Skip to content or view screen version

Cousin of shot Brazilian man speaks out

. | 24.07.2005 09:39 | Anti-militarism | Anti-racism | Repression | London | World

'I can't believe they shot him, because he was not a terrorist. He was an honest man. We [the family] are still too shocked to talk about it. But I am sure [that] he didn't do anything wrong. It was not right for the police to do that.' Alex Pereira, a cousin of the shot man who lives in London

{It is very upsetting but intriguing indeed to hear his cousin say he saw:

"bullet wounds in his back and his neck when I went to the mortuary in Greenwich."

Haven't the numerous apologists for the armed men's actions been harking on that there is no other way to deal with suspected suicide bombers, they have to shoot such people in the head to prevent any explosives going off.

Then why, pray tell, was he shot in the neck and the back!?}


Man shot in terror hunt was innocent young Brazilian

· Met regrets London shooting 'tragedy'
· Victim's country seeks talks with Straw

Tony Thompson, Gaby Hinsliff and Alexandre Xavier
Sunday July 24, 2005
The Observer

A young Brazilian man, living and working in London as an electrician, emerged last night as the innocent victim shot dead by police in their hunt for the suicide bombers targeting the capital.
The dead man, killed at Stockwell tube station on Friday after fleeing from armed police, was named as 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes. His body was identified by Alex Pereira, a cousin who lives in London and who afterwards told The Observer: 'I can't believe they shot him, because he was not a terrorist. He was an honest man.

'We [the family] are still too shocked to talk about it. But I am sure [that] he didn't do anything wrong. It was not right for the police to do that.'

Pereira said that the most upsetting part of identifying his cousin was 'to see bullet wounds in his back and his neck when I went to the mortuary in Greenwich.'

The Brazilian government last night voiced 'shock and surprise', saying it had always sought the 'eradication of the misery' of terror 'within international norms and respect for human rights'.

The statement added that Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, due in London on a previously scheduled visit for a UN reform conference, would be seeking a meeting with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for 'clarifications about the death'.

Originally from a farm half an hour from the city of Gonzaga in Minas Gerais state in south-east Brazil, Menezes, who was unmarried, had been living in London for three years. He appears to have lived in a house in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, south London, which had been under surveillance since the four failed bomb attacks on the city's tube and bus system last Thursday.

His grandmother, Dona Zilda, who lives on the farm, said early today: 'He was a lovely, educated young man, a worker. He would never be involved in terrorism.'

Scotland Yard said last night that Menezes 'was not connected to incidents in central London on 21 July in which four explosive devices were partly detonated. An inquest will be opened to acknowledge formal identification and adjourned, while awaiting the outcome of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death.'

Soon after being followed from the Tulse Hill house by plainclothes officers watching the address, Menezes lay dead on the platform at Stockwell station from multiple gunshot wounds. He had failed to obey orders from armed officers to stop.

His death will cause controversy over the way Britain confronts suicide bombers, and has prompted calls for a public inquiry. In its first statement yesterday, the Metropolitan Police Service expressed 'regret' over his death.

'We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday, 21 July 2005,' it said. 'For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police service regrets.'

Downing Street and Home Office sources last night declined to comment. But Ken Livingstone, London's Mayor, said the 'human tragedy' should be laid at the door of the terrorists.

'All Londoners will wish to offer their condolences to this man's family and friends,' he said. 'The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public. This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility.'

The Muslim Council of Great Britain warned last night that the 'terrible, tragic mistake' could have serious consequences. 'We got lots of hostile emails saying: "How dare you criticise the police?" - and now we hear that he is innocent,' said media secretary Inayat Bunglawala.

'We of course understand the police are under a great deal of pressure and it's a race against time to capture these four suspected bombers. But it is absolutely vital that their rules of engagement are very, very stringent and that this terrible mistake does not occur again.'

He said the police needed to encourage public confidence and co-operation from Muslims and others. 'For that co-operation to occur, the police also need to be seen to be making every possible endeavour to ensure they are going after the right people.'

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which automatically examines fatal police firearms incidents, confirmed it was investigating.

Scotland Yard said last night that an unspecified number of officers had been taken off firearms duties, which is standard practice after a weapon has been discharged. The officers are still at work on normal duties.

Armed officers are instructed to shoot at the head, not the chest, when facing a suspected suicide bomber, to disable them faster. The change follows advice from the Israeli police.

Witnesses to Friday's shooting told of the terror on the man's face. Mark Whitby, a passenger who was sitting just yards away, said the man was 'hotly pursued' on to the train, adding: 'I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified ... It was a very, very distressing scene to watch, and to hear as well ... I saw them kill a man.'

Whitby last night told The Observer: 'The death of anyone, involved [in terrorism] or not, to me is abhorrent.'

Ken Jones, chief constable of Sussex and chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers' committee on terrorism and allied matters, appealed to the public yesterday to 'put themselves into the shoes' of officers. Dozens of firearms officers have been trained in confronting suicide bombers since 11 September and undercover officers regularly travel on trains. It is not a perfect science,' he said. 'I would ask the public to try to put themselves into the shoes of the officers, often young men and women, and understand how difficult these cases are.

'They have to be prepared to take a life knowing that if they fail to do so, the cost could be hundreds of lives. We have dreaded this day for years, but it is now an operational reality on the streets of Britain.' He said officers had to intervene at an earlier stage when facing 'people intent on mass murder'.

The address in Tulse Hill was identified from materials found inside the bombers' unexploded rucksacks on Thursday and was immediately put under surveillance. When Menezes, dressed in baseball cap, blue fleece and baggy trousers, emerged from it at around 10am on Friday, he was followed. When he headed for the nearby tube station, officers decided to arrest him. An armed unit took over, ordering him to stop. He did not. His unseasonally thick jacket apparently prompted concern that he had explosives strapped beneath.

Witnesses said the man jumped the ticket barriers and was chased into the station, where he half-tripped boarding a train. He was allegedly pushed to the floor by armed police, then, according to eyewitnesses, an officer fired five shots into his head.

Police quickly discovered he did not have a bomb, but it was not until yesterday that he was cleared of any involvement.

Officers are trained to look for 'precursor activities' indicating a suicide bomber about to detonate his explosive, thought to include a look of agitation combined with a sense of disconnection from the world. The Met said Menezes' 'clothing and behaviour' caused concerns.

Massoud Shadjareh, of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, also called for a public inquiry. 'How can you shoot someone on mere suspicion?' he asked. 'You can't even put someone in prison on suspicion.'

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said yesterday said the shooting suggested that a 'shoot-to-kill' policy was in operation, and suggested it would increase the threat of further attacks. 'I cannot believe that this degree of violence is going to do anything but encourage more violence.'

Allegations of 'shoot-to-kill' policies are highly emotive following the scandal over tactics used by police in Northern Ireland.

Graham Brodie, a barrister who specialises in criminal law, said there should now be an investigation by another police force into whether criminal charges should be laid against any officer for murder or manslaughter. However, Brodie doubted that any officers would be prosecuted.

Did the police act legally?

The police killing of a man mistakenly thought to be linked to the London terror attacks has prompted a huge political controversy, but legally rests on one crucial question: were police reasonably responding to what they saw as a threat to the public?

The incident, which the Metropolitan Police said yesterday was a 'tragedy' that it regretted, has automatically triggered a probe by the independent Police Complaints Commission and a coroner's inquest.

The leading human rights lawyer, Lord Lester, told The Observer that the issue of whether the police had acted properly was not one of human rights legislation, but would hinge instead on the specific facts of the case.

'The issue rests entirely on the facts - that is, of whether the police were reasonable in thinking that they were acting on a threat to themselves or the public.'

He noted that under existing legislation, police had always had the right to use force to confront such a threat.

He added that the reported change in rules of engagement to deal with the new threat of suspected suicide bombers, by shooting in the head instead of the chest or legs, would also be properly addressed as part of the inquiry.

The shooting at Stockwell Tube Station in south London is the latest in a number of incidents in recent years in which British police personnel's use of fatal force has been questioned in inquiries or the courts.

An inquest last year found a police marksman guilty of 'unlawful killing' when he shot a 46-year-old decorator from Hackney after mistaking a table leg the man was carrying for a gun. But this year, a High Court judge overturned the ruling, saying that there had been insufficient evidence to support the inquest verdict.

Ned Temko


 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1535226,00.html

.

Comments

Hide the following 23 comments

what a tragic waste

24.07.2005 10:55

I 'd rather not be TOO harsh on the police under the circumstances,---but all those armchair
experts saying--"well- -he should've stopped!"" are really pissing me off!!------For crying out loud!-----the poor guy comes from a country where guncrime is epidemic and rogue cops remove street-kids with a bullet in the head-!----you don't need to be a psychoanalyst to work out why he took fright and flight.
Prepare for more mistakes people; its all part of the dirty detritus of war but put the blame where it justly deserves to be.

Meg


I agree

24.07.2005 13:15

yeah and that insensitive bastard sir ian blair has had the audacity to apologise to the family but also warn that others may be shot to

these people make me sick

the sooner this junta is overthrown the better

Robbie


Responce...

24.07.2005 14:03

>Then why, pray tell, was he shot in the neck and the back!?}

He was shot in the back and neck because the cops didn’t take their time to aim. They pointed the gun towards his head and fired quickly to stop him from having the time to set off a bomb, if he had one. And anway, a shot to the spinalcord instantly disables the body so it makes sense for them to shoot for the neck.

Doesn’t this rubbish theory some people saying about the cops holidng him down and ‘executing’ him? If they held him down and took their time to shoot him he would have been shot directly in the head, not shot across the back and neck.. This also shows the cops were panicking and turely worried about him setting off a bomb.

>yeah and that insensitive bastard sir ian blair has had the audacity to apologise to the
family but also warn that others may be shot to

Would it have been better if Ian Blair didn’t apologise? I’m sure if he said nothing you’d be complaining about that too.

And other people might be shot, he’s just being truethful. We are under threat from suicide bombers you know…

LK


Killing innocent civilians

24.07.2005 14:16

LK: "We are under threat from suicide bombers you know…"

And last week the police killed more innocent people in London than suicide bombers did.

The idea that we should gratefully accept the police shooting innocent people because suicide bombers kill innocent people has a flaw in it somewhere.

Are you against the killing of innocent civilians, or not?

BRB


You are fast becoming the USA - Congratulations!

24.07.2005 14:35

That maybe was the first innocent casualty of your security apparatus. But I'll bet anything that it's not gonna be the last. Welcome to fascism - with a friendly face still - Homeland Security wouldn't even apologise.

Happy living in fear, you bastards.

When injustice becomes reality, resistance becomes an obligation!

Martin
mail e-mail: milh0uze@gmx.net


All the difference in the world....

24.07.2005 14:45

Whell, that certainly shows the difference between "them" and "us".

They kill, and it's the "t" word: terrorism.

We kill and it's the other "t" word: tragedy.

....and then, of course, the difference between them and us,

we kill (over 30,000 Iraq civilians) and we "apologize".

(and they don't)

....so you see, we're civilized,

we kill, but then say we're sorry, and they don't.

...it makes all the difference in the world....

kl


shooting psychosis

24.07.2005 14:58

"And other people might be shot, he’s just being truethful. We are under threat from suicide bombers you know…"

Why don't you yourself get a gun and every time you go out take it with you and shoot every "suspicious" person you see?

Daniel


Oh please

24.07.2005 15:11

"For crying out loud!-----the poor guy comes from a country where guncrime is epidemic and rogue cops remove street-kids with a bullet in the head"

He'd been living and working in London for several years - long enough to know that that isn't the situation here. He wasn't just off the boat and in a strange land.

Try not to infantalize foreigners.

Qwerty


Guncrime in the UK

24.07.2005 15:48

"He'd been living and working in London for several years - long enough to know that that isn't the situation here. He wasn't just off the boat and in a strange land."

I'm not sure what your point is - besides the fact that there most definitely is guncrime in Lambeth, I'm unaware of any training for people in Britain on how to react when you're on your way to do a job and suddenly people start shouting and waving guns about.

Seems to me that the 2 possible responses are "Flight or Fright" and that his reaction was the former.

Do we foreigners unlearn our socialisation when we have spent a few years in Britain?

BRB


I was ready to defend them but...

24.07.2005 16:08

"Armed officers are instructed to shoot at the head, not the chest, when facing a suspected suicide bomber, to disable them faster. The change follows advice from the Israeli police."

When the Israeli police are consulted about anything, you can be sure a lot of innocent people are going to be killed. It's like asking the Yorkshire Strangler, Hitler, Bin Ladin, or Stalin how to safely police the streets. The only way they would be good advisors would be if they were repentent, but like Nazis, Israeli police rarely are. I was ready to defend the Met, until I read in the INDEPENDENT that they pinned the guy to the floor and shot him five times in the head and neck. Extra-judicial executions are murder, punishable by life-imprisonment, but you can be sure that the "regret" of the Blairite police leadership won't do jack about this until Blair is impeached. The word in the above article that they were taking advice from the Israelis finished the argument for me.

This "split second decisions" b.s. is laughable, given that they had been following this guy from his house. How many "split seconds" were there between his house and the Underground station? That's absolute bull, and the police know it. Also, if he's a Brazilian with no connections to criminal or terrorist activity, why were they following him from his house in the first place? Why did they even know where he lived? Also, why do they expect him to stop because they point guns at him and threaten to kill him? That would make the vast majority of people in the world cower or run, and the American police (also role-models for the Blairite-era police) use cowering and running as excuses for murder all the time, using the same b.s. "split second" arguments. It always works, since almost everyone who has a gun pointed at them either cowers or runs. If they don't cower or run, then they must be a threat, so no matter what they do they're declared by the subsequent enquiry to be in the wrong. Consequently, American police shoot vastly more people, in absolute numbers and proportionally, than European police, and then brag about it. They then change their story as soon as the enquiry starts, which is always a sham enquiry to let them off the hook. Also, doesn't the armed unit following him from his house on no evidence suggest a premeditated racial hate crime? If unarmed (but preferably armored) officers had arrested him immediately without threatening his life, or chased him down, pinned him to the floor, and arrested him, or (in the case of armed officers) shot him because he was pointing a weapon at them, or trying to detonate a bomb when they didn't have him yet, then maybe I would be willing to believe their story.

Also, having said all of this, I'm not claiming that the average Met officer behaves in this way. I've actually seen many Met officers behave exceptionally well even when they've been highly provoked, mainly by anarchists spitting on them and trying to rough them up. This murder is merely the result of Blair insisting that British police behave like American police, importing American advisors to encourage British police to be more violent. The proliferation of armed units to every corner of Britain is another problem, especially since they go on strike whenever they're ordered to obey the law. Armed units are needed, to be certain, but they've always existed in Britain, and it is merely the excessive, unnecessary use of them recently, and the incorrect American-style training of them, that has resulted in the recent rash of police shootings, be they legitimate, negligent, or murderous.

-B.Z.

Blue Zappa


BRB...

24.07.2005 16:50

>And last week the police killed more innocent people in London than suicide bombers did.

‘People’? As far I know they only killed one person...

The first terrorist attack was two weeks ago, the bombers killed over 50 people. More people would have been killed last week if the bombs fully detonated. If you want to compare police killings to terrorist killings, don’t ignore the fact that more innocent people have been killed by terrorists in the past two weeks than have been killed by police in the last decade.

>The idea that we should gratefully accept the police shooting innocent people because suicide bombers kill innocent people has a flaw in it somewhere.

I think police intelligence is at fault, not the ‘shoot to kill’ policy. Would you be against the police shooting a real suicide bomber dead and preventing another terrorist attack?

>Are you against the killing of innocent civilians, or not?

Yes I am, and the cops are too...thats why they shot someone they suspected of being a sucide bomber after he ran from them and ignored their demands.

LK


Yeah an he was wearing a coat

24.07.2005 16:56

So what if he had been here for a couple of years he had obviously sussed out that he was being tailed by some dodgy looking types. have you ever noticed the similarities between the police and the criminal fraternity that they are supposed to be fighting against, ie south london or east london gangsters.
if you have ever been in the position to see plain clothes london cops arresting people you often have difficulty in working out who's who. If the people they are arresting are white it's hard to tell what's going on.
The foul language they use is identical to the crooks and the way they behave it's hard to understand what the hell is going on it's only when the meat wagon turns up with uniformed cops and you see who gets thrown in the back that you can be sure who the cops are.

I don't see that it's a question of why didn't he stop more a question of why was he not apprehended out on the street possibly by uniformed cops. Apart from the fact that the cops have the latest technology radios ect ect.
Every ten year old kid has a mobile phone and in the circumstances I don't believe that the team that followed him were not in contact with their HQ there is no excuse for what went down.
They followed him for at least a few minutes and could surely have "picked him up" without any fuss.
Anyone who lives around Stockwell Station as I did for many years will know just how quickly the cops can be called to the Station in a very short time there is a special police (SPG when I lived there) compound just around the corner and besides they were supposed to be on high alert. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the guy wasn't seeking refuge in the station there are nearly always uniformed cops in or around it.
Is there any evidence that he was challenged by and or was running away from cops in uniform ?
The official story seems to have changed from "he was seen coming out of the block of flats" to "he was seen coming out of the road in which the block of flats"... i heard that on the BBC this morning .

sunshine


LK

24.07.2005 17:25

"don’t ignore the fact that more innocent people have been killed by terrorists in the past two weeks than have been killed by police in the last decade."

Yes, well now that the police appear to have carte blanche from individuals as yourself, their kill rate is likely to go up significantly. Isn't that what you said as well?

"I think police intelligence is at fault, not the ‘shoot to kill’ policy. Would you be against the police shooting a real suicide bomber dead and preventing another terrorist attack?"

Only IF you can 100% guarantee to me that police 'intelligence' has now sorted itself out, and that no more innocent innocent people will be killed as a result of the STK policy.

And of course you can't. Because by the time a suicide bomber has got a bomb into a crowd of people, the intelligence has failed and is worthless. However, in the unlikely case that an officer is so certain that he is preventing a bombing, that he is prepared to be tried for murder if he is wrong, then I guess he should feel free to fire away.

You're a bit like that Alan Derschowitz with his "torture is justified if it sames lives" bollocks, except come to think of it you're more extreme - because death is even more final and damaging than torture.

"Yes I am, and the cops are too...thats why they shot someone they suspected of being a sucide bomber after he ran from them and ignored their demands"

Hello, we're going round in circles here - you're arguing that the cops kill innocent people because they're against killing innocent people........

Running way from cops is not a capital offence, and neither is ignoring an order from Mr. Plod. And neither should it be. Neither is summary execution of innocent people or even big time criminals acceptable.

If you are saying that it is sometimes okay to kill innocent people, how EXACTLY are you any different from the suicide bombers?

BRB


facts of life dearie

24.07.2005 17:38

QWERTY----or whatever your name is
For the record Mr.De Menezes had only been in the UK for 3 years by all accounts and he had
previously spent some time in San Paolo a notoriously violent and corrupt place where he quite possibly saw people killed in front of him-------Perhaps he was a realist and it's yourself who 's prone to infantalising-----

Meg


Shoot to Kill

24.07.2005 17:45

SHOOT TO KILL Current rating: 0
by The Guardian
(No verified email address) 23 Jul 2005
Briton uses tactics learned from Israeli counterpart....Shoot to Kill.
Shoot to kill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seconds to decide if suspect is suicide threat
Special armed squad first to use tactics developed with Israeli aid

Vikram Dodd
Saturday July 23, 2005

Guardian

The shooting yesterday at Stockwell tube station was the first time police used special tactics developed to tackle the threat of suicide bombers.
Under Operation Kratos a senior officer is on standby 24 hours a day to authorise the deployment of special armed squads, who will track and if needs be, shoot dead suspected suicide bombers.

One of the most senior officers involved in protecting London confirmed there were special teams of armed officers ready to be deployed.

A senior Metropolitan police source with knowledge of firearms procedures said of the shooting at Stockwell: "This was an intelligence led operation, within the parameters of Kratos." Officially the Met will not talk about Kratos, but the tactics have been in place for a year and were developed after British officers learnt from their Israeli counterparts how best to tackle suicide bombers.

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers insisted that there had been no change in the law or in firearms policy. The relevant law is section three of the 1967 criminal law act, which reads: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime."

Acpo's guidance to officers, revised in February this year, says: "You may open fire against a person only when absolutely necessary after traditional methods have tried and failed, or must, by the very nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried.

"To sum up, a police officer should not decide to open fire unless that officer is satisfied that nothing short of opening fire could protect the officer or another person from imminent danger to life or serious injury."

The threat to life must be clear and present, say Acpo guidelines which add that weapons should be used when "police officers need to shoot to stop an imminent threat to life. The imminence of any threat should be judged in respect to the potential loss of life ... and consideration of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality."

Challenge
The guidance says shots to the upper chest area "are likely to be effective in achieving rapid incapacitation. Shots which strike the other parts of the body cannot be depended upon to achieve this."

Officers from Kratos or following their tactics are reported to be authorised to shoot to kill, and aim for the head to avoid triggering explosive devices attached to the chest or waist. Suicide bombers targeting public transport present a unique challenge. As July 7 showed, if they succeed the result is mass murder.

One senior police source suggested tactics had changed according to the "different scenarios" posed by a suicide bomber suspect. A senior Met source said: "The operation would have been authorised by a senior officer, and the armed officers would be able to self-deploy, open fire if they saw an imminent threat. They can get authority retrospectively. Once the officer decides to shoot, it's shoot to kill."

This is a view shared by another senior Met officer. He explained why shoot to kill is the only option once armed officers are deployed: "If you start debating whether I should shoot him in the leg, the suspect could come back."

This officer said there was nothing new in firearms officers being given permission to shoot suspects in the head. "You shoot where it best suits the situation, it depends on many factors, such as the angle you are at to the suspect. When the officer believes he has the right to use lethal force he will shoot wherever."

Solicitor Daniel Machover said that even if the suspect shot dead had no weapons or explosive, officers could have a defence against a murder charge. Mr Machover, who has has taken legal actions against police after shooting incidents, said: "If the perception in the officers' minds was that the suspect was posing an immediate threat to them or others, opening fire may well have been lawful. The test is the threat they perceived when they opened fire." He said a defence against a lesser charge would be more complex. The shooting in Stockwell capped a fortnight of mounting pressure on Britain's biggest police force and its commissioner Sir Ian Blair. The elite anti-terrorism and serious crime groups are working mammoth shifts, and throughout the force of more than 30,000 officers the pressure is telling.

Visibility
To reassure the public, the force is engaged in high visibility policing, getting as many constables and part-time officers on the streets as possible. The force has to keep London going, while mounting a hugely pressured and complex investigation into the July 7 attacks. One senior officer said: "We don't think we can sustain the demands of high visibility policing, guarding mosques, manning endless cordons. Officers are working 12 hour days, we are way over budget, we are bursting at the seams."

On top of this, police know they cannot be seen to be heavy-handed with people from Muslim communities - not just because of civil rights, but because investigators believe the communities must be reassured that the police are on their side, so they will pass on any information on terrorism that may come their way. The shooting yesterday showed the dynamic at work. The moderate Muslim Council of Britain was deeply concerned. Its spokesman, Inayat Bunglawala, said: "From his press conference Ian Blair seemed to imply that the man shot dead was not one of the four attempted suicide bombers. That increases the urgency of the question of why this man was shot dead as opposed to being disabled or arrested. There may be good reason, but the police need to explain what their reasons are. There has been a marked increase of nervousness among Muslims today"

Massoud Shadjareh of the Islamic Human Rights Commission said: "We have raised concerns about the Met sending officers to learn from the Israelis about suicide bombers. They have a policy of assassinating people - why should our police learn these tactics and these values?"
See also:
 http://htpp://www.guardian.co.uk

George


precedent

24.07.2005 18:03

for me, having the cops shooting suspects is a really nasty precedent. whatever the situation, whatever is the norm elsewhere, surely we have to stand up and say that we dont want it to become the norm here. the fact that it appears that this chap was not connected with terrorism makes this point even more urgent.

joanie


The law being changed as we watch..

24.07.2005 18:30

I realise that the law is being changed each day, and rewritten by this government without need for public discussion. The 'shoot to kill' policy, for example. We don't even have capital punishment in this country for the most terrible crimes, yet have been openly told that the police can now kill someone they 'suspect' of a crime. If we accept this unchallenged, we accept a complete change to our 'democracy'.
Please, people, we must each write to Charles Clarke and to Blair to at least stand up against this sneaking abomination to our laws.
Anyone stopped and searched by the cops at Gleneagles (and any other protest) will testify to the fact that they ignored our rights to peaceful protest (and I mean peaceful), using threats and bullying tactics to force you to give your name, etc, even though, by law, they didn't have the right to. Two friends of mine were arrested at separate demos (both shouting slogans, but both sitting down!) and have photographs of apalling bruises they received on their arms from police brutality. That's supposed to be against the law too.

Mourner


BRB

24.07.2005 21:27

>If you are saying that it is sometimes okay to kill innocent people, how EXACTLY are you any different from the suicide bombers?

Highlight the part in my post where I said its okay to kill innocent people...

I'm also right about the cops being against killing innocent people. They killed an innocent person they suspected of being a suicide bomber after he broke the law by running away from them. But the fact they killed an innocent man by mistake doesn't mean they are for killing innocent people. Why would they be? But I guess its hard to argue with someone who bases their argument against the police around the fact that in one week the police killed someone and the terrorists didn't and completely ignoring that over 50 people were killed a week earlier..

LK


LK

24.07.2005 23:07

With regards to the deaths of the bomb vicitms, I find them as abhorrent as I do the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Which is unsurprising as I live in central London and so does my family.

In fact to make it really simple - I find the deaths of all innocent civilians, whether by bomb or by agents of the state equally abhorrent.

"Highlight the part in my post where I said its okay to kill innocent people.."

Tell you what, why don't you just make it straight and simple.

Do you support a Shoot to Kill policy in the full knowledge that police intelligence WILL be "at fault again" and that this means more innocent people will be killed.

Yes or no?



BRB


to blue zappa (& LK)

25.07.2005 09:08

to blue zappa

I agree. The police had so long to make their "split second decision" its laughable. They followed the guy from the house on to a bus. They followed the guy on the bus into a busy shopping area. They followed the guy from there to the underground station.

How long did all that take 20 minutes? Half-an-hour?

Of course, it transpires he wasn't a suicide bomber. There wasn't even a shred of evidence or intelligence information to suggest that. He wasn't remotely connected to terrorists. His only crime appears to have been 1) to have had the misfortune to be staying overnight with a friend in a building where people in another flat (through the alleged discovery of documents in the rucksacks) were suspected to have some sort of link to the failed bombs on Thursday. 2) to be and outwardly appear foreign

If they REALLY had the remotest grounds for believing the guy was a suicide bomber, why did they allow him to get on on a bus and endanger peoples lives there?

The police over-reacted BIG-TIME. Folk in Germany (where police routinely carry guns) are shocked by this. There police are only allowed to shoot armed people who refuse to put down their weapons. And even then they are only allowed to wound.

The fact of the matter is, under the current operational instructions police officers could potentially shoot ANYONE if police are deployed with over-active imaginations and an eagerness to put into practice the gung-ho, trigger-happy training those murdering, human rights abusing Israeli's have been teaching them.

to LK

LK You say, quite correctly, that you "think that police intelligence [was] at fault" but then go on to jusify the police shooting "someone they suspected of being a sucide bomber after he ran from them and ignored their demands."

What's it to be? If police intelligence was at fault (as it most definitely was) then there can have been no justification for shooting him. The man never stated he was a suicide bomber. They hadn't received a solitary telephone call or specific information to say he was a potential suicide bomber. The police didn't even know the man's name or who he was before they shot him. He doesn't even appear to have been carrying a bag. And the idea that a man who MIGHT have had explosives strapped around his chest, would be physically capable of vaulting security barriers and running away is ludicrous. Haven't they already told us that amongst many signs that someone is a potential suicide bomber is that they will be hyper-sensitive about being pushed or jostled and at pains not to make to many sudden or jerky movements, lest it accidently set off the explosives?

The police over-reacted big-time. It's said that there were 3 officers who wrestled him to the ground. It would have been very clear while doing that and from doing a quick-pad down/body search that the idea (wherever they got it from) that this man was a potential suicide bomber was ludicrous. Instead of doing that and shouting out loud "no bomb" ONE solitary, trigger happy, scumbag of an officer decided to execute the man in cold-blood.

However, the question of "demands" is a pertinent one. OUR demands as citizens of the UK that the police - financed by our taxes and existing (in theory!) to serve US - should not have the power to summarily execute us based on groundless fantasies.

.


Scary

25.07.2005 11:59

"His unseasonally thick jacket apparently prompted concern that he had explosives strapped beneath. "

Pretty scary... So, this makes us foreigners - who obviously don't look quite British and wear thick jackets even when Britons seem to be warm - potential terrorists... I wish I was originally from a cold country, you see...

Ruth


...

25.07.2005 12:31

==> We don't even have capital punishment in this country for the most terrible crimes, yet have been openly told that the police can now kill someone they 'suspect' of a crime.

Capital punishment is enforced after the fact, following a period of reflection. De Menezes was killed killed in the heat of the moment - never mind how long he had been pursued without the police acting - when the officers believed they were preventing a much greater crime.

That said, what do I care? His visa had expired, thus making him a no-man and denied the right to life.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm

Alec


It isn't clear that he was illegal.

30.07.2005 13:22

Alec, first of all, the penalty for illegal immigration should not be death. I think everyone would agree with me on this except for, maybe, the BNP and the Labour Party. Second of all, nobody seems to agree, even in the BBC article, whether this guy was legal or not:

"Security sources said Mr Menezes had an out-of-date visa, but his family denied this. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he believed he was legally in the UK."

This highlights just how dysfunctional the UK's immigration laws and procedures are, but the core statement of the article on the matter seems to be a non-statement, that the "security sources," the family, and the Foreign Secretary all disagree. Who's telling the truth? The BBC don't seem to know, and so they are merely reprinting what three different parties said.

Nevertheless, I must reiterate that innocent people should not be murdered for the colour of their skin or the style of their clothes by police officers with no uniforms who claim to represent law and order while waving guns around. How many psychos run around all over the world waving guns and claiming to be cops? Should we surrender to all of them and let them rape us, murder us, and dump our bodies somewhere? These so-called police officers who commited this offense are little different, and have absolutely no reasonable argument that their behaviour was acceptable. Not even remotely so. If British people want to feel at all safe anywhere, these maniac cops need to be locked up along with the other terrorists.

-B.Z.

Blue Zappa