Man Shot At Stockwell Tube Station

[Bangkokbutcher]

Apparently he may be of South American origin...

[Boon Mee]

Well, bottom line, he should not have run. As they used to say in Viet Nam re. the ones that run: "He's a VC" & the ones that stood still "A Well-Disciplined VC"!

Edited July 23, 2005 by Boon Mee

[Buff-horns]

NO BOMB LINKS TO SHOOTING

The man shot dead by undercover police at Stockwell Tube station was not connected to the investigation into the attempted terror attacks.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The fatal shooting happened when armed officers shot the man, named as Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, as he tried to board a train at the underground station.

[bartender100]

Doesn't anybody find it disturbing that they had this guy pinned down and then they shot him five times in the head?

Wouldn't it have been an intelligence coup to have captured him alive for further interrogation?

Don't forget that two suspects that were arrested immediately after the bombing were eventually let go.

They thought he was about to let of a BOMB,you P***,how would feel if you was on that subway train,very relieved I think.He was told to stop and did not.

If they had tried to capture him,maybe they would all be dead now.Again,you P***.

Edited July 23, 2005 by bartender100

[udon]

The Brazillian vaulted the ticket barrier and fled down to the train when challenged by police.....

He was wearing a winter type jacket in summer, geez, if you were a cop what would you think under the circumstances!

It's reported that he spoke good English.

A tragic shooting.

[Sir Burr]

Doesn't anybody find it disturbing that they had this guy pinned down and then they shot him five times in the head?

Wouldn't it have been an intelligence coup to have captured him alive for further interrogation?

Don't forget that two suspects that were arrested immediately after the bombing were eventually let go.

They thought he was about to let of a BOMB,you P***,how would feel if you was on that subway train,very relieved I think.He was told to stop and did not.

If they had tried to capture him,maybe they would all be dead now.Again,you P***.

Explain that to his family you tosser.

[Boatabike]

This story is getting way too much out of hand and suspicous.

Political situations like this are very involved and very cloak and dagger, we can't imagine what our government is capable of when it comes to a matter of preserving national security.  Even the media is only going to be allowed to report what it is allowed to report at this time.  We will never find out who this man is and why he is shot, as our only sources of information is the tv and internet and newspapers and all can be controlled with great ease.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite right sir, if the yanks can invade 2 countrys in their national interest (security), its fair to assume the Met can execute an un armed man running away from a bomb scene.

[bdenner]

We are forgetting one thing --- The element of doubt and his rights.

In view of this and IMO 4 shots to the head should have sufficed

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In view of the latest developments I’m going to rescind this post.

In doing so I’m in no way bowing down to the ‘Hand Wringers’, ‘Do Gooders’ or ‘Social Engineers’ that may exist on this forum. There is collateral damage in war and what is happening in London is war.

I shall just go into standby on this topic until the final investigations are complete.

[Heng]

Well if its the case he died by his own hand.....running away from armed policeman/sas is stupidity.

Ah, thanks. That's a good one. We've been looking for a similarly brilliant defense for the execution of drug dealers. For your consulting fee, we will give you 6 Baht of free calls on your AIS service.

cc: [email protected]

[The_Eye_Of_Sauron]

People in UK didn't know that to try and run a Police challenge will get you shot. (they do now)

Normally police evasion gets you chased and apprehended, with blowing of police whistles. 'Stop or i'll blow me whistle again'

In USA people know they will get popped if they disobey Police instructions

[Sir Burr]

He wasn't running away when they shot him. He was down on the ground, pinned down by other police officers when he was executed.

[udon]

Try empathy, Burr, empathy with the cops/SAS

[Sir Burr]

Very difficult Udon. I am a firm believer in the old saw "Anybody that wants to be a policeman is absolutely the wrong type of person to be a policeman".

It's valid for Thailand anyway.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Sir Burr

[udon]

I lived in England for nearly 30 years, got arrested once for smuggling stun guns .

The cops couldn't have been nicer to me, and I have a lot of respect for the Met guys.

Best cops in the world in my book, the guy who shot the Brazilian will be in v. serious &lt;deleted&gt;, even though he acted properly in the circumstance. (shoot to protect)

[Sir Burr]

Udon, I think we can both agree that this was a tragic death. If the man was shot whilst he was running away, I could sort of understand the error. But, to have the man pinned down by other police officers and then to cold bloodedly put five bullets into his head is an execution, plain and simple.

[RamdomChances]

The use of fire arms by the British police/military would be governed by specific "rules of engaugment". These are usually based on the rule of minimum force although change during times of war and special forces are usually mission specific. an example would be :-

Supose you are on a check point armed, a youth walks towards you, you tell him to stop. He keeps walking you tell him to stop or you will open fire, he still keeps coming. You shoot him..... well done you have just shot a deaf bloke.

Same if he runs away unless there is reasonable cause to suspect that he had or will carry out actions that will result in death or injury to others.

Its rumered that the British army used to keep toy guns at check point in N Ireland, just in case someone got a bit carried away. (he just pulled this out sir, how was I to know it was real or not?)

Anyway with this shoting it will probably come down to did the police have reasonable suspicion that he was about to detonate a bomb and the only way they could prevent it was to take the suspects life. I feel they probably can give resonable cause (at least in public) but there will be some slapped wrists behind closed doors.

[Thomas_Merton]

Udon, I think we can both agree that this was a tragic death. If the man was shot whilst he was running away, I could sort of understand the error. But, to have the man pinned down by other police officers and then to cold bloodedly put five bullets into his head is an execution, plain and simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will wait for the results of an inquiry before concluding the British police have “fukced up”. On the information available via the press it would seem the Brazilian gentleman made a grave mistake by disobeying a police command and then running from them.

It might be worth considering what could have happened if the situation was reversed – an Englishman running from Brazilian police (of death squad notoriety). I doubt the consequences would have been more acceptable to our sensitivities.

Meditation on how the “boys in brown” would have reacted to the running farang, might help put the matter in perspective.

War is a bloody awful business. Its acts are the ultimate in desperation, defying all logic, intelligence and reason. It is not engaged, encompassed and protected by a set of Queensberry rules or even Geneva Conventions (only ever applied after the events). It is havoc. Its aim is total domination of the enemy by killing them until they give in. It is not won by gentlemen but by warriors.

There is no politically correct way to fight a war. PC fighters are the dead ones – the losers. The PC critics are the back stabbers. The PC politicians are the traitors. This is the awful reality.

If you do not like it then you must become a pacifist or give in to the terrorists. There is no middle-way.

[autonomous_unit]

I have wondered through these developments whether the UK is just settling into the mindset that much of the US has dipped into over the past 4 years. Many of the recent comments on this board and in the news are an eery echo of what I remember in the US at the time. (This is related to TV because Thailand is of course having its own trials with the southern unrest, with similar extensions of police/state power, etc.)

If so, I fear for our friends and the effects of a heightened police-state where people have an emotional context wherein this guy's death is justified and guilt-free. It reminds me of air passengers who were suffocated on US flights by fellow passengers who sat on them, crushed them, etc. because the person was acting bizarre. It turned out they were mentally ill but had no association w/ terrorists. Nobody wanted to ponder the point that this was a wrong that had occurred.

Growing up, I often was made to feel like "right-wing" compared to my California environment, but I am troubled by the near permanent (10 year!) extension of the Patriot Act in the US that was accepted recently by the House of Representatives. I cannot help but ask myself, aren't these limitations of rights exactly what the terrorist movement is trying to trigger? As our current leaders say, the fundies don't like our open and tolerant societies. But, they're letting us build the culture of fear and distrust ourselves...

[britmaveric]

Uh as far as sitting on passengers - I believe the cases you mention nutters trying to get into the cockpit. And if I recall correctly - they were very large men who weren't very hard to subdue.

As I said its unfortunate, but the lad ran after being ordered to stop. I for one think if the situation was reversed and the lad detonated a bomb. Everyone would be saying why didnt the they shoot him? This is a damned if you do or dont scenario. Police did their job the best they could..enuf said. First rule when making any use of a firearm is shoot to kill.

Edited July 24, 2005 by britmaveric

[Thomas_Merton]

I have wondered through these developments whether the UK is just  settling into the mindset that much of the US has dipped into over the past 4 years. Many of the recent comments on this board and in the news are an eery echo of what I remember in the US at the time. (This is related to TV because Thailand is of course having its own trials with the southern unrest, with similar extensions of police/state power, etc.)

If so, I fear for our friends and the effects of a heightened police-state where people have an emotional context wherein this guy's death is justified and guilt-free. It reminds me of air passengers who were suffocated on US flights by fellow passengers who sat on them, crushed them, etc. because the person was acting bizarre. It turned out they were mentally ill but had no association w/ terrorists. Nobody wanted to ponder the point that this was a wrong that had occurred.

Growing up, I often was made to feel like "right-wing" compared to my California environment, but I am troubled by the near permanent (10 year!) extension of the Patriot Act in the US that was accepted recently by the House of Representatives. I cannot help but ask myself, aren't these limitations of rights exactly what the terrorist movement is trying to trigger? As our current leaders say, the fundies don't like our open and tolerant societies. But, they're letting us build the culture of fear and distrust ourselves...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has nothing to do with the introduction of a police state any sympathetic reaction to the terrible killing of the suspect by the police.

Our laws give the police authority of control in many situations: the football crowd; the post-accident scene; murder investigations etc. plus now the protection of citizens from terrorism and the investigation of terrorist acts.

In all of these situations it is expected of us ordinary citizens that we respect this control. Not doing so has many legal consequences. In this case the consequences have been fatal. How much this was justified will only become evident under the coming inquiry.

However it is over exaggeration if you conclude that when given the order by a policeman to stop in an intense terrorist security operation, it is a gross infringement on your civil liberties. And that there will be no serious consequences should you run.

Seen in this context, the resulting death of the suspect, whether fully justified or not, displays more the tensions created by the obscene terrorists atrocities, than the implication that Britain is becoming a police state.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[bkkmadness]

Wasn't this innocent Brazillian a man that had direct links to anti terror groups? That was the info we got given before so I expect they must have had some evidence of that, how did he suddenly become innocent? Is the story changing?

If they thought he had a bomb on him, why did they all jump on him first, surely that would have risked setting off the bomb? Why not shoot from a distance?

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Britain is under siege. WELL DONE OLD BILL. Run at your own risk. RIP

[bkkmadness]

source

The fatal shooting occured after Mr Menezes emerged from a house in Tulse Hill, south London, which had been under police surveillance because of a suspected link to Thursday's attempted bombing.

Police said Mr Menezes clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions.

After leaving the house he caught a bus to Stockwell Tube, where he was challenged by officers who told him to stop.

How did he even get to the tube? The police was on is case after surveillance on a house which they suspected had something to do with the bombings. They then watched this man leave the house with a heavy coat board a bus , get to the tube station and he was not apprehended until he got onto a train.

If they thought he was a suicide bomber they certainly gave him good oppurtunity to get to his target area before catching him. Why wasn't he stopped before hand if they thought he was such a danger that he needed to be executed immediately on capture?

He was given the chance to get on both a bus and a train before being stopped. That shows a large amount of incompetence on the police's part in my eyes. What if he did have a bomb.

He should never have made it onto a train in the first place, perhaps not even the bus, he should have been stopped before hand if they thought he had a bomb on him.

It wasn't a case of just stopping someone at the tube and questioning him and not expecting him to run away which coiuld be excused, this man had been under surveillance since he left his house yet they still bungled the operation to apprehend him before he reached his supposed target area.

A suspected suicide bomber, approached by police and managed to get all the way to the target area before he was stopped. Why wasn't there more officers on hand to stop what they obviously considered a suicide bomber and massive risk to the safety of civilians and themselves?

Edited July 24, 2005 by bkkmadness

[autonomous_unit]

...

In all of these situations it is expected of us ordinary citizens that we respect this control. Not doing so has many legal consequences. In this case the consequences have been fatal. How much this was justified will only become evident under the coming inquiry.

However it is over exaggeration if you conclude that when given the order by a policeman to stop in an intense terrorist security operation, it is a gross infringement on your civil liberties. And that there will be no serious consequences should you run.

Seen in this context, the resulting death of the suspect, whether fully justified or not, displays more the tensions created by the obscene terrorists atrocities, than the implication that Britain is becoming a police state.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I agree we won't know until an inquiry is complete (if ever). I also don't mean that being stopped is a gross infringement of liberties. What I am commenting on is the very challenging problem of balancing all of these issues on an almost literal knife's edge. I think there are a host of effective investigative and security measures that can be done, as well as a number of infringing ones with diminishing returns. For example, I think the US would be better served by increasing customs/shipping checks and having visible security in public spaces, rather than having too many new secret search warrant powers.

The only practical comment I can agree with in this particular event is why wasn't he stopped before he even entered the station... but the bigger question is what official policies or unofficial (but quite real) moods are at play here, and do we like the results. If we do not reflect on this, we run the risk of doing the bad guys' work for them.

I hope the UK doesn't have to go through the same transformation as the US has after 9/11, but perhaps it is an inevitable aspect of human nature. It is, unfortunately, a numbers game and rational policies must address it as such rather than operating from the emotional point of one individual.

[bambob]

they interviewed his family on BBC news this morning and they say the UK police are telling a pack of lies over this incident . They didnt follow him from a flat nearby , as he got off a bus near the tube and then was chased by a large number of gents with guns.

guess he was just spooked.

The old bill is just very trigger happy right now trying to show results.

this gent didnt look anything like a paki or potential suicide bomber.

[The_Eye_Of_Sauron]

Yes, I agree we won't know until an inquiry is complete (if ever).

This is more like a meeting of Young Conservatives than an chat Forum.

Given the Police already admitted they shot someone who wasn't even vaguely a terrorist, why don't you go tingtong and debate it now (ooh you devils!) rather than prudently 'waiting for an inquiry'.

Its not as if your voluminous punditry is read by anyone

[Thomas_Merton]

Yes, I agree we won't know until an inquiry is complete (if ever).

This is more like a meeting of Young Conservatives than an chat Forum.

Given the Police already admitted they shot someone who wasn't even vaguely a terrorist, why don't you go tingtong and debate it now (ooh you devils!) rather than prudently 'waiting for an inquiry'.

Its not as if your voluminous punditry is read by anyone

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you've made the 500 postings - congratulations - perhaps we could now read your views on the matter...

...and if you want to really rip loose, the Bedlam Forum awaits.

[The_Eye_Of_Sauron]

I like your commentary Thomas _Merton.

Your people know about suffering and oppression - and how to handle terrorism.

[udon]

BKK Madness, with respect mate,

please read as much as you can from the bbc and the Times before making any more comments.

Some of the stuff you are coming out with makes it obvious that you do not have the same info as most of us. (have)

[bkkmadness]

BKK Madness, with respect mate,

please read as much as you can from the bbc and the Times before making any more comments.

Some of the stuff you are coming out with makes it obvious that you do not have the same info as most of us. (have)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Udon, your quote of me didn't work so not sure which part you was refering to. Let me know where your info is different and I will check it out, if I have made any mistakes I will rectify them.

I'm in the middle of other work and only reading reports here and there and basing my judgements on what I have seen so far. I have not throughly researched all material so far, no tv news or newspapers to look at either at the moment so just some online surfing.

From the one report I just read on the bbc news though I still feel the police were incompetent about attackling this potential suicide bomber, he should never have made it into the station.