The Brazilian electrician shot dead by police who thought he was a suicide bomber had been acting in an "aggressive and threatening manner" when confronted by officers, a court heard on Friday. Menezes was walking to the station, buying a ticket and getting on the train - well if that is behaving in an agressive manner, what chance have we got with a few drinks inside us.
The murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was gunned down as he boarded an underground train at Stockwell tube station in south London was a "terrible accident", said the lawyer defending the capital's force which is on trial for breaking health and safety laws. But he had been behaving "aggressive and threatening manner". De Menezes was shot seven times in the head for being agressive and threatening against 6 armed police officers??
Agressive manner??? no one else on the train saw his "agressiveness" Just what do our police do when confronted by a really agressive person, nuke him?
2007-10-26 04:54:57 · 18 answers · asked by Knight Crusader 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The proud upholders of the law weren't even wearing uniform. So De Menezes didn't even know who they were when they grabbed him.
2007-10-26 05:06:04 · answer #1 · answered by the norm 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think you are seriously missing the point!!!!
The point is that this man was suspected of being one of the failed bombers from the day before. He was heading onto the tube. Was he in possession of another device? Was he about to detonate that device on the tube? Would innocent people be killed? These were all questions that needed to be asked/answered. The command had to make decisions in a short time based on the threat assessment.
You do not deal with suicide bombers in the normal manner. You do not overtly challenge the person. Give them any warning whatsoever and they can detonate the device. This rules out most if not all of the less lethal options available to the police. This includes communication, passive attack dog, baton gun, Taser, baton, gas, etc. Shoot them in central body mass and they can still function to detonate the device, the trigger of which could be in their hand. Anything other than a close range head shot, causing flacid paralysis, gives them chance to blow themsleves up and any innocent people in the vicinity. They do not care if those innocent people are women or children. You only have to look at the previous bombings.
This is not routine policing. Far from it. This is not something that the police want to do. This is something that has to be done as a last resort. The police officers would have clear instructions of what they had to do from those in command. If the officers failed to act and the suspect had blown himself up killing countless others then they would have seriously failed.
The end result was brutal but necessary if the circumstances were right. The sad part is that the person was innocent and the surveillance officers failed. It was also sad that certain people attempted to cover up certain facts and information.
If you were dealing with this situation what would you have done?
2007-10-27 10:40:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
regardless of whether or not Jean Charles de Menezes was in the country illegally, there was no justification for shooting Jean Charles de Menezes 7 times in the head. The cops used excessive force, endangered the public and failed identify themselves to de Menezes. The zeal with which they carried out the operation made the Terminator look like Barney the dinosaur! Could they not hav used tazers? My condolences go out the de Menezes family
2007-10-26 12:18:36 · answer #3 · answered by Well, it's about time! 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I remember being very scared for a friend who was flying to the middle-east shortly after 7/7 as I predicted that the police in London would be trigger-happy. This was before poor Jean Charles de Menezes was slaughtered and my friend thought I was panicking needlessly although he reassured me that he was flying from Glasgow via Amsterdam.
I know this doesn't really answer your question but it was horrible when my fears were confirmed.
2007-10-26 12:14:36 · answer #4 · answered by SLH 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
before firing a shot the police should have clearly identified their target they didn't this is basic stuff we are talking about here, had they done that then this whole incident would not have happened, the surveillance operation mounted by the plod was amateurish they had ample time to i.d their target and they failed miserably this man was under survailence since he left his house they should of had a positive i.d on him they had plenty of time to do this, if this man was a suspected terrorist carring an I.E.D you do not let him get on a packed tube, another mistake. I suggest the the met police suspend all future surveillance operations and let 14 int take over as they are the best in the business, this was nothing short of murder its as simple as that an Innocent unarmed man was killed because trigger happy police wanted to prove themselves, and i doubt a single one will be held accountable for his murder, that's the British justice system for you, whoever was in charge of this operation should resign and the officers who fired should be taken off firearm duty for good as they are clearly unable to make the right decision when it matters, no officer has been convicted over any of the 24 fatal police shootings in the past 10 years................. how strange
EDIT; people shouldn’t comment on what "might have happened" the ifs and maybes are irrelevant, only facts matter here and the facts are the plod didn’t get a positive I.D they messed up the surveillance operation and shot an innocent unarmed man 7 times in the head, and then they tried to cover it up, people who think it "was just a mistake" should put themselves in the families position and then make dumb comments
2007-10-27 15:59:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In my opinion it would be extremely difficult to be"acting in an aggressive and threatening manner"when threatened by six gun waving people !
Much of the police evidence that has so far been made public has been contradictory.
I have the feeling this is another example of a "State whitewash."
2007-10-26 12:13:53 · answer #6 · answered by harryhotun 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is obvious that the Met made a complete b--ls up of the operation. Let us not forget that he was in this country illegally having overstayed his permit. if this had not been the case he would not have run away from the police with such tragic consequences. I Wonder what the 20/20 vision people would have said if a bomb had been set off.
2007-10-27 18:45:18 · answer #7 · answered by Scouse 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I didn't see the videos or anything so I have nothing to say on that matter. However, I do wonder why people say he was shot 7 times when one would do, or they shot him 23 times or whatever. Who cares how many times he was shot?? Dead is dead.
2007-10-26 13:04:08 · answer #8 · answered by Scott B 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
FACT. The video evidence shown on the TV showed him to be acting totally normally.
FACT. The police originally said that no video /CCTV cameras were working.
I would like to see evidence that he was an illegal. (can anyone give me any?)
Anyway that is no defence, unless the police are saying it is OK to shoot illegals. If it is, when does the hunting season begin?
2007-10-26 12:41:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The guy was in the country illegally , the guy was a dead ringer for a now convicted terrorist and did not obey police instructions to stop. Its just a pity they did not shoot the dopey Doctors who tried to bomb us since then and would have done so if they had not been too thick to read the instructions.
2007-10-26 12:47:51 · answer #10 · answered by catblackindia 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋