Jean Charles De Menezes

MagicMarker

When i first heard about this, i was lead to believe that he was running from the police, onto the train and based on this the police felt there was no choice but to open fire incase he was carrying a bomb. Anyone else think this?

But apparently, he didn't know he was being followed at any stage, he didn't run away, the police followed him onto the train, and held the door open when the armed police got there. What happened between that moment and the shooting is anyone's guess, but seeing as the original officers who boarded to the train at one stage had De Menezes restrained (in a standing position) and the fact that the officers didn't identify themselves (according to witnesses), then how can they justify killing him without just provocation?

So, what are peoples thoughts on this?

mike65

My thought is that this is a thread about 3 and a half years late.

Mike

daveharnett

I think that the case was coloured by the fact that de Menezez turned out to be unarmed, and afair completely innocent. That is really besides the point. The police involved acted on what they believed to be good information, and their actions were either right or wrong, regardless of what was discovered after the fact.

Given the circumstances in which the incident took place (intelligence of an immediate bomb attack on the underground), I would absolutely condone the shooting of a suspected bomber who runs away from armed police who have identified themselves as such and ordered him to stop. If that is the case, then I would place no blame on the shooters, but on those who sent the police in with bad intelligence, and de Menezes himself.

If they failed to identify themselves, then there is absolutely no excuse. That said, I wouldn't be entirely trusting of witness accounts of such incidents. People can very easily miss things and fill in the blanks in whatever way suits them.

Samson

Pretty good presentation on the sequence of events (as per the inquest) available on the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm

galwayguy22

They sat him down and executed him in cold blood.

Run_to_da_hills

A textbook insight into what a NWO police state will be like except there would be no inquiry.

RugbyFanatic

daveharnett wrote: »

I think that the case was coloured by the fact that de Menezez turned out to be unarmed, and afair completely innocent. That is really besides the point. The police involved acted on what they believed to be good information, and their actions were either right or wrong, regardless of what was discovered after the fact.

Given the circumstances in which the incident took place (intelligence of an immediate bomb attack on the underground), I would absolutely condone the shooting of a suspected bomber who runs away from armed police who have identified themselves as such and ordered him to stop. If that is the case, then I would place no blame on the shooters, but on those who sent the police in with bad intelligence, and de Menezes himself.

If they failed to identify themselves, then there is absolutely no excuse. That said, I wouldn't be entirely trusting of witness accounts of such incidents. People can very easily miss things and fill in the blanks in whatever way suits them.

According to the witness, De Menezes wasn't running in fact he was sitting down when officers approached him. The officers were plain clothes and never once identified themselves and put a gun against his neck. The witness said De Menezes didn't struggle merely closed his eyes and sat passively. She also said the police were noticably hyped up and nervous

Its not looking good for the police

Captain Chaos

I'd be nervous aswell if I was standing a few feet away from a guy I was told and led to believe had a bomb strapped to him weather I had a gun in my hand or not.

MagicMarker

daveharnett wrote: »

Given the circumstances in which the incident took place (intelligence of an immediate bomb attack on the underground), I would absolutely condone the shooting of a suspected bomber who runs away from armed police who have identified themselves as such and ordered him to stop.

As has been mentioned, that was not the case.

Samson wrote: »

Pretty good presentation on the sequence of events (as per the inquest) available on the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm

Cheers for that, much clearer than reading it from a report.

From this i fail to see what reasoning the police had to shoot... They didn't know that the surveillance officer who pinned him down was even an officer, so why not shoot him as well? They just leaned over him and shot De Menezes in the face/neck/whatever.

Turd Ferguson

Gun toting Americans kill someone of a different race?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


A few years too late tbh

MagicMarker

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Gun toting Americans kill someone of a different race?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


A few years too late tbh

Erm..... what?

Turd Ferguson

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm..... what?

I'm sorry, I'm drunk

mumhaabu

Shoot first, ask questions later, if you were faced with a person that you believed to be a terrorist ready to explode himself what would you do? I think the treatment of the Police by the media has been horrendous, he was simply a casualty of a war and there is nothing that could be done, it was unfortunate but the safety of the police and the populace comes first.

Bob the Builder

The police wouldn't have been so ignorant as to shoot an unarmed man sitting down on an underground train, would they? There must have been some reason for it?

MagicMarker

mumhaabu wrote: »

Shoot first, ask questions later, if you were faced with a person that you believed to be a terrorist ready to explode himself what would you do? I think the treatment of the Police by the media has been horrendous, he was simply a casualty of a war and there is nothing that could be done, it was unfortunate but the safety of the police and the populace comes first.

It seems to me that he was unnecessarily a casualty of war, due to rash decisions by the police acting on impulse.

dfx-

MagicMarker wrote: »

It seems to me that he was unnecessarily a casualty of war, due to rash decisions by the police acting on impulse.

Reminds me of the USS Vincennes and the Iran Air flight they shot down because they were in war mode and acted on seeing things that weren't actually happening.

Turd Ferguson

mumhaabu wrote: »

Shoot first, ask questions later, if you were faced with a person that you believed to be a terrorist ready to explode himself what would you do? I think the treatment of the Police by the media has been horrendous, he was simply a casualty of a war and there is nothing that could be done, it was unfortunate but the safety of the police and the populace comes first.

Thats just silly. Its like shouting "They're coming right for us" before shooting them.


You fail at opinons!! :pac:

OPENROAD

MagicMarker wrote: »

It seems to me that he was unnecessarily a casualty of war, due to rash decisions by the police acting on impulse.

To be fair do you recall the events that were taking place in London at the time?

Obviously you had 7/7, and the day before this, their had been three attempted attacks on the tube system that had failed but the suspets were still at large.


As soon as this chap entered Stockwell sadly his faith was sealed, he had been on the bus and had got off to get the tube at Stockwell which the previous day had been one of the targets. It is a tragic case, I think questions need to be asked regarding the Surveillance but as said as soon as he entered the tube station his faith was sealed.

MagicMarker

OPENROAD wrote: »

As soon as this chap entered Stockwell sadly his faith was sealed, he had been on the bus and had got off to get the tube at Stockwell which the previous day had been one of the targets. It is a tragic case, I think questions need to be asked regarding the Surveillance but as said as soon as he entered the tube station his faith was sealed,as far as the police knew they were dealing with a suicide bomber.

Yeah i remember what was going on at the time, but the police (i assume) are trained to be calm and collected in those tense moments, not letting anything influence.

If they thought he was a suicide bomber then they shouldn't have allowed him to enter a tube station, go down the escalator and board a train full of people.

Looking at the events as they unfolded, i genuinely don't think De Menezes proved to be a big enough threat, he was held down, surely restrained to the point he couldn't detonate a bomb, surrounded by officers and shot point blank in the face. They didn't identify themselves, they didn't attempt to evacuate the train, they didn't even know that the guy who had pushed De Menezes back into his seat was a police officer.

Add all that to the fact that at one point in pursuit someone on the surveillance team said that he was not who they thought he was.

OPENROAD

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yeah i remember what was going on at the time, but the police (i assume) are trained to be calm and collected in those tense moments, not letting anything influence.

If they thought he was a suicide bomber then they shouldn't have allowed him to enter a tube station, go down the escalator and board a train full of people.

Looking at the events as they unfolded, i genuinely don't think De Menezes proved to be a big enough threat, he was held down, surely restrained to the point he couldn't detonate a bomb, surrounded by officers and shot point blank in the face. They didn't identify themselves, they didn't attempt to evacuate the train, they didn't even know that the guy who had pushed De Menezes back into his seat was a police officer.

Add all that to the fact that at one point in pursuit someone on the surveillance team said that he was not who they thought he was.

Evacuate the tube train? no chance of doing that mate if they believed he posed a threat.Also I would say the same about identifying themselves. Sadly he was just very very unlucky that he happened to be from the same apartment block as the suspect. One of the officers in the best spots to identify the suspect was taking a leak at the time. Regarding the surveillance guy saying that he was not the suspect as far as I am aware he never said this, what he did say was that he could not be quite sure . The events of the day before played a huge part, remember the three suspects that fled the tube trains when they attempted a suicide attack? It will be interesting to see what the inquiry concludes, I don't think blame should be proportioned on the fire arms officers though.

daveharnett

MagicMarker wrote: »

It seems to me that he was unnecessarily a casualty of war, due to rash decisions by the police acting on impulse.

Based on the bbc coverage linked, I wouldn't be so generous.
Casualties of war are sustained in wars, where there are opposing forces, and the resources needed to do a job mistake-free are not available. In this instance, British security forces had 5 hours and 20 people, a dozen of them armed, to detain one person.

What I took from the sequence of events was that the armed unit was forced to rush blindly into the station, without all of the necessary information (eg, who the friendlies were, where the suspect was) and were forced to make a split second decision about what was happening.

I'd say collective screw up rather than individual brutality. De Menezes should have been stopped around the corner from the house, he would never got within a mile of the tube station, and he would still be alive.

The_B_Man

totally bogey decision by the police.

one thing though, in that flash animation it shows that apparently menezes stood up and walked towards the armed police. IF that is true then they must have said something to him, before the undercover Ivor guy jumped on him.

Also, the armed guys didnt know Ivor was undercover so assumed he was a civilian. Maybe seeing a civilian (with no apparent knowledge of this whole series of events) tackling this guy must have led them to believe the "civilian" saw a bomb or something.

OPENROAD

daveharnett wrote: »

I'd say collective screw up rather than individual brutality. De Menezes should have been stopped around the corner from the house, he would never got within a mile of the tube station, and he would still be alive.

I think you are spot on re your first sentance, a number of mistakes appear to have been made that morning. He could not be stopped on route to the tube station because the fire arms officers had not been assembled at the appartments or on route. I think it is important to keep in mind what had happened the day before, the police made a breakthrough in the middle of the night regarding one of the suspects which led them to the appartment block but it appears everything had all been a bit rushed, which is why SO19 were not at the appartment block.

Fratton Fred

like a lot of these tragedies, there appears to have been a string of cock ups that, as OPENROAD said, sealed the guys fate as soon as he walked into the tube station.

it is very difficult to judge the Police unless you can appreciate what the atmosphere was like in London at the time. The tube is the life blood of London, thee are literally millions of people that use it everyday. There had been a bomb attack two weeks earlier and an attempted bomb attack the day before. I'm not sure what sort of training anyone could have that would make them calm in that sort of situation.

I'm sure there will be questions asked of the Police, but I am ****ing glad I was not in their position, I may have done the same thing.

A Dub in Glasgo

He was murdered by the state. No question. Incompetence at its height and they tried to cover it up immediately after the event.

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

He was murdered by the state. No question. Incompetence at its height and they tried to cover it up immediately after the event.

don't try and politicise this. how can you say he was murdered by the state, for what? did the thought police get him or something?

that is just plain daft.

Dyr

The met might have come out of this looking undodgy if they put their hands up right away but as usual it was spin after spin after spin for as long as the shooting was in the headlines and then the truth comes out in the inquest is quietly published a few years later when the story is only a footnote for the media.

Either way from the deceased guys family it can only be seen as premediated murder.

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

The met might have come out of this looking undodgy if they put their hands up right away but as usual it was spin after spin after spin for as long as the shooting was in the headlines and then the truth comes out in the inquest is quietly published a few years later when the story is only a footnote for the media.

Either way from the deceased guys family it can only be seen as premediated murder.

the Met come out of this looking very bad indeed, but I have a feeling Boris will sort them out. They need it.

OPENROAD

Bambi wrote: »

The met might have come out of this looking undodgy if they put their hands up right away but as usual it was spin after spin after spin for as long as the shooting was in the headlines and then the truth comes out in the inquest is quietly published a few years later when the story is only a footnote for the media.

Either way from the deceased guys family it can only be seen as premediated murder.

In the immediate aftermath it was handled badly, but you must not watch much UK tv in particular London region or read the press, it has got huge coverage from day one and still continues to, can hardly say things are being done quietly,all out in the open.

galwayguy22

Those undercover cops have a **** job, following what they think are suicide bombers onto buses and trains.

Fratton Fred

galwayguy22 wrote: »

Those undercover cops have a **** job, following what they think are suicide bombers onto buses and trains.

There was a debate shortly afterwards about the Police having a shoot to kill policy for suicide bombers.

They categorically denied that they do, however the manual states that if they reasonably believe it is a suicide bomber they are to avoid shooting into covered parts of the body (in case they have an explosive vest on).

Unfortunately that means four shots into the head, which does tend to kill people.

godtabh

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Thats just silly. Its like shouting "They're coming right for us" before shooting them.


You fail at opinons!! :pac:

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Gun toting Americans kill someone of a different race?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


A few years too late tbh

You're one to talk

Nick_oliveri

**** them, they deserve to be publicly punished for this.
That is all.

Varkov

He's only got himself to blame.

if he stayed in his own country, none of this would have happened.

norbert64

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There was a debate shortly afterwards about the Police having a shoot to kill policy for suicide bombers.

They categorically denied that they do, however the manual states that if they reasonably believe it is a suicide bomber they are to avoid shooting into covered parts of the body (in case they have an explosive vest on).

Unfortunately that means four shots into the head, which does tend to kill people.

if the movie Rendition is to be believed, a head shot would still lead to the worst case scenario, so it isn't all that advisable.

Nodin

norbert64 wrote: »

if the movie Rendition is to be believed, a head shot would still lead to the worst case scenario, so it isn't all that advisable.

I presume you mean the "dead man" switch. Yes, its quite possible.

daveharnett wrote:

What I took from the sequence of events was that the armed unit was forced to rush blindly into the station, without all of the necessary information (eg, who the friendlies were, where the suspect was) and were forced to make a split second decision about what was happening.
.

Indeed. It was the misidentification and guidance given beforehand which is where the problem lies. Blaming the firearms officers is like blaming the bullets, really, though their conflicting versions do them no favours.

galwayguy22

I think whatever Cop killed him was basically getting revenge for the July 7th attacks, which happened only 2 weeks before hand, on the first slightly Arab looking guy he got the change to point a gun at.

The fact that an eye witness said Jean Charles had the gun pointed at him and he just sat there "calmly" (like most would do as not to provoke being shot) means that there was a conscious decision by the Cop to just kill him.

They'll all probably get off with a slight slap on the wrists so makes no difference anyway.

MagicMarker

Varkov wrote: »

He's only got himself to blame.

if he stayed in his own country, none of this would have happened.

*cough* troll *cough*

Sherifu

A troll!?! In AH!?! *faints*

OPENROAD

galwayguy22 wrote: »

I think whatever Cop killed him was basically getting revenge for the July 7th attacks, which happened only 2 weeks before hand, on the first slightly Arab looking guy he got the change to point a gun at.

The fact that an eye witness said Jean Charles had the gun pointed at him and he just sat there "calmly" (like most would do as not to provoke being shot) means that there was a conscious decision by the Cop to just kill him.

They'll all probably get off with a slight slap on the wrists so makes no difference anyway.

What absolute rubbish, three suspects had fled tube trains the previous day after attempting suicide attacks, Jean Charles had been mistakenly identified
as the suspect as soon as he entered the tube station his faith was sealed.

Dyr

OPENROAD wrote: »

What absolute rubbish, three suspects had fled tube trains the previous day after attempting suicide attacks, Jean Charles had been mistakenly identified
as the suspect as soon as he entered the tube station his faith was sealed.

While we're on the subject of absolute rubbish, lets follow you tom clancy like logic

"So constable mchasty, this chap you shot dead was completely innocent then?"

"Yes sur, but 'e wus a SUSPECT"

"Ah i see"

"An' 'e got ON A TUBE sir"

"oh well in that case he was clearly in need of shooting, job well done, as you were mchasty"

And oddly enough they let this suspected bomber on a rush hour bus too

Beerlao

woah i seem to have clicked on a timewarp

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

While we're on the subject of absolute rubbish, lets follow you tom clancy like logic

"So constable mchasty, this chap you shot dead was completely innocent then?"

"Yes sur, but 'e wus a SUSPECT"

"Ah i see"

"An' 'e got ON A TUBE sir"

"oh well in that case he was clearly in need of shooting, job well done, as you were mchasty"

And oddly enough they let this suspected bomber on a rush hour bus too

But the question is whether or not that they believed that was what they were supposed to do, rather than the shooting being a result of overreacting in the moment....

OPENROAD

Bambi wrote: »

While we're on the subject of absolute rubbish, lets follow you tom clancy like logic

"So constable mchasty, this chap you shot dead was completely innocent then?"

"Yes sur, but 'e wus a SUSPECT"

"Ah i see"

"An' 'e got ON A TUBE sir"

"oh well in that case he was clearly in need of shooting, job well done, as you were mchasty"

And oddly enough they let this suspected bomber on a rush hour bus too

Have you actually followed the case? Maybe you should, then come back and post. The police messed up before hand, no doubt about that. It was a rushed operation because the tip off came in the middle of the night, SO19 officers are the only officers that could have stopped him, they were not on the scene initially, and were not at Stockwell before he entered the tube station. He was wrongly identified as the susect, their was only going to be one outcome once he entered the station, or maybe you would prefer the police to approach him on the tube and say excuse me sir, would you buy any chance have a bomb on you? the police thought they were dealing with a suicide bomber, can you actually understand that? The survailance team messed up but to say that the police were on a revenge mission and picked the first arab looking person is crap.

A Dub in Glasgo

Why wasn't he stopped before he got on a bus? There were enough police officiers to stop him?

MagicMarker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why wasn't he stopped before he got on a bus? There were enough police officiers to stop him?

Too many witnesses?

OPENROAD

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why wasn't he stopped before he got on a bus? There were enough police officiers to stop him?

No SO19 armed officers, simple as.

A Dub in Glasgo

OPENROAD wrote: »

No SO19 armed officers, simple as.

So he was a dead man as soon as he left the apartment? Kind of blows the 'he got on a tube train therefore had to be stopped' line out the water.

OPENROAD

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So he was a dead man as soon as he left the apartment? Kind of blows the 'he got on a tube train therefore had to be stopped' line out the water.

Well apartmet block, numerous other apartments within the block, the key surveillance officer was taking a leak and so he was not initially identified as the suspect. Their were actually several large similar operations that had been rushed as info was coming in. Initially he had taken a bus to Brixton tube which was closed apparently, got another bus back to Stockwell. Surveillance team believed at this stage that he was the suspect, however they were not trained to deal with suicide bombers, SO19 only turned up after he entered the tube station.

A Dub in Glasgo

Criminal negligence then? How come the gunmen did not get a positive ID before they shot?

OPENROAD

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Criminal negligence then? How come the gunmen did not get a positive ID before they shot?

The SO19 officers did get a positive id from the surveillance officers(obviously they got this wrong) and the plan from what I've read was to stop him before he entered Stockwell but SO 19 did not arrive in time. As far as so19 were aware this guy was a suicide bomber.