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

[El Hombre Invisible]

Surely being a sniper, you have to be better at your job than anyone else. I mean, I'm a programmer. If I coded the wrong business rule, no-one's going to pat me on the shoulder amd say "you did the right thing under the circumstances". And people always complain about the weatherman getting it wrong. Surely killing the wrong person cannot be dismissed with a "... under the circumstances...". WHAT circumstances - like, not knowing who the guy was? Not knowing if he was a terrorist carrying a bomb or some Brazillian back-packer? Yeah, under those circumstances, leave the fugging safety on.

Although, Alexandra: it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot-on-sight policy. As far as I'm aware we haven't quite gone that way yet, but give it a couple of weeks.

 

[loseyourname]

I should have the right to wear a "thick padded coat" and enter a subway that is open for public access without being shot by the police.

But you do have that right. It's not written into British law that you will be shot if you wear a heavy coat on the subway in the summertime. I would venture the guess that there is no systematic effort to stem such behavior, either. This just sounds like a rogue cop did something stupid. It only becomes a civil liberties issue if the government sanctions this kind of thing. From the looks of it, they're condemning it, officially reaffirming that yes, you do have the right to wear a heavy coat on the subway in the summertime.

 

[Joel]

This just sounds like a rogue cop did something stupid. It only becomes a civil liberties issue if the government sanctions this kind of thing.

After page 1 in this thread I thought this is the most important comment that has to be made, but alas, you where there first. I also think it of outmost importance to remember that the british government has not sanctioned this killing and we are yet to see what kind of actions this will lead to. I don't think Britain should be declared a police state yet.

 

[Art]

I believe they are saying he's innocent of carrying a bomb, it appears that he had connections to a terrorist cell and had been followed as he left a house under surveilance. He was running from them because he was guilty of associating with suspected terrorists.

July 23, 2005

Suspect shot dead 'had no bomb'
By Adam Fresco, Rajeev Syal and Steve Bird

ARMED undercover police chased and shot dead a man directly linked to the London bombers’ terror cell after he ran into a South London Underground station and tried to board a train.

It is understood that he was found not to have been carrying a bomb.

Three officers had followed him to Stockwell station after he emerged from a nearby house that police believed to be connected with Thursday’s attempted bombings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1705147,00.html

BLAIR SORRY OVER SHOOTING

Britain's senior policeman has apologised to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian man shot dead at Stockwell Station. "This is a tragedy. The Metropolitan Police accepts full responsibility for this. To the family I can only express my deep regrets," Sir Ian Blair told Sunday with Adam Boulton on Sky News.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190065,00.html It appears as the police now accept he was innocent of anything to do with terrorism perhaps some posters on this thread should also accept he was innocent.
This was a cock up by the police and needs investigating to find out how it was allowed to happen. One question I have is why was he allowed to leave the suspect house, walk to a bus stop, board a bus and enter an underground station before being challenged?? If he had been a suicide bomber this incompetence would have meant many lives would have been lost. By leaving it until he was inside the station to apprehend him the police themselves created the high pressure situation that led to them shooting an innocent man dead.

 

[BobG]

Although, Alexandra: it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot-on-sight policy. As far as I'm aware we haven't quite gone that way yet, but give it a couple of weeks.

Yes, it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot on sight policy.

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Anti-terrorist police have a policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. At its most extreme, it involves shooting at the head

Armed officers in England and Wales aim at the chest, but bombers hit in the chest can still trigger explosives

Once a person is judged a serious risk to the public armed police can open fire

They can only open fire while on duty when absolutely necessary and when traditional methods have tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed

Police are expected to identify themselves as armed officers and warn of their intent to use firearms

They must give sufficient time for a suspect to observe the warning, unless that puts anyone at risk

I love the third and the last ground rule. How sure does the officer have to be before shooting? Is 50/50 equivalent to "serious risk" when the man is headed into a subway carrying maybe 50 people or more? Or does the officer just have to be more than 2% sure? Or does he have to be 100% sure even though that guarantees virtually all attacks will be successful?

Of course, the officer doesn't have time to come up with numbers like 5%, 50%, or 90%, which is the only reason ambiguous terms like "serious risk" and "puts anyone at risk" make any sense. He reacts the best he can, hopes he made the right decision, then analyzes the situation after the fact to figure out what he did right and what he did wrong.

 

[Evo]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190065,00.html It appears as the police now accept he was innocent of anything to do with terrorism perhaps some posters on this thread should also accept he was innocent.

This says no such thing, his link with the suspected terrorists is being investigated, the "tragedy" and "mistake" was assuming that he was a bomber, or that he was one of the four that they were searching for. He's still under suspicion of being linked with the terrorists.

 

[Art]

This says no such thing, his link with the suspected terrorists is being investigated, the "tragedy" and "mistake" was assuming that he was a bomber, or that he was one of the four that they were searching for. He's still under suspicion of being linked with the terrorists.

You are wrong. In the interview which I watched in full on TV the police accept unreservedly he had no links whatsoever to terrorism.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke described the shooting of Mr Menezes as an "absolute tragedy".

Mr Menezes, who lived in Tulse Hill, was completely unconnected to Thursday's attempted bombings, Scotland Yard has confirmed.

The shooting is being investigated by Scotland Yard's Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

 

[Andy]

bollocks, the officers followed the guy from a house under investigation for terrorism, that would appear to be a link right there. I very much doubt the guys that did the shooting where actually police officers, more likely secret service or SAS and they where in constant radio contact with their superiors. The shoot for the head policy has been in place for the past 3 years ever since the british governement has been advised by the isreali governement that aiming for the body could set off any explosive device.

 

[Evo]

That could be my misunderstanding of exactly what they are saying. I read it to say that he wasn't tied to last Thursday's attempts, not that they have completely ruled out any connections to suspected terrorists. If when they complete the investigation it is discovered that he had no ties at all, it still doesn't mean it is anything more than one officer using bad judgement and/or panicking. Unfortunately this happens.

 

[Andy]

i read in one of the british newspapers that the officers had followed the guy from a terrorist house, he may have been unconnected to thursdays attempts but he was still followed from a house under surveilence for the suspicion of terrorism.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yes, it's a shoot-to-kill policy, not a shoot on sight policy.

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Anti-terrorist police have a policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. At its most extreme, it involves shooting at the head

Armed officers in England and Wales aim at the chest, but bombers hit in the chest can still trigger explosives

Once a person is judged a serious risk to the public armed police can open fire

They can only open fire while on duty when absolutely necessary and when traditional methods have tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed

Police are expected to identify themselves as armed officers and warn of their intent to use firearms

They must give sufficient time for a suspect to observe the warning, unless that puts anyone at risk

Is it just me or does this make no sense at all?

So the police identify themselves ... If they do this to a real bomber, won't he now just detonate as soon as the warning is yelled?

The only people they are going to get to 'shoot repeatedly in the head' ARE innocents who CAN'T detonate a bomb.

Shoot to kill will only stop a bomber if a warning is NOT yelled.

A real bomber is going to either detonate as soon as he hears the warning or comply and allow the police to approach and THEN detonate so he can kill the police who threaten him.

This is the biggest Catch-22 since the original was described to Yosarian himself.

The new approach to this is going to be to apply a 'deadman' switch... a switch that constantly must remain depressed by the bomber that, when released, detonates.

Shoot him in the head and he let's go.

 

[Art]

Just how many times do the British police have to say this man was innocent before others accept it? Seems like more of the usual 'never let facts stand in the way of a good theory'

A rainy, grey Sunday in south London but after police shot dead a man in an incident they are now calling a "tragedy", the atmosphere felt far from normal.

Maria Arbelaez said she now feels less secure in London

The streets of Stockwell are quiet, with a few people waiting for buses and others striding under umbrellas towards the Tube station.

At the station itself, where Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was killed by police hunting Thursday's would-be bombers, the atmosphere was muted, a mixture of sadness and anger.

Scotland Yard has now said Mr Menezes, who lived in nearby Tulse Hill, was completely unconnected to the attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4712961.stm

Police admit 'tragic' error: the man we shot on the Tube was no terrorist By Andrew Alderson, Charlotte Edwardes and David Harrison
(Filed: 24/07/2005)

Scotland Yard was facing a severe crisis last night after it admitted that the man shot dead at Stockwell Tube station on Friday morning had no links to terrorist attacks on the capital.

The victim, a Brazilian, was shot five times in the head as he ran on to an Underground train pursued by armed officers, including members of SO19, Scotland Yard's specialist firearms unit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/24/ixportaltop.html

 

[Andy]

Thats assuming that the suicide bomber is smart and its pretty obvious they aint.

 

[Andy]

He's innocent of not carrying a bomb on him, but not innocent of terrorist activity. Did the officers know that at the time? nope. They had to do what they did just incase he was carrying a bomb and when all the evidence suggests he may have been carrying a bomb what else could they do?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Thats assuming that the suicide bomber is smart and its pretty obvious they aint.

Ummm ... How 'smart' do you have to be to run a deadman switch if the very trigger is that it goes off when you ARE shot in the head?

See, the thing is, that suicide bombers don't actually make the bombs.

I heard a description of how they found a Palestinian 'cache' of vests hung on a garment rack like you find in the garment district of NY. They knew how many vests were out there by the number of empty hangers there were on the rack.

 

[Art]

He's innocent of not carrying a bomb on him, but not innocent of terrorist activity. Did the officers know that at the time? nope. They had to do what they did just incase he was carrying a bomb and when all the evidence suggests he may have been carrying a bomb what else could they do?

Really, Have you read ANY of the links I provided? Do you think the police are lying when they say the man is innocent? If so would you share your 'reasoning' as to why they are lying, with the rest of us?

 

[Evo]

Just how many times do the British police have to say this man was innocent before others accept it? Seems like more of the usual 'never let facts stand in the way of a good theory'

Their reason to go after him was based on the belief that he was carrying a bomb and/or a suspect from last Thursday. All I have seen them apologize for is their mistake on that belief. They would not have been given the "go ahead" if he was just suspected of having ties, which I believe is still the case. We don't know at this point. The police went on the fact that he left a house connected to suspects and he acted suspiciously, and he fled when they identified themselves. Ok, he acted stupid, not a reason to be shot, but if you act stupid under these circumstances, you are likely to wind up shot. Did the officer have reason to shoot? I don't know, I wasn't there.

I had a police officer pull a loaded gun on me in my own house, I froze, I'm not stupid, or guilty, so I had no reason to not freeze. (they thought possibly someone had broken into my house, it was a mistake) I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to run from police in the subway after what happened a few days ago.

 

[Andy]

If they where that smart they would plant the bombs and then walk away before they detonate. And if they where even smarter they might try to negotiate to get the things they want.

And yes i have read your links and all they confirm is that he didnt have a bomb, what they don't say is that he was followed from a house directly linked with terrorism.

 

[Andy]

ditto to what evo said, i would have said that but she's smarter than me.

 

[Evo]

Is it just me or does this make no sense at all?

So the police identify themselves ... If they do this to a real bomber, won't he now just detonate as soon as the warning is yelled?

The only people they are going to get to 'shoot repeatedly in the head' ARE innocents who CAN'T detonate a bomb.

Shoot to kill will only stop a bomber if a warning is NOT yelled.

A real bomber is going to either detonate as soon as he hears the warning or comply and allow the police to approach and THEN detonate so he can kill the police who threaten him.

This is the biggest Catch-22 since the original was described to Yosarian himself.

The new approach to this is going to be to apply a 'deadman' switch... a switch that constantly must remain depressed by the bomber that, when released, detonates.

Shoot him in the head and he let's go.

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you.

 

[Art]

Their reason to go after him was based on the belief that he was carrying a bomb and/or a suspect from last Thursday. All I have seen them apologize for is their mistake on that belief. They would not have been given the "go ahead" if he was just suspected of having ties, which I believe is still the case. We don't know at this point. The police went on the fact that he left a house connected to suspects and he acted suspiciously, and he fled when they identified themselves. Ok, he acted stupid, not a reason to be shot, but if you act stupid under these circumstances, you are likely to wind up shot. Did the officer have reason to shoot? I don't know, I wasn't there.

I had a police officer pull a loaded gun on me in my own house, I froze, I'm not stupid, or guilty, so I had no reason to not freeze. (they thought possibly someone had broken into my house, it was a mistake) I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to run from police in the subway after what happened a few days ago.

Is there perhaps some subtle ambiguity in this statement that I am overlooking?

Police admit 'tragic' error: the man we shot on the Tube was no terrorist

If not can we stop with the "he probably deserved it anyway" type of argument and just accept as the police have that they made a tragic mistake and killed an innocent man.
As to the precise circumstances in which he was shot I have already posted my view of that which is that basically if the police did have serious suspicions about him they were incompetent for allowing him to a) board a bus and b) enter the underground station. Hopefully the investigation into the shooting will determine exactly what happened.

 

[Andy]

If the guy walked into a bakery they wouldn't have reacted the same way. Because he went direct from this house to a tube station gave them reason to try and aprehend him. When he ran away that gave them grounds to believe he may have been carrying a bomb.

 

[The Smoking Man]

ditto to what evo said, i would have said that but she's smarter than me.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050724/afp/050724161625top.html]He[/PLAIN] was one of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from around the world who have moved to London in recent years amid the capital's economic boom.

Menezes had emerged from "a block of flats" that was under surveillance in Tulse Hill, Blair revealed.

Armed police raided an address in Tulse Hill Saturday after days of surveillance. The Observer newspaper said Menezes may have left the same address on Friday.

You do understand that a 'block of flats' in American English does not translate to 'house' don't you? He left an 'Apartment Building'.

 

[Evo]

Is there perhaps some subtle ambiguity in this statement that I am overlooking? If not can we stop with the "he probably deserved it anyway" type of argument and just accept as the police have that they made a tragic mistake and killed an innocent man.
As to the precise circumstances in which he was shot I have already posted my view of that which is that basically if the police did have serious suspicions about him they were incompetent for allowing him to a) board a bus and b) enter the underground station. Hopefully the investigation into the shooting will determine exactly what happened.

I agree. The whole thing was botched in any scenario. It does not make sense to wait until he entered the subway to detain him. Unless they were under orders not to detain him unless he entered (I did read that right before he entered the officers were advised to get him and do whatever was necessary, which leads me to believe that this was botched at a higher level).

The police in the UK do not have a lot of experience carrying firearms, from what I understand. This was an automatic weapon. I have read no statement from either the officer or the police stating the circumstances leading to the shots fired. Could it have been panic? Could he have accidently pulled the trigger due to the struggle? It discharged 5 times, but if the officer was panicked and his finger was taught, it would easily discharge multiple times, correct? I have fired weapons at a firing range and it is very easy to fire a gun.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If the guy walked into a bakery they wouldn't have reacted the same way. Because he went direct from this house to a tube station gave them reason to try and aprehend him. When he ran away that gave them grounds to believe he may have been carrying a bomb.

So a person on his way to work leaving from 'an apartment building' and going directly to an underground station is ample proof for you.

Let this be a lesson to us all.

Stop for a coffee on the way if anyone ever gives Andy a gun.

Question: if he had made it into the station and onto a train ... presumably a real bomber's target ... and he still had not detonated, why did they assume he was still a bomber?

Are you familiar with the police in Brazil, by the way? Maybe this guy had been socialized into a different way of thinking about 'police'? Bolting to a place where there were witnesses may be a standard procedure where he comes from? You do note he did stop once he got there. You don't pump 5 bullets into a man's head while he is still moving full tilt.

 

[Andy]

Well i read in one of the newspapers that they guy left a house not a block of flats.

I think we aint going to hear exactly what went on with this, on thursday and friday from what i heard on the radio and read in various newspapers this guy was followed from a terrorist house into the tube station where they tried to aprehend him, what was said made him sound very guilty of some terrorist activity and i don't doubt that he had links with terrorist organisations.

As Evo said the police in the UK don't have much experience with firearms which is why i suspect that the guys that did the shooting where actually secret service or SAS personnel i very much doubt that an armed police officer in this country would have taken this action. The armed police would have been a visual ditterent (sp) outside the station.

 

[Evo]

You do understand that a 'block of flats' in American English does not translate to 'house' don't you? He left an 'Apartment Building'.

It is sounding more and more like they over reacted. I understand that they are in hightened alert due to the ongoing attacks. I can see them following him and then getting concerned about the things that were adding up. It was highly suspicious, the running was the clincher, he might as well have yelled out "I'm guilty" as far as the police were concerned. If he hadn't run he would be alive right now.

I'm still curious why I haven't read an official police statement on exactly what happened. Here in the US, a statement would have been made. What exactly did the officer that fired the shots say? Has that been released?

 

[Art]

I agree. The whole thing was botched in any scenario. It does not make sense to wait until he entered the subway to detain him. Unless they were under orders not to detain him unless he entered (I did read that right before he entered the officers were advised to get him and do whatever was necessary, which leads me to believe that this was botched at a higher level).

The police in the UK do not have a lot of experience carrying firearms, from what I understand. This was an automatic weapon. I have read no statement from either the officer or the police stating the circumstances leading to the shots fired. Could it have been panic? Could he have accidently pulled the trigger due to the struggle? It discharged 5 times, but if the officer was panicked and his finger was taught, it would easily discharge multiple times, correct? I have fired weapons at a firing range and it is very easy to fire a gun.

Yes, the British police do not normally carry guns and for those that do there is serious cause to wonder just what standard of training they have been given as this is by no means an isolated incident. There have been many instances of the police in Britain shooting innocent, unarmed people. Not because they are bad or evil I hasten to add but because they are incompetent which comes down to the selection procedures whereby these individuals are chosen to be allowed to carry guns and the training they receive with regard to their use.

 

[Andy]

The tube station was just as busy at the entrance as it was in the train itself. What i was saying was that the guy was followed from a suspected terrorist house directly to the tube station.

Put yourself in the officer's position.

1, You have a house/apartement under surveilance for terrorist activity.
2, You see someone wearing a large overcoat (on a very hot day) leaving the house/apartement.
3, He walks directly to a tube station
4, When told to "STOP ARMED POLICE" he turns see's the officers and then runs away towards the train jumping a barrier.

What would you do in that situation? Answer that question honestly considering the lifes off everyone on and around that train and tell me if you would have done anything different.

 

[Evo]

Well i read in one of the newspapers that they guy left a house not a block of flats.

I also read that it was a house. TSM's post says it's a block of flats.

TSM, walking directly to a tube station (the place of the attacks) after leaving a place under surveilance, wearing a heavy coat in the dead of summer, then running from police - equals trouble any way you look at it. It all adds up to no good. I can't blame the police for thinking the worst in this scenario. I think they should have stopped him sooner, but I think they were waiting on an ok from above.

edit: wow, Andy and I are psychically linked.

 

[Andy]

There have been many instances of the police in Britain shooting innocent, unarmed people.

Name those instances, and i bet the police officer involved had a justifiable reason to shoot.

How many innocent people get shot in america?

 

[Andy]

edit: wow, Andy and I are psychically linked.

Ain't it cool.

 

[Townsend]

How many innocent people get shot in america?

Good question... I would like to know.

 

[Andy]

I would put money on it being a hell of a lot more than in the UK. Anyways, some people are in a different timezone and need to sleep.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Put yourself in the officer's position.

1, You have a house/apartement under surveilance for terrorist activity.

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/content/images/2004_1575.JPG

2, You see someone wearing a large overcoat (on a very hot day) leaving the house/apartement.

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/content/images/2004_1575.JPG and he originates from Brazil living in London ... how hot is hot?

3, He walks directly to a tube station

This is 'suspicious' in any way?

4, When told to "STOP ARMED POLICE" he turns see's the officers and then runs away towards the train jumping a barrier.

I searched yahoo for the phrase STOP ARMED POLICE but didn't get a hit. Who are you quoting?

The most eloquent testimony came from Mark Whitby, 47, a water installation engineer from Brixton, who was sitting on the Tube train reading a newspaper while it was stationary with its doors open.

He said: "I heard people shouting 'get down, get down'. An Asian guy ran on to the train and I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit - he was absolutely petrified."

He added: "The man half tripped and was then pushed to the floor by three plain-clothes police officers who were pursuing him.

"One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand.

"He held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it all. He was dead, five shots. I was literally less than five yards away."

So he was pushed to the ground by three policemen one of whom unloaded 5 bullets into his head!?

In all of this NOBODY asked the question 'Why has he not detonated yet?'

Did they think that as a bomber he wouldn't have been happy only killing three police, a subway car full of people and taking out the subway itself?