he had a device hidden inside his bag.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1711299_2,00.html
 
  • #303
DM said:
El Hombre Invisible


:rolleyes:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1711299_2,00.html
DaMmit, you got me. It wasn't on his back. Woe is me for resorting to memory. I retract everything I ever said.

Do you never screen your arguments to ensure they have a point? What does that error on my part matter to any of the points of discussion? What does it add to the argument of whether stunning a suspect is a ridiculous idea? All you've done is post a source backing up my argument with one minor exception that doesn't actually - the bag wasn't on his back. Well done!
 
  • #304
The point ElHombre, is that individuals like DM are unable to form rational thoughts when the inevitable conclusion you must draw from rational thinking, is that , in this case, the police acted wrongly, disastrously and criminally so.

Hence, all he can come up with, is a complete muddle.
 
  • #305
arildno
The point ElHombre, is that individuals like DM are unable to form rational thoughts when the inevitable conclusion you must draw from rational thinking, is that , in this case, the police acted wrongly, disastrously and criminally so.

Another dogmatic view.

arildno
Hence, all he can come up with, is a complete muddle.

The ability to disagree doesn't mean you're right.
 
  • #307
I know I can't help being biased at the moment, so can you tell me in what sort of circumstances you think these new tactics should be employed, how sure does one need to be of intent and how imminent the threat, if at all?
 
  • #308
DM said:
arildno
The ability to disagree doesn't mean you're right.
Or, more appropriately in your case, the ability to disagree doesn't mean you're relevant. By the way, I missed a word out of my last post, further proving my fallibility. Feel free to find it and use it as an argument. Let us know when you're done.
 
  • #309
fi said:
I know I can't help being biased at the moment, so can you tell me in what sort of circumstances you think these new tactics should be employed, how sure does one need to be of intent and how imminent the threat, if at all?
Who are you addressing? The 'don't slaughter innocent commuters' contingent or the 'if in doubt, blast em' contingent?
 
  • #310
El Hombre Invisible
DaMmit, you got me. It wasn't on his back. Woe is me for resorting to memory. I retract everything I ever said.

What does it add to the argument of whether stunning a suspect is a ridiculous idea? All you've done is post a source backing up my argument with one minor exception that doesn't actually - the bag wasn't on his back. Well done!

El Hombre Invisible, I appreciate your encouragement to discuss this matter further but I made it perfectly clear where I stand in this issue. Whether you accept it or not is another thing, hence your problem. I truly respect your stance in this subject and I'm able to accept it.
 
  • #311
Sorry, your contingent, El Hombre, but I guess it could be asked of both.
 
  • #312
arildno
before trying to show yourself as a rational person with a mature intellect.

No, you're fabricating facts. You're clearly a dogmatic individual that is unable to accept and respect what other people perceive in a diversity of subjects.
 
  • #313
DM said:
arildnoNo, you're fabricating facts.
Where, dear?
 
  • #314
arildno
is that individuals like DM are unable to form rational thoughts

It's so tangible. You're dogmatic, you see yourself as always right.
 
  • #315
Well, you haven't posted any evidence about yourself to the contrary effect.
 
  • #316
arildno
Well, you haven't posted any evidence about yourself to the contrary effect.

Dear oh dear.
 
  • #317
DM said:
El Hombre Invisible


El Hombre Invisible, I appreciate your encouragement to discuss this matter further but I made it perfectly clear where I stand in this issue. Whether you accept it or not is another thing, hence your problem. I truly respect your stance in this subject and I'm able to accept it.
I respect your appreciation, and I appreciate your respect. However, I can neither resect nor appreciate your point of view. You have made your position clear, but have avoided examining the consequences of it. If you do not wish to, fine. But I and I imagine many others will take this as an indication that you are unable to justify your point of view. On the other hand, I cannot see how you could possibly do so anyway, so you have nothing to lose there. Personally I think your stance and those of people who agree with you is the greatest triumph of terrorism in the UK, if not the world. The point at which an appreciable proportion of the population would prefer to have non-caucasians who behave the remotest bit suspiciously killed just in case they could be terrorists is the point where we truly fall victim. Bombs kill people. This level of paranoia and disregard for human life kills people and the fabric of our society.
 
  • #318
fi said:
Sorry, your contingent, El Hombre, but I guess it could be asked of both.
Well, first off, I find it incredibly stupid to allow a suspected bomber onto a bus or train in the first place, or any place where he or she could cause maximum harm to innocent bystanders. If there were reasonable grounds for suspicion in this case, he should have been stopped and searched a long time before he hopped on a bus.

For a bomber to be shot, there has to be a shootist. Can you think of any scenario where there was no reasonable suspicion prior to the shooting where the shootist might find himself in the same place at the same time as a suspected terrorist?
 
  • #319
what should he do then?
 
  • #320
sorry, I misread.
 
  • #321
El Hombre Invisible
But I and I imagine many others will take this as an indication that you are unable to justify your point of view. On the other hand, I cannot see how you could possibly do so anyway, so you have nothing to lose there.

Indeed, I am able to identify another bulk of encouragement on your behalf. I believe to the best of my abilities that I have succeeded in justifying my points of view, yet you're absolutely right and entitled to discord. Furthemore I have constituted an inference that by exchanging certain points of view in such a sensitive issue is inclined to create unpleasant rows that I no longer wish to be integrated in. Given that you're an intellectual person, with high abilities to exchange views in an 'anti-social' behaviour, I would feel compelled to further interpolate views but due to certain lateral members persisting on fabricating information, I fail to see this thread as beneficent to confer ideas.

El Hombre Invisible
Personally I think your stance and those of people who agree with you is the greatest triumph of terrorism in the UK, if not the world.

I believe not, my stance is on exonerating those officers (and have being found not culpable) who shot the innocent gentleman dead in an awful set of difficult circumstances. I further believe they were genuinely led to believe that the innocent was a suicide bomber that culminated in a disastrous death.
 
  • #322
how does he stop and search a suspected bomber? Did I get what you said?
 
  • #323
fi said:
I know I can't help being biased at the moment, so can you tell me in what sort of circumstances you think these new tactics should be employed, how sure does one need to be of intent and how imminent the threat, if at all?
In my opinion, fi, a 'shoot to kill' policy is just not on - not unless one is 100% sure that the person being targetted is actually guilty. I don't think the execution of an innocent person is ever justified. I think adopting such a policy is dangerous precisely because fatal errors such as this one can be made.

I am sure if you had actually known the victim, Jean Charles de Menezes, if you had been friends, you would have been biased the 'other' way. Wikipedia has already posted a detailed biography of de Menezes, so you can find out more about the person who got shot by reading this webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes . There are also many links to related stories on that page.

The difference between the two factions here is that those who are against the policy can understand its social implications even without having personally known this particular victim, while those who argue that the policy is ok can only see things from a personal point of view. I do not think that those arguing in favour of the shoot to kill policy would like, themselves, to be innocent victims of it (but it's ok as long as somebody else is the victim).

Some of those against the shoot to kill policy argue that it is important to realize that important civil rights and liberties are severely threatened by such policies because they assume guilt from the outset. One of the distinguishing features of society that claims to be 'liberal democratic' is supposedly that it is a just system in which guilt has to be proved through legal institutions; up to now, it has been unacceptable for police to just execute 'suspects' on the spot. All this has changed now, and any random civilian who, for whatever reason, arouses suspicion, is now in danger of being shot dead (whether or not they are innocent).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #324
thanks, Alexandra... although is anyone ever a 100% sure of anything? And that being the case, how can you prevent a bombing situation?
 
  • #325
DM said:
El Hombre Invisible


Indeed, I am able to identify another bulk of encouragement on your behalf. I believe to the best of my abilities that I have succeeded in justifying my points of view, yet you're absolutely right and entitled to discord. Furthemore I have constituted an inference that by exchanging certain points of view in such a sensitive issue is inclined to create unpleasant rows that I no longer wish to be integrated in. Given that you're an intellectual person, with high abilities to exchange views in an 'anti-social' behaviour, I would feel compelled to further interpolate views but due to certain lateral members persisting on fabricating information, I fail to see this thread as beneficent to confer ideas.
Well, let's see how fi and I get on. Time will tell.

El Hombre Invisible


DM said:
I believe not, my stance is on exonerating those officers (and have being found not culpable) who shot the innocent gentleman dead in an awful set of difficult circumstances. I further believe they were genuinely led to believe that the innocent was a suicide bomber that culminated in a disastrous death.
Yes, automatic exoneration is not something I agree with. You start with the assumption that it was right to shoot an innocent man because it gives you faith in people are supposed to have power and control that you do not, right? Fine. But if you come here to debate it, that blind faith is a hindrance.

Part of me wants to apologise for hurting your feelings, because otherwise you seem a decent, respectful chap. Unfortunately the other part of me is full of utter contempt for any opinion that allows innocent people to die by policy, so yeah... no protest from me if you want to stay away.
 
  • #326
El Hombre Invisible
You start with the assumption that it was right to shoot an innocent man because it gives you faith in people are supposed to have power and control that you do not, right? Fine. But if you come here to debate it, that blind faith is a hindrance.

The officers were led to believe the innocent was a terrorist.

El Hombre Invisible
Part of me wants to apologise for hurting your feelings, because otherwise you seem a decent, respectful chap. Unfortunately the other part of me is full of utter contempt for any opinion that allows innocent people to die by policy, so yeah... no protest from me if you want to stay away.

Thanks for respecting my views.
 
  • #327
fi said:
how does he stop and search a suspected bomber? Did I get what you said?
I think so. In this instance, his actions was followed from his house. Suspicion was raised because he lived in the same block as terrorist suspects and he wasn't white. Two possible things occurred.
1: they simply followed him but didn't do anything - why? why wait until he was in a place where, had he been a bomber, he could kill so many more innocent people (like letting him onto the bus);
2: the officers watching the apartment called for others to track him down, in which case - what if he HAD been a bomber?!? That bus could have been the target. What, then, would the point of surveillance have been? ("Yes, he's leaving the apartment... he's got on the bus... the bus has been destroyed... yes, we're pretty sure that was our man, sir.")

Why was he not stopped upon leaving the apartment block, or at least as soon as he was far enough away that the actual terror suspects would not have been alerted to police presence? Why was he able to board a bus, alight, go into a tube station, swipe his travelcard and head down the escalators?

fi said:
And that being the case, how can you prevent a bombing situation?
That's the question. To my mind, the only possible way is by intelligence - see the Birmingham arrest for an example. If intelligence is foiled, bombs will go off, people will die. You could heighten the security in tube stations, etc - post armed police at each station. This would probably deter terrorism, but only if it succeeds in creating an atmosphere of fear and caution, much like American airports where you really do believe that if you twitch you might be shot. Personally, if I wanted that I'd live in America.
 
  • #328
fi said:
thanks, Alexandra... although is anyone ever a 100% sure of anything? And that being the case, how can you prevent a bombing situation?
You ask a good question, fi. Perhaps you can never be 100% sure unless you have been doing intensive intelligence work (surveillance) for a long time. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable to kill innocent civilians on such flimsy evidence as there was in this case. I also think that risking lives is preferable to risking liberty and civil society - I have quoted Benjamin Franklin several times in these discussions, but I guess one can never repeat what he said too often, especially nowadays when all civil rights and liberties are under threat:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Here's another way to think about it: if you wanted to be completely safe, you would lock yourself up in your room and never leave it. You would set up complex alarm systems throughout your house, and perhaps dig a moat around it and fill it with crocodiles. You wouldn't eat any food you weren't sure wasn't contaminated in some way, etc. etc. Sure, you'd be safe - but what sort of life would that be? Would it be worth living? For starters, you'd have to be paranoid to live in this way in the first place. That is what is happening on a grand scale now: people are paranoid and they are agreeing to the loss of basic freedoms. I ask myself whether such a life will be worth living...
 
  • #329
DM said:
The officers were led to believe the innocent was a terrorist.
ARRRGGGHHH! And you ask me why I can't be civil! Simply stating this is NOT an argument. The officers STATED they were led to believe the man was a terrorist. They gave reasons. Those reasons have consistently turned out to be misinformation. So simply repeating over and over 'they thought he was a terrorist' does not hold! Even if the reasons they gave were true, even if he was Asian, even if he did have a baggy coat, even if he did run, it is STILL NOT a reasonable basis to believe someone is a terrorist to the certainty that you'd shoot him in the head. That those reasons were largely fictional simply magnifies this catastrophe.
 
  • #330
Until the facts come out nobody is in a position to call the police 'executioners' and likewise they can't be called innocent. Now from what i have heard on the news and read in various newspapers this is beginning to sound like a very large series of unfortunate events paired with incompotence at the senior police level which culminated in de menzes death. Until i see the CCTV footage which i very much doubt will ever be released or until a court case has been heard then i don't see the point in this arguement, and that's what it is, don't try and say that its a discussion. Too many people here are taking hearsay and speculation as being facts.

Completely of subject but are you spanish el hombre?
 
  • #331
Thanks Alexandra and El Hombre, that's helpful. You've left me with a lot to think about.
 
  • #332
My guess is that with security so tight on the underground and London in general if there is another attack it will be in another of England's major cities such as Manchester or Birmingham. This is the methodology the IRA used to follow during their terrorist bombing campaigns in England.
 
  • #333
El Hombre Invisible said:
You could heighten the security in tube stations, etc - post armed police at each station. This would probably deter terrorism, but only if it succeeds in creating an atmosphere of fear and caution, much like American airports where you really do believe that if you twitch you might be shot. Personally, if I wanted that I'd live in America.

Hey, makes me think of it: this WAS maybe the real mission of these policemen. Order from above: "pick out at random a guy, blow his brains out, and tell that it was his fault because he ran ; we're pretty sure next time, people will be very cautious not to arouse suspicion ; this will facilitate our spotting of bombers next time around. That's all. Good luck, boys."
 
  • #334
well done vanesch, did you work that out all on your own?
 
  • #335
Andy said:
well done vanesch, did you work that out all on your own?

I have some experience in the domain, having been one of OBL's advisers. I was the one who got him hire Rumsfeld. First he was reluctant, but now he admits it's the best investment Al Quaida ever made. Over Blair (Ian, that is), we got an argument, which ended my work for them. I was seriously opposed in taking him on the team, but I wasn't followed. So I left.

:wink:
 
  • #336
vanesch said:
I was seriously opposed in taking him on the team, but I wasn't followed. So I left.

:wink:
I hope you emptied your desk and brought your rucksack home with you. :biggrin:
 
  • #337
Art said:
I hope you emptied your desk and brought your rucksack home with you. :biggrin:
Lucky he wasn't wearing a padded jacket.
 
  • #338
And in the continuing saga of he said/she said:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050728/140/foepc.html
Sky News said:
Thursday July 28, 10:17 PM


Shot Man's Visa Had Expired Two Years Ago

The student visa of the Brazilian man shot dead by anti-terror police last week expired two years ago, it has emerged.Authorities have been trying to work out why Jean Charles de Menezes ran away from police when he was challenged at Stockwell Tube station.A spokeswoman for the Home Office also revealed that Mr de Menezes had a stamp in his passport apparently granting him indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

But the stamp was "not one that was in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate".

The carefully-worded statement appeared to imply that the stamp had been a forgery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #339
That Entire article can be summed up with "We still have no confirmation on anything" and then it just repeats the hearsay already blown all over the media.
 
  • #340
The Smoking Man said:
Shot Man's Visa Had Expired Two Years Ago

Damn, my old residence card in France expired also 1 year ago.
(ok, in the mean time I got a new one, do we have to add that ?)
:biggrin:
 
  • #341
I've got three years left on my German Permit and 1.5 months on my Chinese.

I think I'll go and work in Lichtenstein.

I want to see how many I can have open at one time.
 
  • #342
Where are you from again smokey?
 
  • #343
Andy said:
Completely of subject but are you spanish el hombre?
No, but neither was El Hombre Invisible.
 
  • #344
Art said:
My guess is that with security so tight on the underground and London in general if there is another attack it will be in another of England's major cities such as Manchester or Birmingham. This is the methodology the IRA used to follow during their terrorist bombing campaigns in England.
I agree. The truth is, it takes many police from one single country to catch one terrorist from one of many countries. We cannot possibly cover the ground necessary to deter terrorism everywhere, which is why IMO we need to tackle it with intelligence alone. I cannot think of a viable scenario in which shoot-to-kill is a reasonable tactic.
 
  • #345
vanesch said:
Hey, makes me think of it: this WAS maybe the real mission of these policemen. Order from above: "pick out at random a guy, blow his brains out, and tell that it was his fault because he ran ; we're pretty sure next time, people will be very cautious not to arouse suspicion ; this will facilitate our spotting of bombers next time around. That's all. Good luck, boys."
Man... you're dark.
 
  • #346
vanesch said:
Damn, my old residence card in France expired also 1 year ago.
(ok, in the mean time I got a new one, do we have to add that ?)
:biggrin:
I was going to point this out. The fact that his student Visa expired two years is not new information - even relatives of de Menezes confirmed that much. The question was whether his new application had been approved. de Menezes relatives said it was about two months ago. It is odd that this statement only specifies that his old Visa had expired and mentions nothing of any new application, even if only to deny it existed or was approved. Don't want to read too much into that though. There's a war of misinformation at the moment and both sides are losing.
 
  • #347
It is quite indicative that this type of info gets headlines:

It is a disgusting, but very predictable attempt to "blacken" De Menzes' character (digging up as much disreputable info on him as possible), so that the execution of him will seem to be justified anyway.

We've seen this type of "damage control" operations before, undoubtedly, we'll see it again..
 
  • #348
I haven't got time to read through the entirity of this thread so I applogise if I go over old ground.

Just a few points:

Has anyone who's commenting in this thread actually been in a combat situation? By that I mean in a situation in which you could die at any time?

If a suspect (there must be some reason they were trailing him) is always presumed innocent at what time do they become guilty? After they've detonated?

IMO there is a greater possibility that the group that killed the suspect was SF rather than police. Our SF have a different set of priorities than our police.

Also, if the group were trailing him they would probably be in constant contact with a command centre relaying information. It is possible that it was them that ordered the group to take the suspect down.

The difference between the two factions here is that those who are against the policy can understand its social implications even without having personally known this particular victim, while those who argue that the policy is ok can only see things from a personal point of view
This is wrong and said out of bias. In these circumstances I can understand the need for a STK policy and not just in a 'personal point of view' but from a strategic analysis point of view. From a military point of view. From a pyschological point of view.

I sympathise with the victim and yes, if I had known Jean Charles de Menezes personally I would feel a LOT stronger about this, that is only natural. It doesn't mean I would be right in what I was thinking though. Emotions are very rarely helpful to thinking clearly.

I expect that the STK policy will remain in force until the terrorist threat has diminished somewhat by either killing any active cells (as well as anyone supporting those cells) or terrorising the terrorist into looking elsewhere to ply their trade.

We, as citizens of a western society, have the luxery of questioning our superiors but we should never forget that we don't have to make hard decisions everyday that effect the lives of thousands upon thousands of people. We simpily have to concentrate on ourselves and our families well-being and it very easy to take a moral highground when you will never be put a position in which you have to make such lose-lose decisions that costs people lives.
 
  • #349
IMO there is a greater possibility that the group that killed the suspect was SF rather than police.

Special Forces are way more clean than that! If he was a SF hit, we wouldn't know about it, don't remeber all the Irish who "vanished" into thin air during the IRA campaigns?
 
  • #350
It is criminally amateurish to allow a terrorist suspect alive into a railway station filled by civilians.
There are only two options:
1) Either accept that the ones in the operation were inept amateurs who should be dismissed immmediately from the forces
2) That they were more thrilled at chasing the fellow than protecting the general public, in which case they also should be dismissed summarily.
 

Similar threads

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

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top