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

[Art]

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

Scotland Yard's admission that an innocent man, Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead on Friday by plain-clothed police searching for the 21 July London bombers has focused attention on the record of British firearms officers.

Jean Charles de Menezes was not the first person to die by mistake at the hands of UK armed police.

His death, which came amid heightened tension caused by a string of bomb attacks on London by Islamic extremists, is the latest in a long line of controversies involving firearms officers.
Only a month ago two Metropolitan Police officers were arrested by detectives investigating the fatal shooting of Scottish-born Harry Stanley in Hackney, east London, in 1999. Family and friends of Mr Stanley have been campaigning for the officers who shot him to face a criminal trial. There have been two inquests and two judicial reviews during the saga.
In November 2004 members of SO19, the Met's firearms unit, staged an unofficial strike in protest after two officers were suspended following the second inquest.
The Stanley case revolved around the question of whether the officers had acted correctly in shooting the 46-year-old.
They claimed they shouted: "Stop, armed police" and fired when Mr Stanley turned around while carrying a bag which they believed contained a gun. In fact it only contained a table leg.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

How many innocent people get shot in america?

I have absolutely no idea. Is this relevant to this discussion?

 

[Art]

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?

In the UK the officers involved in shootings NEVER say anything and in fact are rarely even identified. All communications are chanelled through the police press section or senior officers. It is also not unknown for them to lie in the first instance until the emotion dies down and then drip feed the truth over time. As it is they are being very vague over what warning was issued if any. It is even possible that the guy just started running to catch his train.

 

[Evo]

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

"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

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

"When they drew their weapons and shouted “Stop, armed police”, the man looked over his shoulder and bolted. He was described as being very fit and agile."

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

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?

It's easy to think that in hindsight, these police are inexperienced in terrorism, they're scared, their thoughts are being based on the suspicious things they are seeing that are all adding up. I can see how they reacted as they did. I think this is a problem, but it is something that can only be gained with experience. Delaying and second guessing could take many lives, but this leads to what you brought up in an earlier post. They aren't dealing with rational people, expecting a suicide bomber to be rational is unrealistic. A suicide bomber is going to detonate rather than be captured.

 

[Art]

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

Most people reformulate their theories as new facts come along but evidently not you.

An eyewitness captures the police raid on flats in Tulse Hill in south london on saturday, flats where the man shot dead by police on Friday - Jean Charles de Menezes - had lived.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=406

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.

Since the speculative reporting of Thurs/Fri new FACTS are now available. I suggest you absorb them and reformulate your ideas. Here's yet another link for you;

Apology for family of Brazilian shot by mistake
Frank Millar, London Editor

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has admitted somebody else could be shot as a result of a national "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" policy towards suspected suicide bombers.

He was speaking after formally apologising to the family of the innocent 27-year-old Brazilian electrician shot five times through the head by officers at Stockwell tube station on Friday morning.

On Friday, Sir Ian told a press conference that the shooting was "directly linked" to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation. But in a statement issued on Saturday afternoon the Metropolitan Police admitted they had got the wrong man and that the victim, Jean Charles de Menezes, had no terrorist connection.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0725/4017495578HM1MILLAR.htmland here's another,

Police mistakenly followed Mr Menezes on Friday as he left the same apartment block as one of the men suspected of last week's attempted suicide bombing.

His death has raised questions about the adoption of a shoot-to-kill policy by British police, who issued a statement saying they had the wrong man.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets," they said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10337437

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.

The FACT the metropolitan police say it was their men is irrelevant to you then. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you choose to ignore what they say too as you are ignoring all the other FACTS that don't tie in with your own personal theory.

 

[Astronuc]

edit: wow, Andy and I are psychically linked.

Please forgive me, but that's worrisome.

Actually innocent people do get shot in America - see the example of Amadou Diallo - which I posted in this thread. It would take time to dig up statistics, assuming I could find the right ones.

We still need a statement from the police that he was/was not connected in anyway with a terrorist cell.

One must consider TSM's logic - if the guy was a bomber, wouldn't he have set off the bomb if he was going to be arrested - isn't that what suicide bombers have done. He got to the train and fell down, and still didn't set of the bomb - which presumably if he had - he would have detonated it once on the carriage.

He fell down, and the police put a gun near his head and shot him 5 times. There is no sense in that!

It would appear that training for officers with guns is very poor.

One more thing, presumably de Menezes did know that the house/flat was under surveillance. All he knew was that guys with guns were after him. This in a society where police do not normally carry guns, IIRC.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Alternate Scenario ...

How many other people ran if a warning was yelled!?

Try and put yourself into the scene.

____________________________________________________________

You live in London and are getting on the tube at a station a few hundred yards against a botched attempt at a suicide bombing.

You hear the fateful words, "Stop, ARMED POLICE'.

You immediately think, 'SH!T ... There's a suicide bomber nearby.'

Your first reaction ... put distance between you and the bomber in case he goes off.

Now, since you know you are not the bomber and the subway is crowded, you KNOW they can't mean YOU.

You run.
____________________________________________________________

Questions:

How many other people ran at the time 'STOP, ARMED POLICE' was yelled? Was he the only one and if so, why should he assume he was the object of their persuit?

Why was he not 'contained' by a ring before being challenged? The scenario almost sounds like he was pursued from one direction essentially herding him in the direction of the trains.

 

[The Smoking Man]

"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

"When they drew their weapons and shouted “Stop, armed police”, the man looked over his shoulder and bolted. He was described as being very fit and agile."

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

Thanks Evo.

This is really strange.

I watched the interview with the Police spokesman on BBC World (Satellite) last night and he distinctly said 'flats'.

I guess we will never know, really.

One thing is for sure, if they do not release CCTV footage of the incident, we KNOW the police are covering things up.

This whole incident took place in front of a London Tube Turnstile.

To gather evidence against 'fair dodgers', EVERY turnstile is covered by CCTV so they can fine fare jumpers.

 

[The Smoking Man]

One must consider TSM's logic - if the guy was a bomber, wouldn't he have set off the bomb if he was going to be arrested - isn't that what suicide bombers have done. He got to the train and fell down, and still didn't set of the bomb - which presumably if he had - he would have detonated it once on the carriage.

He fell down, and the police put a gun near his head and shot him 5 times. There is no sense in that!

It would appear that training for officers with guns is very poor.

Thanks Astronuc.

I might also add from my previous 'eyewitness account':

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

He didn't just trip. He was then pushed to the ground by three officers which included the officer who shot him at point blank range.

 

[Evo]

Thanks Evo.

This is really strange.

I watched the interview with the Police spokesman on BBC World (Satellite) last night and he distinctly said 'flats'.

I guess we will never know, really.

Well, since your link showed the police official as saying "flats", then it probably was. It would be easy to clarify, it does change how I look at things.

One thing is for sure, if they do not release CCTV footage of the incident, we KNOW the police are covering things up.

That is a major concern of mine, why haven't I been able to find the official police statement? The longer they wait to issue one, the less credibility they have with me because it gives them time to "retrofit" a scenario which exonerates them.

This whole incident took place in front of a London Tube Turnstile.

To gather evidence against 'fair dodgers', EVERY turnstile is covered by CCTV so they can fine fare jumpers.

Why hasn't this been aired? If they are telling the truth, they should be airing this. Of course this is the British, I guess I can't hold them to US standards, which took a while, and a lot of pressure from the media, to get to where it is.

 

[Art]

Thanks Evo.

This is really strange.

I watched the interview with the Police spokesman on BBC World (Satellite) last night and he distinctly said 'flats'.

I guess we will never know, really.

One thing is for sure, if they do not release CCTV footage of the incident, we KNOW the police are covering things up.

This whole incident took place in front of a London Tube Turnstile.

To gather evidence against 'fair dodgers', EVERY turnstile is covered by CCTV so they can fine fare jumpers.

Here are extracts from the latest news report from the site EVO referenced,

Final minutes of the innocent man mistaken for a terrorist
IT TOOK 26 minutes for Jean Charles de Menezes to get from his flat in Tulse Hill to the entrance of Stockwell Tube station.

There are eight separate flats in the block. When Mr Menezes emerged from the communal front door just after 9.30am, the police must have realized from the photographs they carried that he was not one of the four bombers. Even so they decided that he was “a likely candidate” to follow because of his demeanour and colour, so one group set off on foot after him.

By far the most controversial claim comes from a number of witnesses who have cast doubt on police statements that they shouted a warning or identified themselves to the suspect before opening fire.

Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout “police” or anything like it. Mr Ruston, a construction company director, said that he saw two of the officers put on their blue baseball caps marked “police” but that the frightened electrician could not have seen that happen because he had his back to the officers and was running with his head down.

Mr Ruston remembers one of the Scotland Yard team screaming into a radio as they were running. Mr Ruston thought the man that they were chasing “looked Asian” as he tumbled on to a waiting Northern Line train.

Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.

Again, Mr Ruston says that no verbal warning was given.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html
And here is a good opinion piece from Tim Hames in the same newspaper;

Oops, sorry, won't do. We can't just shrug our shoulders over this shooting

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-1707225,00.html

 

[alexandra]

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.

I know, El Hombre - figured it out subconsciously in my sleep (this has really, really gotten at me; I can't even forget about it in my sleep) and woke up and edited straight away! The news was such a shock yesterday - every single news report I read, heard and saw on TV said that Jean Charles de Menezes had absolutely no connection to any terrorist organisation (I see some people still doubt that). At least there is some debate about this 'shoot-to-kill' policy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711769.stm

 

[The Smoking Man]

Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html

My god!

I was hesitating saying that because I had not backed it up.

So the two held him down while he was executed.

Let this be a lesson to all you fair dodgers out there!

On the trains they have ads trying to embarrass people by saying they will have a criminal record if they don't pay their fares.

Executions will probably drop the incidence of fare dodging quite a bit further.

 

[Townsend]

My god!

Very sad...

Five shots is what bothers me. What the heck is the point in dumping five rounds into someone's head? I mean...two shots in the base of the skull is more than enough to kill anyone.

Well, at least he didn't have to suffer any pain...I guess if I was to be killed for nothing I would want it to be quick and painless too.

 

[alexandra]

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'

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

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

Thanks for these links, Art. The least we can acknowledge now that the innocent man is dead is his innocence. How unfair that he should have been killed and then still be accussed of having been somehow guilty of something, even after the officials have publicly declared he was not. In all reports I heard and read yesterday authorities clearly proclaimed that Jean Charles de Menezes was innocent; in my opinion, it is disrespectful to both the victim and his family to besmirch his good name after such an injustice has already been done.

 

[Smurf]

Well, at least he didn't have to suffer any pain...I guess if I was to be killed for nothing I would want it to be quick and painless too.

Yeah, I guess you could call being terrified into running from armed men and getting tackled onto the floor of an underground station quick and painless.

 

[Townsend]

Yeah, I guess you could call being terrified into running from armed men and getting tackled onto the floor of a subway station quick and painless.

I said, "if I was to be killed for nothing." And what I meant was that if I was in his place and the police were going to kill me for nothing I would rather they shoot me in the head than in the body.

Why, are you so frickin cynical smurf? You always assume the worst in people...

 

[Smurf]

Why, are you so frickin cynical smurf?

I'm hoping to find out one day.

You always assume the worst in people...

You have no idea how true that is.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It is believed that Mr de Menezes, who is thought to have spoken good English, may have been working illegally in Britain for up to four years. He is thought to have panicked when confronted by armed men as he was about to buy a Tube ticket at about 10am. Witnesses said that he hurdled the ticket barrier, ran down the escalator and stumbled into a carriage.

Three armed officers who pounced on him, might have thought his padded jacket contained explosives. One of them shot five bullets from a handgun into his head in front of horrified passengers.

The man, who was wearing a padded jacket that officers might have thought contained explosives, was pounced on by three officers, one of whom shot five low-velocity bullets from a handgun into his head in front of horrified passengers.

One senior source said last night: "We were led to an address in Stockwell by documents found in the abandoned rucksacks and by our intelligence. This house, which now appears to be a multi-occupancy address, was put under surveillance."

This gets better by the minute.

His clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions.

Let this be a warning to any young rap artists out there. Padded coats and wool hats in the summer are definitely not smart. Pull up your pants and stop walking funny.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Why, are you so frickin cynical smurf? You always assume the worst in people...

Oh, pish, if he was truly cynical he would have suggested that he would have preferred a body shot. That way he could have sued for damages after being declared innocent.

Ask me ... I'm the master cynic around here.

 

[Astronuc]

Very sad...

Five shots is what bothers me. What the heck is the point in dumping five rounds into someone's head? I mean...two shots in the base of the skull is more than enough to kill anyone.

Retribution. Presumably the officer took the suspect as a terrorist bomber - and he simply (in pure unadulterated hatred) fired not one but five bullets into another human being - as in take this you ************ .

Well I can't read someone else's mind. I can only review the evidence and wonder/speculate as to the motivation to shoot someone multiple times when only one bullet would be sufficient.

Perhaps it was a message to terrorists - this is what will happen if you try this.

 

[Art]

Oh, pish, if he was truly cynical he would have suggested that he would have preferred a body shot. That way he could have sued for damages after being declared innocent.

Ask me ... I'm the master cynic around here.

I think the prize for the most cynical piece of work goes to the author of the article you cited suggesting he may have been an illegal immigrant as if that somehow lessens the brutality of the killing.

 

[Art]

Retribution. Presumably the officer took the suspect as a terrorist bomber - and he simply (in pure unadulterated hatred) fired not one but five bullets into another human being - as in take this you ************ .

Well I can't read someone else's mind. I can only review the evidence and wonder/speculate as to the motivation to shoot someone multiple times when only one bullet would be sufficient.

Perhaps it was a message to terrorists - this is what will happen if you try this.

I'd say the message to the terrorists is you can move on to new targets; now that they have the Metropolitan Police doing their work for them on the underground.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think the prize for the most cynical piece of work goes to the author of the article you cited suggesting he may have been an illegal immigrant as if that somehow lessens the brutality of the killing.

I read that as a reason he might run when confronted with the authorities.

Kind of like yelling immagracione (sp?) in LA.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'd say the message to the terrorists is you can move on to new targets; now that they have the Metropolitan Police doing their work for them on the underground.

Okay, you're the new official cynic. I bow in the presence of the master.

 

[Smurf]

Oh, pish, if he was truly cynical he would have suggested that he would have preferred a body shot. That way he could have sued for damages after being declared innocent.

Ask me ... I'm the master cynic around here.

That's not cynical, that's just stupid. I would have preferred to not have been chased and shot at while on my way to work or wherever. Evidently this society doesn't believe in that any more. <-THATS cynical

I think the prize for the most cynical piece of work goes to the author of the article you cited suggesting he may have been an illegal immigrant as if that somehow lessens the brutality of the killing.

Also not cynicism.

 

[Art]

I read that as a reason he might run when confronted with the authorities.

Kind of like yelling immagracione (sp?) in LA.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical I read it in the context of this extract from the article I referenced earlier

This attempt to blame Mr Menezes for his own death continues unabated. It was hinted that he might have been an illegal immigrant, as if that justifies what occurred. It has been argued that it was “irresponsible” of him to wear a quilted jacket in July, as if that were a crime. There are, furthermore, “no excuses”, it is intoned, for the fact that he ran when armed plainclothed police officers shouted at him.

 

[Evo]

Retribution. Presumably the officer took the suspect as a terrorist bomber - and he simply (in pure unadulterated hatred) fired not one but five bullets into another human being - as in take this you ************ .

Well I can't read someone else's mind. I can only review the evidence and wonder/speculate as to the motivation to shoot someone multiple times when only one bullet would be sufficient.

Perhaps it was a message to terrorists - this is what will happen if you try this.

I think that the multiple shots were accidental, a panicked officer, insufficient training, probably only fired the weapon in a few controlled training situations before this. It was an automatic weapon, he could have accidently fired, and it could have gone off multiple times. Even if he intended to fire, he probably was suprised it went off so many times. These people are given this power but are improperly trained to use it. I blame the higher ups here more than the officers. You don't give automatic weapons to children, or the improperly trained.

 

[Art]

Also not cynicism.

Yes cynic -

In informal use, derived from the meanings described hereabove, cynicism may refer to heartless calculating behavior or thinking

From your reference.

 

[Art]

I think that the multiple shots were accidental, a panicked officer, insufficient training, probably only fired the weapon in a few controlled training situations before this. It was an automatic weapon, he could have accidently fired, and it could have gone off multiple times. Even if he intended to fire, he probably was suprised it went off so many times. These people are given this power but are improperly trained to use it. I blame the higher ups here more than the officers. You don't give automatic weapons to children, or the improperly trained.

I agree. I don't believe it was done out of pure badness just raw incompetence.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think that the multiple shots were accidental, a panicked officer, insufficient training, probably only fired the weapon in a few controlled training situations before this. It was an automatic weapon, he could have accidently fired, and it could have gone off multiple times. Even if he intended to fire, he probably was suprised it went off so many times. These people are given this power but are improperly trained to use it. I blame the higher ups here more than the officers. You don't give automatic weapons to children, or the improperly trained.

I'd hate to see him in a firefight then. If this thing carried a magazine of 14 bullets he could only return fire twice under pressure and then have to re-load.

This was a pistol and the mosnomer 'automatic' should actually be 'semi-automatic' since I don't know of any pistol issued to the police of Britain that will 'unload itself' into a victim if the trigger remains pressed.

Although most of the pictures surrounding this event have been the uniformed officers at ground level in their Kevlar and holding fully automatic short rifles, the witness stated these were plain clothes officers using "a black handgun in his left hand" which was corroborated by the witness interviewed at the opposite end of the carriage.

 

[Smurf]

Yes cynic - From your reference.

And you call that calculating and thinking?

Besides, it's wrong anyways. Just like 'funner' isn't a word, cynicism doens't mean that.

 

[The Smoking Man]

And you call that calculating and thinking?

Besides, it's wrong anyways. Just like 'funner' isn't a word, cynicism doens't mean that.

Shades of 'the definition of 'it' batman'!

Let's not forget who the bad guys are here.

Back to your corners.

Come out fighting and slagging off the 'powers that be'.

 

[Smurf]

Shades of 'the definition of 'it' batman'!

Let's not forget who the bad guys are here.

Back to your corners.

Come out fighting and slagging off the 'powers that be'.

...


...


...
..
.

What?

 

[Townsend]

I think that the multiple shots were accidental, a panicked officer, insufficient training, probably only fired the weapon in a few controlled training situations before this. It was an automatic weapon, he could have accidently fired, and it could have gone off multiple times.

automatic as in fully automatic or semi-automatic. I have fired well over fifty different pistols and countless thousands of rounds. In fact in one afternoon I went through 2,500 9mm rounds. In all my times of shooting I have never accidentally fired five rounds. And to have them all hit their mark, even at point blank range, is something that cannot happen by accident.

Even if he intended to fire, he probably was suprised it went off so many times. These people are given this power but are improperly trained to use it.

The natural reaction is to stop firing...not keep on firing. Unless he was angry and emotionally charged.

I blame the higher ups here more than the officers. You don't give automatic weapons to children, or the improperly trained.

I have no idea what kind of training this guy had. I bet it was sufficient to know how to operate a the weapon he was using.

By the way Evo, I am not trying to be a prick I just don't see the possibility that this could ever happen by accident.

 

[Smurf]

I'm with townie on this one. The guy was either emotionally charged or fully intended to shoot him that many times.