Yesterday, London police shot a man dead at Stockwell station. The man, Jean Charles de Menezes, now appears to have been innocent.

Ordinary British police officers do not carry guns; only specialist units do. For anybody to be killed by police is rare, and always investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

This killing, in the wake of terrorist attacks both successful and attempted, of an apparently innocent man has raised a number of fears. Is it now the policy of our police forces to shoot to kill if in doubt? We may never know, since the police tend to keep their tactics and rules of conduct to themselves when they can.

Most of me is inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt. The circumstances seem to indicate that they had reason to believe he may have been a suicide bomber; I can think of no possible way to deal with a suicide bomber than to kill them as quickly as possible. And he was running away - not only away, but into a Tube station and onto a train; highly suspicious behaviour.

On the other hand, though, the officers were apparently plainclothed. How, then, was de Menezes supposed to know that they were policemen? Running away when armed policemen tell you to stop is sheer folly; running away when anonymous men with guns are coming after you is simply good sense. Obviously police have good reason to go plainclothed - but if you deliberately pretend not to be a policeman, can you be surprised when people fail to treat you like one?

In the end, I'm really not sure what to think about this. Much of it comes down to the choice a policeman must make in a situation: if you suspect the man in front of you is about to blow himself up, how much of a chance can you take? But then again, the police can hardly go around shooting every suspicious person. I just don't know.

Any thoughts - either on this specific killing, or on the actions of police forces in general?

When considering this case, I ask you, what else could the Police have done?

Now, please bear in mind that I'm developing this 'argument' based upon the facts as I have them to hand.

As far as I'm aware, the man in question was asked by the Police to stop. He didn't stop. No indeed. In fact, he ran from the officers, vaulted a ticket barrier and them proceeded to run towards a train. He might as well have shouted "I have a bomb!" for all the difference it makes, bearing in mind the current climate down London. Now, I'm getting this course of events from the BBC website, the image of which can be seen below.



Now, in situations like this, you have one chance and one chance only. You stop, or the Police fire. We have to bear in mind that this is the exact kind of scenario that these officers are trained for. Put yourselves in their shoes. You see a man, dressed in a heavy coat, running towards a train with hundreds of people on it. In that kind of situation, you react instinctively based upon how you have been trained. There is no time to weigh up the pros and cons, or the moral 'rightness' of your actions. You have to act, and act fast.

Which brings me onto my next 'point' (although this post does rather lack any coherency). I put it to you that the man had to be shot. There was no other alternative. I've heard people say that he could have been shot in the shoulder, thus incapacitating him. I disagree. What if you shot the wrong shoulder? Use a tazer? Could a tazer not detonate the suspected explosive also? Methinks it could. He had to be killed, because that was the only thing they could have done. It would have taken a fraction of a section for him to pull the trigger on any explosives he was packing, killing all those around him.

Now, of course, we realise now that Jean Charles de Menezes wasn't carrying a bomb, but frankly the officers on the scene didn't know that. I say that his behaviour on the day was consistent with that of a criminal, a criminal who it was thought was about to unload God knows how much explosive in the London Underground, potentially killing many tens of people, if not more.

Yes, I say the Police did The Right Thing.

I agree with little_bear. They did exactly what their training told them was the prudent action.

He was challenged by armed officers who would have had to identify themselves as police. He ran.

Big heavy coat, recent terrorist attacks in the underground, and look where he was running to! The man was being an idiot.

Eye witnesses say he tripped when he got into the train. From behind it could have looked like he was crouched over fiddling with something on his person. With officers thinking they probably only had a second until detonation, they fired.

In such a situation theres not really much time to consider all the alternatives. Considering he gave every impression that he was up to no good (and the deed in question was considered to be so devestating) the best option was to stop him immediately, no matter how lethal. One life verses potentially dozens.

It's a shame he was innocent, but unfortunately his actions led to this.

That said, I'm generally against having armed officers walking about simply because this sort of thing will happen. Everyone is more than capable of making mistakes. Putting people in a stressful environment and them giving them weapons is asking for trouble... but people tend to feel safer with armed police around.*shrugs*

Looks like we may have to get used to mistakes like this in future.

Well, we're not sure of that, since exactly what police are instructed to do in specific situations is confidential. They were probably acting as they were supposed to, though.

I think I'm with the general concensus here, why was he running? It was a stupid thing to do, esspecially when confronted with armed police, even more so considering the recent events in London. Another thought that occurs to me, the officer who fired the shot has to live with the fact he killed an innocent man, sure you can justify it in anyway you like, but the fact remains, no matter the suspicious circumstance, he still killed him. Hindsight's a horrible thing sometimes.

While I agree with the sentiments expressed above, i.e. that he was acting in an extremely odd manner for a person who did not at the very least have a very guilty conscience, I do wonder if all this would have happened if the guy was causasian and not 'asian'.

I agree with you guys about the fact that he was acting suspiciously but I find it very difficult to reconcile the way this man died with being "reasonable force" The guy was shot FIVE TIMES IN THE HEAD by three armed police officers. Now I don't know much about human biology but I would have thought that one shot to the head would have killed him. I could understand him having been shot up to three times (one for each officer) but five times (and one witness 'claims' that the police actually went up to him and continued shooting into his head- not sure how much of that to believe but... ) is a bit excessive.

Ryn: I've heard that that's official police and SAS policy for dealing with a suspected suicide bomber - repeated shots to the head, even if the suspect is apparently dead. If he'd survived a couple of shots (not impossible; the skull is very tough, and it's not unlikely that a bullet could glance off), he may have had a way of triggering an explosive he could have been carrying, maybe killing a dozen people or more. Given the risk involved, I think making absolutely-triple-sure he's dead is a sensible policy.

Yep, Commie's right. The skull is a lot tougher than you'd think. They can't shoot for the body in case they trigger any bombs strapped there, so they have to go for the head.

Bizarrely I heard that there were attempts made at resusitation, so I'm assuming that even with five shots the wounds were not 100% certain to be fatal... Although that is very possibly one of those early details that is later shown to not be true.

It's not a nice precedent for the current situation. There are all kinds of reasons people could be acting weirdly, many of them not illegal (mental illness, panic attacks, etc). It would be comforting to know that the first instinct of officers is not to shoot you in the head. Then again, it's good to know that these steps will be taken when officers deem that the situation justifies it.

While our instinctive British reaction is 'was that really necessary?' I think that in this case it was a reasonable assessment of the circumstances for the officers to act in the way that they did. Do we know yet why the guy ran away?

He apparently used to live in the Sao Paulo slums, some of which have higher death rates than war zones - fleeing from a man with a gun may well have been second nature to him, especially since the police were plainclothed.

Update: Met police chief Sir Ian Blair apologises

Edit: background on de Menezes

There are far too many instances of police killing innocent men in America. It's the same old story. A minority man acts suspiciously and is gunned to death, and it turns out he was just reaching for his wallet or something. At this in this instance it was an isolated incident, backed up by reasonable fears given current events, and not a black man getting shot at the side of a road. It happens. At least this time, the police were trying to save innocent commuters. Hopefully they'll learn from this and it won't happen again, or at least too terribly often. I hate violence against innocents, but I have to admit in this case there wasn't much recourse for the police.

I very much doubt it will happen very often. As Commie said, normally police in this country do not carry guns. The only time I've seen armed police was walking into an airport while there was still a slight scare of plane hijacking.



But the hindsight would be worse if the man had turned out to be a suicide bomber. I imagine the guilt of shooting an innocent man who was acting suspiciously is a lot less than the guilt of knowing, had you not hesitated in squeezing the trigger, a whole trainful of people would be alive.

I think it was a justified shooting.



If you've just shouted "Stop! Police!", then drawn a gun, yeah, I think you can. If you just pulled a gun on someone and told them to stop what they were doing, I can see why it might happen, but I can only assume that there's some protocol to be followed when revealing yourself as an armed officer.

This matter deeply, deeply worries me. As such I doubt I am going to be able to write out what I'm thinking in a clear headed and collected way. This is just going to be a stream-of-consciousness style opinion, and not very well thought out opinion at that.

1. A man sees and is challenged by plain clothed people with guns (who by their own admission have been following him for some time)... he panics and runs. This does not automatically mean that he is guilty of anything, but that it is possible that he is guilty - in this case of being a terrorist.

2. He is chased into a train station... he was not picked up by the armed officers who could have surrounded him earlier - but actually allowed to get near to the station before they challenge him - and he runs into the station. If he were a bomber he'd have clearly gotten in and could well have detonated himself before being shot. I wonder if the officers following him had this thought at the back of their minds - 'why did we let him get so close to the station - he's going to kill himself, us and innocent civilians because we let him get this far'...

3. He trips, is caught and this is where it gets a touch screwy... some reports say that the man was *pinned down* by 2 officers whilst a 3rd officer shot him repeatedly in the head. Assuming this report is accurate - He was pinned. They could have attempted to cuff him - they could have restrained him - they could have held the gun to his head and tell him to stay still - they could have done a lot of things, but they didn’t - OR - the report wasn't entirely accurate and the officers did what they were trained to do and killed him before getting the chance to grab him. Either way it has to be said - chasing someone who might or might not blow up himself, you and loads of innocents takes a kind of courage that is rare and to be admired. I do feel a sense of pride (and relief) that our cops will take these kinds of risks because 'it goes with the badge'.

4. This innocent man was then killed. He has effectively been given the death sentence for running away from non-uniformed armed officers. And there are people (including some on these boards) who say:

So, because London is under the threat of bombing - running away from the cops is now reason enough to kill someone.

I've worked in the field of criminal law since the mid 90's - both working on prosecuting and defending people accused of a variety of crimes - and never before have I seen such widespread acceptance of this total suspension of human rights, and that upsets me big time. Even at the height of the IRA bombing campaign the killing of innocent civilians by the police / army and security forces here in London has never been seen as just 'one of those things', and it was certainly never the case that the victims were blamed for getting themselves murdered. And yet we now talk about the victim having brought this misfortune on himself, that it was definitely tragic - but ultimately his fault.

An odd manner. Since when did we play judge, jury and executioner based on mannerisms? Well, now it would seem. Yes, the police have only that to go on. Yes they did what they felt was best under extraordinary circumstances - though personally I don't think that running away from armed men (whether they were uniformed or not) should ever be seen as wholly indicative of some form of guilt. Though right now there isn't enough information at this time for society to condemn this victim for his own death - saying: 'he must have been guilty of something - why else did he run?' I appreciate that this may change as more facts become available, but the response from society as whole right now is worrying… there is an underlying element which I feel is wrong about this.

5. In answer to Mata's question would he have been killed if he was Caucasian? I think the answer is - if he had been white he wouldn't have been a suspect. As I am of Asian / Middle Eastern appearance I cannot carry a rucksack into work without placing myself at risk of being mistaken for a terrorist and possibly challenged, searched and maybe even shot; I would be even more of a suspect than I currently am, due to my skin pigmentation. Similarly I cannot wear an unseasonably large jacket. And certainly I cannot act suspiciously (whatever the hell that means) - which is going to be fun given the dirty looks I get from white and black members of the public - on the streets, in pubs and on public transport - and that's just me going to work or having a drink. Who has defined what acting suspiciously is? Does anyone actually know? This is the second innocent man to have been dealt with by the police for acting suspiciously... I don't know if any of you lot saw the footage on tv of the tourist outside Westminster who was ordered at gun-point onto the ground by armed officers because someone said he was behaving suspiciously and had a backpack... turns out he was just an ordinary tourist. And if the police stop me and harass me (as both friends and family alike have been harassed in the past) for whatever reason, because of the current climate I have to (and most likely will) accept it. Whites aren't being randomly stopped in the streets to have their bags checked and asked to explain where they've come from and where they're going. Whites don't have to worry about not being able to run anywhere near the tube or train lines... and the worst thing about this is that this climate which would be rightfully considered racist and illegal at any other time is actually entirely necessary for the protection of us all.

6. Whites and non-whites alike, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Atheists. We all need the police to continue to do what they're doing... and all the while the only conclusion I can reach is that terrorists have won a major victory, they have instilled terror in us. For all our bragging and grandstanding about how we Londoners can cope - and how we'll never let 'them' win - the reality is that they have already won a decisive battle (though not the war). Right now we're so scared and paranoid that we are more willing to blame the victim of a police shooting for running away than actually accept that it was a perfectly understandable response to being challenged by armed men. We are so scared that we (even Asians and Muslims) understand the real need for police to stop and search people based entirely on their ethnic appearance. We are so affected that the basic rules on the state’s responsibility over the preservation of human life have gone out of the window - because the alternatives are just so much worse they don't even bear thinking about.

I can only conclude that this killing was tragic, but the response is perhaps a telling sign of how deep the tragedy really is.
_________

Just as a point to note - I do not wish to blame people for saying that this victim was ultimately responsible for his death. I understand why people who weren't there and have 'nothing to hide' can't see why he would have run away. I just feel that by accepting this so readily we are giving up something important... something that perhaps I can't quite define or understand myself. I just feel that it's gone and I miss it.

It would take a fraction of a second for a suicide bomber to detonate their bomb upon being grabbed. It would take several seconds for the officers to successfully restrain a writhing man. Ergo, he had to be shot.


You're not seeing the entire picture. He was killed because he was running through a train station, dressed in a heavy coat, towards a train. In that situation, you aren't really going to question the motives of the man, you're going to go with your initial perception of the events and surroundings. It's human nature.


I disagree. I think that if that man had been white, but displayed exactly the same behaviour, he still would have been shot. Besides, I was under the impression he had been tailed for a while. It wasn't as if the officers saw an asian man walking through the Underground in a heavy coat and thought "Ey oop, suicide bomber there lads."

OFK: Assuming police followed procedure, they would have identified themselves to Mr de Menezes as police when they told him to stop - not just menaced him with guns. So it's not simply "running from men with guns", it's "running from police".

Of course, the police could not be certain (obviously) that he was a terrorist. But the police can't be certain that anybody is a terrorist until it's too late. Certainly if we see a spate of indiscriminate killings by police, I'll be shouting about human rights. But for now - pending, of course, the independent inquiry - I think it looks more like a tragic but probably inevitable accident.

I think I know what you mean. It was an accident, but there seems to be less remorse... it's hard to put into words. I don't think I could blame either the police or the man for what happened... It seems like they had a reasonable suspicion to shoot, but the whole thing just leaves me with a sinking feeling in my stomach.

I am uncomfortable with non uniform officer’s being able to shoot to kill. There are a lot of foreign people in London who don’t speak good English, and as Commi said its good sense to run from men with guns. If they where uniformed it should be apparent they are police officers.
However in this case the man apparently spoke good English so I will agree with the majority that the shooting was unfortunate but justified.

First off - sorry for the (mis)use of colour here folks. I seem to have messed up the quotes - so I'm putting it into colour to differentiate between My original posts in gray, people's replies in dark blue, what I quoted others as having said previously in green and quotes from other sources in purple. All clear? No I didn't think so... sorry.
_____________

Like I said this is a screwy point... which I hope will be dealt with adequately in the inquiry. We the public don't know exactly what happened there - and this is effectively the crux of the police handling of this matter. Were the officers in a position to detain this suspect OR did they have no choice OR was it a fifty / fifty situation and entirely up to the officers on the ground? If the cops were in a clear position to detain him - having pinned him down, then he shouldn't have been shot. If he was struggling to the point where they felt threatened OR he could have struggled free and detonated a bomb then the cops were within their rights.
_____________

You're right, these are issues which have to be taken together as a whole in this context; but even then it still causes me immense discomfort. He was killed for running away whilst wearing a large coat and heading into an underground station. Death sentence for running away in heavy coat into station. The point I wanted to raise is that we live in one of the most liberal and tolerant society's in the world - one which cherishes human life... and yet so many people are simply shrugging and saying: 'So he died, big deal. Pity he wasn't actually a terrorist. He shouldn't have run away from the cops.' And that sounds to me like - 'It's okay for the death sentence to be administered for running away in a heavy coat into the tube.' This makes me feel very uncomfortable, given that ordinarily running away from the cops - no matter what you are wearing or where you end up doesn't / shouldn't result in you getting your brains blown out of your skull. The only reason it does is because of the current situation, but that isn't enough for me - it still makes me feel very, very uncomfortable.
_____________

1. Historically (and I mean right up until NOW) the police in the UK stop and search young Black and Asian men far more frequently than their White counterparts. A report conducted by the Police Complaints Authority (see this BBC News link for details) shows that:
- Home Office statistics also show black people are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people - although there are wide regional variations. On average, 13% of those stopped are subsequently arrested for an offence.
- Police forces cut their use of stop and search powers in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder report of 1999, amid accusations that some officers disproportionately target black and Asian people. Use of the powers began to rise again following the 11 September attacks, with police also stopping and searching under anti-terrorism legislation.
- The latest available figures show there was a 20% rise in stop and searches in 2001-2002. Stops of black people rose by almost a quarter, by 40% for Asians and by a third for other ethnic groups.

2. Amid the fear of terrorism stop and search of black men has risen by up to 25%, and up to 40% for Asians. 40% in the wake of 9/11, and that's because the terrorists looked Asian.

3. The cops saw the Brazilian walk out of a block of flats they were watching. He was wearing a heavy jacket - but the key point to look at here was that he was not white. He looked of dark complexion - possibly Pakistani, North African or Near / Middle Eastern. That is why they followed him. The cops didn't have special intelligence on this man. He didn't exit a specific address that was being watched. He wasn't seen associating with other suspects. He was wearing a heavy coat and he looked like a Pakistani. That is why he was followed.

4. The number of Asian men in London being stopped has risen dramatically, especially if they are carrying bags or rucksacks. No-where have I seen any reports of whites being similarly checked... if anyone has read something please post a link. I have been stopped twice and I think both examples will illustrate the point I'm trying to make: Firstly I had just left the Central Criminal Court with a Barrister in his BMW Sports Convertible. We were both in suits - and both have dark complexions (he's half Italian). A traffic cop - who was letting every car and van through - stopped our car and *politely* asked us where we had come from and where we were going to. This was on the 7th of July at about 4pm and we were both understanding as to why he stopped us, and re-assured that the cops were doing something, and doing it professionally. The cop didn't stop the ford escort behind us with it's white driver and passenger, or the cars behind that. The second time was on Friday at about 11am I was walking to Waterloo Station with a friend - when my White friend was stopped by a cop who asked if he knew who I was and were we walking together. When my mate confirmed that he knew me the cop then apologised to me saying "Sorry mate - but I had to check". Whites are not being stopped as potential terror threats, because the chances of there being a white terrorist have seriously diminished after the Good Friday Agreement and the gradual implementation of the IRA ceasefire. There are a few examples of white Muslim converts engaging in terrorist activity in the US and in Australia, but as yet - nothing here, and certainly nothing which has be translated into UK cops stopping whites on suspicion of terror related offences.

5. The worst thing is - that I honestly feel that this is necessary. It is needed for three reasons: Firstly to try and catch potential terrorists, secondly to dissuade other terrorists from launching any attacks, and thirdly to reassure the public that something is being done that they shouldn't be unduly concerned and certainly shouldn't take matters into their own hands. But, ultimately if Mr Mendez had been white I seriously doubt that the cops, who were watching that block of flats for potential Muslim bombers, would have even noticed him as he walked out, heavy jacket or no.
_____________



Well this is the problem isn't it? So far the reports that have come out aren't entirely clear - and I guess we're going to have to wait for the formal inquiry before the whole truth comes out.

Some reports say that none of the cops who challenged Mr Menezes were uniformed, some say that during the chase there were uniformed officers. What seems to be widely reported was that they were obviously armed. Some reports quote witnesses saying the cops had followed Mr Mendez for some time - he noticed them, then an officer shouted out to Mr Menezes - "Oi, you - come here!" When Mr Menezes didn't they drew their guns and he panicked turned and ran. They didn't adequately identify themselves as police. Other reports suggest that the officer challenging Mendez did say I'm a police officer - before Mendez ran.

The issue as to whether the police acted legitimately will centre on this point and whether or not they had the clear and safe opportunity to detain him. Either way whether they acted by the book or if they didn't I feel deeply sorry of the cop who now has to live with the death of an innocent man on his hands. I feel sorry for his colleagues and for the force as a whole. But ultimately my deepest sympathy os for the victim of this tragic and possibly inevitable accident.
_____________

Two quick things:

Apparently his visa had expired, which is thought to be why he decided to run

Personally, if a person pulls a gun on me, policeman or not, then I think I'll be staying very still. Sadly, I do not run faster than a speeding bullet

It seems odd that a person leaving a different flat in a watched building would be followed, even if his skin-colour matches 'the profile'. I'm sure the police did not take this decision lightly, and so I hope we'll find out the full events during the investigation. My current impressions are that this is a tragic end to an escalating series of events, each event leading to the next.

Overfriendly_Kitten:

Excuse me if I don't quote your points directly, but I had a bit of difficulty distinguishing each part, so I'm sorry.

I was working under the impression that the officers had absolutely no alternative at all. I'll admit, there are so many 'what if's' in this situation; the biggest of them is "What if he's carrying a bomb." Quite frankly, his behaviour was very foolish indeed.

Running in the first place was his first mistake. Now, the Police wouldn't have just pulled guns on him and given chase. They would have shouted "Stop! Police!" I assume. He legs it, and you must admit that one would hardly class that as the behaviour of someone with nothing to hide.

Second, actually vaulting the ticket barrier. If he had wanted to underscore the fact that he desperately didn't want to be caught, he couldn't have done it in any better way.

Third, he runs towards the train. In the minds of the pursuing officers, it's all adding up. A man in a heavy coat, legging it as fast as he can and boarding a train. There are hundreds of people on that train. People with family, friends, loved ones; they have to stop him. He hasn't given them any reason to think he is innocent thus far, and so he is shot, because a second later and all those people could be dead or seriously injured.

I put it to you; would you rather them not have shot him and risked another scene like those on July 7th, or rather shot him and saved those people?

Where I'm also having difficulty agreeing with you is the whole 'restraint' aspect. It's not easy, restraining a man. Now, I imagine a suicide bomber, upon attempted restraint would use every ounce of strength in his body to accomplish his mission and detonate his bomb. After all, if he does not do this, he does not get to Paradise and cannot secure passage into Paradise for 70 other of his loved ones. Plus, as I said, it takes him a fraction of a second to flick a switch. I takes much longer to successfully restrain him. The Police simply didn't have the time to risk him trying to detonate a bomb.

Maybe the important question is 'could they have done things differently and still ensured the safety of Londoners?' I'm not sure if they could have.

Apparently the Israeli forces are trained not to identify themselves as police officers when pulling their guns because this usually results in suicide bombers detonating their packages. It may be that the British forces have been taking training from them, which does lead to some interesting ethical problems.

First off may I sincerely appologise to the boards - and specifically to you Lil'Bear for that last post... many thanks to pgrmdave who has identified the problem (apparently you shouldn't use more than 10 quotes in any one post), and thanks to you folks who've ploughed through that mammoth post and read what I've said...


This is the whole crux of the issue. So far the reports that have been churned out by the police, the media, the eye witnesses etc are not conclusive. I guess we'll have to wait for the formal inquiry to see what really happened.


We have very little to go on here other than the eye witness reports that have been quoted in the newspapers and on TV...

If as some reports say - he was challenged by armed non-uniformed men who only said "Oi, you - come here!", then, given Stockwell's history of gun crime, running away would seem a very good idea at the time to someone who's quite understandably panicking at the prospect of being murdered. It would not be unreasonable of him to have chosen this option.

If the cops had uniformed officers with them and / or shouted out "stop we're police" then yes he made a mistake. He panicked for whatever other reason.



My response is that I would hope that he was killed because there was no other option available to the officers at the time. Right now, neither you nor I have enough factual evidence before us to make that assertion, which is why I have stated that the concern I have is whether or not the officers were ever in a position to detain this suspect OR did they have no choice OR was it a fifty / fifty situation and entirely up to the officers on the ground? If the cops were in a clear position to detain him - having pinned him down, then he shouldn't have been shot. If he was struggling to the point where they felt threatened OR he could have struggled free and detonated a bomb then the cops were within their rights.


This again depends entirely on what actually happened in the tube. Some reports have said that he was pinned, others that he had simply tripped. If he were pinned there is a possibility that if he were clearly offering no resistance then killing him was unnecessary. It may take a fraction of a second to flick a switch, but if you have got close enough to pin a man, holding him down by the arms, and IF he isn't struggling there is still the possibility that he may be taken alive (with or without a bomb on his person). Clearly you doubt this is possible or probable, and I doubt that shooting this man was the only option. We will have to await the outcome of the inquiry to see if that option of taking him alive was ever present. It may be that the cops had no other viable option open to them, it may be that they acted properly, it may be that they followed the rules, but the rules need to be changed (after all this potential terror suspect was allowed to get on and off a bus before being challenged), and other than the fact he was olive skinned, wearing a large jacket and seen walking out of a block of flats that was under surveillance he was actually innocent.

All these questions will have to be looked at in the inquiry, and I hope that the answers do show that the cops acted properly, if anything for the sake of the officer who right now has to live with the guilt of having executed an innocent man.

This would depend entirely on whether the cops successfully identified themselves to Mr Menezes. There are reports that when they challenged him they were all non-uniformed and only shouted out "Oi, you - come here!", and not: 'stop we're police'. If this were the case then the reason for running could well have nothing to do with this alleged visa issue, but just be the wholly reasonable reaction of a terrified man fearing for his life.


Change the situation and circumstances to that fateful morning and without the hindsight of knowing what's going on you may well have panicked as Mr Menezes clearly did. When we are scared we do things which are irrational, we don't listen to our own good advice and better judgement, because we're too terrified to even think straight... and perhaps we should give Mr Menezes the benefit if the doubt, that perhaps that is why he ran. Perhaps that is why he tried to escape down the tube. Certainly if he had the clarity of hindsight (that we now all enjoy) on that Friday morning - I doubt Mr Menezes would have run off to his death.

As far as speed is concerned all you have to outrun is the gunman's speed to successfully aim and then fire. There are numerous accounts of police and civilian bystanders avoiding being shot by running away - though in this instance the cops then chased him to his death... it is interesting to note he was only shot at very close range, perhaps if he had run somewhere else he might have even outrun the cops?


It does seem odd, that they chose to challenge him after letting this potential terror suspect board a bus and then get off (especially odd given the one bomb going off and another nearly detonating both on buses). It seems odd that they didn't shoot him until he got into the train, clearly the pursuit began before he reached the station - looks like they stuffed up here too. If Mr Menezes had been a bomber he could have detonated that bomb as soon as he entered the station, or on the bus.


They could have detained him before the terror suspect got on a bus. It is possible that they could have also done more to identify themselves as cops.


When the Israeli special forces go under cover like this they liase with the army and police and lock down the entire area. This way if someone runs away they get caught in a net. The other point is that if Israeli special forces are roaming around armed and undercover they may well get mistaken for terrorists themselves causing innocent bystanders and innocent but suspected people from panicking like Mr Menezes did.

Also there aren't many instances of suicide bombers getting caught like this, at such close range. Generally they either detinate and kill scores of innocents, or they get cold feet and give up peacefully, or they get seen early on and shot dead at a distance (in most recent examples including the killing of two young boys who wanted to attack a settlement - the bombers were killed by uniformed soldiers or setteler militia).

As to the ethics of this - I think that a shoot to kill policy is most likey needed when dealing with this kind of threat, as too will be the use of undercover teams of cops, but if innocent people (and no matter what anyone says about how stupid Mr Menezes was he was still innocent) are going to get killed then there need to be checks and safety measures to protect the public at large.

on another forum I post on we've had this same discussion... and I'm as confused about this here as I am there.



I am probably doing a lot of people a great disservice and may well have over generalised too far - but I feel that:

- Irrespective of the police action here, I am saddened at the way so many people have been quick to blame the victim for responsibility for his own death. "He was stupid", "he shouldn't have run away", "he should have given himself up", "he shouldn't have run into the tube station"... are all comments from people who are most possibly right, though speaking with the authority and conviction of hindsight. These people don't seem able to empathise with an innocent man who, on the spur of a lethal moment, clearly panicked; and when you're terrified out of your mind at the very real prospect of being killed I doubt there are many who would think with clear and rational minds.

- But who has empathised with Mr Menezes? From a lot of normal, decent people I've got the impression that there is no sense of compassion in what are sometimes very aggressive assertions, from all sorts of nice middle class people. There is no Quantum of Solace. Yes, they say - 'it was tragic' - but any sympathy seems to me, to be so heavily tinged with blame that, in my mind, it lacks conviction and credibility.

- This makes me sad and leads me to the conclusion that the terrorists have gained a major victory - they have instilled terror in us. For all our bragging and grandstanding about how 'we Londoners can cope' - and how 'we'll never let them win' - the reality is that they have already won a decisive battle (though not the war). Right now we're so scared and paranoid that we are more willing to blame the victim of a police shooting for running away than actually accept that it was a perfectly understandable response from a terrified individual to being challenged by armed men. We are so scared that we (even Asians and Muslims) understand the real need for police to stop and search people based entirely on their ethnic appearance. We are so affected that the basic rules on the state’s responsibility over the preservation of human life have gone out of the window - because the alternatives are just so much worse they don't even bear thinking about (specifically the fact that no matter how upsetting Mr Menezes' death is - it was most likely the only course of action open to the officers - and that running from the cops which isn't actually a crime in itself can now be seen as justification for a petentially lethal response). We as Londoners are so scared of another bomb that we are giving up many dearly held rights and liberties, and it is unfortunately the right thing to do.

- I can only conclude that this killing was tragic, but the response is perhaps a telling sign of how deep the tragedy really is. I actually feel a sense of responsibility, perhaps because so many people are ultimately trying to tie responsibility down to Mr Menezes and him alone? Maybe I just think that we should feel responsible on behalf of society as a whole - for Mr Menezes was killed for us. He was killed to make our society safe, and it was a mistake - but a mistake which was made in our name by the very guardians we have appointed to protect us.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong.

Y'know OFK, I think the truth (as it inevitabley does) lie somewhere in the middle of our two arguments. Of course, we cannot truly say that what the Police did was right until we are in full possession of the facts. For instance, like you said, we don't know if the Police announced themselves as Police, or if they merely yelled at him to stop without announcing themselves. That is pretty key.

Just figured I'd throw in me tuppencewurth on the topic of whether the guy who was killed was restrained by the police, and therefore whether they needed to shoot him.

If he had had a bomb, then there is no option other than to kill him ASAP. Even if the police had the guy pinned to the ground, they still have no idea where the switch to detonate the bomb is, and how it operates. Is the switch inside the backpack? Is it taped to his arm? Is it taped to his inner thigh, and if he pushes his legs together, it operates? Without that knowledge, having him pinned to the ground by 5 officers isn't worth a thing. He could still conceivably detonate the bomb.

If you get to the point of chasing a suspected suicide bomber into a crowded area, there's little choice other than to make a clean instant kill - any other course of action leaves the bomber the option of detonating.

The question here isn't so much 'should they have shot him', but 'should they have followed him'. Once that decision was made, his fate was pretty much sealed, unfortunately.

If blame ought to be placed anywhere - and it's a bit early for that, obviously - I for one am looking at the security services. This killing has made it obvious that placing somebody on a list of suspected terrorists is not a routine act of security but puts that person's life in very real danger. I want to know exactly how it was that de Menezes was suspected, and what measures the security services are taking to make sure their information is more accurate.

Would you have thought that the police acted correctly before the bombings? If not, then this man has paid for other people's crimes with his life. If the only reason he was killed was for being suspected of having a bomb, then I think that it is a poor reason for murder. There is no doubt in my mind that the police did the wrong thing in that case. Police should only kill when it has been made clear that the suspect will kill somebody i.e. is pointing a gun at people, or is clearly trying to kill people. Not because he is running away and may, even probably does, have a bomb. It is not worth it to kill a man for a possibility.

No, I wouldn't have thought that the police acted correctly, you're quite right. But that's because we're now in a very different environment.

I agree with you that it is indeed a poor reason for murder.

However, while we're thinking about what-ifs, what if he HAD had a bomb, and had blown up the underground train he fled onto - we'd all be asking why the police didn't shoot him earlier.

Unfortunately, the police involved didn't have all the information they needed - as Commie says - it's not a police failure, it's an intelligence failure. From their point of view, they had little option but to shoot him - he walked out of one of the buildings the bombers were using, wearing a big bulky coat (as to hide a bomb strapped to himself), and fled as soon as the police made themselves know. Not only that, but he fled towards a known bomb target (the Underground). You can see how the police involved put 2 and 2 together.

According to this article in the Guardian - and a story in today's Metro it looks like the Met have admitted that Mr Menezes was not wearing a heavy jacket, nor did he leap over the barrier to enter the station.

I wonder if this changes things at all? He still ran away from the cops and the key issue there will be if they successfully identified themselves as police (and were any of them visibly uniformed?). But the list of suspicious things connected to Mr Menezes have diminished.

The point to note is that so far we've all been labouring under mistaken information... I wonder how many of the facts we've been told are also incorrect.

Hmm, that's interesting. I do remember one of his family members telling the Beeb that he normally only wore a t-shirt in the summer. Could a bomb conceivably be concealed beneath a denim jacket? If not, the police officers are now on shaky ground...

In the United States, I believe that the police can only shoot when there is a clear and present danger. Not that he was possibly, even probably, carrying a bomb to kill people, but that it was a clear danger, that it was obvious that he planned to kill people. While it is true that if officers took every possible threat seriously then we wouldn't need to worry about the terrorists, we would need to start worrying about the police...

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

*WE* watch the watchmen. Which is precisely why this type of discussion is important. If we stop examining every part of our existance, our life, our society, our influences.... we become less than educated. Less than citizens. Less than human.

As I see it, the police were faced with a very credible threat. They had reason to belive it would happen again. This person acted in a way consistant with that aim. They acted accordingly.

Though I agree, it is a terrible state of affairs where suspicion leads to death.

I do not know about the rest of you, but I have already survived through one terrorist bomb blast. And that experience has taught me one thing. I would rather live in freedom and self determination... than have an organisation placed above myself with a veto on whether I live or die.

It would appear Mr De Menezes was more innocent than originally thought.

A Must Read

'Oops'

Bye Bye Charles Clark!

Sorry if this has been posted before. I don't think it has though.

Yup. Not only wasn't he wearing a 'big suspicious coat', he wasn't even ACTING suspiciously. He didn't run from the police, he calmly went through the tube station and only ran once he saw his train at the station and presumeably didn't want to miss it.

Now, how many people do exactly the same thing every day?

I'd like to think this has kicked the shoot on site terror laws firmly in the balls. It has had the unfortunate effect that the only innocent person killed in the failed bombings was one shot by the police.

Looking at the leaked report it seems like a complete comedy of errors. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so devestating for those involved.

Alright, so everything I've said in this thread so far has just been invalidated by new evidence. Let's look at this in a new light. Bloke leaves his house, wearing nothing that could possibly conceal a bomb. Saunters down to the train station, wanders in, picks up a copy of the Metro. Walks downstairs to the platform, runs for a few paces to catch the train before it leaves, sits down. At this point, a group of men enter the carriage, grab said bloke, throw him to the floor and shoot him seven times in cold blood.

So, um, the police murder some innocent bloke on the thinnest of justifications ("he walked out of a building where a terrorist may once have been!), and proceed to tell a pack of absolute bloody lies about why they did it. We'd better see some criminal prosecution out of this...

If there were pictures, and CCTV, why did it take so long for this information to come out? I get the feeling that their superiours knew, and hoped they could cover it up.

Apparently it's official policy not to comment on an investigation while it is still happenning.

Unfortunately they started talking this rubbish before the official investigation started up, so they can't fall back on that excuse.

Does anybody know if there is any more information on this subject? Were the officers involved subjected to any legal action? Were their superiors? Did the family receive any monetary compensation? Were any new laws enacted to reduce the chances of this happening again?

The police involved in the shootings were allowed to go on holiday afterwards. There has been no notification of any possible reprimands.

The superiors pretty much dodged any bullets and got off without a scratch, unlike a certain unlucky Brazilian.

The family have been offered compensation (£15,000 I think, unsure) but to my knowledge they have refused and are demanding the head of the Metropolitan Police stand down.

There has been no change in the law either, to my knowledge.

To be fair it's unlikely anything will happen until after the report is published. Now considering that it isn't an independant public inquiry you have to wonder just how much blame will stick.

Yes, this tends to be the way things happen here with high-level scandals - once there's an inquiry, everybody just sort of stands around until it's finished.

Surprisingly, the BNP have a rather amusing image on their site about it

http://www.bnp.org.uk/images/humour/underground_warning.jpg

Sarcasm is a beatiful thing. It's amazing how quickly people can bounce back and make jokes about things. I do hope that the inquiry is thorough enough to prove the truth (whatever it may be) of how things happened.