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

In summary, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian man shot dead by police in London, expressed anger and disbelief at the incident. The police, who were hunting the suspects of an attempted bomb attack, expressed regret and admitted the killing was a tragedy. There are arguments on both sides regarding the use of deadly force, but in this particular case, it is clear that the man was already immobilized and shooting him was not justifiable. Questions have been raised about why he ran and why he was wearing a winter coat in the summer, but it is confirmed that he had no connection to terrorism. The confusion and chaos of the situation likely led to his decision to run from the armed men, who he did not know were police
  • #141
Smurf said:
...


...


...
..
.

What?
Sorry ... had a partially lucid moment.

Won't happen again:

lu·cid (lsd) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

1. Easily understood; intelligible.
2. Mentally sound; sane or rational.
3. Translucent or transparent. See Synonyms at clear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
Smurf said:
I'm with townie on this one. The guy was either emotionally charged or fully intended to shoot him that many times.
Well, I defer to your better knowledge. He may have been inexperienced and not ready for this type of assignment.
 
  • #143
Evo said:
Well, I defer to your better knowledge. He may have been inexperienced and not ready for this type of assignment.
Which is why he was emotionally charged or made the sever misjudgment that such action was necessary. What it wasn't was his finger slipping, or that kind of accident.
 
  • #144
Well, I defer to your better knowledge.
Mmmm I wouldn't defer just yet Evo,
The papers say the police were using Glocks. If these were the Glock 18 version which comes with either a 17, 20, or 31 round magazine then there is a selector switch on them for semi or fully automatic fire. Oh, and they also come in black. BTW The Glock 18 was designed specifically for SWAT teams and the like.

Their Glock automatic handguns were passed to Scotland Yard’s laboratory at Lambeth, South London. The scene of the shooting inside Stockwell Tube station was sealed off for scientists to take measurements and photographs
above from timesonline.
The law enforcement and military issue GLOCK 18 select-fire machine pistol is virtually identical to the full-size GLOCK 17, but with the addition of a selector switch on the left rear of the slide that allows fully automatic fire.
http://www.glock.com/9x19.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Setting aside the particulars, I think this goes to the heart of the issue:

New York Times said:
After the killing of Mr. Menezes, the shoot-to-kill policy was staunchly defended. "We are living in unique times of unique evil, at war with an enemy of unspeakable brutality, and I have no doubt that now, more than ever, the principle is right despite the chance, tragically, of error," Lord Stevens said in the opinion article on Sunday.
Even Ken Livingstone, the London mayor and a longtime champion of civil liberties, defended the police officers involved in the shooting death, saying in a statement released Saturday night that the terrorists, not the police, were to blame.

"This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility," Mr. Livingstone said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/international/europe/25london.html

As if their intentions absolve them of all culpability, of guilt; as if they are not their own conscious agents. Mr. Livingstone tells us that when police do anything wrong, in the fight against terrorism, is really "the terrorists' fault" by proxy. It's nothing less than an insult.
 
  • #146
Okay, I got it. The man was an ELECTRICIAN, right? Seen leaving that block of flats. So he was probably doing a house-call, as electricians do during the daytime. He's called out to this flat.

INNOCENT VICTIM: "What seems to be the problem?"

TYPICAL UNPUNISHED CRIMINAL: "Well, we laid a load of bombs the other day but for some reason they didn't go off properly. We think there's something wrong with the electrics. Can you take a look?"

INNOCENT VICTIM: "No way! I'm not helping you make bombs. I'm leaving right this instant to catch a tube back to the flat I struggle so hard to pay for. Scr ew you guys."

INNOCENT VICTIM leaves flat, thinking: "Jeez, the nerve of terrorists these days", unaware that in the distance he is being observed through binoculars.

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Hey, check this guy out. He's dark skinned and is wearing a really big coat, and I think I read somewhere or dreamed maybe that people who wear big coats are terrorists. Let's follow him."

ATYPICALLY LESS MORONIC BRIT 2: "Okay, but let's not forget British weather isn't exactly hot by standards of people who, for sake of argument, come from hotter climates... the kind of people who may look... darker-skinned than us?"

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Well, in that case he's just some immigrant no-one cares about."

MORE MORONIC FOR KNOWING MORONIC BRIT 1 BRIT 2: "Groovy. I hate immigrants."

They follow INNOCENT VICTIM to the Underground.

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Hey, check this out. The guy in the big coat is entering the Undeground. Say... isn't that where the bombs went off?"

MORE MORONIC FOR KNOWING MORONIC BRIT 1 BRIT 2: "Yeah, and why else would someone enter the Underground if not to plant bombs?"

PASSER BY: "Well, it is the most-used mode of transport in London."

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Hey, we're undercover. You can't say anything to us because we're invisible. Get lost."

INNOCENT VICTIM: Jeez, thank God I'm leaving this scary place and getting away from all those terrorists who may try and kill me.

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Hey, if he gets on that train, we'll lose him."

MORE MORONIC BY THE MINUTE BRIT 2: "And he may detonate his big coat and kill innocents."

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "That's a triumph of deduction. Let's follow him."

INNOCENT VICTIM: "Jesus, I'm going to miss the tube. I better run for it."

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Look! He's running. He must be guilty of something in a big coat like that running towards those bleeping train doors."

MORE MORONIC BY THE MINUTE BRIT 2: "Good call brother. No-one ever runs towards the train unless they're criminals. Especially if the train is already here and is likely to leave before you get to it if you're too slow. Stop him!"

The MORON BROTHERS run after INNOCENT VICTIM and jump on him.

MORE MORONIC BY THE MINUTE BRIT 2: "What do we do now? Tell him his rights?"

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Well, technically we have no grounds to arrest him. Unless Blair stays in power for another full term, we're unlikely to be given power to arrest people on charge of over-dressing whilst being black. I suggest we push him down so he can't take his coat off."

MORE MORONIC BY THE MINUTE BRIT 2: "Right!"

The MORON BROTHERS push INNOCENT VICTIM to the floor.

MORE MORONIC BY THE MINUTE BRIT 2: "Now what?"

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Well, he hasn't commited a crime, he hasn't detonated any bombs and he isn't praying to Allah. If we turn back now we'll have lost all faith people have in the police being competant."

MORE MORONIC BY THE MINUTE BRIT 2: "So we trump up a charge and make it look like we've done good?"

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Can't. Human rights groups are hot on keeping statistics on false charges made against ethnic minorities. I say we look to our past for inspiration."

The MORON BROTHERS try to think.

MORE MORONIC BY THE MINUTE BRIT 2: "We could apply the old witch-ducking technique. If we drown him and he dies, he's innocent, otherwise he's guilty of hygiene laws for being a dirty immigrant floating in clean rivers."

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Good thinking. But I don't see him co-operating. It'll be a lot easier to get him to a river, and make sure he's innocent, by killing him beforehand."

MOST MORONIC BRIT 2: "Okay. But remember he's wearing a big coat. Best shoot him twice in the head. Three times to be certain."

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1 fires five rounds in INNOCENT VICTIM's brain.

PASSER-BY: "Are you guys terrorists?"

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "WE'RE UNDERCOVER! GO AWAY!"

MOST MORONIC BRIT 2: "Yeah, he's innocent."

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Innocent, yeah. Definitely. What now?"

MOST MORONIC BRIT 2: "Well, if my eyes do not fail me, I'd say that repeating sign on every single step leading out of the tube says that there's a McDonalds only 200 yards away, and keeping the peace is hungry work."

PASSER-BY: "Terrorists! Heeeeeeeeeeelp!"

TYPICAL BRITISH MORON 1: "Hold that thought, brother. Our work is not yet done."


Yeah, under the circumstances... who would have done differently? BTW: to avoid confusion due to typos, always double-check when typing the words 'uniformed' or 'uninformed'.
 
  • #147
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #148
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)

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

Delta
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.

Inclined to agree again. The pad coat exacerbated things in my opinion, not that I'm stating he didn't have the right, but again, due to the circumstances and the state of climate, I infer that he gave the wrong implications.
 
  • #149
In the latest accounts 'jumped the ticket barrier' appears to have morphed into ran down the escalator as people are inclined to do when they see their train standing at the platform.
He caught a bus to Stockwell station where he was challenged by officers, who told him to stop.

Witnesses say the 27-year-old then bolted down an escalator.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13394495,00.html
Witnesses also say that the police did NOT identify themselves or challenge him before shooting him dead. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1707480,00.html

p.s. It now turns out they shot him 8 times, 7 in the head and 1 in the shoulder. Also the 'long winter coat' has now become a padded jacket and illegal immigrant has become legal immigrant and terror suspect has become innocent man.

It will be interesting to see if the true story ever comes out. Running true to form the liklihood is the police will not provide details and will prevent future coverage in the press on the grounds it is sub judice due to 'possible' criminal proceedings whilst they spin their investigation out for several years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #150
Witnesses also say that the police did NOT identify themselves or challenge him before shooting him dead.

p.s. It now turns out they shot him 8 times, 7 in the head and 1 in the shoulder.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
No... Not a 'wrong doing' at all. You were totally right DM. Good Catch.
 
  • #151
Smurf
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
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".
 
  • #152
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.

BBC said:
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
 
Last edited:
  • #153
DM said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #154
DM said:
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?
 
  • #155
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?
 
  • #156
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.
 
  • #157
brewnog said:
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.
 
  • #158
DM said:
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.
 
  • #159
Smurf said:
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.
 
  • #160
Nothing is really fair enough...
 
  • #161
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.
 
  • #162
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.
 
  • #163
brewnog said:
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?
 
  • #164
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 ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #165
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.
 
  • #166
Delta said:
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".
:rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #167
BBC says that this poor Brazilian had expired visa. so now they gona kill lots of people there.
 
  • #168
DM said:
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.
 
  • #169
stoned said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
Ok, I feel a poll coming on here.
 
  • #171
so, if british now execute people for visa violations, i wonder what are penalties for parking infringements ?
 
  • #172
brewnog said:
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:
[PLAIN said:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #173
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.
 
  • #174
Andy said:
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.
 
  • #175
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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top