NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.

Unsure

I don't know every detail that happened in those few seconds. Haven't seen the cop or heard him speak about the incident and I don't know what sentence that charge would carry.

Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.

What shocks me is that, based on the reports I read, the police shot him twice after he was tackled to the ground.

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.

They announced who they were, he ran, they told him to stop, he kept running. Ok, now if you were the police officer wouldnt you think that something was awry? If the police are telling you to stop then you need to stop! Now I would agree with you if the victim didnt speak English but he did. So he understood them, and ran away. Im sure the police thought he was a terrorist and acted accordingly. In my opinion they didnt do anything wrong they did what they thought was right.

They announced who they were, he ran, they told him to stop, he kept running. Ok, now if you were the police officer wouldnt you think that something was awry? If the police are telling you to stop then you need to stop! Now I would agree with you if the victim didnt speak English but he did. So he understood them, and ran away. Im sure the police thought he was a terrorist and acted accordingly. In my opinion they didnt do anything wrong they did what they thought was right.

Here is a quote from the cbc link.

"...police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso. "

Do you think this is proper police procedure?

They announced who they were, he ran, they told him to stop, he kept running. Ok, now if you were the police officer wouldnt you think that something was awry? If the police are telling you to stop then you need to stop! Now I would agree with you if the victim didnt speak English but he did. So he understood them, and ran away. Im sure the police thought he was a terrorist and acted accordingly. In my opinion they didnt do anything wrong they did what they thought was right.

They DIDN'T IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS POLICE.

Here is a quote from the cbc link.

"...police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso. "

Do you think this is proper police procedure?

No but he shouldnt have ran.

Here is an eye-witness account as reported by the BBC:

"He looked absolutely petrified and then he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him, [they] couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand... He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him."

This seems to be an execution of sorts. Do you think he saw something he shouldn't have?

No but he shouldnt have ran.
They WEREN'T in uniform, they probably DIDN'T identify themselves.

If two guys pulled a gun on you, WTF would be YOUR first reaction?

"Aye, mates, care for a cup of tea?"

They WEREN'T in uniform, they probably DIDN'T identify themselves.

If two guys pulled a gun on you, WTF would be YOUR first reaction?

Piss myself...

They WEREN'T in uniform, they probably DIDN'T identify themselves.


Prove it. :rolleyes:

From what I heard they did.

No they should not be charged as I think they used appropriate force, and they truly thought the guy was going to put them in danger.

Prove it. :rolleyes:

From what I heard they did.

No they should not be charged as I think they used appropriate force, and they truly thought the guy was going to put them in danger.
Because it's the only possible explanation.

It's already known that he was a legal resident, he wasn't insane, and hadn't ever committed any crimes. If he was illegal, crazy, or a criminal, I could see your point. But normal people don't just run away from the police, randomly.

Because it's the only reasonable explanation.

He was a legal resident and had committed no crimes. Normal people don't just run away from the police, randomly.

Legal resident? I thought he was a Brazilian citizen not a British citizen...

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.

Involuntary Manslaughter,
I am from MI,USA I am aware there is a charge in the State of MI called Involuntary Manslaughter, accordingto MI penal code it is a felony--according to MI penal code.
Now, that does not mean that the same charge exists in another state, as Murder and Manslaughter are not by nature Federal offenses--therefore Federal Manslaughter laws do not exist it is a matter for State courts.

Now, any idiot knows that.

When you draw a weapon and fire it at someones head it is not nor can it be Involuntary--unless of course you believe the weapon was not going to fire, or it was unloaded and BANG to your surprise it was.
It would be Murder II, or just Manslaughter--of course that is MI law--it would again differ from State to State--and again....Any Idiot knows that.

Now this Brazilian man was shot in..where was that? Oh yes, England.
I imagine the Brits do have something similiar to INvoluntary Manslaughter--though i cnat swear they do because I dont KNOW every state does.
That being case there may be NO SUCH THING as Involuntary Manslaughter in England and therefore it is indeed not--of course it wouldnt be where I live either because if you shot someone in the head--you are indeed trying to kill them--perhaps not with pre-meditation but in that instant you wanted them to die.

Lets look at the facts--what..we dont know all the facts? well them I suppose we are then in no position to make a judgement--as the facts are what are at least supposed to make legal cases.

Did the officers Identify themselves? We dont know
Did they do it in Portegese?(He was from Brazil right) We dont know
Did they know Portegese? We dont know
Did they know this gentlemen was from Brazil? We dont know
Did he know how to speak english? We dont know
Did they know that there were more then likely more terrorists in the city? YES
Did this man get spotted at a suspected area for terrorists? YES
Was this man acting in a suspcious manner? YES
Did he run? YES

You know it would seem that the only answers we have point to mistrial of this officer if were to go court.

Facts are simple if he had gotten away and the man had been a terrorist planning another attack they would have been responsible for dozens of deaths--the officer made a choice--kill one now or watch many die later--he was wrong, that is sad.

Take a look at Isreal, this kind of thing happens in dealing with terrorists you want to blame someone blame them for putting the fear into this officer so bad that wasnt willing to even take the slightest chance of this man getting away--lets keep a little perspective.

Legal resident? I thought he was a Brazilian citizen not a British citizen...
Yes, but he was a Brazilian citizen that was in Britain legally.

Prove it. :rolleyes:

From what I heard they did.

No they should not be charged as I think they used appropriate force, and they truly thought the guy was going to put them in danger.

You think firing five shots into a person, after pinning him to the ground, is appropriate force?

Add killed with prejudice. I am MORE than positive humans die with a single gunshot wound to the head at close range. Involuntary my ass, manslaughter first degree


Legal resident? I thought he was a Brazilian citizen not a British citizen...
legal resident means jsut that, he was a LEGAL RESIDENT, he said nothing about him being a british citizen

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.
"Which I doubt they said." How very .... assumptive of you. :(

You think firing five shots into a person, after pinning him to the ground, is appropriate force?

Yes, if he's a terrorist, as they plainly believed him to be.

"Which I doubt they said." How very .... assumptive of you. :(
I was wondering when your simple eloquence would grace this particular thread.

Yes, if he's a terrorist, as they plainly believed him to be.
multiple shots to the head and torso of a relatively subdued man?

I was wondering when your simple eloquence would grace this particular thread.
Heh! Is that sarcasm??? :p

Yes, if he's a terrorist, as they plainly believed him to be.

Do you think the police have the right to publicly execute people on the grounds that they believe they are terrorists?

Involuntary Manslaughter,
I am from MI,USA I am aware there is a charge in the State of MI called Involuntary Manslaughter, accordingto MI penal code it is a felony--according to MI penal code.
Now, that does not mean that the same charge exists in another state, as Murder and Manslaughter are not by nature Federal offenses--therefore Federal Manslaughter laws do not exist it is a matter for State courts.

Now, any idiot knows that.

When you draw a weapon and fire it at someones head it is not nor can it be Involuntary--unless of course you believe the weapon was not going to fire, or it was unloaded and BANG to your surprise it was.
It would be Murder II, or just Manslaughter--of course that is MI law--it would again differ from State to State--and again....Any Idiot knows that.

Now this Brazilian man was shot in..where was that? Oh yes, England.
I imagine the Brits do have something similiar to INvoluntary Manslaughter--though i cnat swear they do because I dont KNOW every state does.
That being case there may be NO SUCH THING as Involuntary Manslaughter in England and therefore it is indeed not--of course it wouldnt be where I live either because if you shot someone in the head--you are indeed trying to kill them--perhaps not with pre-meditation but in that instant you wanted them to die.

Lets look at the facts--what..we dont know all the facts? well them I suppose we are then in no position to make a judgement--as the facts are what are at least supposed to make legal cases.

Did the officers Identify themselves? We dont know
Did they do it in Portegese?(He was from Brazil right) We dont know
Did they know Portegese? We dont know
Did they know this gentlemen was from Brazil? We dont know
Did he know how to speak english? We dont know
Did they know that there were more then likely more terrorists in the city? YES
Did this man get spotted at a suspected area for terrorists? YES
Was this man acting in a suspcious manner? YES
Did he run? YES

You know it would seem that the only answers we have point to mistrial of this officer if were to go court.
Not a mistrial. You mean an acquittal. A mistrial is when the trial was done illegally (the jury is given unnecessary information that sways their judgement, the jury is biased, there's evidence that was unreleased, etc)

Yes, the named facts point to an acquittal. And actually, after reviewing several stories, I'd say there is just one question that needs to be answered: Did the man speak English?

Yes = Try them for manslaughter.
No = They're not accountable.

I read several stories and they shot him five times, not twice. And it was under the orders of their superiors. The Israelis advised the British that in order to stop suicide bombers, they need a "shoot-to-kill," policy, which the British police have implemented. Anyone who is suspicious and runs from the police is to be shot on sight and immediately killed to prevent further civilian casualties. This is understandable, but I do believe they're required to identify themselves.

He lived in Britain legally for about 3 or 4 years and worked as an electrician. It's possible he spoke English, but unknown. So, yes. I believe you're right--I change my vote to "unsure," because we need to give the police the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known.

However, I find it deplorable that the police commissioner came out and lied that the man was "directly connected," with the bombings immediately after his death. That's absolutely despicable. And frankly, I believe he should fired because of it.

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.
Various little facts concerning this.
1. Mr Menezes spoke good English, he would have understtod the command to stop.
2. In Brazil, if a police officer tells you to 'Pare!' you do it or you end up dead. There is no cultural misunderstanding here.
3. He did not just get onto the tube, he was challenged by the police before that, ran, vaulted the ticket barrier and ran on to the train.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.
This is the police reacting to a potential suicide bomber in a public place that they had reason to believe was endangering the public. What happened is a very stupid Brazilian was killed for being very stupid.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.
The police are allowed to shoot a person if they have reason to believe that that person is a serious threat to the lives of the public and or themselves. However the British police do not normally carry guns, only specialy trained officers with specific units, in this case the anti-terrorist squad, are armed.

There will be a full investigation. The police have already amitted the mistake and apologised. The politicians will also apologise. The blame for this incident lies full square on the terrorists who have bombed and tried to bomb again the public transport system in London, with able assistance from Jean Charles de Menezes due to his behaving in a downright stupid (even for his native Brazil) manner.

Not a mistrial. You mean an acquittal. A mistrial is when the trial was done illegally (the jury is given unnecessary information that sways their judgement, the jury is biased, there's evidence that was unreleased, etc)

Yes, the named facts point to an acquittal. And actually, after reviewing several stories, I'd say there is just one question that needs to be answered: Did the man speak English?

Yes = Try them for manslaughter.
No = They're not accountable.

I read several stories and they shot him five times, not twice. And it was under the orders of their superiors. The Israelis advised the British that in order to stop suicide bombers, they need a "shoot-to-kill," policy, which the British police have implemented. Anyone who is suspicious and runs from the police is to be shot on sight and immediately killed to prevent further civilian casualties. This is understandable, but I do believe they're required to identify themselves.

He lived in Britain legally for about 3 or 4 years and worked as an electrician. It's possible he spoke English, but unknown. So, yes. I believe you're right--I change my vote to "unsure," because we need to give the police the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known.

However, I find it deplorable that the police commissioner came out and lied that the man was "directly connected," with the bombings immediately after his death. That's absolutely despicable. And frankly, I believe he should fired because of it.

Does this include plain clothed police?

I've highlighted the part of your quote to which the question is referring to.

Lets look at the facts--what..we dont know all the facts? well them I suppose we are then in no position to make a judgement--as the facts are what are at least supposed to make legal cases.

Did the officers Identify themselves? We dont know Yes we do. Witnesses have reported that the police identified themselves.

Did they do it in Portegese?(He was from Brazil right) We dont know. No. They did it in English.

Did they know Portegese? We dont know Irrelevant.
Did they know this gentlemen was from Brazil? We dont know Irrelevant.
Did he know how to speak english? We dont know Yes he did. He spoke fluent English according to his cousin who lived with him.
Did they know that there were more then likely more terrorists in the city? YES
Did this man get spotted at a suspected area for terrorists? YES
Was this man acting in a suspcious manner? YES
Did he run? YES

So your conclusion:

You know it would seem that the only answers we have point to mistrial of this officer if were to go court. Is more than valid.

No they should not be charged as I think they used appropriate force,
God, let's hope your thoughts aren't admissiable in a court of law, then.

Various little facts concerning this.
1. Mr Menezes spoke good English, he would have understtod the command to stop.
2. In Brazil, if a police officer tells you to 'Pare!' you do it or you end up dead. There is no cultural misunderstanding here.
3. He did not just get onto the tube, he was challenged by the police before that, ran, vaulted the ticket barrier and ran on to the train.


This is the police reacting to a potential suicide bomber in a public place that they had reason to believe was endangering the public. What happened is a very stupid Brazilian was killed for being very stupid.


The police are allowed to shoot a person if they have reason to believe that that person is a serious threat to the lives of the public and or themselves. However the British police do not normally carry guns, only specialy trained officers with specific units, in this case the anti-terrorist squad, are armed.

There will be a full investigation. The police have already amitted the mistake and apologised. The politicians will also apologise. The blame for this incident lies full square on the terrorists who have bombed and tried to bomb again the public transport system in London, with able assistance from Jean Charles de Menezes due to his behaving in a downright stupid (even for his native Brazil) manner.

I can understand the justification of firing a shot at a man who is running. But according to the articles I've read, the man was already subdued before the police fired five shots at point blank range.

With regards to Brazil, I've heard that the police have a history of killing homeless people and torturing civilians. Perhaps this is what motivated Mr. de Menezes to run.

I think the police were perfectly justified in running this gentlemen down and tackling him, even using some force on him.

What was not justified was putting 5 in his head, while he was pinned down. That's unneccisary force, especially considering the very real(and statistically likely) possibility that he was NOT a terrorist. In fact that turned out to be the case. He ran from the police, which was suspicious. But suspicious does not, it cannot be allowed to equal pistol shot to suspicious head.

I'm not saying I don't understand why they did this. In the wake of shocking attacks, with the very likely possibility that there could be another, and seeing this darker skinned gentleman in a coat, and then having him run, I can understand thier mindset. My honest feeling is that they overreacted, and it cost someone innocent his life. I don't think they should be thrown in jail for it, but I would say a public apology is due to the family, preferably with some government recompense, and some censure for these guys. At the very least I wouldn't put them on the tube anymore.

The only real solution though is to give the undercover cops on the tube less than lethal weapons, in addition to firearms. If these guys had tazers, rubber bullets, tranquilizer darts or something(I'm no expert in non-lethal weaponry) that can take a guy down without killing him, this gentlemen might still be alive, and the situation could still have been effectively contained. Also some hand to hand takedown training that takes into account the possibility of a chest mounted bomb might be a good thing too.

I can understand the justification of firing a shot at a man who is running. But according to the articles I've read, the man was already subdued before the police fired five shots at point blank range.

Because if a man has a bomb strapped to his body, as it was assumed in this case, a simple flick of a switch could set it off.

Because if a man has a bomb strapped to his body, as it was assumed in this case, a simple flick of a switch could set it off.
But if he has a bomb strapped to his body, shooting his torso could set off the bomb as well, which they did.

But if he has a bomb strapped to his body, shooting his torso could set off the bomb as well, which they did.
Depends on what kind of bomb. Some are unstable enough to have a bullet set them off. Others require an electrical signal. I don't know what type of bombs were used in these latest bombings. Does anyone? If the previous explosives were the more stable kind, the authorities would have known this and not worried about shooting the torso.

Because if a man has a bomb strapped to his body, as it was assumed in this case, a simple flick of a switch could set it off.
which i'm sure would've been much smarter to have done once he dived for a train car or before he was, REPEATEDLY, shot in the head

Ihatevacations']which i'm sure would've been much smarter to have done once he dived for a train car or before he was, REPEATEDLY, shot in the head
There's another thread on this topic. A video (on snopes I believe) was brought up. It shows a man who tried to die by shooting himself in the head. He did so, but you can see from the video that he didn't die instantly. He hung on a few seconds; a few seconds that a bomber could use to set off his explosives. A single shot, even to the head, won't necessarily instantly kill a person.

Depends on what kind of bomb. Some are unstable enough to have a bullet set them off. Others require an electrical signal. I don't know what type of bombs were used in these latest bombings. Does anyone? If the previous explosives were the more stable kind, the authorities would have known this and not worried about shooting the torso.
Uhhh. "Stable kind," of bomb?

Besides, it doesn't matter. They didn't know it was the same group, and it's naive to believe all terrorists build the same kinds of bombs. Plus, in the first London bombings there weren't even any suicide-bombers.

I can understand the justification of firing a shot at a man who is running. But according to the articles I've read, the man was already subdued before the police fired five shots at point blank range.

With regards to Brazil, I've heard that the police have a history of killing homeless people and torturing civilians. Perhaps this is what motivated Mr. de Menezes to run.

Urban legends mostly. There was torture here until the early 1980s while Brazil was a military dictatorship. There were also a couple of bad cops in São Paulo a year or so ago that killed a few homeless.

You are taught here not to run. If you run you will be shot, if you do not, then 99.9999% of the time nothing bad happens.

As to the subduing. It is impossible to completely imobilise a living person. All that a suicide bomber needs to be able to do is to trigger the bomb. How this is done is not going to be known to the policeman is it? A twitch of a thumb, a clenching of the jaw, a tensing of a leg muscle, any of those could do it.
Shoot to kill, means shoot to kill, not to wound, not to incapacitate. Five shots to the head from blank point range will kill for certain. There was nothing wrong in the technique.

The only thing wrong was that the man they killed was not, despite his behaviour, a suicide bomber.

What I can tell you is that the press here in Brazil is not up in arms demanding things. Yes, the de Menezes family is upset, understandably so, but the country as whole does not find the police action to have been excessive. Tragic, sad, unfortunate, mistaken are the words being used (the Portuguese equivalents). Excessive, over the top, unnecessary are not terms in the comments being made.

This is a simple case of fucked if you do, fucked if you dont.

The people attacking them for this, would be attacking them if he was a terrorist and they didnt shoot him, they would be going, why are we wasting all this money if nobody does anything!?!?!!

It is just the way anti anything people are, they are cynical of anything and everything and use afterknowledge to tell you why they were wrong for doing things.


British people dont own guns for the most part. And i doubt there would armed gangs of 20+ owning the tube in the daylight hours just after a bombing where police would be all around, therefore anybody that says this guy couldnt know these guys were police are fools, you got a guy wearing a heavy coat in July running full speed for a train, gets on the train and grabs somebody....id shoot him a dozen times not just 5.

British police arnt known for being gunhappy, so how about people give them the benifit of the doubt and stop being cynical assholes trying to use this event for personal political gain for your anti-war on terror ideals.

Uhhh. "Stable kind," of bomb?

Besides, it doesn't matter. They didn't know it was the same group, and it's naive to believe all terrorists build the same kinds of bombs. Plus, in the first London bombings there weren't even any suicide-bombers.
stable kind of bomb, you know like c4.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml
'His fatal journey began as he stepped out of the block of five flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, south London, at around 9.30am.

Unknown to him, the place was being watched by an elite squad of anti-terrorist officers because of links to evidence found at the Oval Tube blast—where a man in a New York sweater was captured on CCTV sprinting from the scene.

His own clothing that morning also helped to seal his fate. He was wearing a a bulky winter coat despite the warm weather.

Cops—who feared the coat may have been hiding a bomb belt—followed him the 300 yards to Tulse Hill station. At 9.45am he caught a number 2 bus for the 15-minute ride to Stockwell. On that short journey, the undercover cops would have been well aware of the dangerous situation unfolding.

The fate of Special Branch Officer DC Stephen Oake may have crossed their minds—he was stabbed to death in January 2003 by al-Qaeda operative Kamel Bourgass, 31, who appeared to co-operate during his arrest in Manchester, only to explode into violence.

They will have been on tenterhooks as Mr De Menezes stepped off the bus outside Stockwell Tube at 10am.

As he crossed the road towards the Tube entrance the cops' suspicions would have hit red alert and they drew their weapons, screaming for him to stop. He then made the decision that cost him his life.

He vaulted over the ticket barrier and ran down the escalator where he tripped as he jumped on to a waiting Northern Line train.

Witness Mark Whitby—sitting in the carriage he made for—said he looked like "a frightened rabbit" before falling to the train floor with cops closing in on him. One fired five shots into his head.'

The question I have been asking myself is why one officer fired five shots into his head after he has fallen? It's possible that the police (acting on new orders to shoot to kill to stop suicide bombers activating their devices) were certain he was about to explode a device concealed under the thick coat he was wearing (I want to know why he was wearing a heavy coat on a hot day) It's also possible that the officer 'panicked'. You have to realise that even now, officially, only 10% of London police are armed and the police themselves are determined not to allow their 'unarmed' status be lost. Shooting people on British streets is almost unheard of.

Now look at the firepower and state of alert in the area at the time.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/images/homepage/n1_02_240705.jpg

Anyone running from people declaring themselves as armed police (as witnesses say they did) is asking for trouble. He may have also panicked because this just doesn't happen here. However, assuming the dead men is found not to have been involved in any way with the bombers, the officer(s) involved will be subject to extremely intense investigation and if a weapon or weapons were discharged without proper justification, legal action will follow. It is also worth bearing in mind that if a police officer is charged with an offence and found guilty, the police reserve the right to refuse to carry arms.

This is a simple case of fucked if you do, fucked if you dont.

The people attacking them for this, would be attacking them if he was a terrorist and they didnt shoot him, they would be going, why are we wasting all this money if nobody does anything!?!?!!

And then there's the case when you almost shoot the guy and find out later he was innocent and say "man, I'm glad we didn't kill him!"

Uhhh. "Stable kind," of bomb?
Yes, stable. Take C4 for instance. It's only dangerous with a detonating charge. Without one it's Play-Doh, completely harmless. Exceplt maybe if it's ingested.

Besides, it doesn't matter. They didn't know it was the same group, and it's naive to believe all terrorists build the same kinds of bombs.
No, it's not certain, but there are good indications. The authorities have analyzed the remains of the initial 7/7 bombings, and they've analyzed the four failed 7/21 bombs. The 7/7 bombs and the 7/21 bombs used the same chemicals. There is evidence of a connection.

Plus, in the first London bombings there weren't even any suicide-bombers.
Uhmm, not from what I hear. There were 4 suicide bombers for the July 7 bombings.

And then there's the case when you almost shoot the guy and find out later he was innocent and say "man, I'm glad we didn't kill him!"

No, it would be the case of how could they have allowed a guy in a heavy coat to run into a train with that much security around, what a waste of money this is! what if he had a bomb!?

Well the cops weren't going to take their chances!

Think about it. We can safely assume the cops aren't IDIOTS so I'm sure they IDed themselves (They likely yelled something to the effect of "Stop, Police!" which is what they do here in the States).

So thus the situation is this: you're tailing someone you think is a terrorist. They're (according to reports) acting suspiciously and wearing a heavy coat on a hot day, which could conceal a bomb. You and your team try to stop him, draw a weapon, and identify yourselves as police officers.

You run and pursue him. He's trying to run onto a train, from your view most likely so that he can set his bomb off to kill as many people as possible. Your me tackle him, but he's still struggling and could set off his bomb at any moment. You can try to subdue him, but he may well set his bomb off before you can. The better bet is to empty as many rounds as you can into him to immediately render him unable to discharge his bomb.

You could fire just one round, but what if you miss? It's close range, but he's struggling so he could twitch just as you fire and you could miss. You have to stop him any way you can so you take him down.


With the power of hindsight, we can see the police were wrong. But in their situation, they did what they had to do. They had NO way of knowing he wasn't a suicide bomber and he should never have run. What if he had a bomb strapped to him? The police couldn't just stand idly by and let him run into the subway to self-detonate. Nor could they wrestle with him and give him the chance to set himself off and kill all the officers.

It is a tragedy. But the man should never have run and the officers should not be prosecuted for acting perfectly reasonably is such a situation.

Legal resident? I thought he was a Brazilian citizen not a British citizen...

How did you come to that conclusion. He's Brazilian, therefore illegal? That's worse than the Californian view of Mexicans.
When I was in Brazil, I was still an American citizen, but I was in Brazil legally. When I lived in Scotland, I was not a citizen of the land, but I was also not illegal.

There's no point in arguing about whether or not they identified themselves, because it may as well be clear that he did not hear them properly. You'd be amazed at how the stress of someone pulling a gun on you could make you forget the subtleties of a second language. (oh, yeah, and a friend of mine did have this problem when he got mugged...)

In any case, they shot him twice, and both shots seemed intended to be lethal. They have an officer who screwed up. This time the man was not a terrorist, and so this officer is responsible for the death of one innocent man. If it had been a terrorist, then they would want him for further questioning, and the same mistake could cost another thirty lives.

So even if the man had been a terrorist, the officer should be prosecuted.

What I can tell you is that the press here in Brazil is not up in arms demanding things. Yes, the de Menezes family is upset, understandably so, but the country as whole does not find the police action to have been excessive. Tragic, sad, unfortunate, mistaken are the words being used (the Portuguese equivalents). Excessive, over the top, unnecessary are not terms in the comments being made.

As an Englishman, I thank your countrymen for their reasoned response.

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.

He emerged from a flat that had been under surviellence. He was wearing a thick coat that could have hid an explosive device. Police yelled at him to stop, and he instead ran towards a train after a wave of suicide bombings. If the police did not yell police, then some form of reprimand or fine might be in order. If they did yell police, then this instance, while certainly a tradgedy, does not warrent the punishment of any of the officers involved.

In any case, they shot him twice, and both shots seemed intended to be lethal. They have an officer who screwed up. This time the man was not a terrorist, and so this officer is responsible for the death of one innocent man. If it had been a terrorist, then they would want him for further questioning, and the same mistake could cost another thirty lives.

So even if the man had been a terrorist, the officer should be prosecuted.

Yes both or all five, depending on what you read, shots were meant to be lethal. Brand, spanking new orders have been given to armed police to shoot to kill if they believe a bomb is about to be exploded. To say that if the man had been a terrorist, he would have been wanted for questioning, in these circumstances is stupid. There existed and exists one overiding priority at the moment, to stop any bomber exploding his or her device. Sadly but rightly, at any cost. If this officer (who would have to be a volunteer to be arned) is found to have killed without justification, he will be prosecuted. But if the facts are more or less as described, he seems to have been justified.

Various little facts concerning this.
1. Mr Menezes spoke good English, he would have understtod the command to stop.
2. In Brazil, if a police officer tells you to 'Pare!' you do it or you end up dead. There is no cultural misunderstanding here.
3. He did not just get onto the tube, he was challenged by the police before that, ran, vaulted the ticket barrier and ran on to the train.

Ok, your right. Lets just put this situation in brazil instead for just a moment.

1- Dude gets suspected of something. Anything. If he complies, and he's clean, he'll be just fine. If he doesn't
2- He's at the mercy of the officer on duty. Most of them have the largest guns that they can carry, and look rather like a gang of mercinaries. Rone from Curitiba are the one's i know best, but i hear they are tougher further north.
3- There will unlikely be any sort of "Investigation" into the "Misconduct" of the officer responsible. In fact, if it probably won't even make the news. There are enough murders by drug trafickers to keep the news stands colouring away (they like their red crayon)

Yes both or all five, depending on what you read, shots were meant to be lethal. Brand, spanking new orders have been given to armed police to shoot to kill if they believe a bomb is about to be exploded. To say that if the man had been a terrorist, he would have been wanted for questioning, in these circumstances is stupid. There existed and exists one overiding priority at the moment, to stop any bomber exploding his or her device. Sadly but rightly, at any cost. If this officer (who would have to be a volunteer to be arned) is found to have killed without justification, he will be prosecuted. But if the facts are more or less as described, he seems to have been justified.

Ok, I'm reconsidering the facts. I'm not sure I could ever agree with a shoot to kill policy- but it would absolve the officer.

I just think that sometimes the panic does as much damage as an actual terrorist attack. Like people enclosing their homes in plastic wrap to keep out anthrax- then suffocating.

If it weren't true, I'd say there's a sort of satirical irony to it.

I can understand the justification of firing a shot at a man who is running. But according to the articles I've read, the man was already subdued before the police fired five shots at point blank range.

Since he was running towards a crowded subway perhaps they thought he was trying to detonate his assumed bomb before they could subdue him.

With regards to Brazil, I've heard that the police have a history of killing homeless people and torturing civilians. Perhaps this is what motivated Mr. de Menezes to run.

Im calling bullshit on this. I dont think theres any way that this is what caused him to run.

What I can tell you is that the press here in Brazil is not up in arms demanding things. Yes, the de Menezes family is upset, understandably so, but the country as whole does not find the police action to have been excessive. Tragic, sad, unfortunate, mistaken are the words being used (the Portuguese equivalents). Excessive, over the top, unnecessary are not terms in the comments being made.
As an Englishman, I thank your countrymen for their reasoned response.
That's likely because in Brazil there's no such thing as excessive force. The police can always shoot to kill, and excecutions happen among the lower classes.
You just stay out of the way of the police and traficantes, and they don't kill you. It's not hard.

Im calling bullshit on this. I dont think theres any way that this is what caused him to run.

Yes, and the police kill who they want. There was a man who tried to break into the house of a RONE (Military police). He was taken into the woods, and the officer told him to run. He was killed while trying to escape.

But that's no reason to run. That's a rather good reason not to. Random searches (just on the sidewalks and near the favelas) are fairly common in Brazil, and a Brazilian would have known how to handle himself. If he was an electrician, then he wasn't upper class- so he would have been searched before. I just can't figure out why he ran in the first place.

I think this officer is a hero.

Hands up how many of us here have been put in a position of responsibility where we had to make a split-second decision, with the lives of many innocent people in the balance, about whether we are correct and able to kill someone. I know I haven't.

This officer acted in the best way he knew how, to protect the lives of the people on that train. Think about it. He THOUGHT THE GUY HAD A BOMB (I assume). He THOUGHT THE GUY WAS GOING TO DETONATE HIMSELF (I assume) and yet he still JUMPED ON TOP OF THE GUY. That's guts. That's "oh shit, this guy is going to blow up that train" while running *towards* the train. I know I'd be running in the opposite direction.

C'mon, look at the chain of events that resulted in the shooting. The police weren't just wandering around the train station, armed, and shot a guy that looked suspicious because of a long coat. The police were watching a suspect house, saw a suspect guy leave it. Decided to (non-lethally) follow the guy, saw the guy potentially going to put innocent lives in danger, so they tried to stop him. BEFORE he got there. The guy sprints towards the innocents that the police wanted to protect....what are they meant to think?

Terrible tragedy that the guy happened to be innocent, but we'd be lauding the police if he was a terrorist.
I'm lauding those damn brave police anyway, it's not their fault that the innocent man just happened to have all the hallmarks of a very guilty looking terrorist. They were just doing their job.

snip

I am just waiting for someone to say this....

Oh yes, lets ban guns from the police. This will keep these kind of things from happening.

I think this officer is a hero.

Hands up how many of us here have been put in a position of responsibility where we had to make a split-second decision, with the lives of many innocent people in the balance, about whether we are correct and able to kill someone. I know I haven't.

This officer acted in the best way he knew how, to protect the lives of the people on that train. Think about it. He THOUGHT THE GUY HAD A BOMB (I assume). He THOUGHT THE GUY WAS GOING TO DETONATE HIMSELF (I assume) and yet he still JUMPED ON TOP OF THE GUY. That's guts. That's "oh shit, this guy is going to blow up that train" while running *towards* the train. I know I'd be running in the opposite direction.
(I assume)

(I assume)

THEREFORE--

I think this officer is a hero.

Hands up how many of us here have been put in a position of responsibility where we had to make a split-second decision, with the lives of many innocent people in the balance, about whether we are correct and able to kill someone. I know I haven't.

This officer acted in the best way he knew how, to protect the lives of the people on that train. Think about it. He THOUGHT THE GUY HAD A BOMB (I assume). He THOUGHT THE GUY WAS GOING TO DETONATE HIMSELF (I assume) and yet he still JUMPED ON TOP OF THE GUY. That's guts. That's "oh shit, this guy is going to blow up that train" while running *towards* the train. I know I'd be running in the opposite direction.

C'mon, look at the chain of events that resulted in the shooting. The police weren't just wandering around the train station, armed, and shot a guy that looked suspicious because of a long coat. The police were watching a suspect house, saw a suspect guy leave it. Decided to (non-lethally) follow the guy, saw the guy potentially going to put innocent lives in danger, so they tried to stop him. BEFORE he got there. The guy sprints towards the innocents that the police wanted to protect....what are they meant to think?

Terrible tragedy that the guy happened to be innocent, but we'd be lauding the police if he was a terrorist.
I'm lauding those damn brave police anyway, it's not their fault that the innocent man just happened to have all the hallmarks of a very guilty looking terrorist. They were just doing their job.

Yes indeed. It was not pretty, but few things in life are. I would not go as far as giving this man a medal (after all, he did get the wrong guy), but some form of commendation might be in order.

Oh, and here is one thing to the people who remark that it is easy to forget a second language when guns are being pointed at you- this is a good point. It is also very easy to forget how many times you are shooting someone when you belive them to have guns strapped to their backs.

(I assume)

(I assume)

THEREFORE--

Therefore: The officer is a hero
(if my assumptions are correct)

If my assumptions are NOT correct then I don't know what was going on in the officers head. I *don't* need to make any assumptions to know the guy was acting very suspiciously, and all signs point towards him being connected to the bombers.

If those particular assumptions of mine are wrong, it still doesn't change the fact that this officer was putting his life on the line to protect civilians like you or me. I'm glad he's doing it so I don't have to.

Oh, and here is one thing to the people who remark that it is easy to forget a second language when guns are being pointed at you- this is a good point. It is also very easy to forget how many times you are shooting someone when you belive them to have guns strapped to their backs.

Not to forget taking into account the stress of actually shooting someone. And the time it takes the brain to realize that they are actually dead, and then send that signal to the finger so it stops shooting.

It's been pointed out elsewhere that the recorded record for firing off six shots from a revolver is 0.45 seconds. I take longer than that to react when someone taps out during judo, and that's not a life-or-death situation with the same levels of stress and adrenalin.

Also, are we complaining that six shots was excessive? Yet we're not complaining that he shot to kill?
I mean...isn't death binary, either he's dead or not.
It's more humane to keep shooting until you know he's dead. One bullet to the head does *not* kill instantly (unless you're extremely accurate, the target is about as large as your thumb), and the rule of thumb in these situations, apparently, is "keep shooting until they stop doing whatever it was that made you start shooting"

No, it would be the case of how could they have allowed a guy in a heavy coat to run into a train with that much security around, what a waste of money this is! what if he had a bomb!?
Becuase we're so paranoid now, that anything that doesn't fit in, is unorthodox to our "standards," is instantly a terrorist suspect?

It's not like they couldn't tackle the guy and arrest him, or at the very least try firing warning shots and if that doesn't work, try shooting at his legs or feet. They don't have to kill everyone that "doesn't fit in."

Yes we do. Witnesses have reported that the police identified themselves.what is the witness name?...or what is your source for that?

Oh well, police will be sued, massive payouts will ensue. Police will be hesitant to shoot anyone if any still wish to bear arms, because of the hesitation the bombers slip through without trouble blow more public transport up and kill many more people..... :mp5:


R.I.P and my thoughts and sympathies go out to all the family and friends of those that are destined to die. :(

He wasn't killed he was exececuted

Oh well, police will be sued, massive payouts will ensue. Police will be hesitant to shoot anyone if any still wish to bear arms, because of the hesitation the bombers slip through without trouble blow more public transport up and kill many more people..... :mp5:


R.I.P and my thoughts and sympathies go out to all the family and friends of those that are destined to die. :(

So you prefer that the police arent sued or punished for their mistake?

what is the witness name?...or what is your source for that?

My source for that was an interview with a blonde woman ho witnessed the incident broadcast by the BBC World television service on the Friday afternoon (here, night there). I do not remember her name.

oufcource he is a murderer charge him and then execute him same way he killed that innocent brazilian,poore man and poore his family...triggerhappy cowboystyle executions are not just U.S. soldiers characteristic anymore..british are following [as true allies would-well done police]... :) :sniper: :) :sniper: :) :sniper: :) :sniper:

That's likely because in Brazil there's no such thing as excessive force. The police can always shoot to kill, and excecutions happen among the lower classes.
You just stay out of the way of the police and traficantes, and they don't kill you. It's not hard.
First it was me that posted that comment. I live in Brazil. There is such a thing as excessive force here contrary to your belief, but it would not be a consideration under these circumstances.


Yes, and the police kill who they want. There was a man who tried to break into the house of a RONE (Military police). He was taken into the woods, and the officer told him to run. He was killed while trying to escape.
I am curious as to your sources for this. The military police here are not called RONE, nor have they ever been. They are the BM (Brigada Militar).

But that's no reason to run. That's a rather good reason not to. Random searches (just on the sidewalks and near the favelas) are fairly common in Brazil, and a Brazilian would have known how to handle himself. If he was an electrician, then he wasn't upper class- so he would have been searched before. I just can't figure out why he ran in the first place. Again the details here are untrue. I have lived in Brazil for seven years and have never been stopped despite noty being upper-class. The pçolice here do generally need a reason, as they do in the USA or the UK. (This does not mean that they cannot invent one if they so choose). What is true is that the police here are heavily armed, and if they tell you to stop and you run, you are likely to be shot.

I could not figure out why he ran until one further detail emerged today.

Mr de Menezes was living and working in the UK on a student visa which had expired. He would have been afraid of being deported as he was working and living in the UK illegally. This is a problem that the Brazilians have, in that they tend to "bend" the rules as far as possible. (Both here and abroad.) However his reaction was stupid given that he must have known the circumstances, what was happening etc. This is clear as his father has said that hewanted to buy a motorbike as he was afraid of using public transport.

A tragic mistake due to a stupid reaction caused by a lack of respect for the rule.

So you prefer that the police arent sued or punished for their mistake?

So you prefer that the police arent sued or punished for their mistake?


You tell me what good Suing the police will do? It wont bring the mother her son back, its showing that they have to make a split second decision NOT to fire when the next time maybe they SHOULD have fired.

Why should they be punished? For following orders? Yes its a tragic accident but given the British take on guns anyway and we're NOT trigger-happy I would feel safer a mistake thats costs ONE innocent life that many hundreds where the decision to pull the trigger was stopped.

People in London are SCARED, never mind our unwavering spirit, thats fine, but when an enemy can come and go as he/she and kill hundreds in one go ay ANY time knowing full well the police wont stop them and no-one will protect the public.... That TERRIFIES me and Iam not ashamed to admit it, can anyone honestly say that wouldnt scare THEM if it was in THEIR area?

The police were plain clothes. If I was on the street and 3 tough looking guys, either waving guns or looking like they're probably armed told me to stop, I'd probably leg it too. Disasterous incompetance. This isn't the first time UK firearms police have shot dead someone innocent through bad judgement (the table leg guy a few years back, a schizophrenic with a gun shaped lighter etc.)

I think we should commend the officers.

In fact, we need MORE of such actions in the world today. I am sick and tired of all the pussified responses that keep emerging from the world today. "Kinder and Gentler" is a bunch of crap. Innocents die everyday. Madmen and their self-righteous beliefs that they can impose their wills on others through use of cowardly attacks are running rampant through the streets of every nation.

You have a decision to make, and it is simply this:

Are you against terrorism, or not?

This is war. Global war. No one is safe in their homes, at their work place, or moving in between. NO ONE. Not you. Not me. Not your children, friends or family. Not as long as these bastards are allowed to breathe. They must be stopped. If you don't agree with stopping them now, when will you? Do you think that they will just go away of their own accord? What happens when it is your beliefs that they target? Will you be against them then?

A message had to be sent. Enough of this terrorist bullshit. It is a shame that an innocent man had to lose his life to get the message out. Oh, well. Now, you better think twice before doing moronic things. That is our world today. Wake up and smell the coffee.

If you don't agree, do the rest of us a favor. Go and buy a bulky overcoat and run to catch your train.

Oh well, police will be sued, massive payouts will ensue. Police will be hesitant to shoot anyone if any still wish to bear arms, because of the hesitation the bombers slip through without trouble blow more public transport up and kill many more people..... :mp5:


R.I.P and my thoughts and sympathies go out to all the family and friends of those that are destined to die. :(
oh yes because they did a GREAT job of shooting ACTUAL criminals..

so am not going to comment until I hear the facts from the inquiry. I trust the inquiry to come to the "right" conclusion.

Not this 'are you with us or against us' crap. Governments blow this up to coerce other governments to do things through pressure from their populace, but they use bombers and cruise missiles and it is called war rather than terrorism. If you're seeing in black and white, chances are you're half blind.

The real criminals are right wingers on every side, the nationalists, the religious nutcases, the guy who wants to tell me what to do because that is the only way he feels secure in himself. Christian and Islamic, I don't really see much of a difference. A bomb is a bomb whoever detonates it, and a person yelling 'kill him because its your duty as a ...' is the same kind of liar.

The real criminals are right wingers on every side, the nationalists, the religious nutcases, the guy who wants to tell me what to do because that is the only way he feels secure in himself. Christian and Islamic, I don't really see much of a difference. A bomb is a bomb whoever detonates it, and a person yelling 'kill him because its your duty as a ...' is the same kind of liar.

I'll take that as agreement.

No, I am not talking about governments. I am talking about individuals. What these individuals are doing in the name of their religion, or government or country is wrong. I don't care where you are from, or what your beliefs are except for the belief that allows you to strap a bomb to the underside of a carriage and kill whoever is riding the bus. That is abhorant. If you think there is a gray area there, then you are totally blind.

Surely when somone is already bundled to the ground he is no longer a threat therefore should not then be shot in the head. I sympathise with the London people with all they have been through but it does not excuse a man's life. As they say two wrong's don't make a right.

Of course it is wrong. Is it so different though from the bombings perpetrated by the US government on Iraq which killed hundreds of civilians? How about the bombings in south east Asia which killed hundreds of thousands? Hatred breeds hatred, that at least should be obvious. The hatred dealt out by these deluded and psychotic bombers is a reflection of the hatred they perceive from the west, in bombings and invasions but also in the tacit support of corrupt and oppressive regimes and the endless march of corporate enslavement. No-one denies the evilness of what they did by killing people who had done no wrong, but had they suicide bombed political targets without harming civilians I could certainly understand their actions.

Mr de Menezes was living and working in the UK on a student visa which had expired.
Please, cite your sources. I've never seen any sources which said he was there on a student visa (after all, he was an electrician, not a student). And several sources I've seen all said he was a legal resident.

BTW, this would make for a good issue on NS.

There has been public outrage as an innocent man was recently mistaken for a terrorist and accidentally shot by ununiformed police, after he'd attempted to flee.

1. "I think these police officers are heroes, for doing their jobs right! They should be given medals!" touts Neoconservative pundit @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Yes, he that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither, but he that sacrifices security for liberty is DEAD! This shoot-on-sight policy is the only way to ultimately stop terrorism, and should be standard procedure."

2. "Terrorists often kill innocents in order to get to us. We shouldn't use the same methods to get to them," remarks gun control activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Do police REALLY need to have guns? Couldn't they make do with non-lethal weaponry, like clubs and tasers?"

3. "Big government STRIKES AGAIN!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, popular Anarchist author, "We NEED to abolish the police force! Give them guns, they'll kill with guns. Give them clubs, they'll kill with clubs. No one should need to be coerced by an oppressive, Orwellian, statist, fascist army of goons! Liberty is our highest priority!"

I believe that there should be an investigation to acertain what exactly happened. An investigation to establish if in fact a crime took place. That's the least that can be done to ease the pain of the victom's family.

I think the evidence is loaded in favor of the polcie and rightly so. I don't think they should be charged but everytime a shot is fired in England there is an investigation. What i think is worth pointing out is that this man could speak English and the police HAVE to identify themselves first. he would have seen these guys shout police and seen the guns. He ran.

What happened was a terrible mistake but not really the polices fault.

I think the evidence is loaded in favor of the polcie and rightly so. I don't think they should be charged but everytime a shot is fired in England there is an investigation. What i think is worth pointing out is that this man could speak English and the police HAVE to identify themselves first. he would have seen these guys shout police and seen the guns. He ran.

What happened was a terrible mistake but not really the polices fault.
I agree.

BTW, I found the source that says he was in Britain illegally:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713753.stm

The British government claims his visa was expired, but the family claims it wasn't.

They DIDN'T IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS POLICE.
where does it say that? all eyewitness accounts are at the end of the chase. is there an article where someone saw the beginning of the chase?

they shot him dead after tackling him because they were concerned that he was a suicide bomber and would've triggered any explosives he may have had on him while pinned.

They WEREN'T in uniform, they probably DIDN'T identify themselves.

If two guys pulled a gun on you, WTF would be YOUR first reaction?

"Aye, mates, care for a cup of tea?"Probably didn't... then again Probably did.

and my first reaction... dive for cover/hit the dirt... not run.

Because it's the only possible explanation.

It's already known that he was a legal resident, he wasn't insane, and hadn't ever committed any crimes. If he was illegal, crazy, or a criminal, I could see your point. But normal people don't just run away from the police, randomly.which is why they mistook him as a terrorist... because he did run.

You think firing five shots into a person, after pinning him to the ground, is appropriate force?considering he might have a bomb and could've triggered it on a train full of people... Don't know.

Surely when somone is already bundled to the ground he is no longer a threat therefore should not then be shot in the head. I sympathise with the London people with all they have been through but it does not excuse a man's life. As they say two wrong's don't make a right.Try it. have one of your friends hold a ball point pen (he chooses which hand,) that is the detonator. now have you and four others tackle him and subdue him before he clicks the pen. if he succeeds, then you and your four partners, and everyone on the train car is caught in an explosion. Remember, they thought he was carrying explosives at the time and he was in a car full of passengers.

so am not going to comment until I hear the facts from the inquiry. I trust the inquiry to come to the "right" conclusion.This is the attitude we should take. I believe that it was already reached.

Now, the one thing no one is concerned over is the mental welfare of the officer(s) that did the shooting. do you think they won't be haunted by the fact that they killed an innocent person? do you think that the next time, they might hesitate and thus (if it's an actual terrorist) cause more innocents to be hurt/killed?

Try it. have one of your friends hold a ball point pen (he chooses which hand,) that is the detonator. now have you and four others tackle him and subdue him before he clicks the pen. if he succeeds, then you and your four partners, and everyone on the train car is caught in an explosion. Remember, they thought he was carrying explosives at the time and he was in a car full of passengers.

Which begs the question? Why didn't he do it when they yelled at him? Why didn't he do it while they were chasing him? Why didn't he do it when hitting the train? Why didn't he do it when they tackled him? Why didn't he do it while pinned down?

I like how they managed to not shoot any actual bombers

1. The cops identified themselves, yelling "STOP, POLICE!"

2. He had been living in the UK for 3 years as an electrician, and probably spoke enought English. Besides, the word for "police" is almost identical in Portugese.

3. The followed him onto the subway car, pinned him to the ground, and shot him multiple times in the back of the head. Seems harsh, but if they shot him in the arms or legs, he could still detonate a bomb with his final breaths. If they shoot him in the torso a bomb he's wearing could explode. Shooting him multiple times in the head is the only way to be sure he was dead and wouldn't twitch, possibly setting it off.

They had to make a split-second choice, with no real evidence one way or the other. If they decided he wasn't a bomber and were wrong, people would be yelling at them then. It was a crap shoot, and they guessed wrong. Everybody has 20/20 hindsight, but expecting them to know what to do is expecting the police to be super human.

Please, cite your sources. I've never seen any sources which said he was there on a student visa (after all, he was an electrician, not a student). And several sources I've seen all said he was a legal resident.


Source: The BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713753.stm

Security sources have said Mr Menezes had been in the UK on an out-of-date student visa, but his family deny this and are considering suing the police.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the type of visa Mr Menezes had been given would normally be valid for one-and-a-half to two years.

He said Mr Menezes had not renewed the visa, adding: "That wouldn't explain why he was shot, but it might provide an explanation as to why he ran away if - that is indeed what he did do."

As you had already noted. (Sorry did not see your intevening post.)

Ihatevacations']Which begs the question? Why didn't he do it when they yelled at him? Why didn't he do it while they were chasing him? Why didn't he do it when hitting the train? Why didn't he do it when they tackled him? Why didn't he do it while pinned down?

I like how they managed to not shoot any actual bombers
Hmmm... If, and I reiterate IF, I was a terrorist bomber, I would try to maximize my 1 bomb. I won't detonate when they yell at me... that's wasted. I won't detonate when chased... again it's a waste. I would look for the most crowded car (thus running throught the train)... once tackled, I would then detonate, thus inflicting the most innocent casualties and possibly taking out some of their law enforcement officers as well. by doing that, I show how ineffective their security is (hey, I got on the train didn't I) I take out some of their officers (showing they are just as mortal as everyone else) and I sow my terror seed.

Remember, As a Terrorist, Terror is what they are going for.

and what would you do... give up the chase once he got on the train because you'd be thinking "well, he didn't blow up in the terminal where we were chasing him and not immediatly after he got on the train so he's not a terrorist"

Hmmm... If, and I reiterate IF, I was a terrorist bomber, I would try to maximize my 1 bomb. I won't detonate when they yell at me... that's wasted. I won't detonate when chased... again it's a waste. I would look for the most crowded car (thus running throught the train)... once tackled, I would then detonate, thus inflicting the most innocent casualties and possibly taking out some of their law enforcement officers as well. by doing that, I show how ineffective their security is (hey, I got on the train didn't I) I take out some of their officers (showing they are just as mortal as everyone else) and I sow my terror seed.

Remember, As a Terrorist, Terror is what they are going for.

and what would you do... give up the chase once he got on the train because you'd be thinking "well, he didn't blow up in the terminal where we were chasing him and not immediatly after he got on the train so he's not a terrorist"


remember, he was not shot repeatedly until AFTER he was subdued and on the train. he was in a car already, he should've blown the bomb were he a suicide bomber. and why didnt the polcie shoot him before he got to the train? if i he was down on the train and about to get capped a few times, and I just happened to have a bomb on me, I knew I would've blown it up at that point

Involuntary Manslaughter,

Now, that does not mean that the same charge exists in another state, as Murder and Manslaughter are not by nature Federal offenses--therefore Federal Manslaughter laws do not exist it is a matter for State courts.

.
Well, there is a federal murder statute which includes manslaughter, and there are several ways in which a murder could become a federal crime. Just FYI.

Well, there is a federal murder statute which includes manslaughter, and there are several ways in which a murder could become a federal crime. Just FYI.

Not if the event happens happens in London, UK.

Ihatevacations']remember, he was not shot repeatedly until AFTER he was subdued and on the train. he was in a car already, he should've blown the bomb were he a suicide bomber. and why didnt the polcie shoot him before he got to the train? if i he was down on the train and about to get capped a few times, and I just happened to have a bomb on me, I knew I would've blown it up at that point
No... He was tackled, pinned then shot. all that can take place in seconds.

Two, Police really don't like firing their weapons during a chase especially through a public (and probably crowded) area like a terminal.

Three during a chase with a "Suspected" bomber. police officers aren't thinking "why isn't he stopping... why isn't he detonating his bomb now?" their only thought is Stopping him before his bomb went off.

Would they have shot him dead if he was tacked in the terminal? Probably not.
Would they have shot him if he was tackled outside the train? Proabably not
Would they have shot him if he stopped? no.

was it a tragic mistake? yes.
It could've been prevented in so many ways by both parties but it wasn't, dwelling on coulds shoulds and woulds is not going to solve the problem.

Not if the event happens happens in London, UK.
well, yeah. OT. Just being a law school pedant.

Since he was running towards a crowded subway perhaps they thought he was trying to detonate his assumed bomb before they could subdue him.

Read the articles regarding the shooting (there are a few links provided in this thread). Mr. de Menezes was shot after he was subdued.

Im calling bullshit on this. I dont think theres any way that this is what caused him to run.

Running from men with guns is an act of instinct. Instinct is based on how you are raised. I have cousins from Canada who, if they are robbed, go to seek help from the police. I have cousins from Colombia who would never go to the police under any circumstances. Although I've never been to Brazil the things I've read about have been confirmed by many Brazilians, including Alien Born if you review his response to the same post.

Urban legends mostly. There was torture here until the early 1980s while Brazil was a military dictatorship. There were also a couple of bad cops in São Paulo a year or so ago that killed a few homeless.You are taught here not to run. If you run you will be shot, if you do not, then 99.9999% of the time nothing bad happens.


I realise you might feel the need to defend the morality of the authorities in your country and this is by no means an attempt to slam Brazilians. But if it was only a couple of bad cops in Sao Paolo I don't think I would have heard about it. There are a couple of bad cops everywhere. What concerns me is that the major powers like UK and the US are reverting to tactics formerly used by Latin American dictatorships.

As to the subduing. It is impossible to completely imobilise a living person. All that a suicide bomber needs to be able to do is to trigger the bomb. How this is done is not going to be known to the policeman is it? A twitch of a thumb, a clenching of the jaw, a tensing of a leg muscle, any of those could do it.
Shoot to kill, means shoot to kill, not to wound, not to incapacitate. Five shots to the head from blank point range will kill for certain. There was nothing wrong in the technique.

So from now on any one seen running is considered a terrorist? Wasn't that the policy of the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam?

The only thing wrong was that the man they killed was not, despite his behaviour, a suicide bomber.

What I can tell you is that the press here in Brazil is not up in arms demanding things. Yes, the de Menezes family is upset, understandably so, but the country as whole does not find the police action to have been excessive. Tragic, sad, unfortunate, mistaken are the words being used (the Portuguese equivalents). Excessive, over the top, unnecessary are not terms in the comments being made.

Perhaps what is sad is the fact that more people are not outraged by this. No offense to the law enforcement in Brazil, but I do not want to live in a society where police are allowed to execute a person based on suspicion.

So from now on any one seen running is considered a terrorist? Wasn't that the policy of the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam?

No. Anyone seen running from police is considered suspicious.
Anyone seen exiting a house suspected to have connections to the previous bombings, wearing a bulky winter coat in the middle of summer, and running towards a crowded train station is considered to be a possible terrorist.

No. Anyone seen running from police is considered suspicious.
Anyone seen exiting a house suspected to have connections to the previous bombings, wearing a bulky winter coat in the middle of summer, and running towards a crowded train station is considered to be a possible terrorist.

I pity any Londoner chasing after a bus.

I realise you might feel the need to defend the morality of the authorities in your country and this is by no means an attempt to slam Brazilians. But if it was only a couple of bad cops in Sao Paolo I don't think I would have heard about it. There are a couple of bad cops everywhere. What concerns me is that the major powers like UK and the US are reverting to tactics formerly used by Latin American dictatorships. There was a rash of murders in August last year, which was tracked down to two police officers and a security guard. All were arrested and are probably very happy keeping Bubba's sex drive under control in Jail.

So from now on any one seen running is considered a terrorist? Wasn't that the policy of the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam? It may well have been. However anyone coming out of an address that is under surveilance, overdressed for the weather, that runs when challenged is suspect, like it or not.

Perhaps what is sad is the fact that more people are not outraged by this. No offense to the law enforcement in Brazil, but I do not want to live in a society where police are allowed to execute a person based on suspicion. While I agree that it is sad, place the blame for this wher it should be. Not with the police, not even with Sr. de Menezes, but with the terrorists that are creating this climate, the terrorists place the police in a position of having to decide whether to shoot or to risk another explosion.

Regarding your previous post. In Brazil now, most law abiding people would not have a problem approaching the police for help. With the possible exception of those that live in Rio. Mr de Menezes was from a small town in Minas de Gerais, he should have had no reason to fear the police in his background.

[QUOTE]There was a rash of murders in August last year, which was tracked down to two police officers and a security guard. All were arrested and are probably very happy keeping Bubba's sex drive under control in Jail.

I know a university professor from Brazil who talks about the police "death squads" and their practice "social cleansing" against homeless people, prostitutes, homosexuals and other "social deviants". He says this is a common occurence in major cities.

It may well have been. However anyone coming out of an address that is under surveilance, overdressed for the weather, that runs when challenged is suspect, like it or not.

Yes they are a suspect, yes the police should pursue them, yes the police should use force to apprehend them, but once they are subdued I think seven shots to the head is excessive.

While I agree that it is sad, place the blame for this wher it should be. Not with the police, not even with Sr. de Menezes, but with the terrorists that are creating this climate, the terrorists place the police in a position of having to decide whether to shoot or to risk another explosion.

The terrorists are simply an excuse for those in power to tighten the reigns. Detaining civilians without the presence of an attorney and, now public executions, are violations of civil liberties. Where do you draw the line?

Regarding your previous post. In Brazil now, most law abiding people would not have a problem approaching the police for help. With the possible exception of those that live in Rio. Mr de Menezes was from a small town in Minas de Gerais, he should have had no reason to fear the police in his background.

From a CNN article:

"Like many Brazilians, Menezes moved to Sao Paulo, Brazil's largest city, as a young man seeking work. But after years of toiling as an electrician, he decided he would never be able to save enough in a country where tens of millions make only the monthly minimum wage of $125."

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1102&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050724%2F1750568395.htm&sc=1102

[QUOTE=Alien Born]
I know a university professor from Brazil who talks about the police "death squads" and their practice "social cleansing" against homeless people, prostitutes, homosexuals and other "social deviants". He says this is a common occurence in major cities.
When did he leave Brazil? If it was during or just after the dictatorship, he would nbe right. Now, twenty years later, the whole culture has changed with the exception of some "wild west" towns in the North East and some parts of Rio.

[QUOTE=Alien Born]Yes they are a suspect, yes the police should pursue them, yes the police should use force to apprehend them, but once they are subdued I think seven shots to the head is excessive.
There was a post wearlier in this thread from someone that suggested that you and three mates try to hold down a foiurht one with a retractable ball point pen in his hand, and prevent him from clicking the pen. If you can not - KABOOM. The only reliable way to prevent a suspected suicide bomber from triggering the bomb is to kill him or her outright as quickly as possible. Hence the overkill. Good technique, wrong person.

[QUOTE=Alien Born]The terrorists are simply an excuse for those in power to tighten the reigns. Detaining civilians without the presence of an attorney and, now public executions, are violations of civil liberties. Where do you draw the line?
The British police have had these powers under the anti-terrorist act since the mid 70s. No tightening of the reigns has taken place. Stop being paranoid. In the USA, the government has abused the public fear to limit freedoms, but in the UK this has not happened yet, and it is unlikely to happen.

[QUOTE=Alien Born]From a CNN article:

"Like many Brazilians, Menezes moved to Sao Paulo, Brazil's largest city, as a young man seeking work. But after years of toiling as an electrician, he decided he would never be able to save enough in a country where tens of millions make only the monthly minimum wage of $125."

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1102&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050724%2F1750568395.htm&sc=1102
So he spent a few years working in São Paulo. This would not change his attitude to the police particularly. Your attitude depends very much on where you went to school, the attitude of youer parents and colleagues as you grow up. If his attitude could be changed that easily, then the years he had spent in London should have overridden any change that São Paulo made. So either he was easily influenced by the culture, in which case he should not have run, or he was not, in which case he should not have run. Either way running was wrong there, it is wrong here, and it got him killed.

I'm lauding those damn brave police anyway, it's not their fault that the innocent man just happened to have all the hallmarks of a very guilty looking terrorist. They were just doing their job.

If your mother ever gets killed this way, I'll post that quote the following day. Same goes to all the idiots that think it's acceptable to kill innocent people "because they were dumb".

The police were plain clothes. If I was on the street and 3 tough looking guys, either waving guns or looking like they're probably armed told me to stop, I'd probably leg it too. Disasterous incompetance. This isn't the first time UK firearms police have shot dead someone innocent through bad judgement (the table leg guy a few years back, a schizophrenic with a gun shaped lighter etc.)


So youre saying if somes pointing something that to all intents and purposes is a gun and saying they are going to blow your head off, and YOU had a gun aswell you'd stop and ask questions?

all that you've said is fair enough but you dont run from armed police if your innocent

Exactly.

all that you've said is fair enough but you dont run from armed police if your innocent

Hasnt it been proved he was innocent already?

Hasnt it been proved he was innocent already?
I dont think he was a bomber but i think he either had something to do with it or knew something about it

I dont think he was a bomber but i think he either had something to do with it or knew something about it

What about the pickpockets, etc who run from police? are they informed on the bombing plots then?.

There is nothing to show that he knew anything or had ever been in contact with any of the bombers. Anything else is just uninformed speculation. Dont forget the "Innocent until proven guilty" phrase either

What about the pickpockets, etc who run from police? are they informed on the bombing plots then?.

There is nothing to show that he knew anything or had ever been in contact with any of the bombers. Anything else is just uninformed speculation. Dont forget the "Innocent until proven guilty" phrase either
Ok heres a novel idea go and shoot every singel criminal cause a bullet is cheaper and more effective than a re-hab centre or a rope is even more cost effective

This is total incompetence.Well, I'm glad you were here to tell us. Saves all the trouble of an independent inquiry, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.You've spoken to the officer in question, then?

Ye gods... Bloody armchair justices. You ever thought of working for the papers? They could use someone like you.

Ok heres a novel idea go and shoot every singel criminal cause a bullet is cheaper and more effective than a re-hab centre or a rope is even more cost effective

Even without a trial as you are advocating here?

Try it. have one of your friends hold a ball point pen (he chooses which hand,) that is the detonator. now have you and four others tackle him and subdue him before he clicks the pen. if he succeeds, then you and your four partners, and everyone on the train car is caught in an explosion. Remember, they thought he was carrying explosives at the time and he was in a car full of passengers.

But the poor guy didn't have a "ball point pen" Don't tell me you don't even feel even a little bit sorry for him

Even without a trial as you are advocating here?
is that criminal resistance i see

Try it. have one of your friends hold a ball point pen (he chooses which hand,) that is the detonator. now have you and four others tackle him and subdue him before he clicks the pen. if he succeeds, then you and your four partners, and everyone on the train car is caught in an explosion. Remember, they thought he was carrying explosives at the time and he was in a car full of passengers.

But the poor guy didn't have a "ball point pen" Don't tell me you don't even feel even a little bit sorry for him
i know i cant see why the police didn't use a taser it would of parralized him but not kill him

i know i cant see why the police didn't use a taser it would of parralized him but not kill him

Well the obvios answer would be because they didnt have one on them.

I wonder if any of the perceptions would change if this was a man killed by the Gestapo, for being suspected of being a French terrorist with a bomb, when in fact he was an electrician.

Still I am glad its not a North American that was mistakenly murdered, as you tend to lose a couple of thousand of your own innocents for everyone one of theirs.

I wonder if any of the perceptions would change if this was a man killed by the Gestapo, for being suspected of being a French terrorist with a bomb, when in fact he was an electrician.


I think the situation you suggest is so completely different to what actually happened that the thought is without merit. The British police are not an occupying force, the terrorists are not a resistance movement fighting an occupying force.

Try it. have one of your friends hold a ball point pen (he chooses which hand,) that is the detonator. now have you and four others tackle him and subdue him before he clicks the pen. if he succeeds, then you and your four partners, and everyone on the train car is caught in an explosion. Remember, they thought he was carrying explosives at the time and he was in a car full of passengers.

But the poor guy didn't have a "ball point pen" Don't tell me you don't even feel even a little bit sorry for him

Sure I feel sorry for his family (not him, but that is a separate issue altogether). I feel even sorrier for the policeman that shot him. The British police are not trained and conditioned to be immune to the psychological effects of killing a person. The copper had to make a decision that staked him killing one innocent person against his potentially allowing dozens of other innocent people to be killed. He did not have the possibility of stopping Mr. de Menezes and asking "Excuse me old chap, do you happen to be carrying a bomb and have the intention of blowing yourself and a large number of bystanders into smithereens?" The policeman had to make an instant decision, and now he is going to be haunted by that decision for the rest of his life.

Feel sorry, but feel sorry for those that have been made to suffer by the stupidity of de Menezes in running, by the callousness of the terrorists in bombing innocent people. Do not feel sorry for someone who did not suffer at all.

As for the poll however, no the officers should not be charged at all, I suspect they may need a good deal of councilling however. The family should be compensated as much as anyone can be for losing a loved one.

Those who effected the shoot to kill policy should be charged. Additionally those passing on the inferior intelligence should be held accountable for not doing their jobs properly.

I think the situation you suggest is so completely different to what actually happened that the thought is without merit. The British police are not an occupying force, the terrorists are not a resistance movement fighting an occupying force.

I fail to see the difference, anyone armed in a country is an occupying force.

All terrorists are part of a resistence movement whether you agree with their illogical goals or not.

I wonder if any of the perceptions would change if this was a man killed by the Gestapo, for being suspected of being a French terrorist with a bomb, when in fact he was an electrician.

Still I am glad its not a North American that was mistakenly murdered, as you tend to lose a couple of thousand of your own innocents for everyone one of theirs.
If you want to go that wild then no. The legitimate Gov of that country surrendered so the resistance fighters would expect death and others would not be shocked at inocents being killed. After all the French were being bombs from the sky by the allies. But your example is warped.

Ok its just stupid to argue you wouldnt run if cops were after you. I mean at that point panic is possible..and there was no cause to shoot him if he was running AWAY from them! Especially if they were able to tackle him.

I fail to see the difference, anyone armed in a country is an occupying force.

All terrorists are part of a resistence movement whether you agree with their illogical goals or not.No the democratically elected gov has people who represent and protect the general population. Terrorist are terrorist, they murder none military personel, they target none legitimate targets. Thier supporters then whine on when they are rightly shot (not of course in this case). Please stand up because what your saying is muffled by both your pants and the seat!

:( First my feelings go to the man's family

However, the officers were only doing thier duty, it was their job and they had the best reasons to suspect he was a threat, and so protect the public. The Brazilian was unfortunately coming out of the wrong house (which was under suvailance as the police knew of a terrorist living there), wearing the wrong jacket (so he looked like somebody else), at the wrong time (when London was on alert).

I would be seriously surprised if the police gave chase without warning the man who they were. Even though they were plain-clothed-police they would have carried ID. The officers were under shoot-to-kill orders for suspected suicide bombers, which the man could easily could have been, hiding explosive under the large coat.

Although I am not saying the man was guilty, he should have stoped running when the police addressed him, and he shouldn't have headed for the 'tube', an obvious target. in this way he made himself look more like a true threat.

Although it is terrible that there has been an innocent death there is no reason for the police officers to be charged in any way. Think what the papers would say the next day if the suspect had been guilty, the police would be praised.




"What makes a man is what he fails at"

No the democratically elected gov has people who represent and protect the general population. Terrorist are terrorist, they murder none military personel, they target none legitimate targets. Thier supporters then whine on when they are rightly shot (not of course in this case). Please stand up because what your saying is muffled by both your pants and the seat!

I didnt choose to vote for the government. If I asked the government to leave me alone, they would use force to make me conform. They occupy my area, and use force if I do not submit.

What you describe here also is a resistance movement. There is no difference.

I fail to see the difference, anyone armed in a country is an occupying force.

All terrorists are part of a resistence movement whether you agree with their illogical goals or not.

You sir, are sick. Go and find a good psychiatrist.

I didnt choose to vote for the government. If I asked the government to leave me alone, they would use force to make me conform. They occupy my area, and use force if I do not submit.

What you describe here also is a resistance movement. There is no difference.
Didn't understand that last bit, move your nappy to the left and we might hear you better.

You sir, are sick. Go and find a good psychiatrist.

Irrelevent

Didn't understand that last bit

What part did you not understand?

move your nappy to the left and we might hear you better.

Irrelevent

The police identified themselves as armed police. They told him to stop. He ran into a subway and then (bearing in mind that a bomb had gone off the same day) vaulted a fence and ran onto a train. Of course they shot him.

Irrelevent
Never has a more true introspective statement been uttered on this site.

Never has a more true introspective statement been uttered on this site.

Irrelevent

If you live in England you live in a form of democracy. They way to change it is through the ballot. Over 70% of people did not agree with two Faced Tony.
If you are an anarchist, then fair enough. Love that system, my family is huge and covers three continents. We would be ok.

Well the obvios answer would be because they didnt have one on them.

The other answer is that if he WAS carrying a bomb . . .

C4 + Electrical current = BOOM

i know i cant see why the police didn't use a taser it would of parralized him but not kill him
because a taser would cause muscles to contract. If he had a hand held detonator... Boom.

Plus what Eris Illuminated said.

what some people forget is that at the time, it was not known that he was not carrying a bomb. sure now we know and thus makes the actions of the officer(s) harsh and that much more horrible. however, had he been carrying a bomb, then the officer(s) actions would've been brave, courages and correct.

because a taser would cause muscles to contract. If he had a hand held detonator... Boom.

Plus what Eris Illuminated said.


Now lets keep in mind that I was only explaining why it's a bad idea to taze someone who may have a bomb. I actualy think that I could have suported them shooting him while he was fleeing, but once tackled and pinned to the ground . . .


Yes I know that if he had a bomb he could have triggered it before they could have stoped him, but if he DID have one it seems he would have triggered it when he was tackled before he was shot, or imeadiatly after the first shot if it didn't kill him instantly.

however, had he been carrying a bomb, then the officer(s) actions would've been brave, courages and correct.

Didn't notice this the first time . . .

Pinning someone to the ground and then shooting them is never "brave" or "couragous" nor is it "correct".

If your mother ever gets killed this way, I'll post that quote the following day. Same goes to all the idiots that think it's acceptable to kill innocent people "because they were dumb".
Thank you for bringing my mother into this.

If my mother ever gets killed this way it will be an absolute tragedy. I will be overwhelmed with personal feelings, and will likely hate the person who killed her. Those would be my PERSONAL feelings, because I will be strongly biased.

You would be well entitled to post the quote, and, in my opinion, the correct attitude from the world at large should be "they were just doing their job".

If your mother ever gets blown up in a terrorist bombing, and the police were able to stop the terrorist, but were too cautious, I *WON'T* be quoting you the next day. I will be saddened by the tragedy that happened, just as I'm saddened by the tradgedy of this man being killed, and I'm saddened by the police officer having to live the rest of his life knowing he's killed a man.

Didn't notice this the first time . . .

Pinning someone to the ground and then shooting them is never "brave" or "couragous" nor is it "correct".

I don't know about the word "never"

If we were talking about a boxer, for example, then I'd agree. Once they're pinned to the ground, they are no more danger to the officer and the civilians.
If we are talking about someone with a bomb, the danger does not come from shooting at him, wrestling with him, anything like that. The danger comes from going near him and being caught in the explosion. As such, I'd say that pinning him to the ground and shooting him *is* courageous. The officer was risking being blown to smithereens to protect innocent lives. Even if he was wrong, he certainly was courageous.

Now, shooting him when he's pinned...that's a more debatable topic. As has been said, however, those were his orders. Unless the officer in question has more information thatn the person issuing the order, I want the police to follow their orders, especially when the lives of a train-car full of innocents is on the line (pun intended).

You think firing five shots into a person, after pinning him to the ground, is appropriate force?
Given that they suspected him of being a terrorist and that he was attempting to run onto a subway train, yes it was. If he had been a terrorist it is entirely feasible that he would have some sort of switch that could detonate the bomb, thus killing the police and surrounding civilians as well.

I havn't actually read all the previous posts, but I was shocked how many of you though the police officer should be tried for manslaughter.

Seriously, the guy runs from police and tries to get on a subway train... in a city where there have been 3 subway trains bombed, and another 3 attempts??? If I was on that train I would sure hope the police would do the same thing.

Give the officer a medal.

I havn't actually read all the previous posts, but I was shocked how many of you though the police officer should be tried for manslaughter.

Seriously, the guy runs from police and tries to get on a subway train... in a city where there have been 3 subway trains bombed, and another 3 attempts??? If I was on that train I would sure hope the police would do the same thing.

Give the officer a medal.

Considering that the man killed was not a threat after all, the officer does not deserve a medal. Unless you propose giving all officers who make mistakes resulting in innocent people dead a medal. Which is quite frankly, stupid.

Thank you for bringing my mother into this.

If my mother ever gets killed this way it will be an absolute tragedy. I will be overwhelmed with personal feelings, and will likely hate the person who killed her. Those would be my PERSONAL feelings, because I will be strongly biased.

You would be well entitled to post the quote, and, in my opinion, the correct attitude from the world at large should be "they were just doing their job".

If your mother ever gets blown up in a terrorist bombing, and the police were able to stop the terrorist, but were too cautious, I *WON'T* be quoting you the next day. I will be saddened by the tragedy that happened, just as I'm saddened by the tradgedy of this man being killed, and I'm saddened by the police officer having to live the rest of his life knowing he's killed a man.

You see, they WEREN'T just doing their jobs. They had him pinned to the ground and immobilized BEFORE firing eight bullets on him, then calling him a terrorist when he was dead. The officer deserves to live the rest of his life knowing he killed an innocent, assuming that matters to him, because that's precisely what he did. He also deserves to be punished for killing a subdued innocent person. If my mom - or whoever - got killed, I'd try to have my government pursue effective politics that worked against terrorism, rather than pinning random people to the ground and shoot them while they're defenseless "because they ran". But, then again, it's to be expected from a government that did the same to a random COUNTRY "because it had WMDs" it turned out not to have. It's called "pattern recognition". Look into it.

I havn't actually read all the previous posts, but I was shocked how many of you though the police officer should be tried for manslaughter.

Seriously, the guy runs from police and tries to get on a subway train... in a city where there have been 3 subway trains bombed, and another 3 attempts??? If I was on that train I would sure hope the police would do the same thing.

Give the officer a medal.

Yes, let's kill random innocent people while they're pinned down, out of pure panic, why don't we? Remind me to send whoever kills someone you care for a medal with my best wishes.

We don't know what the whole story is. All we know is what the media lets us know.
Sorry, but the guy ran and, in all honesty, I think the police did what was expected of them.
If he was a terrorist and he got away, then we'd all be wondering about the incompetence of the officers who let that happen. The cops, as usual, are between a rock and a hard place. All I can say is that I'm glad I don't have their job.

We don't know what the whole story is. All we know is what the media lets us know.
Sorry, but the guy ran and, in all honesty, I think the police did what was expected of them.
If he was a terrorist and he got away, then we'd all be wondering about the incompetence of the officers who let that happen. The cops, as usual, are between a rock and a hard place. All I can say is that I'm glad I don't have their job.

You see, they had him pinned down and rendered defenseless and immobile a while BEFORE firing 8 shots at him...

You see, they had him pinned down and rendered defenseless and immobile a while BEFORE firing 8 shots at him...

So you were there were you and noted that they stopped to consider what to do next?

You can not immobilize anyone by pinning them down. You can prevent them getting up, you can prevent them from making large scale movements, but to trigger a bomb you do not need to make a large scale movement. If he had been a bomber and they had followed your ideas of the right thing to do, the result would have been the deaths of many. I hope you can sleep with that.

That an innocent man, from the country I live in, was killed, is a tragedy. That the police acted correctly in the circumstances is not open to question, they acted as they have been trained and instructed. What you can question is whether the police instructions for handling these circumstances are correct. I believe they are.

What can we learn from this. When an armed man tells you to stop while pointing a gun at you, you stop. What is the worst that is likely to happen? You lose your wallet. If you run, you may lose your life. Is that worth the gamble? No.

Heikoku, Non Aligned States, Oye Oye try what has been suggested in a previous post. Hold a pen in your hand (as a detonator) and have one of your friends tackle you to the ground. See if he's able to prevent you from clicking the pen and exploding your imaginary bomb.
Merely tackling a suicide bomber won't prevent him from triggering his bomb. Shooting a person once even in the head will not necessarily kill a person. Multiple, point-blank shots to the head was the only way for the cops to stop what they thought, and had every reason to believe, was a suicide bomber.

Heikoku, Non Aligned States, Oye Oye try what has been suggested in a previous post. Hold a pen in your hand (as a detonator) and have one of your friends tackle you to the ground. See if he's able to prevent you from clicking the pen and exploding your imaginary bomb.
Merely tackling a suicide bomber won't prevent him from triggering his bomb. Shooting a person once even in the head will not necessarily kill a person. Multiple, point-blank shots to the head was the only way for the cops to stop what they thought, and had every reason to believe, was a suicide bomber.

Again, they pinned him to the ground A WHILE BEFORE shooting him. Following your own logic, wouldn't he have blown up a detonator if he was holding one way before they shot him?

Heikoku, Non Aligned States, Oye Oye try what has been suggested in a previous post. Hold a pen in your hand (as a detonator) and have one of your friends tackle you to the ground. See if he's able to prevent you from clicking the pen and exploding your imaginary bomb.
Merely tackling a suicide bomber won't prevent him from triggering his bomb. Shooting a person once even in the head will not necessarily kill a person. Multiple, point-blank shots to the head was the only way for the cops to stop what they thought, and had every reason to believe, was a suicide bomber.

Also note that I stated that the man did not deserve a medal as suggested by Teh DeaDiTeS. The death was a tragedy that should not have occured but it did. Even with the use of hindsight, there is no denying that the death was in no way beneficial to the government, the public, or to the safety of public overall. As such, why should he get a medal?

The police officer who shoots a kid who is holding a toy gun in the dark may be defend himself on the grounds that it looks like a real gun, but I should hardly think that is worthy of a medal either.

Why did the police use a stun-gun on Yasin Hassan Omar even when he was holding a rucksack when the police confronted him when they felt they needed to shot the brazillian?

Why did the police use a stun-gun on Yasin Hassan Omar even when he was holding a rucksack when the police confronted him when they felt they needed to shot the brazillian?
Did they have stun guns with them at the Stockwell incident, then?

Did they have stun guns with them at the Stockwell incident, then?

I dont know i'm just asking a question. If they werent carrying them at Stockwell it just seems like a serious mistake by the police.

Why did the police use a stun-gun on Yasin Hassan Omar even when he was holding a rucksack when the police confronted him when they felt they needed to shot the brazillian?
A ruck sack was found he was not holding one. the tube incident there was a perceived imediate threat to the lives of members of the public, a stun gun (which were not carried by the officers concerned) would not have gauranteed a nutralised threat.

British police don't (I believe) carry stun guns, the logic being that "non-lethal" weapons do sometimes kill, and if you are carrying something you believe isn't lethal you are more likely to use it, hence causing innocent deaths. British police very rarely use guns in arrests, and as was earlier stated only about 10% of police carry guns. Also most of the time this 10% aren't actually carrying their guns.

I dont know i'm just asking a question. If they werent carrying them at Stockwell it just seems like a serious mistake by the police.
The police at Stockwell were a specialist armed police unit, in plain clothes. I expect they were carrying the minimum amount of kit. As other people have already said, a taser gun could have set off an explosive (that they couldn't see). From the grainy pictures I've seen the taser was used in Birmingham from a position where the suspect was stationary and there was a target clear of any explosives (as far as they could tell) for it to be aimed at.

I'm not sure whether taser's have been rolled out across the police force or who is allowed to carry them, but the ordinary policeman on the street (that I have seen) don't.

NO! Absolutely not, they where doing there job! A man has come out of a house which is under surveillance, and he is wearing a thick coat and going into a tube station, you have to do something fast. He could be a suicide bomber so shooting him in the leg or chest won't stop him. It's better one man dead than the 10 or more that would of been killed otherwise.

As well, the Brazilian Foreign minister coming to England etc, and being all angry, well we don't act like this in Brazil, we kill one Brazilian and there up in arms, think of all the British who get killed in Rio De Janeiro, by street gangs?

This man was followed by plainclothes policemen. He travels from his home, walks for some time, gets on a bus, walks some more, eventually ends up at Stockwell Tube station.

At any point in this long journey, the police could have aprehended him. However, they wait till he is in a busy Tube station before they decide to arrest him. He still doesn't know who they are and not surprisingly makes a run for it. After he trips up, the policemen shoot him in the head 8 times.

This whole thing STINKS!

As well, the Brazilian Foreign minister coming to England etc, and being all angry, well we don't act like this in Brazil, we kill one Brazilian and there up in arms, think of all the British who get killed in Rio De Janeiro, by street gangs?

So you expect the Brazillian government to just say "Its ok guys we're even".
The difference in what you are saying is that in Britain the killing was by a government controlled group while in Brazil it is by criminal gangs.

This man was followed by plainclothes policemen. He travels from his home, walks for some time, gets on a bus, walks some more, eventually ends up at Stockwell Tube station.

At any point in this long journey, the police could have aprehended him. However, they wait till he is in a busy Tube station before they decide to arrest him. He still doesn't know who they are and not surprisingly makes a run for it. After he trips up, the policemen shoot him in the head 8 times.

This whole thing STINKS!
We don't know whether they were trying to arrest him or just stop him. Based on what I've read I expect the enquiry will find that the trigger (excuse the pun) for everything, was his running. He could easily have been meeting someone which the police would like to have spoken to and so they let him proceed until they deemed him a threat, at which point the whole thing would have kicked off.

We don't know whether they were trying to arrest him or just stop him. Based on what I've read I expect the enquiry will find that the trigger (excuse the pun) for everything, was his running. He could easily have been meeting someone which the police would like to have spoken to and so they let him proceed until they deemed him a threat, at which point the whole thing would have kicked off.
I am a little bit more cynical than that. If he posed a risk, then he should have been stopped sooner rather than later, otherwise, why did the plainclothes police have guns?

They (the police) seriously endangered the public travelling on the tube by their reckless approach and "cops and robbers" style of shadowing a suspect.

I am a little bit more cynical than that. If he posed a risk, then he should have been stopped sooner rather than later, otherwise, why did the plainclothes police have guns?

They (the police) seriously endangered the public travelling on the tube by their reckless approach and "cops and robbers" style of shadowing a suspect.
The bottom line is we don't know.

We don't know why he was a suspect, why they followed him, why he ran, or why they shot him. It's all conjecture.

I'm pretty cycnical myself, but am giving the police the benefit of the doubt as they're trained for these situations unlike me and hindsight is always 20:20.

The bottom line is we don't know.

We don't know why he was a suspect, why they followed him, why he ran, or why they shot him. It's all conjecture.

I'm pretty cycnical myself, but am giving the police the benefit of the doubt as they're trained for these situations unlike me and hindsight is always 20:20.Actually, the bottom line is that an innocent man is now dead.

I do not give the police the benefit of the doubt, they, no doubt will concote a story that shows them in a positive light. We will never really know why individual police officers decided to shoot a man in the head EIGHT times.

Actually, the bottom line is that an innocent man is now dead.

I do not give the police the benefit of the doubt, they, no doubt will concote a story that shows them in a positive light. We will never know why individual police officers decided to shoot a man in the head EIGHT times.

Actually it was seven in the head and one in the shoulder.

The police can concoct all the stories they like, but if their version doesn't tally with what the witnesses say there is no benefit to the inquiry to hush it up.

If you can't trust the police to do their job (there will always be an element of human error) then you may as well throw democracy out of the window and descend into anarchy.

What you're doing is condemning them without even hearing their story (be it the truth or a tissue of lies). I'm waiting until all of the information (or as much as we're ever likely to receive) comes out before making my final decision about the matter.

If you can't trust the police to do their job (there will always be an element of human error) then you may as well throw democracy out of the window and descend into anarchy.

Then again if the public werent outraged by events like these and always gave the police the benefit of the doubt it is all too easy for corruption to spread. I'm not saying the police are always wrong but the public feeling towards them can keep any problems in check

Then again if the public werent outraged by events like these and always gave the police the benefit of the doubt it is all too easy for corruption to spread. I'm not saying the police are always wrong but the public feeling towards them can keep any problems in check

I agree public opinion and pressure is a very useful tool, but my point is that we don't have all of the information at this time. When we do, and if it shows that the police were wrong, I will be outraged and petitioning for more stringent rules. As it is, I am concerned about the number of shots (so am not backing the police 100%) but what has happened can't be undone so I'm taking a more nuetral stance, hence my answer of "Not Sure" on the poll.

The problem with the public being outraged is that they can be just as wrong as the police. What about the vigilantes who attack the "wrong" person in cases of mistaken identity? I don't see how anyone can call for the officer involved to be charged with involuntary manslaughter (whatever that legally means) when they don't know the full details.

I agree public opinion and pressure is a very useful tool, but my point is that we don't have all of the information at this time. When we do, and if it shows that the police were wrong, I will be outraged and petitioning for more stringent rules. As it is, I am concerned about the number of shots (so am not backing the police 100%) but what has happened can't be undone so I'm taking a more nuetral stance, hence my answer of "Not Sure" on the poll.

The problem with the public being outraged is that they can be just as wrong as the police. What about the vigilantes who attack the "wrong" person in cases of mistaken identity? I don't see how anyone can call for the officer involved to be charged with involuntary manslaughter (whatever that legally means) when they don't know the full details.

I agree with you on this. Damm who am I gonna argue with now :p

I agree with you on this. Damm who am I gonna argue with now :p
heh - I could point you at some more controversial people if you like :p

Here are a couple stories on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050723/w072350.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

He was at a building that was being investigated, wearing a thick coat in July, and then got on one of the London subways that was previously bombed. Ununiformed, undercover police pulled a gun on him (probably without identifying themselves), he ran, they yelled for him to stop, then they tackled him and shot him dead with a handgun.

This is total incompetence. If they don't charge the officers involved, or at least the officer that shot him, with involuntary manslaughter, then they may as well spit on his grave.

Legally, this is involuntary manslaughter. Because it wasn't intended, but if they had merely said, "POLICE!" (which I doubt they said) then this tragedy could've been prevented. Or if they had not used lethal force, until it was absolutely necessary. I'm not well-versed in the British criminal justice system, but I highly doubt that they are allowed to shoot people before being certain that they are a lethal threat.

This is typical nonsense. And especially coming from an American where the police are hardly liberal consenters like we have over here. The police did identify themselves numerous times, and one was wearing a bulletproof jacket with 'POLICE' emblazoned on it which was displayed to the suspect.

Far from it being "total incompetence", this is standard procedure when faced with the threat of a suicide bombing. Had this individual maimed and murdered tens of people, these policemen would have been indicted by the press and wannabe pundits such as yourself for having been ineffectual and indecisive.

From a legal standpoint, this is not involuntary manslaughter and - at the most - can be dealt with by the PCA. In Britain, we police by consent. We do not use guns or lethal force except in the most deadly and severe of cases. We pride ourselves on respect for the police. In most other countries, the police are treated with varying degrees of respect - largely because the police use massive force for very minor purposes. We also rarely (if ever) have human rights abuses by the police like in America - perhaps because our force is strongly multi-racial.

Only in cases such as this, where the proportion of one man's life can be measured against many, do we use drastic force. I, like the vast majority of Britons (90% according to Populous) support the police in this instance. Even moreso when we consider that on seven other occasions the police were close to taking similar action but refrained.

Let's stop other countries (rather hypocritically, in America's case) trying to beat us up over this. Given the prior record of our brilliant police force and threat of terrorism, this is entirely consistent with common sense and the legal prevarications.

Things went wrong when the guy decided to run for it. The police followed standard procedure and did a good job... the guy just made himself look guilty by running. I'm pretty sure the police DID identify themselves, and even so, if someone pulls a gun on you, running is not going to do you any good. You can pretty safely bet that if someone pulls a gun on you and tells you to stop, they're police rather than a random criminal, as if a criminal wanted to shoot you they would simply shoot you rather than tell you to freeze.

As for tackling him to the ground and shooting him eight times, that was a bit overzealous perhaps, but the police had no idea whether or not he was about to trigger a bomb. If I were a terrorist with a bomb strapped to myself, and the police appeared with guns, the first thing I'd do is run to the largest nearby group of people and blow up my bomb - that is exactly what Mr. Random Brazilian Guy would have looked like he was doing.

Terrorism isn't a game, so when anti-terrorism police pull a gun on you, don't invite them to play tag.

Not a mistrial. You mean an acquittal. A mistrial is when the trial was done illegally (the jury is given unnecessary information that sways their judgement, the jury is biased, there's evidence that was unreleased, etc)

Yes, the named facts point to an acquittal. And actually, after reviewing several stories, I'd say there is just one question that needs to be answered: Did the man speak English?

Yes = Try them for manslaughter.
No = They're not accountable.

I read several stories and they shot him five times, not twice. And it was under the orders of their superiors. The Israelis advised the British that in order to stop suicide bombers, they need a "shoot-to-kill," policy, which the British police have implemented. Anyone who is suspicious and runs from the police is to be shot on sight and immediately killed to prevent further civilian casualties. This is understandable, but I do believe they're required to identify themselves.

He lived in Britain legally for about 3 or 4 years and worked as an electrician. It's possible he spoke English, but unknown. So, yes. I believe you're right--I change my vote to "unsure," because we need to give the police the benefit of the doubt until the facts are known.

However, I find it deplorable that the police commissioner came out and lied that the man was "directly connected," with the bombings immediately after his death. That's absolutely despicable. And frankly, I believe he should fired because of it.

Aaarghhh! The blundering gets even worse! If the man did speak English (and he did!), then WHY try them for manslaughter? The command to 'stop' is quite basic English. Once again, you speak rubbish about the police commisioner. He did not say the man was "directly connected", he actually used other words which have since been shown to be coherent with the truth as we now know it. How dare you call for Sir Ian Blair, one of the great policemen of our time, to be fired! You are an ignorant know-it-all who ought to look at putting his own country's house in order (how many outrageous things do the police do in America?) before casting his eyes overseas.

:confused: I would like to point out that the plain clothes policemen followed him from his house, onto a bus, sat opposite him on the bus, got off the bus and followed him to the station before they shot him.

If they truly thought he was a terrorist surely they wouldn't have let him get on the bus in the first place - why didn't they arrest him at first?

If wearing a thick coat and what "could have been a belt" means we are liable to get shot, it could have been half the population they chose. Frankly, it's almost hard to decide which I am more scared of

No but he shouldnt have ran. They were PLAIN CLOTHES POLICEMEN. what would you do if men WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING YOU AROUND started chasing after you with guns?

Stand still when they shouted at you to stop? I DONT THINK SO!

They were PLAIN CLOTHES POLICEMEN. what would you do if men WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING YOU AROUND started chasing after you with guns?

Stand still when they shouted at you to stop? I DONT THINK SO!

I haven't seen reported what they actually said/shouted, but what if (for example) it was "Armed Police, stop or we shoot". Would that change your mind?

All right. DUDE. This sort of reaction is exactly what the terrorists want to accomplish. The fact that they have unnerved the public such that police don't give a second thought to killing someone already indicates they have succeeded. It doesn't matter if they don't really kill anyone; they have already spread terror and made a radical impact upon society. People need to start thinking logically rather than purely off emotion -- this is mostly a deadly mental game.

You think firing five shots into a person, after pinning him to the ground, is appropriate force?
They thought he was a sucide bomber, 2 be fair the day after a terriost attack, if u were checking bags and some-one started running wearing bulky clothing, u wld probably jump 2 that conclusion, in that had been the case, he cld have blown himself up and killed and injured ppl form the general public and so the police were right 2 think he was putting their lives and the the publics lives at risk, that is a sitiuation where u r allowed 2 shoot and as the guy cld have detonated his bombs even if injured they had 2 shoot 2 kill. Its a tragedy that he was innocent but if the police hadnt acted and he had been a bomber, many more cld have died so i think they were right 2 do what they did

They thought he was a sucide bomber, 2 be fair the day after a terriost attack, if u were checking bags and some-one started running wearing bulky clothing, u wld probably jump 2 that conclusion, in that had been the case, he cld have blown himself up and killed and injured ppl form the general public and so the police were right 2 think he was putting their lives and the the publics lives at risk, that is a sitiuation where u r allowed 2 shoot and as the guy cld have detonated his bombs even if injured they had 2 shoot 2 kill. Its a tragedy that he was innocent but if the police hadnt acted and he had been a bomber, many more cld have died so i think they were right 2 do what they did

Arrgh, my eyes, my beautiful eyes ;)

Sorry mate, personal hatred of text speak

As well, the Brazilian Foreign minister coming to England etc, and being all angry, well we don't act like this in Brazil, we kill one Brazilian and there up in arms, think of all the British who get killed in Rio De Janeiro, by street gangs?
That doesnt really make sense, as the reason that the Brazilian goverment would be angry is because the police who are controlled by the goverment killed one of their citizens. As far as i know no goverment controls street gangs because they are illeagal.

Arrgh, my eyes, my beautiful eyes ;)

Sorry mate, personal hatred of text speak
My appologies. I'm not to fond of it myelf but its the quickest way to type sometimes.L8ter, only joking.Please dont hurt me.

How dare you ignorant americans blame the British police. When a man wearing a thick coat jumps the security barriers at a station, despite being confronted by police, the day after an attempted attack, what do you expect them to do? Imagine the scenario had he have been a suicide bomber, and the police had done nothing.

I wish you Americans would learn the actual facts rather than turning to CNN for your reports.

Btw, my friend's mum had a gun pointed at her head when she tried to board a plane heading back to London last year just because she had accidentally left her make-up pencil sharpener in her hand luggage. If thats not ott policing, I don't know what is.

How dare you ignorant americans blame the British police. When a man wearing a thick coat jumps the security barriers at a station, despite being confronted by police, the day after an attempted attack, what do you expect them to do? Imagine the scenario had he have been a suicide bomber, and the police had done nothing.

I wish you Americans would learn the actual facts rather than turning to CNN for your reports.

Btw, my friend's mum had a gun pointed at her head when she tried to board a plane heading back to London last year just because she had accidentally left her make-up pencil sharpener in her hand luggage. If thats not ott policing, I don't know what is.

You are making yourself look ignorant with an outburst at that. There are plenty of people who arent american who disagree with the actions of the police in britain. Dont embarass yourself or your country by behaving like that

You are making yourself look ignorant with an outburst at that. There are plenty of people who arent american who disagree with the actions of the police in britain. Dont embarass yourself or your country by behaving like that

Hardly. This individual makes a very worthwhile point. Those who are American and who are lambasting the British police ought to remember the hordes of nasty incidents involving American police. Much of this is either racist, over the top, or violates basic human rights.
Here in Britain we police by consent, except at times like this - and anyone who knows the FULL facts of this case will know that it is common sense to proceed as these policemen did. It is a well-known fact that American police police by much other than consent.
Perhaps it might be worth putting your own house in order before nitpicking at others'?

I'm not arguing about his point but merely arguing that he does not need to argue with such aggressive wording used simply to bring about a reaction from those it is aimed at.

:confused: I would like to point out that the plain clothes policemen followed him from his house, onto a bus, sat opposite him on the bus, got off the bus and followed him to the station before they shot him.

If they truly thought he was a terrorist surely they wouldn't have let him get on the bus in the first place - why didn't they arrest him at first?

If wearing a thick coat and what "could have been a belt" means we are liable to get shot, it could have been half the population they chose. Frankly, it's almost hard to decide which I am more scared of

Another string of half-baked facts posing as truth.

1) The bus, as Sir Ian Blair pointed out, was empty when boarded.
2) The reason they followed him was arguably to gather intelligence on whether he was meeting someone else.
3) There are many more facts on the side of those policemen than of the overtly liberal (without understanding the TRUE meaning of the word) compassionate brigade who act as poseurs for intelligencia on this forum.

I'm not arguing about his point but merely arguing that he does not need to argue with such aggressive wording used simply to bring about a reaction from those it is aimed at.

He's annoyed, as I am, by some of this bashing of the British police by other nations who should know better, given the record of their police forces. Perhaps he should have been more consensual in approach, though.

How dare you ignorant americans blame the British police. When a man wearing a thick coat jumps the security barriers at a station, despite being confronted by police, the day after an attempted attack, what do you expect them to do? Imagine the scenario had he have been a suicide bomber, and the police had done nothing.

I wish you Americans would learn the actual facts rather than turning to CNN for your reports.

Btw, my friend's mum had a gun pointed at her head when she tried to board a plane heading back to London last year just because she had accidentally left her make-up pencil sharpener in her hand luggage. If thats not ott policing, I don't know what is.
thank you for insulting the AMERICANS who are also SUPPORTING your police force for the actions taken on that day.
Please refrain from making generalizations baised on Nationality for we Americans also stand by the British during their times of crisis.

The officer deserves to live the rest of his life knowing he killed an innocentAnd he will. That's why people like you annoy me so much, with your self-righteous pomposity. He will live with that for the rest of his life because, unlike you, he didn't have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. He was there, and he had to make the decision. And unlike you, he wasn't psychic, and he couldn't see what was about to happen. He had to make a decision based on the information he had at the time.

But frankly, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, it's a damn good job that there are people out there who ARE willing to make decisions like that, because it's a sure thing that there are millions out there who won't - people like you, who prefer to stand on the sidelines, wait until you have all the information, and then, from your armchair, criticise those who show far more courage and social responsibility than you do.

Firearms officers are treated most astonishingly badly, in light of what we, the public, ask them to do. They are damned if they do, and equally damned if they don't. They walk a thin line between law and crime and receive NO support in that delicate balancing act. They get NO help when a situation demands that they take that ultimate step. They are suspended, subjected to an investigation that treats them like a criminal from the start, and in which they have to prove their innocence, they are isolated from friends and colleagues, forbidden from entering their own station... And these cases can drag on for YEARS. And the knowledge that they have killed someone can destroy these officers all by itself - even without ignorant pundits like you holding forth about how they should 'live with it'. Why anyone ever chooses to be a firearms officer I have absolutely no idea. Oh, but of course - it's to wave a gun around and shout "freeze, punk", isn't it? They all do it because they want to be Dirty Harry, right? Yeah, sure.

But like others have said here, if that poor fellow hadn't been a poor fellow at all, but a bomber, and if he'd set his bomb off on that train, I bet - I just bet - you'd be first in line demanding to know why the police, whose wages I have absolutely NO doubt that you vociferously pay, didn't do something about it.

When you're willing to pick up a gun, patrol a sector, and make that decision when it REALLY matters, when lives are on the line, and when you don't have all the information conveniently to hand, THEN I'll listen to your pontificating. Until then, you're just the text equivalent of so much hot air.

And he will. That's why people like you annoy me so much, with your self-righteous pomposity. He will live with that for the rest of his life because, unlike you, he didn't have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. He was there, and he had to make the decision. And unlike you, he wasn't psychic, and he couldn't see what was about to happen. He had to make a decision based on the information he had at the time.

But frankly, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, it's a damn good job that there are people out there who ARE willing to make decisions like that, because it's a sure thing that there are millions out there who won't - people like you, who prefer to stand on the sidelines, wait until you have all the information, and then, from your armchair, criticise those who show far more courage and social responsibility than you do.

Firearms officers are treated most astonishingly badly, in light of what we, the public, ask them to do. They are damned if they do, and equally damned if they don't. They walk a thin line between law and crime and receive NO support in that delicate balancing act. They get NO help when a situation demands that they take that ultimate step. They are suspended, subjected to an investigation that treats them like a criminal from the start, and in which they have to prove their innocence, they are isolated from friends and colleagues, forbidden from entering their own station... And these cases can drag on for YEARS. And the knowledge that they have killed someone can destroy these officers all by itself - even without ignorant pundits like you holding forth about how they should 'live with it'. Why anyone ever chooses to be a firearms officer I have absolutely no idea. Oh, but of course - it's to wave a gun around and shout "freeze, punk", isn't it? They all do it because they want to be Dirty Harry, right? Yeah, sure.

But like others have said here, if that poor fellow hadn't been a poor fellow at all, but a bomber, and if he'd set his bomb off on that train, I bet - I just bet - you'd be first in line demanding to know why the police, whose wages I have absolutely NO doubt that you vociferously pay, didn't do something about it.

When you're willing to pick up a gun, patrol a sector, and make that decision when it REALLY matters, when lives are on the line, and when you don't have all the information conveniently to hand, THEN I'll listen to your pontificating. Until then, you're just the text equivalent of so much hot air.
ahem... permit me this one action
[applaudse]
Nicely said.

You see, the British Government has, actually, been with a record, lately, of shooting first, asking questions later, and putting the foots in the mouths afterwards. What they did to Jean was just a smaller version of destroying a country "that had WMDs" that turned out not to be there. Your government is as unapologetic by this death as it is by the war in Iraq. Which, by the way, may not justify, but explains the bombings.

<snip>
Now, shooting him when he's pinned...that's a more debatable topic. As has been said, however, those were his orders.<snip>

We've heard the "I was just following orders" excuse before. Following orders that are wrong is still wrong.

We don't know what the whole story is. All we know is what the media lets us know.
Sorry, but the guy ran and, in all honesty, <snip>

And if they shot him while he was running I would have accepted this. instead they pinned him to the ground and executed him.

Heikoku, Non Aligned States, Oye Oye try what has been suggested in a previous post. Hold a pen in your hand (as a detonator) and have one of your friends tackle you to the ground. See if he's able to prevent you from clicking the pen and exploding your imaginary bomb.
Merely tackling a suicide bomber won't prevent him from triggering his bomb. Shooting a person once even in the head will not necessarily kill a person. Multiple, point-blank shots to the head was the only way for the cops to stop what they thought, and had every reason to believe, was a suicide bomber.

Try the expeiment with a watter pistol, can you shoot him 7 times after pinning him before he clicks it?

Another string of half-baked facts posing as truth.

1) The bus, as Sir Ian Blair pointed out, was empty when boarded.

Which makes it a better place for the police to have aproached him for questioning.

2) The reason they followed him was arguably to gather intelligence on whether he was meeting someone else.

So he was wearing what they thought might be a bomb and they were concerned with seeing if he met with someone else not stoping him from reaching a crowd of people?

Which makes it a better place for the police to have aproached him for questioning. (snip) So he was wearing what they thought might be a bomb and they were concerned with seeing if he met with someone else not stoping him from reaching a crowd of people?

I don't think it makes any difference to the apologists of the murder of an innocent man, here. Their main attempt at a point is "what if he did have a bomb?" - which is pretty funny, considering that the actual perpetrator of the attacks is ALIVE right now. And considering that "what-if" is one of the most idiotic argumentative fallacies, because it has no basis on FACT. And that if he WERE a bomber they'd be STILL wrong because by incapacitating him with a stun weapon (which they had the foresight of NOT BRINGING), they'd have someone to interrogate. But, as I said, it makes no difference to the apologists of murder here.

I don't think it makes any difference to the apologists of the murder of an innocent man, here. Their main attempt at a point is "what if he did have a bomb?" - which is pretty funny, considering that the actual perpetrator of the attacks is ALIVE right now. And considering that "what-if" is one of the most idiotic argumentative fallacies, because it has no basis on FACT. And that if he WERE a bomber they'd be STILL wrong because by incapacitating him with a stun weapon (which they had the foresight of NOT BRINGING), they'd have someone to interrogate. But, as I said, it makes no difference to the apologists of murder here.

By incapacitating him with a stun weapon they may have caused muscular contractions that would have resulted in him triggering the hypothetical bomb, or set it off themselves by pumping electrical current directly into C4. No, they should have aprehended him BEFORE he reacher the terminal, or shot him while he was running, but not AFTER pinning him to the ground with in blast range of what they thought was his target.

By incapacitating him with a stun weapon they may have caused muscular contractions that would have resulted in him triggering the hypothetical bomb, or set it off themselves by pumping electrical current directly into C4. No, they should have aprehended him BEFORE he reacher the terminal, or shot him while he was running, but not AFTER pinning him to the ground with in blast range of what they thought was his target.

Point, but my point remains: Their mess, their incompetence, and there isn't any amount of "what-iffing" that will make this right or raise the innocent from the dead.

And that if he WERE a bomber they'd be STILL wrong because by incapacitating him with a stun weapon (which they had the foresight of NOT BRINGING), they'd have someone to interrogate.Oh yes - of COURSE they would. After they'd picked the pieces of him out of the walls and separated them out from the pieces of everyone else. Fifty thousand volts will tend to do that to a bomb, you see.

Do you actually think before you post?

Oh yes - of COURSE they would. After they'd picked the pieces of him out of the walls and separated them out from the pieces of everyone else. Fifty thousand volts will tend to do that to a bomb, you see.

Do you actually think before you post?

Well, then, considering the undeniable fact that the course of action they DID take was clearly wrong, what do you suggest? Eris suggested them getting to him BEFORE letting him enter a subway, which was good and could have prevented the murder.

No the police officer should not be charged, absolutely not.

He acted exactly how i would have in that situation, POLICE ARE NOT BLOODY TELEPATH'S!

I love how people rip apart the police here with hindsight and lovely arm chair's after listening to the news.

1) His address was found in the backpack of one of the terroists of 7/7 bombings
2) He was being followed ALREADY suspected of being linked to the terroists because of point 1
3) He ran towards a Tube (Subway) Station
4) He ran ONTO a train
5) He got shot in the head to immediately kill him to stop him from detonating a bomb WHICH COULD HAVE been on his person.

If you subdue someone who has a bomb strapped to their body, it does no good whatsoever, he can still detonate and take everyone out with him. Shoot to Kill isn't just there because "Hey cool we get to shoot people" its thought out by professionals.

At the end of the day, he acted on his instinct's he got it wrong, he had in his mindset to protect Innocent lives by killing what could have been a terroist.. the irony is that he killed an Innocent man and he will have to live with that. But personally, i think he acted bravely for (potentially) risking his own life to try and save so many others.

1) His address was found in the backpack of one of the terroists of 7/7 bombings
2) He was being followed ALREADY suspected of being linked to the terroists because of point 1


Shifting the blame. He lived in the same BUILDING, which means... Nothing.


3) He ran towards a Tube (Subway) Station
4) He ran ONTO a train


People that are late for trains do that, as well as people that are afraid of people without uniforms, with guns, that had been following them all morning.


5) He got shot in the head to immediately kill him to stop him from detonating a bomb WHICH COULD HAVE been on his person.


So "Iraq could have WMDs" would justify the war? Careful, your country COULD HAVE WMDs, and COULD BE composed only of terrorists. The moon also COULD BE made out of cheese, and flapping your arms COULD BE a way to fly. For crying out loud, is "could be" the best defense you can muster? He COULD BE guilty, so it's ok to kill him. Hey, you COULD BE a murderer too. Shall we begin testing by you?

Because it's the only possible explanation.

It's already known that he was a legal resident, he wasn't insane, and hadn't ever committed any crimes. If he was illegal, crazy, or a criminal, I could see your point. But normal people don't just run away from the police, randomly.

I hate to rain on your parade, but he wasnt a legal resident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4725659.stm

Now, that doesnt have anything to do with this, I just wanted to point that out.

And actually, they also shot in the head because idf it had been around the waist, it could have detonated the possible bomb.

But im still skeptical about police actions.

And actually, they also shot in the head because idf it had been around the waist, it could have detonated the possible bomb.

But im still skeptical about police actions.

i had heard that several shots hit in the torso . .

The other answer is that if he WAS carrying a bomb . . .

C4 + Electrical current = BOOM

How much C4 and how much electrical current is required to blow up a bus?

When did he leave Brazil? If it was during or just after the dictatorship, he would nbe right. Now, twenty years later, the whole culture has changed with the exception of some "wild west" towns in the North East and some parts of Rio.

He travels back to Brazil every few years.

There was a post wearlier in this thread from someone that suggested that you and three mates try to hold down a foiurht one with a retractable ball point pen in his hand, and prevent him from clicking the pen. If you can not - KABOOM. The only reliable way to prevent a suspected suicide bomber from triggering the bomb is to kill him or her outright as quickly as possible. Hence the overkill. Good technique, wrong person.

This argument has already been refuted but I will do so again by pointing out that Sr. de Menezes was already subdued by the police. If he was going to blow himself up, he would have had ample time to do so before they shot him. The chase began because of poor surveillance and execution of the arrest. If the police believed Sr. de Menezes was a suicide bomber, they should not have let their presence be known until they were close enough to disable him. Thus the murder of Sr. de Menezes was a result of bad technique.

[QUOTE]The British police have had these powers under the anti-terrorist act since the mid 70s. No tightening of the reigns has taken place. Stop being paranoid.

It isn't my paranoia that's getting innocent people killed.

In the USA, the government has abused the public fear to limit freedoms, but in the UK this has not happened yet, and it is unlikely to happen.

Since you have acknowledged that the British have had these anti-terrorist policies since the 70s then the tightening of the reigns has already occured in the UK. The question is whether or not it will become publicly acceptable.

So he spent a few years working in São Paulo. This would not change his attitude to the police particularly. Your attitude depends very much on where you went to school, the attitude of youer parents and colleagues as you grow up. If his attitude could be changed that easily, then the years he had spent in London should have overridden any change that São Paulo made. So either he was easily influenced by the culture, in which case he should not have run, or he was not, in which case he should not have run. Either way running was wrong there, it is wrong here, and it got him killed.

I can't speak for Brazilians but I have known many people who have grown up in small towns and villages in rural areas all over the world and the one thing they have in common is a natural mistrust of strange men with guns who are following them.

they shot him 8 times... 7 in the face, mouth and head and once in the sholder...

does any one think that that was a bit over zealous???

This argument has already been refuted but I will do so again by pointing out that Sr. de Menezes was already subdued by the police. If he was going to blow himself up, he would have had ample time to do so before they shot him. The chase began because of poor surveillance and execution of the arrest. If the police believed Sr. de Menezes was a suicide bomber, they should not have let their presence be known until they were close enough to disable him. Thus the murder of Sr. de Menezes was a result of bad technique.and as it's been repeatedly refuted... a terrorist can blow himself up at anytime, not only when he's being chased. what happens if a bomber actually managed to elude police and enter the train without being caught and no officers on the train... he's now free to choose his target. What happens if he manages to get on the train and is tackled by the police... he can still blow himself up. Now unless you have the terrorist handbook that specifically states "as you as you are identified as a bomber, you must set off your exploseives" then you really cannot know the mind of the terrorist.

Since you have acknowledged that the British have had these anti-terrorist policies since the 70s then the tightening of the reigns has already occured in the UK. The question is whether or not it will become publicly acceptable.and that is up to the British citizens.

I can't speak for Brazilians but I have known many people who have grown up in small towns and villages in rural areas all over the world and the one thing they have in common is a natural mistrust of strange men with guns who are following them.why would strange men with guns follow you? I can only think of two reasons.
One, to kill/rob you: and if so, then going to a public place and alerting authorities is the best action
two, to protect you: thus you would know they were there.

any other situation is one where you won't know and if they wanted you dead, running won't help. if they were police, it makes the situation worse. if they were not police, then they would open fire into the crowd and use the confusion to get away.

Sr. de Menezes made the wrong choice. Since you are granting all police officers with FORSIGHT, let me ask you this. Why did Sr. de Menezes run?
Didn't he know about the 7/7 bombings? Didn't he hear about the second set of bombs that were found next to public transportations? Didn't he hear about the tightened security? with all that in mind, why run when the police comes out and demands that you freeze?

I've had instances where the Police are running towards me, hands on pistols, and what do I do? I get out of the way. step to the side and clear a path. I don't run because I know there is nothing to fear from the police... even in this day and age of terror bombings and patriot acts. And should they come to me and stop infront of me, I would offer full cooperation for I know I have nothing to hide.

Sr. de Menezes was also to blame for not following the police's order to stop. no matter where you are, what country you are in. if the police tell you to stop/freeze/put your hands on your head, you do so for they are the authority and you are not.

And if they shot him while he was running I would have accepted this. instead they pinned him to the ground and executed him.
so you would've accepted the police shooting into a crowd of people to get one man bobbing and weaving, possibly hitting more innocents and killing more bystanders than pinning a suspected terrorist and causing the death of one person?

remember the situation. Its' 3 weeks after the bombings, 1 week after more bombs were found, a man in a thick coat, leaving a building under investigation, enters a train terminal full of people, and starts running when you identify yourself as police and calling for him to stop. he runs though crowds of passengers, runs through/vaults over the turnstyles and sprints towards the train with it's passenger doors open.
I did mention that Its' only 3 weeks after the bombings, 1 week after more bombs were found. What would run through your mind as to this person's intent?

So he was wearing what they thought might be a bomb and they were concerned with seeing if he met with someone else not stoping him from reaching a crowd of people?

I don't know at what point they thought there might be a bomb, but it's nice to know that you do. Have you shared your information with the relevant authorities? It may come in handy in the inquiry into the shooting.

All I know (have been told) is that they were following someone they suspected of being linked to the attacks. Not necessarily a bomber, but someone linked to them.

I expect what happened was that after their surveillance they decided to act and stop him, at which point he ran towards a crowd of people. This elevated his threat and prompted them to try and stop him, which they decided to do with lethal force.

I'd just like to point out that everyone seems to be arguing about some really fine points here - a lot of which are based on speculation or dodgy/inconsistant media reports.

(eg "he was shot 6 times in the head while pinned down by officers" - first of all, I can't see how you'd have any head left to shoot off after the first 2 or 3 blasts, second of all, the logistics of just how one pins an offender while shooting him in the head without risking injury to yourself are difficult to imagine).

I still think they did the right thing in a difficult situation. It is sad, yes, but the greater good was served.

And he will. That's why people like you annoy me so much, with your self-righteous pomposity. He will live with that for the rest of his life because, unlike you, he didn't have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. He was there, and he had to make the decision. And unlike you, he wasn't psychic, and he couldn't see what was about to happen. He had to make a decision based on the information he had at the time.

But frankly, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, it's a damn good job that there are people out there who ARE willing to make decisions like that, because it's a sure thing that there are millions out there who won't - people like you, who prefer to stand on the sidelines, wait until you have all the information, and then, from your armchair, criticise those who show far more courage and social responsibility than you do.

Firearms officers are treated most astonishingly badly, in light of what we, the public, ask them to do. They are damned if they do, and equally damned if they don't. They walk a thin line between law and crime and receive NO support in that delicate balancing act. They get NO help when a situation demands that they take that ultimate step. They are suspended, subjected to an investigation that treats them like a criminal from the start, and in which they have to prove their innocence, they are isolated from friends and colleagues, forbidden from entering their own station... And these cases can drag on for YEARS. And the knowledge that they have killed someone can destroy these officers all by itself - even without ignorant pundits like you holding forth about how they should 'live with it'. Why anyone ever chooses to be a firearms officer I have absolutely no idea. Oh, but of course - it's to wave a gun around and shout "freeze, punk", isn't it? They all do it because they want to be Dirty Harry, right? Yeah, sure.

But like others have said here, if that poor fellow hadn't been a poor fellow at all, but a bomber, and if he'd set his bomb off on that train, I bet - I just bet - you'd be first in line demanding to know why the police, whose wages I have absolutely NO doubt that you vociferously pay, didn't do something about it.

When you're willing to pick up a gun, patrol a sector, and make that decision when it REALLY matters, when lives are on the line, and when you don't have all the information conveniently to hand, THEN I'll listen to your pontificating. Until then, you're just the text equivalent of so much hot air.

Just thought I'd post this again for Heikoku, who is really getting on my nerves now.

Amen to that!

I'm afraid I have arrived rather late to this thread, but may i request that whoever suggested that tha police should have fired a wasrning shot first, please come out and explain how the hell you fire a warning shot on a crowded train?

"See the dead businessman i just shot? yeah, thatll be you if you dont stop now!"

That officer was acting in what he believed to be the best way to protect the British Public. What happened was regretable, but it definatley wasnt a mistake. Time and again the British armed police have been proven to have acted correctly with the information they had at the time, and untill such a time as they are partnered up with a pshycic who can tell them exactly what the news will say in two weeks time, they will continue to due their best.

Amen to that!

I'm afraid I have arrived rather late to this thread, but may i request that whoever suggested that tha police should have fired a wasrning shot first, please come out and explain how the hell you fire a warning shot on a crowded train?

"See the dead businessman i just shot? yeah, thatll be you if you dont stop now!"

That officer was acting in what he believed to be the best way to protect the British Public. What happened was regretable, but it definatley wasnt a mistake. Time and again the British armed police have been proven to have acted correctly with the information they had at the time, and untill such a time as they are partnered up with a pshycic who can tell them exactly what the news will say in two weeks time, they will continue to due their best.
Have to agree.

Well, then, considering the undeniable fact that the course of action they DID take was clearly wrong, what do you suggest? Eris suggested them getting to him BEFORE letting him enter a subway, which was good and could have prevented the murder.I would suggest that the course of action taken was wrong, but that the police did not know that at the time, and had to make a decision based on what they had. That is the way it will work the next time a situation like this arises, and we can but hope it does not go wrong again.

It suits you to use the word 'murder' in a vain attempt to put your point across subtly. But you are not a judge. This man is not a murderer until an independent inquiry says he is. And if that is the case then I will be right there demanding that he be punished for the crime. But UNTIL that judgement is reached, by those who have seen and considered the actual evidence, rather than seen some breathless and ill-informed melodramatics from supposed news reporters, I am not prepared to condemn him. Any more than I would condemn you if you were accused of some crime until a court found you guilty. That is how British law works - and I continue to believe in it, even if the rest of the country, in its desperate fear, does not.

As I've already said, there are occasions where decisions - life and death decisions - have to be made despite not having all the info. And like I said, it's all very easy to pontificate after the fact - but it's not so easy and straightforward when you're there, when you've got to make the choice.

Don't get the idea I'm happy about what happened. Personally I'm not happy at all that Britain has surrendered to terrorism - because that is what we've done, make no mistake. This innocent man was a victim of Britain's fear. And the fact that we've allowed ourselves to be driven into a frenzy of fear and paranoia means that terrorists have got what they wanted.

I really thought Britain was better than that. Still, you live and learn.

[QUOTE]and as it's been repeatedly refuted... a terrorist can blow himself up at anytime, not only when he's being chased.

Which is why the police must not make their presence known until they are close enough to disable the suspect.

what happens if a bomber actually managed to elude police and enter the train without being caught and no officers on the train... he's now free to choose his target. What happens if he manages to get on the train and is tackled by the police... he can still blow himself up. Now unless you have the terrorist handbook that specifically states "as you as you are identified as a bomber, you must set off your exploseives" then you really cannot know the mind of the terrorist.

You're missing the point. This debate is not about knowing the mind of the terrorist. This debate is about the British police messing up an investigation and an innocent civilian getting murdered as a result.

and that is up to the British citizens.

In a globalised society it is up to all of us.

why would strange men with guns follow you? I can only think of two reasons.
One, to kill/rob you: and if so, then going to a public place and alerting authorities is the best action

Would a crowded bus station count as a public place?

two, to protect you: thus you would know they were there.

A lot of people walking around with guns in the U.S., UK and Spain and surprisingly enough the terrorists are still killing people.

any other situation is one where you won't know and if they wanted you dead, running won't help. if they were police, it makes the situation worse. if they were not police, then they would open fire into the crowd and use the confusion to get away.

Unless they specifically wanted you dead and, as you mentioned already, going to a public place and alerting the authorities would be the best action.

Sr. de Menezes made the wrong choice. Since you are granting all police officers with FORSIGHT, let me ask you this.

How am I granting the police with forsight? If anything I am criticizing them for a lack of insight.

Why did Sr. de Menezes run? Didn't he know about the 7/7 bombings? Didn't he hear about the second set of bombs that were found next to public transportations? Didn't he hear about the tightened security? with all that in mind, why run when the police comes out and demands that you freeze?

These are questions that only Sr. de Menezes can answer. Ofcourse he can't do that now, can he?

I've had instances where the Police are running towards me, hands on pistols, and what do I do? I get out of the way. step to the side and clear a path. I don't run because I know there is nothing to fear from the police... even in this day and age of terror bombings and patriot acts. And should they come to me and stop infront of me, I would offer full cooperation for I know I have nothing to hide.

Are these police in uniform or police dressed in casual attire?

Sr. de Menezes was also to blame for not following the police's order to stop. no matter where you are, what country you are in. if the police tell you to stop/freeze/put your hands on your head, you do so for they are the authority and you are not.

So the international sentence for not following the orders of the police is immediate execution? Isn't this one of the most common criticisms used by Western "democracies" towards fascist dictators?

Yeah, they were plain-clothes police.

I think, in this case, the police panicked and were eorried, so they made the wrong decidion, I think they should bt tried like anyone else, but I still sympathise with them.

Picture the scene.

You're monitoring a block of flats in which you are told (and have no reason to believe otherwise) there are terrorists. You see someone in a massive coat in the middle of summer come out of the building, and as a matter of course you go up to him, tell him you're from the police and ask him to lie down / do whatever. This person then looks absolutely terrified and starts to run away. You give chase. You shout for him to stop, saying you are armed, but he only runs faster. This person, (with the massive coat hiding whatever he might have underneath it) runs into a tube station. Two weeks ago 50+ people died in tube bombings. Yesterday it could have happened again. You have three choices:

1) Stop. If you do this, then you lose the person. Not only might he have a bomb and might blow up a train (meaning you'll not only be in part responsible for the deaths of dozens but also that you'll be sacked from the policeforce and nationally and internationally vilified) and even if he doesnt he's unlikely to come back (meaning you'll be held responsible for losing a potential terrorist suspect, will probably be fired and your actions will require the police to waste huge amounts of resources finding this person).

2) Follow him into the tube and try to overpower him. If you do this, he could blow himself up killing you AND everyone else on the train. You might be willing to take this risk, but are you willing to take this risk on behalf of a a few dozen other people, most likely including children?

3) Follow him into the tube and shoot him. If you do this, then if you're right you'll have saved a lot of people. On balance of probabilities, from where you're standing (without the benefit of that all so useful hindsight which a lot of people on this thread seem wrapped up in), he probably is a terrorist and could be armed with either a gun of his own or a bomb. On the other hand, if you're wrong (and from where you're standing it isnt looking that likely) then you'll have shot an innocent man.

I dont know about you, but I would pick the third option and shoot him. I do not believe that any police officer thinks he has the right to take that kind of risk with other peoples' lives, especially when the person in question has displayed very suspicious behaviour, and when there is nothing to suggest he is not a terrorist, but a lot to suggest he is.

It's easy for you, without having to make this decision yourself and with the benefit of hindsight, to say that this is murder, or mansalughter, or whatever, but I doubt that you can say with honesty that if you were put in the policeman's shoes that you would act any differently. I certainly cant.

Why are those the only three choices. Could there not be a fourth option of immediately restraining the suspect outside his building?

Why are those the only three choices. Could there not be a fourth option of immediately restraining the suspect outside his building?
So you think that the police deliberately decided to let him go just to shoot him later?

So you think that the police deliberately decided to let him go just to shoot him later?

Thats a pretty big assumption. I never said or implied that they did it deliberately. All I said was that it was another choice, one that was passed over by the officers ( a mistake on their part ) and resulted in a terrible chain of events

Thats a pretty big assumption. I never said or implied that they did it deliberately. All I said was that it was another choice, one that was passed over by the officers ( a mistake on their part ) and resulted in a terrible chain of events
Again, you only say this with the benefit of hindsight. The police, at the time, did not believe that that was necessary / the right thing to do / the thing they were trained to do. They didnt think:

"Right, in a minute this bloke, who isnt a terrorist, is going to run away and eventually go into a tube station where I'll have to shoot him just in case he's carrying a bomb and it'll get on the news, so I'd better restrain him now."

It doesnt work like that.

I should also point out that we havent seen a video of what happened. The police may have asked him to stop from a metre of two away, not allowing them to restrain him. We just dont know. They might also be somewhat unwilling to move into contact with someone who might be carrying a bomb. All of the raids today involved police asking suspects to take off their clothes first.

Picture the scene.

You're monitoring a block of flats in which you are told (and have no reason to believe otherwise) there are terrorists. You see someone in a massive coat in the middle of summer come out of the building, and as a matter of course you go up to him, tell him you're from the police and ask him to lie down / do whatever. This person then looks absolutely terrified and starts to run away. You give chase. You shout for him to stop, saying you are armed, but he only runs faster.

This is the point at which I shoot, not after he has reached a crowd of people. Also please rember that even people who suport this shooting meantioned that they even followed him onto an empty bus.



This person, (with the massive coat hiding whatever he might have underneath it) runs into a tube station. Two weeks ago 50+ people died in tube bombings. Yesterday it could have happened again. You have three choices:

1) Stop. If you do this, then you lose the person. Not only might he have a bomb and might blow up a train (meaning you'll not only be in part responsible for the deaths of dozens but also that you'll be sacked from the policeforce and nationally and internationally vilified) and even if he doesnt he's unlikely to come back (meaning you'll be held responsible for losing a potential terrorist suspect, will probably be fired and your actions will require the police to waste huge amounts of resources finding this person).

2) Follow him into the tube and try to overpower him. If you do this, he could blow himself up killing you AND everyone else on the train. You might be willing to take this risk, but are you willing to take this risk on behalf of a a few dozen other people, most likely including children?

3) Follow him into the tube and shoot him. If you do this, then if you're right you'll have saved a lot of people. On balance of probabilities, from where you're standing (without the benefit of that all so useful hindsight which a lot of people on this thread seem wrapped up in), he probably is a terrorist and could be armed with either a gun of his own or a bomb. On the other hand, if you're wrong (and from where you're standing it isnt looking that likely) then you'll have shot an innocent man.

I dont know about you, but I would pick the third option and shoot him. I do not believe that any police officer thinks he has the right to take that kind of risk with other peoples' lives, especially when the person in question has displayed very suspicious behaviour, and when there is nothing to suggest he is not a terrorist, but a lot to suggest he is.

It's easy for you, without having to make this decision yourself and with the benefit of hindsight, to say that this is murder, or mansalughter, or whatever, but I doubt that you can say with honesty that if you were put in the policeman's shoes that you would act any differently. I certainly cant.

As already meantioned I choose option four, aproach him long before he's near the Tube station and shoot him as he's running instead of after he's reached a crowd of people on a train.

Would you agree however that a mistake was made? ( personally i dont believe it is one that anyone should be punished for )

This is the point at which I shoot, not after he has reached a crowd of people. Also please rember that even people who suport this shooting meantioned that they even followed him onto an empty bus.

As already meantioned I choose option four, aproach him long before he's near the Tube station and shoot him as he's running instead of after he's reached a crowd of people on a train.
So you would disregard any further attempt to stop him and end the situation without violence by shooting him whilst he was no threat and when no one knew that he would become a threat to anyone and still running away? Well that is manslaughter, and it's also immoral.

Would you agree however that a mistake was made? ( personally i dont believe it is one that anyone should be punished for )
No one made any reasonably forseeable mistake.

Again, you only say this with the benefit of hindsight. The police, at the time, did not believe that that was necessary / the right thing to do / the thing they were trained to do. They didnt think:

"Right, in a minute this bloke, who isnt a terrorist, is going to run away and eventually go into a tube station where I'll have to shoot him just in case he's carrying a bomb and it'll get on the news, so I'd better restrain him now."

It doesnt work like that.

No, it looks like the thought process was "This guy might be a terrorist, so lets not aproach him untill he's near a large crowd of people." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to aprehend a suspected terrorist before he reaches a crowd. What realy bothers me is that they're only ready to deal with the last attack, they're not anticipating things like "That coat might conceal a submachine gun that he will open up with when he encounters a large crowd.".

So you think that the police deliberately decided to let him go just to shoot him later?

Actually I thought that's what you were implying with the scenario you created (unless of course you have some evidence that illustrates what you described was the way it actually happened.) by neglecting to include the fourth choice, which is what the police should have done.

The bottom line is the war on terrorism is failing because of a lack of intelligence, on the ground and in the office.

No, it looks like the thought process was "This guy might be a terrorist, so lets not aproach him untill he's near a large crowd of people."
Following that logic they should just have picked him off with a sniper rifle as soon as he left the flats, and the police should shoot any suspected terrorist. However, I still believe in "law and order" and "innocent until proven guilty" and will only support the police shooting someone when it is actually and immediately necessary.

they're not anticipating things like "That coat might conceal a submachine gun that he will open up with when he encounters a large crowd.".
Terrorists arent thick. They dont just, while being persued by police, look for a large crowd and then stop and try to gun down as many as possible whilst the police proceed to pummel him into the crowd, safe in the knowledge that he probably doesnt have a bomb and is facing the other direction. Does it not also occur that if he had a gun he would simply have fired at the police? It's unlikely that he had a gun, but a bomb is certainly a possibility, which is why they didnt shoot him until he entered a confined space with large numbers of people in it. That's why they didnt shoot him on the bus, or while he was running, or as soon as he left his flat with the suspiciously large coat. It's also why I think the police handled the situation admirably.

So you would disregard any further attempt to stop him and end the situation without violence by shooting him whilst he was no threat and when no one knew that he would become a threat to anyone and still running away? Well that is manslaughter, and it's also immoral.

Shooting a fleeing suspect who is considered to be armed and dangerous is standard practice from what I understand. Shooting someone pinned to the ground is not.

Actually I thought that's what you were implying with the scenario you created (unless of course you have some evidence that illustrates what you described was the way it actually happened.) by neglecting to include the fourth choice, which is what the police should have done.
Again, you're looking at this situation with hindsight and also failing to take into account the fact that the police probably wont want to approach him whilst he could easily have a bomb strapped to him.

Would you agree however that a mistake was made? ( personally i dont believe it is one that anyone should be punished for )

I don't believe in punishment either. I do believe in prevention, the prevention of innocent civilians being killed, whether they be Brazillians, Afghans or Iraqis. Providing the police with a status of impunity will only permit what is going on in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan to occur all over the world.

Shooting a fleeing suspect who is considered to be armed and dangerous is standard practice from what I understand. Shooting someone pinned to the ground is not.
Since he was no immediate threat to anyone, and they didnt know he was armed and dangerous (they only suspected), they didnt shoot. When it is suspected that someone is armed and dangerous, you dont shoot them unless they are a clear and immediate threat to people.

Again, you're looking at this situation with hindsight and also failing to take into account the fact that the police probably wont want to approach him whilst he could easily have a bomb strapped to him.

So the better choice was to leave him alone until he got to a crowded area and THEN get worried about the public? Yes they didnt know he would enter a crowded area but it would seem sensible to anticipate this

Following that logic they should just have picked him off with a sniper rifle as soon as he left the flats, and the police should shoot any suspected terrorist.

Not at all. Following my logic they should try to aprehend a subject without resorting to gunplay while said supect is away from large crowds of people (which it is quite aparent they had ample time to do) and only shoot if the suspect (who as a suspected terrorist must be assumed to be armed and dangerous) attempts to flee.

I don't believe in punishment either. I do believe in prevention, the prevention of innocent civilians being killed, whether they be Brazillians, Afghans or Iraqis. Providing the police with a status of impunity will only permit what is going on in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan to occur all over the world.
This a slight difference between shooting someone after they've run into a packed tube train in a suspiciously large coat, having ignored repeated warnings from police to stop, after leaving a flat thought to be inhabited by suspected terrorists, and taking someone from another country, moving them into an unmonitored camp in a third country and then tourturing them for years without any release date. I hope that you also see the difference?

[QUOTE]Following that logic they should just have picked him off with a sniper rifle as soon as he left the flats, and the police should shoot any suspected terrorist. However, I still believe in "law and order" and "innocent until proven guilty"

My point exactly. Sr. de Menezes was not proven guilty. Therefore he was innocent of being a terrorist at the time of the shooting which means the police are guilty of manslaughter.

So the better choice was to leave him alone until he got to a crowded area and THEN get worried about the public? Yes they didnt know he would enter a crowded area but it would seem sensible to anticipate this
Yes it is, because the police (as clearly demonstrated) have the ability to immediately eliminate the threat.

There is also something stopping police from shooting all suspected terrorists despite them not posing a threat to anyone, and it's something that hardline anti-terrorists dont seem to know exists. It's called "the law".

[QUOTE=Praetonia]

My point exactly. Sr. de Menezes was not proven guilty. Therefore he was innocent of being a terrorist at the time of the shooting which means the police are guilty of manslaughter.
He wasnt executed or otherwise punished, he was shot because it was reasonable to believe that he was an immediate threat to others.

Not at all. Following my logic they should try to aprehend a subject without resorting to gunplay while said supect is away from large crowds of people (which it is quite aparent they had ample time to do) and only shoot if the suspect (who as a suspected terrorist must be assumed to be armed and dangerous) attempts to flee.
How about answering my entire post instead of just one tiny section?

Yes it is, because the police (as clearly demonstrated) have the ability to immediately eliminate the threat.

There is also something stopping police from shooting all suspected terrorists despite them not posing a threat to anyone, and it's something that hardline anti-terrorists dont seem to know exists. It's called "the law".

I never said they should have shot him. I just said that they should have stopped the suspect as he left the building. They could have eliminated the threat with no risk to members of the public. If he was carrying explosives they would be abe to find out pretty quickly and if not they havent killed an innocent civilian

I never said they should have shot him. I just said that they should have stopped the suspect as he left the building. They could have eliminated the threat with no risk to members of the public. If he was carrying explosives they would be abe to find out pretty quickly and if not they havent killed an innocent civilian
Wouldnt that require the police to have been standing right outside the building at the time? And therefore require the police to be able to somehow predict the future?

Wouldnt that require the police to have been standing right outside the building at the time? And therefore require the police to be able to somehow predict the future?

They were monitoring the building which would lead me to assume that they were within a reasonable distance to be able to stop him within a short period of time

Again, you're looking at this situation with hindsight and also failing to take into account the fact that the police probably wont want to approach him whilst he could easily have a bomb strapped to him.

But they did approach him. In fact they were close enough to pin him to the ground and shoot him at point blank range.

With regards to hindsight, this is irrelevant. In any job, whether it be sales, construction, accounting, etc. it is expected that people anticipate problems. Police work is no different. If you are dealing with a suspect, regardless of whtether or not the suspect is a terrorist, drug dealer or petty thief, the job of the police is to apprehend the suspect without risking the safety of the public, themselves and the suspect. This would be paramount in a terrorist investigation, since a living terrorist could provide them with more information than a dead one. Yet it is this "shoot first ask questions later mentaility" that seems to prevail in the war against terrorism.

They were monitoring the building which would lead me to assume that they were within a reasonable distance to be able to stop him within a short period of time
Police dont generally monitor buildings by sitting in the middle of the road with a viedo camera. It's kind of obvious. They would most likely have been on the 1st or second floor some someone else's flat / house across the road, which is most likely why it took some time for them to reach him.

Police dont generally monitor buildings by sitting in the middle of the road with a viedo camera. It's kind of obvious. They would most likely have been on the 1st or second floor some someone else's flat / house across the road, which is most likely why it took some time for them to reach him.

It would take some time but not a large amount. They had enough time to begin tailing him from the building so i see no reason why they couldnt stop him at this point

Edit: And could you please keep this as a mature discussion and ditch the condescending attitude

This a slight difference between shooting someone after they've run into a packed tube train in a suspiciously large coat, having ignored repeated warnings from police to stop, after leaving a flat thought to be inhabited by suspected terrorists, and taking someone from another country, moving them into an unmonitored camp in a third country and then tourturing them for years without any release date. I hope that you also see the difference?

Yes, some people would think that killing some one outright as opposed to making them suffer for several years to be much more humane.

Kudos to the British police :rolleyes:

But they did approach him. In fact they were close enough to pin him to the ground and shoot him at point blank range.
They approached him when he was an immediate danger to other people. The logic is that the risk to everyone else in the train and the policeman himself by not attempting to shoot the man outweighed the risk to the policeman (who, as stated was at risk anyway since tube trains arent awfully big) by approaching him.

With regards to hindsight, this is irrelevant. In any job, whether it be sales, construction, accounting, etc. it is expected that people anticipate problems. Police work is no different. If you are dealing with a suspect, regardless of whtether or not the suspect is a terrorist, drug dealer or petty thief, the job of the police is to apprehend the suspect without risking the safety of the public, themselves and the suspect.
Read my previous post with regards the unecessary risks to the police by approaching a potential suicide bomber who is not posing any threat to the general public.

This would be paramount in a terrorist investigation, since a living terrorist could provide them with more information than a dead one. Yet it is this "shoot first ask questions later mentaility" that seems to prevail in the war against terrorism.
Generally you do shoot suicide bombers, because they arent awfully inclined to answer questions.

Yes, some people would think that killing some one outright as opposed to making them suffer for several years to be much more humane.

Kudos to the British police :rolleyes:
Reread my post. Alternatively, have some English comprehension lessons first.

Sorry, the police officers in this case did a pretty terrible job.

That's all I have to say.

It would take some time but not a large amount. They had enough time to begin tailing him from the building so i see no reason why they couldnt stop him at this point
If this debate is going to bog down into a discussion into how long it would take police to run down the stairs, open a door and cross a street, especially when we dont know the actual circumstances, then I'm really not interested. Let us just assume that the police didnt delibaretely sit and watch as this person walked down the street when they could have intercepted him sooner.

Edit: And could you please keep this as a mature discussion and ditch the condescending attitude
If people say silly things they get silly answers. *shrug*

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]
He wasnt executed or otherwise punished, he was shot because it was reasonable to believe that he was an immediate threat to others.

Yet you fail to address the question, if it was reasonable to believe he was an immediate threat to others, why did they not apprehend him before he entered a public area?

[QUOTE=Praetonia]

Yet you fail to address the question, if it was reasonable to believe he was an immediate threat to others, why did they not apprehend him before he entered a public area?
They didnt try to directly apprehend him in the street (which is a public area) because doing so would be a threat to them, and an unnecessary one when they didnt know that he wouldnt just give himself up and when there were no other people around who he could be a threat to.

The Police officers did well for their situation... Of course all you people have 20/20 hindsight, but at the time...

London had just been attacked by 8 terrorist bombers, some suicidal.

This was a guy wearing a heavy jacket in July. Running. Through the subway.

Now, the police obviously assumed he was a suicide bomber.

Why did they tackle the guy? So he couldn't get into the crowd.

Why did they shoot him five times in the head, execution style? I think you should consider the fact that a suicide bomber can push a button and blow himself and anyone near him to smithereens. If he was a suicide bomber, he still could have killed police officers and civvies when he was tackled: it only takes a push of a button. Shooting him in the head is the only way to guarantee the neutralization of a suicide bomber.

Nobody with five rounds of ammo in their brain is going to be pulling any switches: It'd be an instant ragdoll, least chance of spasms that could set off trigger. A shot to wound would not prevent him from setting off a bomb, worse, it might even detonate it immediately.

Now of course someone is going to say 'BUT HE WASNT A BOMBER!'. The police didn't know that.

Accidents happen. Police do not have X-Ray vision and mind reading powers. This guy was an unlucky casualty of war.

If this debate is going to bog down into a discussion into how long it would take police to run down the stairs, open a door and cross a street, especially when we dont know the actual circumstances, then I'm really not interested. Let us just assume that the police didnt delibaretely sit and watch as this person walked down the street when they could have intercepted him sooner.


If people say silly things they get silly answers. *shrug*

We dont need to get bogged down into such a discussion. Its simple enough to say that the police were able to maintain their observation of the suspects movements and therefore must have been within visual range for the majority of the time. They were close enough to board the same bus as the suspect and it is reasonable to assume that the bus did not wait around for a long period of time ( more than 10 minutes i would consider long in this instance ). I would also say it is fair to assume that there were vehicles available to the officers therefore lowering their response time if needed.