How can the Police be legally guilty of the death of a man who wasn't legally in the UK ?

Question

Menezes shouldn't have been here and was in effect commiting a criminal act.
It's a disgrace that the police have been found guilty.

Mr Septic: No need to be abusive to me.

Tank : No. I'd be a criminal and deserve all I got.
I'm fed up with people disregarding criminal behaiour on the basis of a scale from 1 to 10. It's high time we rid ourselves of that thinking. A crime is a crime and criminals forfeit their rights in society.

Answer 1

The police are scum. If a joe on the street had killed this man it would be life in prison. The police recently ran over the brother of a good friend of mine and they weren't even so much as reprimanded. He was a good worker and great family man. They were speeding and weren't even heading to an emergency when they hit and killed him. The police are above the law. They are scum. They are scum. I never ring the police for anything. I would rather die.

Answer 2

We were all saddened by the death of an innocent person.

I have commented many times on this subject and as a firearms cop am fully aware of the implications of shooting someone. Normally it is the individual officers responsibility to shoot. You will shoot because your life or the life of another is in imminent danger. Other means must have been tried and failed, or would be unlikely to succeed in the circumstances. We can expect a split second decision being analysed minutely in the cold light of day.

The Menezes case however was something never seen before on UK shores. Firearms officers dealing with a suspected terrorist, possibly carrying a device. The country was on the highest alert from the previous days attempts.

It was disappointing that the intelligence / information led to his death. It was also disapponting that certain facts were covered up.

The firearms officers would have been given clear instructions of what they had to do. This was not normal policing. They could not make a verbal challenge, or use any of the less lethal options normally available. A terrorist with a device would have easy access to detonate that device, therefore there was only one way to deal with that person... as brutal as it sounds. The belief of the officers is that they are saving possibly hundreds of lives in doing so. What choice did they have? Fail to act and risk mass murder by the terrorist.

I must stress that the police would not have made a verbal challenge nor identified themselves as firearms officers. That was never the intention. The only way to stop this person was to cause flacid paralysis of the brain. Any other option would have left the male free to detonate a device.

Answer 3

you're right dude. this man who was shot was an illegal immigrant and a cocaine addict handing out money to drugs barons so they can shoot people to death on our streets. Furthermore he was from Brazil where he would have been in far greater danger from police incompetence. Because in Brazil there was a time not long ago when the government threatened to stamp out corruption in the police force and the police went on a rampage and killed 30 innocent civilians. But over here the police mistake a cocaine-addicted illegal immigrant for a terrorist and everyone gets all emotional.

Answer 4

For all that shout about disgrace - had he been a terrorist and about to kill you, your partner and children you wouldn't talk such rubbish!

We were in a high alert 'terrorist threat situation'. His death WAS tragic but hey lets criminalise these highly trained officers who put their lives on the line for who ME AND YOU!
They got it wrong - how many innocent people would have lost their lives if they had been right and hesitated!

Get real and go after the real ' guilty ' ones.

or

Sign up and do a better job!

Answer 5

The Home Office said he arrived in Britain on 13 March 2002, initially being granted a six-month visitor's visa. He then applied to stay on a student visa, receiving permission to remain until 30 June 2003. It said it had no record of any further correspondence. A spokeswoman added: "We have seen a copy of Mr de Menezes' passport, containing a stamp apparently giving him indefinite leave to remain in the UK. On investigation, this stamp was not one that was in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on the date given."

The family of de Menezes however deny this, and then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that he believed de Menezes was living in the UK legally

....So, it seems to Home Sec was happy he was NOT an illegal immigrant. And even if he was, does that give the police a right to murder him?

The trial also said he did not "run away" or "jump the ticket barrier" - the POLICE jumped the barrier, not him.

Answer 6

like various united states, you obey the regulations of that united states at the same time as in that united states. at the same time as the age of consent regulation for spain maintains to be at 13. definite you could. besides the undeniable fact that, bear in mind that various regulations in the united kingdom prepare to uk voters and citizens whereever they're in the international, so might get arrested and charged while they return or are demanded to return !! (As Gary Glitter found out) Is the boy in touch (because it fairly is the boy who gets charged) going to be caught, charged or reported - no, should be very no longer likely, until eventually the lady cries rape (!) to the united kingdom government and the boy is a uk resident (and subject to uk regulation besides).

Answer 7

He did not deserve to die but his own conduct on the day made it inevitable. he was not an innocent man he was here illegally.
Had he been one of the bombers and succeeded I wonder what the 20/20 vision experts would have said then.
Where the Met need kicking is that when it was obvious that they had got the wrong man, it should have been properly reported not to the press by the way but the the Chief. it shows that trust and discipline within the Met had dropped to a frightening degree

Answer 8

This question is so unbelievably stupid, I'm at a loss at what to say. HOW THE HECK DOES THAT JUSTIFY MURDER? That means if you are illegally in another country and someone kills you, especially if they didn't do their homework correctly, your friends and family, as well as the public, will understand and be okay with it because at the end of the day, you shouldn't have been there? There's one born every minute...

Answer 9

The propaganda put out by the police is clearly still believed by many.

Some established facts, now verified by the Met themselves:

* Menezes was NOT an illegal immigrant - his status here was legal. Even if he was illegal that would make absolutely no difference to how the police should have conducted themselves.
* The police did not stop or challenge him at any point
* At no point did he run from the police (obviously, as he did not know they were there)
* When he was shot in the head seven times at point blank range he was sitting on the train, not making any attempts to get away, or in fact doing anything suspicious at all

These are all verifiable facts that came out of the case. You can even watch all of the CCTV footage that the police didn't conveniently lose, as it was released to the media today, so you can see for yourself that Menezes was just a commuter like any other, who was brutally murdered by incompetent police officers.

Answer 10

I agree with Mr Sceptic ?.Blair should resign, this is not the first time he has made mistakes in his job, as well as being an arrogant tosser, he is also a danger to the public by being in the position he holds.

Answer 11

You really are an idiot.

You say Menezes was in this country illegally, then Home Secretary, Jack Straw says he wasn't. Who is more likely to know the truth - the man in charge of immigration or Mickyboy?

And if he was? (Which he wasn't)

You seem to think that the police should have the right to summarily execute an illegal immigrant, without challenge. In a country which doesn't have the death penalty.

It's entirely proper that the Metropolitan Police has been found guilty of a catalogue of errors which lead to a man's death.

(But it's OK, Mickyboy - it was only a foreigner)

It's also entirely proper that none of the individual officers have been held culpable for Menezes' death, which was due to poor procedures at Scotland Yard. There's only one man responsible, in the final analysis, and that's the man at the top. Sir Ian Blair should resign.