The death of Jean Charles de Menezes: Analysis

[Woody Box]

First of all let me express that I can understand the necessity of a shoot to kill in order to prevent the death of many other innocent people. But before jumping to praise the policeman for his successfully “fulfilling his tragic duty” as some people did in the recent days we need absolutely to stress that the solution to shoot a person (knowing or not knowing that he is guilty) is and only can be nothing more than the “ultima ratio”. That means if there is not any other solution left.

I wrote that I can understand the shoot-to-kill-policy that doesn’t necessarily say that I’m in favour of it. But in any case if somebody followed this policy we closely need to analyse the circumstances of what happened (but a general discussion of the shoot-to-kill-policy is absolutely needed. Today it was an unknown Brazilian. Tomorrow it could be you).

Generally what happened is presented in the way that the police followed Menezes, he didn’t stop and just before he reached the tube and therefore his potential target one policeman had no choice but to shoot him.

This is the general tenor we find in the media. A closer investigation and reading of eyewitnesses quickly makes clear things are certainly more complicated:

http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?9.590

[Mr Creosote]

1. Very strange that

"He was surveilled and finally shot NOT by the police but “a team of 30 Scotland Yard officers“"

So what exactly are these Scotland Yard officers if they aren't police?

[Guy_Montag]

3. I suspect they are police

it sounds like a misunderstanding to me.

[Mr Creosote]

4. No shit

how many more incredibly basic "misunderstandings" are there in this analysis?

[John Doe II]

8. Why don't you simply read it?

Then you might know.
But apparently this seems to be the only one.

[Mr Creosote]

10. Why don't I read it?

Simple. Because it is written by someone who appears not to know that Scotland Yard officers are police officers, with all that implies about that person's insight into events.

[John Doe II]

11. Strange

this doesn't seem to be the impression in the General Discussion's section where this thread is nomminated greates 9 times within a few hours.
Maybe they've read it...

[Mr Creosote]

14. And what would be the point of reading it?

Really? If the author displays such ignorance so early in the piece why waste time on him/her? There's plenty to be said on this subject, and there are plenty of people who do have a basic grip on the facts. I'd rather read something by someone like that. They're obviously a lot less discriminating in GD. Or, more likely, they are equally ill-informed on the subject of what Scotland Yard is.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. They could very well be...

SAS or SBS on temporary duty under the nominal auspices of Scotland Yard. In fact, I suspect they are.

[Guy_Montag]

6. Why? n/t

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

13. The culture of the cops.

The culture of the british constabulary does not lend itself to summary execution in the streets. I lived there. I saw it. This goes totally against their grain.

[melissinha]

2. Scary

Now, they had time to observe him have a conversation on the bus.... now let me tell youa Brazilian accent is not the same as any Middle Eastern/Pakistani/Afgani accent... they had SOO many oportunities to detain him peacefully... and just to shoot down at him??? This story really shows how innocent people DO LIVE in the buildings in which real terrorists live, you can't go on assumptions.. they were also saying how other peopel in London were wearing jackets and let me tell you London weather is cold to a Brazilian...

Because de is a brazilian as I am, it jstu brings it home to me... I think they also racially profiled him.... but the accent its to different... I am so f*ing livid... this is absolutely horrible!

[Benbow]

7. He was working the UK illegally - how f*ing livid are you about that?

[Woody Box]

9. So he deserved the death penalty?

[Guy_Montag]

12. not even slightly n/t

[melissinha]

16. Immaterial

That is immaterial. So what? It just goes to show that the British police have nto sufficient intelligence before they just shoot at a guy.

yes he came out of a building under surveillance, btu so did many other residents, yes he was wearing a coat, but so did many other English people according to reports.... but they actually followed him on a bus and HEARD HIM TALK WITH A FUCKING BRAZILIAN ACCENT!
THey had NOT identified themselves when they started a pursuit and for your information kidnappings are very common in Brazil these days, its no wonder the guy was paranoid....show some decency man....

[Nihil]

20. Trying to put this politely

(I noted that you said this was a hot button issue for you in an
earlier post so I'm not trying to wind you up here.)

- He came out of a building where some of the occupants were under
surveillance.

- He was not a primary suspect (i.e., one of those directly watched)
but would still be a person of interest - not because of his colour,
nationality, religion or any other discriminatory reason but purely
because he was living in the same building as the primary suspect(s).

- As a "person of interest", there is no reason to stop him straight
away. He was followed and observed.

- The observer(s) called in when he was queueing for the bus to find
out what procedure to follow (stop him now or carry on following).

- The response did not come back from command quick enough to prevent
him boarding the bus. This is a command failure, not a failing of the
officer at the scene. As a result, the preceding orders still held:
observe but do not approach.

- The observer(s) boarded the bus with the suspect in order to
maintain this contact. If the observer was to avoid raising the
suspect's suspicions, he would not be seated very close by.

- During the bus journey, the suspect made a call on his mobile.

- Someone several seats away is unlikely to actually hear the
conversation (never mind discern between different accents)
but would report through the fact that the suspect has initiated
the call (i.e., more information for command).

- Unless this suspect had been followed previously (unlikely given
that the building had only just been linked to the recent bombings)
there would be no prior knowledge of the suspect's destination.

- When the suspect disembarked (location and direction information
again passed through to command) a further decision had to be made
whether to continue to observe or to stop him.

- When it became apparent that the tube station was his destination,
the critical decision of "what to do" was resolved: he had to be
stopped.

- The "shoot to kill" / "head shot" policy has been in place for
suspected suicide bombers for a long time so armed response officers
would be familiar with the procedure to adopt.


From command's view, they have a nondescript "other" (an unknown to
the ongoing security investigation) leaving a "building of interest",
being followed as a matter of course, making a phonecall then going
into a tube station. Normally this would not be a problem but when
it is the day after a synchronised set of bombs failed and a fortnight
after a synchronised set of bombed worked, the priorities associated
with each element change - the risk of "getting it wrong" is far more
severe than the risk of any upset from detaining an innocent guy.

When this innocent guy jumps the barrier and runs down an escalator
towards the platform, he is suddenly not considered "innocent" any
more.

In those last few seconds, the only choices were to gamble on the
guy turning out to still be innocent (assuming you can catch up with
him again) or to shoot to kill.

A month ago, he would have lived to regret his stupidity but, on that
day, there would be very few commanders who would not have made the
same decision.

[Guy_Montag]

21. Excellent description of events

very good, much better than most. Making an effort to see this from the pov of the police, rather than looking back with hindsight, as most have done.

[melissinha]

22. I understand where you are coming from

I gathered by your spelling that you are writing "continental English" and that you are actually in England, so this threat is very real to you. I am sorry for what you are having to endure and for what your country is going through on behalf of the half-witt moron who escalated this mess beyond repair. I really am. I hope you do not take my comments to be insensitive either.

Yes the course of events leaves very little wiggle room for the police in that situation.... but the fact remains that an innocent man is dead. We will never know what went on in his mind, wether he was running because of his visa or wether it was pure instinct instilled upon him back home. This is really showing the reality of the danger to the people living in buildings under surveillance.

I just can't condone the "Oh well, he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, sorry" explanations. It now appears as if he was shot 8 times... 8 times!!! absolutely unnecesary.The fact is that there are thousands upon thousands of immigrants and foreign nationals that can get entangled in this business. I don't pretend to understand clandestine agencies and police procedure, but this really goes to show you how an innocent situation can turn deadly.

[Mr Creosote]

23. In truth

a lot more than one innocent person is dead. And I suspect that more innocent people are still to die. Reading nihil's excellent summary I'm inclined to think that if that's how it went down, then I'd have shot him too. But there's going to be a Police Complaints enquiry, and this will end up in front of a jury in the end.
One thing that occurs to me: this is a relatively small block of flats - what had the police done to familiarise themselves with who else lived there - and in particular what they looked like?
And why did he run? If he hadn't they wouldn't have had to make that decision, just as they didn't have to with the guy outside DownStreet with a rucksack.

[melissinha]

24. why he ran

I heard on the Sedition that he had recently been mugged... let's check the Brazilian papers....

Apparently Jack Straw just said he was legal. The Brazilian Embassy had looked into things....

I disagree with you guys..I have also read the account and there appears to be a moment in which they started running after him in which they had not IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES... there are eye witness accounts of this. At the very least they need to work on techniques in which they could deal with potentially mistaken suspects like this one. I think Blair's stance on this is completely wrong, and does not take into account potential innocent victims like Jean Charles, now no one is safe.

By removing the legal status reasoning, what else could he have run for, and as an extension, what else could any ordinary citizen run for?
I mean regardless of whether or not he had been mugged, this is a common occurence in large cities like London, and a similar reaction by equally innocent people are quite likely.


Incidentally here's a poll on the same page:

Should Blair yield and back away from Bush to avoid future attempts?
Blair deve ceder e se afastar de Bush para evitar mais atentados?

Yes
72.39%
No
27.61%

[Mr Creosote]

25. Have you got a link to

"I have also read the account and there appears to be a moment in which they started running after him in which they had not IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES"? Ta.

I'd be a bit careful with what the eye-witnesses say too, after all on the day it happened they were unanimous that he was "asian" looking. Which from the pictures I've seen doesn't appear to be the case.

[melissinha]

26. Its the link in first post of this thread

http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?9.590

But this account is challenged by several eyewitnesses, eg: “Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout “police” or anything like it. Mr Ruston, a construction company director, said that he saw two of the officers put on their blue baseball caps marked “police” but that the frightened electrician could not have seen that happen because he had his back to the officers and was running with his head down.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1707480,00.html
In fact many eyewitnesses recall hearing “Get down”, the waring of the police to the people. Yet, they don’t mention any warning to de Menezes.
- Difficult to understand is also that basically everything was done by the anti-terror unit to even force the suspect to explode his explosives. Just imagine that Scotland Yard was convinced of the danger that de Menezes was indeed wearing explosives under his jacket. Then following him on the platform was semi-automatics in the hand would even force him to pull the trigger. Read this Mark Whitby’s report: “"I was sitting on the train... I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down'.

So whats with the interrogation anyways? I don't see what you are going to achieve with arguing particulars which either way are hard to substantiate? Sure I am basing my opinions on heresay, however you are also basing it upon information from a police that is trying to cover itself up. You have all the post incident information regarding the victim and you can't help but wonder that the tactic employed byt the police did and will continue to endanger innocent people. This isn't an UK vs Brazil match here, its about an honest discussion about police tactics.

[Mr Creosote]

27. It was not an "interogation" as you call it

All I was trying to find out was if you had a Brazilian source that was giving information that was different to what I had seen - since you had specifically said you were checking the Braqzilian papers. I am sorry that that appears to offend you. I am also not aware that I, or indeed anyone else has suggested that this is a competition between the UK and Brazil.
In general I object to the personal tone of your response and since I am not interested in having a "flame war" with you on this subject I am placing you on my "ignore" list. I suggest that you reciprocate.

[melissinha]

28. Sorry for what I may have inferred

It just seemed to be heading towards a very mild flame war. In no way did any of your compatriots suggest that it was a competition.... simply it appeared as if the stances on pro-police leaning arguments are coming from you guys. Besides a competition with regards to this subject matter is quite gruesome, therefore I am sorry that it appears that I inferred that.

Unfortunately the Brazilian papers I found only made me bawl my eyes out reading the statements from his father and that his mother had to be hospitalized. I think I personally got emotional about the whole thing, the whole situation sucks.

By no means do intend to put you on my "ignore" list. I am quite sure that you and I are of like minds on most everything, except for maybe football. ;-) That would be quite a shame, especially over a difference of opinion.

Its probably cause I am so riled up about the whole DSM, Plame fiasco, War on Terror.. that the pigs in Washington have caused.

[John Doe II]

36. Asian

In fact for strange reason the police themselves called him "Asian-looking". so this could hardly be used against the witnesses. While they basically all heard the warning to them 'Get down!" I found noone who heard a warning to de Menezes.

[John Doe II]

29. Few seconds

You write:

In those last few seconds, the only choices were to gamble on the
guy turning out to still be innocent (assuming you can catch up with
him again) or to shoot to kill.


Read the original post and you'll find out that this is hardly the truth.

[Nihil]

31. ?

> Read the original post and you'll find out that this is hardly
> the truth.

Care to point out which bits of the original post disagree with my
paragraph quoted?

I've read the OP and its link to your site (along with the tree of
links from there) but can't see your problem ... can you please state
it less obliquely?

Thanks.

[John Doe II]

35. Sure

Here some crucial questions concerning the last seconds of de Menezes' life:


Where did the markmen come from within less than a minute?
Why was police already waiting for de Menezes at the platfrom?
Why were silencers used?
Why was he pushed to the ground?
If he would have been a suicide bomber: Why was everything done so he would even be forced to pull the trigger of the bomb?
He was completely defenceless (even lying on his back oushed to the ground by two guys). Might a very definite "Don't move a finger or we shoot you" and a search for the explosives have been more appropriate to put it mildly?
Why does no eyewitness recall hearing the police warning de Menezes?
Why do eyewitnesses instead clearly recall the police warning them?
And do you have an idea who actually the guyus were who shot de Menezes?

General questions:
Why wasn't he stopped when waiting to cross the street?
Why was he even allowed to enter the bus (another typical target for suicide bombers theses days)


Please note:
I have no idea what happened. Yet, I simply think it is the minimum we owe de Menezes to describe as close as possible what happened and based on this the investigation should come to a judgement of the person who shot 8 times.
The reason why I wrote this thread was that I read everywhere the simplsitic description person shot on the run in the very last second etc etc

[Nihil]

38. Possibilities

> Where did the markmen come from within less than a minute?

Armed response units are on call around London at the best of times
so there would be more on duty that day considering the recent events.
There would be plenty of time for an armed response vehicle to take
position behind the bus during that journey after being alerted by
the observer (probably after the mobile phone call).

> Why was police already waiting for de Menezes at the platfrom?

Not aware that they were. I thought that they were following or
even "chasing" - hence the "obvious" reason that de Menezes fled.

> Why were silencers used?

To avoid panic. Gunshots are not a regular occurrence in London
and so would be practically guaranteed to multiple the confusion
and tendency for the already jittery public to panic.

> Why was he pushed to the ground?

Two options. My preference is that he was brought down in pursuit.
When you're on the ground, it's damn hard to get away.
The alternative (i.e., that of the "executioner" view) is that it
reduced the chance of any bystanders being hit by penetrating bullets.

> If he would have been a suicide bomber: Why was everything done so
> he would even be forced to pull the trigger of the bomb?

Disagree but that's the beauty of opinions 14 days later ... it
doesn't matter a toss if you're right or wrong ! :-)

> He was completely defenceless (even lying on his back oushed to the
> ground by two guys).

I thought he was shot in the back of the head (i.e., not lying on his
back but pushed face down into the ground). Was this not the case?
(Wonder if it happened anywhere near the carriage video camera?)


Personally, I'd like to know how long he was held down and clearly
defenceless before he was shot. The more time that passes since the
incident, the longer people are saying he was held down and shot in
cold blood. I find that hard to believe (though it may yet be proven
true). What I find far more likely is that he was tackled to the
ground and shot while still (naturally) struggling to get up.
If you are brought down while running away from someone, you go face
down. When you try to get up, your arms go under your body to push
upwards (rather than outwards in clear view). If a suspected suicide
bomber puts his hands under his body (where the suspected bomb belt
is believed to be), I can completely see the officer on top of him
shooting the guy in the head twice to stop any further movement.

> Might a very definite "Don't move a finger or we shoot you" and a
> search for the explosives have been more appropriate to put it
> mildly?

Yes. I agree.
Whether I would say that after chasing a suspected suicide bomber
down an escalator and onto a tube train when my orders were to shoot
to kill if necessary ...? I don't know and I hope never to be in
that situation.

> Why does no eyewitness recall hearing the police warning de Menezes?
> Why do eyewitnesses instead clearly recall the police warning them?

We've already mentioned the discrepancies between "eyewitness"
descriptions of the events (and eyewitness reliability in general).
I'll wait for the inquest on this one.

> do you have an idea who actually the guyus were who shot de Menezes?

The statements I've heard have referred to SO19 (armed response)
rather than SO13 (anti terrorist) but there is a lot of ambiguity
and contradiction in the statements. The closest confirmation seems
to be from the Met giving the shooter the separation time (referred
to as "holiday") but this would still be true for any officer that
had been seconded under Met control (e.g., from outside).
This information is another thing that I'd like to see officially
confirmed.

> Why wasn't he stopped when waiting to cross the street?
> Why was he even allowed to enter the bus (another typical target
> for suicide bombers theses days)

At the time he caught the bus, he was still just a person of interest,
not a suspected suicide bomber. In fact, right up to the point when
he headed into the tube station, a non-violent stop would have been
preferred (and possibly was in process). After that point, the risk
of being wrong increased drastically and so the tactics escalated.

As ever, JMO,

Nihil

[bennywhale]

18. Thats in dispute. He was on a five year visa so was here legally

whether he was "working illegally" is irrelevant to his execution.

[LeftishBrit]

40. Exactly!!!

[LeftishBrit]

39. To be blunt...

even bringing up his working illegally is just giving ammunition to those who think that we and our police are just hunting down foreigners indiscriminately.

People don't deserve to be killed for working here illegally. And our police, whatever anyone thinks of them, would NOT shoot anyone for working here illegally!!!!

[mr blur]

15. Why did they let him get on the bus?

Doesn't make sense. A possible suicide bomber is OK on a bus but not a train?

[melissinha]

17. Exactly

I mean they followed him all the way to the train for several blocks... and they heard him TALK! in a brazilian accent for God's sake!!!

If you are going to be a Metropolitan police or Scotland yard.. learn to identify accents!

[Tom Bombadil]

41. When he was on the bus he was not a suspected

suicide bomber. He was someone the police were interested in following because of where he lived. He only became a suspected bomber when he ran way from armed police into the undergroud.

[bennywhale]

19. He was followed for 1/2 an hour, allowed to board a bus (when the

reason given for shooting him was that he was boarding a train and may set off his bomb) he was approached (the method oif which is in dispute) he fled and was caught in the doors of the train shoved to the ground and shot (in the face) 8 times.

This is a fuck up on every level.

Why was he not stopped initially?
Why was he not stopped before he got on the bus?
Why was he not stopped before he went into the tube station?
Why did officers not know that the address they were watching was actually 9 seperate apartments one of which Menesez lived at?
Why was a fleece an assumption of a suicide bomb?
Why didn't police identify themselves properly?
Why, when he was pinned down, was he shot 8 times in the face?
Why are the Kratos team that killed him following Israeli rules of engagement in England?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

30. the tube driver

A union official said yesterday that police officers had put guns to the head of the driver of the Tube involved in the Stockwell shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. According to the official, the driver of the train tried to run into a tunnel after hearing the shots and seeing passengers flee the train, but officers dragged him back to the platform, threw him to the floor and threatened him with their pistols.

The driver has been off work since last Friday. The train drivers' union Aslef is considering a submission to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Underground staff on the Northern line thought that police had been "gung-ho" during the shooting, said Steve Grant, a senior official at Aslef.

They believed that the driver's colour - he is of west African descent - may have influenced the officers' behaviour. Two of the suspected bombers who tried to target London the previous day are African.

When the driver got back to the depot and told his colleagues what happened, some of them refused to take trains out.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article301892.ece

[Nihil]

32. Request for clarification

One ambiguity that seems to be constantly repeated (on your site and
here) is that "he was followed by 30 people".

I have seen nothing that states this.

What I *have* seen is that the building was under surveillance by a
team of 30 people. This will include the people on foot to follow
any possible suspect, the local coordinator, the camera operators,
the command centre coordinator, the team gophers and the armed response
backup unit.

This does not mean that if a non-primary suspect emerges from the
watched building, 30 people will be dogging his every footstep, ready
to non-violently arrest him.


(Disclaimer to save bandwidth:
I am *not* happy that an unarmed civilian was killed by the UK police.
I am *not* in favour of a "shoot to kill non-whites" policy.
I am *not* anti-Islam, anti-Pakistani, anti-Brazilian, ...
I am *not* a freeper, troll, flame-baiter or other RW epithet.
Please do not post replies suggesting otherwise.)

[John Doe II]

34. I agree with you

and I didn't make this clear enough.
Fact is the house was surveilled by 30 people yet we don't know how many people followed de Menezes into the bus.


Serious question: What's the sense of your disclaimer? I don't think that I anywhere implied that you belong to any of theses categories.

[Nihil]

37. Re. "disclaimer"

I was not aiming the disclaimer at you but at the various people who
in reply to previous posts on this subject (not necessarily in this
specific thread) who have made blunt inference or even overt accusation
that I belong to one or more of those categories.

I would also like to find out the truth but questioning the "obvious
British fascist state" views or daring to suggest an alternative (even
policeman's) point of view seems to trigger a high level of noise that
drowns out any positive input (or even dissuades anyone from suggesting
such positive input).

Thanks for your reply.
:hi:

[D-Notice]

33. Anyone seen this?

London Tube Survival Guide

London Tube Survival Guide
===========================

Issued by the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

24-July-2005

To ensure that you won't end up with 5 bullets to your head, please consider the following important rules of behavior:

1) Never run

Even if you're late going to work, NEVER RUN to catch the subway -- only walk slowly (as Englishman Sting sang: "A gentleman will walk but never run.") It doesn't matter if you miss the subway and your Thatcherite employer will fire you. Your life is more important.

2) Light clothing

No matter how cold the British climate and the subway corridors, NEVER WEAR A COAT or other thick clothing, since that could look like you're hiding explosives on you. We recommend beach attire only. It doesn't matter if you'll catch the influenza and your Thatcherite employer will fire you. Your life is more important.

3) White skin

To avoid being confused with Islamists for "walking while black" (or brown), try to GET A WHITE SKIN -- not even a light suntan because that looks even more suspect (Middle-Eastern). For details, you may consult with Michael Jackson.

4) White neighborhood

Living in poor neighborhoods makes you suspect, given the high density of surveillance cameras that will track you on your way from home to the subway. TRY MOVING to a white rich neighborhood.

5) If they're after you

If some shadowy plain-clothes gang starts running at you, STRIP NAKED
immediately to show that you're not hiding any explosives on your body. If they're muggers -- too bad, but your life is more important. Be ready to accept a full body-cavity search, because these professionals know that any asshole could hide a hand grenade.