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

[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.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

It is wrong. The whole purpose behind 'shoot to kill' is to not alow a terrorist a chance to detonate at all.

By challenging him, they allow him this possibility.

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 concret.

No, you heard correctly however you didn't follow the link I gave you which includes this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:StockwellTube.jpg You can clearly see the ticket machine and the turnstiles.

They obviously challenged him from the doorway which allowed him to run inside.

Very speculative.

I suggest you read the actual http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:96860752&refid=ink_tptd_np&skeyword=&teaser=&COOKIE=NO&token=5B3DF6035CDE4DFC88239D654E081010 then:

POLICE officers are to be issued with guidance on dealing with suicide bombers.

They will be told not to intervene or challenge a suspected suicide bomber, but to alert anti-terrorist experts immediately.

Patrol officers will then be offered advice on how to assess whether the suspect is a potential suicide, or someone planning to plant a bomb.

If a potential suicide is thought likely, officers will be advised on how best to clear people from the path of the bomber without alerting him.

A range of tactics can then be used against the bomber - including the use ...

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?

I didn't say that. I said, "So these police are not aware of the difference between Brazilian Portugese and Arabic?". One would assume an anti-terrorist squad could tell the difference. It certainly makes it clear that these were not 'snap decisions were being made if he queued for a ticket and then made a phone call. There was CERTAINLY enough time to call in the back-up from the marked soldiers standing outside.

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'.

It has already been said that witnesses state he was not challenged and that the police just put on their blue baseball hats.

Now even if he vaulted the turnstyles and was THEN challenged, he would assume he was going to get done for fare dodging and legged it to the train to get away.

So ... does a guy wearing a suicide vest 'vault a turnstile'? He might 'fall down go boom!'

 

[alexandra]

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?

This is precisely my concern too - what happens to the rule of law now? What happens to the innocent who just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time? If I lived in London, I would not want to use public transport, or even walk in the streets. I'd be worried about being out in public anywhere, in fact - an ordinary person who happens to cross the path of jumpy armed officers can now get shot for no reason at all. Hypothetically, what would you do now if someone told you to 'run'? Before this shooting, presumably one would have thought 'Ah, danger - bomb - run!'. Now one will have to stop and think 'Will I get shot if I run?'. I mean, can't people see the problem here? This is the point (what I find barbaric about the situation) - Art expresses it so well, I'll repeat: "...hundreds of years of law just gets flushed down the toilet?"

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

What really amazes me is that when an innocent man is shot dead, people will cling to any justification, however minor, tenuous or untrustworthy, to avoid facing the fact that the world we live in just changed, again, for the worst. It's kind of interesting, from a sociological view, just how people react to this kind of thing.

Let's recap.

1. He lived in the same block of flats as suspected terrorists. Why does this make him a suspected terrorist? Why did the police not have a full list of EVERYONE living in that block of flats, nay the whole estate, with the actual suspected terrorists highlighted in bright pink and underlined? You know, just to make sure surveillance knew who they were watching. Might give the whole exercise some kind of point. INCOMPETENCE #1.

2. He was followed partly because allegedly 'he looked Asian'. So the police are now apparently racially discriminating when picking suspects. I actually don't have a problem with this, since looking for caucasian suicide bombers might slow investigations down. What does worry me is that, if this has become part of police procedure, why haven't the officers on the front line been shown WHAT A GODDAM ASIAN LOOKS LIKE?!? He looks about as Asian as I do. INCOMPETENCE #2.

3. The other reason he was followed was because he was wearing a 'big coat'. Why is this a possible terrorism alert? All of the other recent terrorists had bombs IN BAGS. None have, so far, employed the exploding anorak technique. Why can't the police discern a likely bomb from personal fashion tastes? INCOMPETENCE #3.

4. The police 'shot to kill' because a non-lethal shot may not stop him from detonating his coat. Granted, in an enclosed, underground area full of travellers, it would not be wise to let the man have a chance to detonate his overcoat. So why did the police wait until the man was in an enclosed, crowded area before stopping him? Surely OUTSIDE HIS FLAT would have been a safer, low-risk place to check to see whether or not he actually was wearing dangerous apparel? The police ACTUALLY WAITED until a man they say they thought was carrying a bomb was surrounded by people in an enclosed area. HELLO? Kind of risky way to test your hypothesis, no? INCOMPETENCE #4.

5. Despite other witness being unable to confirm the police did, in fact, make their presence known to the man, the police held down and, eight times, shot the man at point blank range, seven times in the head. Question: if he had stopped on command, he would have been in a crowded tube station with available exits. Any commuter will be able to confirm that hopping onto the actual train itself does not suddenly and miraculously activate the train and speed you away. So as a result of his actions he was now in a crowded train with NO available exits. How, please somebody explain, does him being on the train itself make him more of a risk than not being on the train? If they shot him because he was a risk, then he was a risk BEFORE he boarded, when they did nothing but follow him. If they intended to apprehend him, why does him being on the train stop this? It would be EASIER to apprehend him on the train than anywhere else. If they did not intend to apprehend him, because they thought he had a bomb, then they presumably didn't intend to apprehend him at any time previous to boarding the train, so they always intended on shooting him when they got the chance. INCOMPETENCIES #5 to... I lost count.

None of this makes any sense. There is no question that the police behaved in a competent, reasonable manner. This was a complete c0ck-up from beginning to end. They shot an innocent man seven times at point blank range (WHY SEVEN?!?) in the head based on the following information:
- they didn't know who he was;
- he wasn't white;
- he lived near terrorist suspects;
- he had odd clothes;
- he used the London Underground;
- IF he was commanded to stop, he put himself in a position where stopping was the only thing he could do.

Anyone who agrees that the above are ground for seven bullets in the brain are complete and utter psychopaths and I wish it had been you. I'd like to hear your families saying: "Well, under the circumstances I could see how the police thought young Kenneth was going to spontaneously combust and wipe out everyone around him."

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

I didn't say that. I said, "So these police are not aware of the difference between Brazilian Portugese and Arabic?"

I was referring to what you said concerning the call:

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?

The Smoking Man

Now even if he vaulted the turnstyles and was THEN challenged, he would assume he was going to get done for fare dodging and legged it to the train to get away.

That's a possibility but with all honesty and candour I don't see anyone doing such thing, bearing in mind as you know, that these police officers carried guns.

The Smoking Man

So ... does a guy wearing a suicide vest 'vault a turnstile'? He might 'fall down go boom!'

That view can potentially eliminate, and has indeed some logic, the gentleman vaulting the turnstile. However this is not concrete and the man could've still hurdled the barriers. Again, given hindsight one is able to analyse this behaviour and infer an opinion BUT the officers did not have time to stop and contemplate about 'fall down go boom!'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I was referring to what you said concerning the call:

both were about the call.

That's a possibility but with all honesty and candour I don't see anyone doing such thing, bearing in mind as you know, that these police officers carried guns.

You're assuming he looked.

That view can potentially eliminate, and has indeed some logic, the gentleman vaulting the turnstile. However this is not concrete and the man could've still hurdled the barriers. Again, given hindsight one is able to analyse this behaviour and infer an opinion BUT the officers did not have time to stop and contemplate about 'fall down go boom!'.

Why do you always assume that the 'suicide bomber' knows what he's doing and the trained, professional anti-terrorist policeman with the Glock is clueless?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

Why do you always assume that the 'suicide bomber' knows what he's doing and the trained, professional anti-terrorist policeman with the Glock is clueless?

When you pursue a terrorist, your mind set isn't in 'he might fall and blow us away'. Instead, officers are stipulated to challenge the individual(s) and if he/she disobeys, they are resorted to pursue the suspect and in this case 'shoot-to-kill'.

 

[Burnsys]

When you pursue a terrorist, your mind set isn't in 'he might fall and blow us away'. Instead, officers are stipulated to challenge the individual(s) and if he/she disobeys, they are resorted to pursue the suspect and in this case 'shoot-to-kill'.

The Smoking Man i think you are talking to a wall..
it can't be explained more simple that the way The Smoking Man did it. But DM you are only quoting the little fragments that you think you have a little chace of arguing and forgeting and dismising the rest. That kind of conduct (very common in this forums) makes me want to blow up my self!

 

[vanesch]

That kind of conduct (very common in this forums) makes me want to blow up my self!

BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG...

Ooops, my gun went off...

 

[Art]

BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG...

Ooops, my gun went off...

shouldn't that be BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG?

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch... the US found out the consequences for not changing our actions in response to previous attacks and threats on 9/11.

So what ? Minor incident... Less dead than by car accidents in one year, and you now have a war on your hands, many more dead, a huge cost, lost liberties, lost friends, lost respect... You never did that for car accidents.
And moreover, bombs STILL explode.