Police Cheif misled Public over Menezes shooting

[volatile]

"What the commissioner could, and should, have been told was the emergence of evidence throughout the day that pointed increasingly strongly to a terrible mistake having been made." - from BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6927140.stm)

This is pretty damning stuff.

I don't know if any of you followed this closely, but basically an innocent Brazillian electrician was summarily executed without warning on a tube train in the middle of the day. Met police shot him five times in the head because they thought he was one of the people who had attempted to detonate bombs on the tube on the 21st July 2005.

This case is fascinating on so many levels. It shows how real-time terror threats are dealt with at the highest level, and where the burden of proof lies if "public safety" is an issue.

Frankly that this was even possible terrifies me. That they lied about it afterwards and let the public believe a genuine terrorist threat had been averted when they knew full well that they'd killed an innocent man disgusts me.

[Dancing David]

A politician discussing truth, how novel? Very sad, just like Tillman.

[Big Les]

This is the sort of thing the truthers should be getting worked up about instead of 9/11.

[volatile]

This is the sort of thing the truthers should be getting worked up about instead of 9/11.

Exactly.This is a legitimate failing of the police forces (both on an individual and institutional level), and poses real questions regarding the reach and role of anti-terrorism tactics and legislation. Hell, if you wanted to you might even be able to call the brief but despicable posterior-protection that followed the shooting a "conspiracy" if it makes you feel better.

But they're more interested in speculating about and even railing against fantastical, secret NWO bomb squads than the accountability and even role of the police who really do exist.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

- from BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6927140.stm)
Met police shot him five times in the head

Seven times in the head, once in the shoulder and three misses.

Details in wiki are pretty comprehensive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

[Big Les]

I don't know why people get so hung up on how many times they shot him. If you're going to kill someone, especially to prevent detonation of any device, you want to cause as much damage to the CNS as possible. 11 shots fired is really not that many considering the number of shooters.

There must surely be blame for this man's death apportioned somewhere higher up the line than the shooters - Cressida Dick ought to shoulder at least some of it. Blame for misleading the public is all well and good, but what about the actual victim? An incident like this with no-one held responsible would have been unthinkable pre-11 September. It ought still to be.

Does anyone have a link to the Stockwell One report?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't know why people get so hung up on how many times they shot him. If you're going to kill someone, especially to prevent detonation of any device, you want to cause as much damage to the CNS as possible. 11 shots fired is really not that many considering the number of shooters.

Was it ever established how many shooters there were? I think the only point about the number of shots is that it tends to suggest that the police were not in full control. 7 of 11 shots in the head is pretty accurate - but what were the chances that after 3 shots in the head he was going to be capable of setting of a bomb?

There must surely be blame for this man's death apportioned somewhere higher up the line than the shooters - Cressida Dick ought to shoulder at least some of it. Blame for misleading the public is all well and good, but what about the actual victim? An incident like this with no-one held responsible would have been unthinkable pre-11 September. It ought still to be.

Completely agree - somebody completely screwed up the risk assessment. It appears very, very unlikely that this error was made by the team directly involved in the shooting - they had been given inaccurate information and acted on it. Hard to blame them.

However the senior police in charge of the operation, and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dick in particular, should be explaining what went wrong and why and taking responsibility for that failure. However as she has been promoted since the shooting it looks like it is all to be swept under the carpet and ignored.

Does anyone have a link to the Stockwell One report?

Nope - it has not yet been made public. Apparently because the Met Police still face criminal charges for a potential breach of Health & Safety legislation (I kid you not!) then the IPCC report into the actual shootings has to remain out of the public domain. How terribly convenient.

[Tony]

- from BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6927140.stm)

This is pretty damning stuff.

I don't know if any of you followed this closely, but basically an innocent Brazillian electrician was summarily executed without warning on a tube train in the middle of the day. Met police shot him five times in the head because they thought he was one of the people who had attempted to detonate bombs on the tube on the 21st July 2005.

This case is fascinating on so many levels. It shows how real-time terror threats are dealt with at the highest level, and where the burden of proof lies if "public safety" is an issue.

Frankly that this was even possible terrifies me. That they lied about it afterwards and let the public believe a genuine terrorist threat had been averted when they knew full well that they'd killed an innocent man disgusts me.
[/SIZE]

I haven't been following it, but I remember it happening. We even had a gaggle of right-wing scums-bags defending this man's execution here on the forum. This is truly disgusting. Hopefully, this man and his family will have justice.

[volatile]

Completely agree - somebody completely screwed up the risk assessment. It appears very, very unlikely that this error was made by the team directly involved in the shooting - they had been given inaccurate information and acted on it. Hard to blame them.

The IPCC said he was not given a clear warning "that an innocent person would understand" before they shot him. That sounds like it was them to blame to me. Had they told him to stop and stand still as they were supposed to, the whole mess could have been sorted out. Instead, they shot first so that no questions could be asked later.

[volatile]

I haven't been following it, but I remember it happening. We even had a gaggle of right-wing scums-bags defending this man's execution here on the forum. This is truly disgusting. Hopefully, this man and his family will have justice.

In defence of the scumbags, the IPCC did point out that the police themselves propagated falsehoods which might have led people to incorrectly damn Jean Charles. They did not correct the preconception that he fled, for example, or that he jumped the barrier, that he was wearing a bulky coat, that he ignored warnings and that he was acting suspiciously. None of that was true, but was reported by numerous media outlets because the police did not correct fallacious press statements...

[Newtons Bit]

Was it ever established how many shooters there were? I think the only point about the number of shots is that it tends to suggest that the police were not in full control. 7 of 11 shots in the head is pretty accurate - but what were the chances that after 3 shots in the head he was going to be capable of setting of a bomb?


They collective assembly of police officers don't take turns shooting one shot, checking to see if the guy was hit and or dead, then shoot again. They're trained to fire off as many shots as quickly as they can as accurately as they can. It's hard to tell if your three-shot burst hit the guy three times in the head, or once in the shoulder, a miss and a graze. If you're shooting to kill someone, you keep shooting until you're sure. The real-world is not like a video game or a movie where everything slows down and you can see each bullet striking.

I'm not saying what they did is right, far from it. But the standard police tactic around the world is to keep shooting. It's not done out of anger or vengence, it's just standard operating procedure.

[Big Les]

^What he said. There's no such a thing as "overkill" in this scenario, unless one considers members of the public within the cone of fire or behind the (in this case innocent) suspect where rounds overpenetrating might harm them.

If there were only one shooter, 11 shots fired is not by any measure excessive. If there were two or more, that's positively restrained. The weapons used were probably only semi-automatic, but even so, they would simply fire until there was no threat. Of course, at Stockwell, there was no threat, but the officers weren't to know that. This is why Cressida and the gang need to be looked at very closely.

The whole idea of "excessive force" in such a scenario is just bonkers - one bullet might well kill him stone dead, then again it might not. The goal is to do just that, so why risk allowing some level of brain function remaining to trigger a device? Once the decision to kill is made, he's dead either way. What does it matter how many rounds are used? I object to the common cry of "too many bullets" because it's a total red herring. It deflects blame further down the "food chain", below the level of decision making and responsibility.

[Art Vandelay]

A politician discussing truth, how novel? Very sad, just like Tillman.Even more sad, considering that at least Tillman accepted the possibility that he might be shot by people who were supposed to be protecting him.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The IPCC said he was not given a clear warning "that an innocent person would understand" before they shot him. That sounds like it was them to blame to me. Had they told him to stop and stand still as they were supposed to, the whole mess could have been sorted out. Instead, they shot first so that no questions could be asked later.

You assume that they were suppose to give a clear warning. If they were told that they were taking down a suicide bomber on the tube, it is entirely possible they were NOT to give a warning as that may allow him to detonate the bomb.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

They collective assembly of police officers don't take turns shooting one shot, checking to see if the guy was hit and or dead, then shoot again. They're trained to fire off as many shots as quickly as they can as accurately as they can. It's hard to tell if your three-shot burst hit the guy three times in the head, or once in the shoulder, a miss and a graze. If you're shooting to kill someone, you keep shooting until you're sure. The real-world is not like a video game or a movie where everything slows down and you can see each bullet striking.

I'm not saying what they did is right, far from it. But the standard police tactic around the world is to keep shooting. It's not done out of anger or vengence, it's just standard operating procedure.

You might be right. Unfortunately we are not yet allowed to know the circumstances of the shooting because the IPCC report has not been released.

There were reports that the shots took place at three second intervals over a 30 second period and that they took place in two separate bursts - of course that may simply demonstrate how unreliable eyewitness reports are. In the absence of any official report, people will speculate and may well jump to the wrong conclusions.

It is also alleged that he had been restrained by officers BEFORE any shooting took place. Again, because the official report is secret the public are not allowed to know.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Hopefully, this man and his family will have justice.

Afraid not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5186050.stm

[Big Les]

You might be right. Unfortunately we are not yet allowed to know the circumstances of the shooting because the IPCC report has not been released.

There were reports that the shots took place at three second intervals over a 30 second period and that they took place in two separate bursts - of course that may simply demonstrate how unreliable eyewitness reports are. In the absence of any official report, people will speculate and may well jump to the wrong conclusions.

Considering the reports of him wearing "unseasonal" clothing, jumping a barrier and refusing to stop all came from members of the public having misinterpreted what they'd seen, I'd say that's quite likely. Even if true, the whole ethos of "shoot until no longer a threat" still applies *if* Menezes was still moving. But as you say, we are speculating now.

However, I maintain that the circumstances are irrelevant in respect of how many shots were fired into him. One bullet in the head or seven, makes no difference, was my point (though no-one here was really arguing that point). Yet it seems to make an enormous difference to many members of the public (just look at the comments sections of any of the online news reports). I suspect because it sounds "excessive" and brutal. But the guy is just as dead either way, and the approach just as brutal whether "clean" single shot or fusillade. The only difference is in extra upset for the family who can't have an open coffin. We should be concentrating on the failures that led to the situation, not the level of force applied. Let's not help this shower of barstewards get away literally with murder (though it seems that's already happened).

It is also alleged that he had been restrained by officers BEFORE any shooting took place. Again, because the official report is secret the public are not allowed to know.

This is where the "shoot to kill policy" actually comes in - if they restrained him, under that "policy", it would have been to facilitate shooting him in the head until very, very dead, not to apprehend him. The debate on "shoot to kill" ought to be "do we terminate every terrorist suspect with extreme prejudice to limit their chance to detonate any device", rather than "should we shoot them lots, or just a bit?". That's where it's got confused in the media and in pub discussions, and again, it just gets in the way. Based on the disaster at Stockwell, I'd say we just can't have that "extreme prejudice" policy, because our security forces just haven't demonstrated the professionalism and responsibility necessary to avoid innocent deaths. They should have had no reason whatever to believe De Menezes was even a suspect, let alone packing a bomb.

[volatile]

You assume that they were suppose to give a clear warning. If they were told that they were taking down a suicide bomber on the tube, it is entirely possible they were NOT to give a warning as that may allow him to detonate the bomb.

You might be right, but as I understand the IPCC complaint, a warning should have been given. Indeed, the police press office added a section stating that warnings were given and ignored to the press release - even though the officers concerned had not given a warning, the press office added it to the release because they assumed it would have been under standard procedure.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You might be right, but as I understand the IPCC complaint, a warning should have been given. Indeed, the police press office added a section stating that warnings were given and ignored to the press release - even though the officers concerned had not given a warning, the press office added it to the release because they assumed it would have been under standard procedure.

Can you clarify which press release you are talking about? I believe that the Met Police Commissioner originally claimed that a warning was given outside the station at which point he ran away from the police.

In other words it may have been added after the Commissioner made the statement, not on an assumption that it should have been made under procedure.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Considering the reports of him wearing "unseasonal" clothing, jumping a barrier and refusing to stop all came from members of the public having misinterpreted what they'd seen, I'd say that's quite likely. Even if true, the whole ethos of "shoot until no longer a threat" still applies *if* Menezes was still moving. But as you say, we are speculating now.

I think this case is a terrific example of how totally unreliable eyewitnesses reports are.

Between the number of different jackets etc. he was reported as wearing, the different actions that he took in running, walking, jumping, tripping, sitting in the station before being shot and the differing numbers of shots that were heard it is impossible to establish the truth by relying on eyewitness reports alone.

I would have great problems evaluating eyewitness evidence if I ever had to sit on a jury.

[volatile]

Can you clarify which press release you are talking about? I believe that the Met Police Commissioner originally claimed that a warning was given outside the station at which point he ran away from the police.

In other words it may have been added after the Commissioner made the statement, not on an assumption that it should have been made under procedure.


"The Independent Police Complaints Commission report said police had apparently given Mr de Menezes no instruction "that an innocent man would have understood" before he was shot seven times in the head. It contradicts the Met's insistence after the shooting he had failed to obey a challenge by police."

The main quote from the report is this one:

"The IPCC investigation team understands Mr de Menezes did not refuse to obey a challenge prior to being shot and was not wearing any clothing that could be classed as suspicious." - from The Evening Times (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1591990.0.cops_gave_no_warning_before_ tube_shooting.php).

That said, this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article550057.ece) article from the Times suggests, as you thought, that there is no operational insistence on warnings being issued. That, to be honest, scares the bejeebus out of me.

[Rolfe]

Um, late to this thread. Believe it or not, they did have an open coffin. The shots were all to the back of the head, which was essentially obliterated. His cousin said all that on TV after the funeral. I was under the impression that there was only one shooter, but I may be wrong.

The serious minscommunication that was behind this was not highlighted this time. The block of flats was being watched because one flat had been linked to the bombings. The police seemed to have had no way to tell which flat anyone had emerged from, and not to have had ID on the innocent occupants of the other flats in the block. When Jean Charles left his home, one of the policemen thought he was worth checking up on, no more. But something which should have happened, didn't, because the officer in question was taking a pee behind a bush at the time. This was why the decision was made to follow - just as a precaution.

At this stage he was positively identified as "white", while the wanted men were known to be middle-eastern. (Jean Charles was basically white, with dark hair - Portuguese ancestry.) Anyone following him could clearly see he was lightly clad and not concealing a bomb. They followed him onto a bus and then to the tube station, and on to the tube. He sat down, and so did the officer following him.

However, at this point the armed response unit, who had not been doing the following, and had not seen him, were somehow told that "a positive identification had been made". They burst onto the train, guns drawn. The officer who had been following him stood up and pointed him out to the armed men. I don't know what that officer thought, but I suspect he thought they were going to arrest the suspect. At this point Jean Charles (who had been inoffensively reading a newspaper) realised something was going on related to him, and made to stand up. He was pushed back into his seat, by one account by someone with his arms wrapped round his (Jean Charles') upper arms and torso, and shot as described.

It's the miscommunication between "we'd better follow this guy just in case, but he's white", from people who could see that he wasn't carrying anything, to "we have a positive ID" told to people who hadn't seen for themselves that this man was not an immediate threat, and then translated into not just "arrest that man, he's one of the suspects", but "kill that man he may have a bomb", that disturbs me.

One lawyer remarked that even if he had been one of the bombers he had a right to a trial, and not to be executed in cold blood. Only if he was reasonably suspected of having explosives on him, was the shooting justified. EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN HUSSAIN OSMIN! The way this was handled seems to suggest that the police think it's OK to shoot a suspect, so long as it's the right guy, even if he isn't doing anything at the time. As this guy clearly was not, not in a t-shirt, jeans and a short, thin denim jacket hanging unbuttoned. And this is scary.

I don't want to call the people on the forum who defended the shooting at the time "right-wing scumbags" because they included Wildcat (who made a very free apology as soon as he realised the truth). It was very much fuelled by the false eyewitness reports, some of them wholly fanciful, but which were not only not contradicted by the police, they were
encouraged. Some of us, yes, said we shouldn't be too quick to condemn until we knew what had happened, but it was all very confused.

Blame for misleading the public is all well and good, but what about the actual victim? An incident like this with no-one held responsible would have been unthinkable pre-11 September. It ought still to be.


Sorry, but it actually happened to someone before 11th September 2001. Harry Stanley (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1343780.stm). Don't be a Scotsman in London, carrying something in a plastic bag, you might be shot because someone thinks you're an Irishman with a gun. No justice for that family either. Room for suspicion that the police officers were rearranging the facts after the event to exonerate themselves. Conclusion, if a police officer "sincerely" thinks you're a threat, no matter on what flimsy or implausible grounds, he can kill you with no fear of the consequences.

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

"The Independent Police Complaints Commission report said police had apparently given Mr de Menezes no instruction "that an innocent man would have understood" before he was shot seven times in the head. It contradicts the Met's insistence after the shooting he had failed to obey a challenge by police."

I think this is a reference to this:

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said after the shooting: "As I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

Of course at this point the UK's senior counter terrorism officer had not bothered to tell the Commissioner that they thought they had shot an innocent man. Apparently we are supposed to belief that he briefed crime reporters on the afternoon of the shooting but didn't mention it at an internal meeting that day or tell the Commissioner until the next morning.

Anyone think that is remotely credible?

[Big Les]

Rolfe, great post. I'm aware of Harry Stanley, but had viewed it as a different situation. Having read this decision (http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stanley_ipcc_decision_feb_06.pdf), and this report (http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stanley_report_to_ipcc_03.02.06_for_publication.pd f), and thought about the two incidents, they are very similar in many respects - duff intel from police and the public leading to an armed response. There is one (to me) crucial difference:

Stanley was actually challenged at range by armed police, and failed to comply with their instructions. If a fair assessment, this makes Stanley somewhat more akin to a "suicide by cop" situation than an outright unjustified killing. De Menezes (as far as I can tell) was simply rushed and murdered, with no opportunity to comply, as a direct result of this anti-terrorist so-called "shoot-to-kill" policy. There seems to be a greater scope for incompetence on the parts of the shooters in the Stanley case - apparently at no stage did he directly threaten either the officers, as they claimed, and may not even have turned to face them in the manner they describe. This could make the incident more of an across-the-board failure than Stockwell seems to have been (I await the "1" report with interest). I also find the idea that as long the officers believed they were threatened, that justifies their actions, to be quite bizarre. A bad call based on a misreading of the situation is still just that, and should still attract grave consequences.

Both incidents should, it seems to me, have yielded greater consequences for somebody than they have. All we seem to have had is "oops, sorry about that, these things happen". Not good enough.

[Rolfe]

Did Harry Stanley really "fail to comply with their instructions"? My reading of it was simply that he was confused, had no idea what these guys were shouting about, and did very little as a result. Some of the things he was later said to have done, by the policemen who of course were the only witnesses, were frankly incredible, and in the light of his recent medical history, well-nigh impossible.

The de Menezes thing happened at fast-forward, while the Stanley affair was more slow motion, but I think that in essence it was the same thing.

Rolfe.

[Newtons Bit]

You might be right. Unfortunately we are not yet allowed to know the circumstances of the shooting because the IPCC report has not been released.

There were reports that the shots took place at three second intervals over a 30 second period and that they took place in two separate bursts - of course that may simply demonstrate how unreliable eyewitness reports are. In the absence of any official report, people will speculate and may well jump to the wrong conclusions.

It is also alleged that he had been restrained by officers BEFORE any shooting took place. Again, because the official report is secret the public are not allowed to know.


Indeed. I'm just pointing out that it's really not a fair thing to say "overkill" or "excessive force" when the cops shoot somebody a whole lot. Now if they empty a magazine and stop, reload, and keep shooting again, that would be symptomatic of a deep psychological problem with the police officer.

[Big Les]

Quite right Newton. The only limit to the number of rounds discharged on a suicide bomb suspect should be the safety of the public around and behind the target. Of course, that assumes that your suspect isn't a Brazilian electrician.

Now, to pick up on the current "Health and Safety" trial of the Metropolitan police, there have been a few reports making their way out of the trial, including confirmation that de Menezes was positively (if erroneously) ID'd as one of the 7/7 bombers.

Rather damningly though, it seems that the commander of the operation didn't think she was ordering her men to open (http://news.google.co.uk/news/url?sa=t&ct=uk/0-1&fp=471903725ea98df6&ei=6s0ZR6b7EYWmoAPHkNGhAg&url=http%3A//ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihcEnAaQw6awufCjf8rq1_ea2KEQ&cid=1122165016) fire on the suspect.

Honestly, we really prepared the guest room for Mr Cockup on this one.

[Big Les]

Well, no individual officer has stood trial for this farce, but the Metropolitan Police have been convicted of...breaking health and safety laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069673.stm). I should say so - they shot an innocent foreign national dead through what can only be described as serial incompetence. Absolutely pathetic that their only censure should be in this form. I have to say the Tories are right to call for the Chief's resignation, but he seems to be the proud owner of a kevlar gimp-suit. Shame de Menezes wasn't, eh Ian?

Will we ever see the Stockwell 1 report detailing the actual events of that day? What of an inquest? Never mind "Princess" Di ten years on, never mind 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracies let's have the authorities held to account for what they've actually done.

ETA - the comments by the Royal United Services Institute who study operational and security matters are quite interesting in this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069673.stm) which also has a reconstruction graphic of the events (take with a pinch of salt, naturally).

"Dr Sandra Bell, of the Royal United Services Institute, told the BBC the force still needs to answer tough questions about how it manages critical information that can change the nature of an operation.

"Continuously throughout this trial we heard it was not an ideal situation - but in this information age, that really isn't an excuse," she said.

"This was something that had been going on for at least 24 hours, plenty enough time in my mind to take that long-term view and put a proper top-down command and control structure in.

"I think they really need to take a long hard look at their command structures."

In other words, they pretty much prepared the guest-room for Mr Cockup.

[Big Les]

Oh, and I seem to remember someone commented on the "swarthometer (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17081)" being applied in this case - i.e. casual racism forming a basis for a positive ID on a terrorist suspect. It seems the intelligence officer in this case "Ivor", was unable to get such an ID, but described de Menezes as having "Mongolian eyes". I assume he (or the BBC reporting it) meant "Mongoloid eyes". Either way, what the hell were they thinking? I'm not one to cry "racism" at the drop of a hat, but as being vaguely the same skin tone as a known terrorist and acting "nervously" were the only criteria for blowing de Menezes brains out, I strongly suspect that racism did indeed play a part. Perhaps that's an unhelpful red herring - bottom line is that the Met were incompetent and killed a man.