No "padded coat"...no turnstile jumping


PDA






Graystar
July 29, 2005, 12:39 PM
Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a jeans jacket and he used a travel card to enter the tubes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537613,00.html

If you enjoyed reading about "No "padded coat"...no turnstile jumping" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RevDisk
July 29, 2005, 01:11 PM
Gee. How interesting. Funny how the story keeps getting more horrifying as more details as released.

So lemme get this right. This Brazilian electrician goes to some place to fix a fire alarm. He is not dressed in any suspicious matter nor acting in a suspicious manner. He was wearing a denim jacket, which is hardly "bulky". It's near a place of interest by the police. Police (not in uniform) follow the guy for a length of time. Then pull out guns, do not identify themselves, chase the guy. He tries to take a subway and uses something like the EZ-Pass system.

He gets pinned down by two officers, while a third fires a number of rounds into his head. I've heard five rounds, which has since jumped to eight rounds.

Hmm... Did I miss anything?

Because it sounds like an execution.

boofus
July 29, 2005, 01:15 PM
They left out the part where undercover officers took turns biting chunks out of his arms and legs and shocking him with tasers, then they set his house on fire, shot his wife and dog, then they put panties on his head, pulled out his fingernails, dunked his head in a bucket, gouged out his eyes, stretched him on the rack, kicked him in the nuts, boiled him in oil, flogged him, stoned him, hung him, and then shot him for no real reason at all.

:rolleyes:

Remember the source of the article and any agenda they might have.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 01:25 PM
...the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.

Unbiased disinterested reporter there.

Graystar
July 29, 2005, 01:31 PM
Unbiased disinterested reporter there.You missed these parts...

Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier.Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police,...

Pilgrim
July 29, 2005, 01:37 PM
This is something easily proven or disproven by photography of the scene after the shooting and his clothing held in evidence.

Pilgrim

mzmtg
July 29, 2005, 01:44 PM
This is something easily proven or disproven by photography of the scene after the shooting and his clothing held in evidence.

Pilgrim

Link to photos?

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 02:15 PM
You missed these parts...
I missed nothing. It's still the relatives saying what the Met knows.

If there was just a press conference, don't you think the news would quote a Met officer if he said anything of the sort?

GunGoBoom
July 29, 2005, 02:28 PM
This is something easily proven or disproven by photography of the scene after the shooting and his clothing held in evidence.

Right, photos which probably no one will ever see, if he was indeed wearing a jean jacket, on that 62 deg low/69 deg high weather day. Much like how the door to the Branch Davidian compound was whisked away in a government van, never to be seen again. The door that some witnesses said contained bullet holes from federal agents shot into in order to keep the massacre victims from be able to escape with their lives after the fire was set. It will certainly be interesting to see whether or not the photos ever show up, won't it? Maybe their camera malfunctioned.... maybe some boofus in the lab opened up the film and exposed it to daylight - dammit, but we're gonna fire that guy! We'll see.

Lone_Gunman
July 29, 2005, 02:30 PM
The amazing thing to me about this story is that so many people here are trying to justify and support what the police did.

It is amazing that so many people on a message board dedicated to civil rights are willing to trade away those rights so easily in return for a perceived sense of safety.

The London Police have ADMITTED the mistake and ACCEPTED responsibility, yet people are still claiming they did nothing wrong. If the police themselves are saying "oops we messed up", then why is anyone else trying to say otherwise.

Master Blaster
July 29, 2005, 02:38 PM
Here in the USA the police would be on trial for MURDER.


But in the UK officers of the Queen are never wrong. SO there will be no trial, and no real investigation.

Not at all surprising.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 02:45 PM
It is amazing that so many people on a message board dedicated to civil rights are willing to trade away those rights so easily in return for a perceived sense of safety.
Please point to a post where anyone said or implied that.
The London Police have ADMITTED the mistake and ACCEPTED responsibility, yet people are still claiming they did nothing wrong.
Please point to a post where anyone said or implied that.

The bobbies shot the wrong guy, but that doesn't mean that his relatives are telling the truth when their account varies broadly from the accounts of witnesses.

It is possible -- likely, even -- that the dead guy was wearing a bulky coat, ran from cops, and was NOT a terrorist.

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 02:47 PM
Here in the USA the police would be on trial for MURDER.Here in the USA they would have been given the Lon Horiuchi Medal of Bravery and promoted.

HankB
July 29, 2005, 02:55 PM
I just don't know the full story here, so I can't make a definitive judgement.

But the stories I've seen all seem to be consistent in that the officers were "undercover" or "plainclothes" operatives.

It would be enlightening to know how they went about identifying themselves as police officers, and if they did anything beyond pulling guns and screaming the Brit equivalent of "Drop, <expletive>!!

Unarmed, my inclination would be to run from screaming men (dressed in ordinary clothes) if they were waving guns around, too, no matter what they were screaming.

gc70
July 29, 2005, 02:56 PM
Acknowledging reality is different from trying to justify and support what the police did.

This thread is based on the Brazilian's family's statement that the police told the family that the Brazilian was wearing a jeans jacket.

How is it "trying to justify and support what the police did" to question the validity of the statement about the jeans jacket?

I question the statement about the jeans jacket because it is directly at odds with multiple eyewitness accounts made immediately after the incident. For instance, this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm) entitled "I saw Tube man shot - eyewitness" contains the following:
He [the suspect] had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket.

Master Blaster
July 29, 2005, 02:58 PM
The 4 police officers who shot Amadou Diallo in 1999 (a case of mistaken identity and a misidentified weapon) were put on trial and acquited by a jury of their peers. NYC paid a 3 million dollar judgement to his family for wrongful death because they lost the civil suit.

Cosmoline
July 29, 2005, 03:04 PM
Big city US cops do this kind of thing on a regular basis, only they usually miss the suspect with half their shots. And they usually don't have as good an excuse as a possible suicide bomber.

If they had reason to fear he was about to detonate, destroying his brain is the only way to stop him.

It now appears the man was running because he had expired papers and should not have been in the UK. All in all, probably just a tragic series of misunderstandings and panic on both sides.

Crosshair
July 29, 2005, 03:08 PM
OK, so are we soposed to dress in black uniforms or dark grey? I've been practicing my Sig Heil. Other than that I should be ready to go to England and be a proper subject. :barf: :barf: :barf:

/Police screwed up, no question.

DRZinn
July 29, 2005, 03:16 PM
I've questioned from the beginning whether it was a "bulky" coat or if that was just puffery. Now it comes out he didn't jump the turnstile like they said. Add to that the fact that the police were not uniformed, and you've got virtually nothing left except that he lived in the same building as a suspect, had dark skin, and tried to take a train.

Pretty slim.

CentralTexas
July 29, 2005, 03:32 PM
They grow COFFEEE in Brazil don't they, Hmmmmm
2+2=5
CT :D

thorn726
July 29, 2005, 03:44 PM
The amazing thing to me about this story is that so many people here are trying to justify and support what the police did.

It is amazing that so many people on a message board dedicated to civil rights are willing to trade away those rights so easily in return for a perceived sense of safety.

The London Police have ADMITTED the mistake and ACCEPTED responsibility, yet people are still claiming they did nothing wrong. If the police themselves are saying "oops we messed up", then why is anyone else trying to say otherwise.

and then how they all claim it isnt happening, got to love it.

especially the attitudes before we found out the guy was a nobody.

people want to feel like it was an honest, easily made mistake.
it wasn't it was a horrible horrible miscalculation made by morons.

even the slightest justification makes all of us suceptible to the same fate.

Cosmoline
July 29, 2005, 03:54 PM
If you really think someone is about to detonate, whether you are a cop or a citizen the ONLY thing you can do to stop them is destroy their central nervous system. This means chopping their head off after pinning them down or blowing it off with handguns. There is absolutely no other choice.

Obviously, the cops screwed up because this guy was not a bomber just an illegal. But as screwups go it's easy to understand. Assuming the police ID' themselves and the fellow ran in a panic onto a crowded subway train, I can see why that would look like someone about to detonate.

For example, if the guy in front of you on an airplane is trying to light his shoes on fire and put them against the glass of his window, the only thing you can do is grab his neck in a sleeper hold and squeeze as hard as you possibly can. I know I would. Hell I'd squeeze until it came off! And I wouldn't loose a night's sleep even if it turned out there was nothing but empty fuses in his shoes. You see a suicide bomber, you do everything humanly possible to secure his arms and destroy his head by all means necessary or you'll end up in little sandwitch bags in a lab getting your DNA identified.

Kurush
July 29, 2005, 03:54 PM
Note: The decedent was from BRAZIL
They grow COFFEEE in Brazil don't they, Hmmmmm :eek:
One of the real bombers was from Eritrea... Which ALSO GROWS COFFEE :what:

:uhoh:

agricola
July 29, 2005, 04:24 PM
this is still not something that has been confirmed, and it is not something that has been supported by witnesses at the time.

Harry Tuttle
July 29, 2005, 04:39 PM
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=29642

BRITAIN:
Police Response More Frightening Than the Killing

Sanjay Suri

LONDON, Jul 26 (IPS) - That an innocent Brazilian was shot dead on the London Underground is tragic; but the near justification of that killing by the police is frightening.

The police have now openly declared a shoot-to-kill policy, and declared that they can shoot to kill just on suspicion. And that suspicion arising not from reliable intelligence or anything like that, but from just how someone may behave somewhere.

Until the other day everyone thought that a Brit licensed to kill was a character in a James Bond film. Now that is official British policy.

London's police commissioner Sir Ian Blair expressed ''regret'' -- and no more -- over the death of Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes. That ''regret'' was accompanied by the remark that there could be more such killing of innocent people.

Ian Blair said the police had a shoot-to-kill policy to stop suspected suicide bombers. ''This is not a Metropolitan (police) policy, this is a national policy and I think we are quite comfortable that the policy is right, but of course these are fantastically difficult times...there are still officers having to make those calls as we speak. Somebody else could be shot.''

Not many police chiefs of cities around the world who carry the responsibility of protecting their citizens would say this. The chilling message is that right or wrong, if an armed policeman is suspicious of your movements, it is okay, in fact required by national policy to instantly shoot to kill.

His predecessor John Stevens spelt out in bloody detail in an article in 'The News of the World' weekly what his police had learnt from the Israeli police. ''I sent teams to Israel and other countries hit by suicide bombers where we learned a terrible truth. There is only one sure way to stop a suicide bomber determined to fulfil his mission -- destroy his brain instantly, utterly. That means shooting him with devastating power in the head, killing him immediately.''

Charles was shot eight times, seven times in the head and once in the shoulder. Given the police environment these days, he could be penalized for getting one of the eight shots wrong.

But Stevens expressed more than just regret. ''My heart goes out to the officer who killed the man in Stockwell Tube Station,'' he wrote. Some people thought at first they had read that wrong. But no, his heart was not going out to the man killed, or to his family and friends; it went out to the policeman who killed him.

The lies after lies that came thick and fast after that shooting uncover just how hollow the suspicions might be on the strength of which they have been given powers to shoot to kill.

First, that he was being watched and shadowed as he left his block of flats to take a bus to the station. That he was then followed to the train and shot when he ran. But there is now no word from the police why they were shadowing a Brazilian electrician -- if they were shadowing him at all, that is. They said they shadowed him 15 minutes on a bus, but not a word why they did not intercept him earlier.

Then came the announcement that he had been ''directly connected'' to inquiries over the attempts to plant bombs on trains a day earlier. Then the admission that this was not so at all, though the police were ''comfortable'' with the policy that made such a mistake possible.

Followed the announcement that he was an illegal immigrant and that he therefore ran when he saw the police. It then turned out he was not illegal at all. And no word why he ran, or even whether it was the case that he was challenged by the police and was running from the police. And there was more, that he came from a suspect neighbourhood, that his jacket was too heavy for that hot summer day

It was always frightening to know that you had to do all of nothing, just be somewhere some time to get blown up by a terrorist. Now people know you could be doing almost nothing to get shot by the police. There needs to be as little sense to a policeman's suspicion as to a terrorist's madness.

Save us from the terrorists; but please also someone save us from our saviours. (END/2005)

Art Eatman
July 29, 2005, 05:05 PM
Hey, look: When poeple are frightened, it strikes me as wise to not give cause for further alarm. Right or wrong doesn't enter into it. Civil rights don't enter into it. You just don't go around in any manner that adds to an adrenalin rush.

I'm not saying I like that situation. But, I do want to live through it.

The guy apparently (as a Brazilian) looked somewhat like those who've been blowing things up. "Somewhat" is all it takes. Since his visa had expired (if other reports are factual) he tried to escape, ignoring commands to halt. Again, I'm assuming there was some variant of "Stop! Police!" or whatever. When he fled, he caused the adrenalin rush in armed people who were scared of the possibilities.

Guess what? It's gonna happen again, somewhere. Bet on it.

Art

Lone_Gunman
July 29, 2005, 05:28 PM
It's gonna happen again, somewhere. Bet on it.

You are correct. Its going to happen a lot more and the government will always claim there was good reason to do it. The sheep, eager to always remain safe, will accept this at face value.


Matt Payne,

You are asking me to show a reference to the fact that the London police have accepted responsibility for this action? Are you serious? Do you really not know they have accepted responsibility and apologized already?

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 05:51 PM
Matt Payne,

You are asking me to show a reference to the fact that the London police have accepted responsibility for this action? Are you serious? Do you really not know they have accepted responsibility and apologized already?

Sigh.

Again, no. I'm saying that only the relatives have said that the police have admitted that he wasn't wearing a bulky jacket. the police and eyewitnesses said he was.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 05:53 PM
I'm assuming there was some variant of "Stop! Police!" or whatever. When he fled, he caused the adrenalin rush in armed people who were scared of the possibilities.

Being in the UK for years, the poor sod may have assumed that the cops were echoing that famous unarmed police cry: "Stop! Or I'll say 'stop' again!" :(

Lone_Gunman
July 29, 2005, 05:57 PM
No Matt, what I am saying is that the police have apologized and accepted responsibility for the death. I am not talking about the coat involved.

They know they screwed up, and I don't see why anyone wants to claim otherwise if they themselves are admitting this.

I realize the police have a tough job and have to make split second decisions where life hangs in the balance. So do I, everyday. But I think giving them a free ride when something like this happens only encourages them to make similar mistakes in the future.

I would rather be killed with an enemy's bomb than shot down by my own police.

Art Eatman
July 29, 2005, 06:06 PM
LG, I'm less worried about governmental excusing than I am about the fear on the part of those at some scene, "armed and dangerous". Those guys are THERE; "government" is off somewhere in an office. Overall, my point is that I want to live through some sort of encounter--or not have an encounter in the first place.

The odds of my being where some terr is gonna do his thing are a lot less than some sort of involvement with Established Order. Self defense includes playing the odds.

Art

Cosmoline
July 29, 2005, 06:44 PM
and declared that they can shoot to kill just on suspicion. And that suspicion arising not from reliable intelligence or anything like that, but from just how someone may behave somewhere.

You know what? I can shoot someone on suspicion, based soley on how they are behaving toward me. If a man rushes at me screaming with his arm upraised and something in his hand, I can blow him away and I've committed no crime if it later turns out he had a piece of fruit.

And if I think someone is a suicide bomber, based on their actions, appearance and behavior, I will kill them.

Also, "shoot to kill" is redundant. Come on, people.

Andrew Rothman
July 29, 2005, 06:50 PM
LG, please read my posts again.

I'm not giving the London police a free ride, and I don't see anyone here that is. That's what I asked you to cite.

But neither am I going to wholeheartedly condemn them and believe everything that the relatives of the poor dead Brazilian guy say. That's also what I said.

Did the guy probably seal his own fate by running? Yeah, probably. But running ought not be a capital offense.

These are bad times, and unfortunately we shouldn't be too surprised when some innocents get hurt by the good guys as well as the bad.

Lone_Gunman
July 29, 2005, 07:48 PM
Matt...

I did not address any of my initial comments directly at you. I was simply making observations. The observations were not limited to this single thread even.

There have been several threads on this subject, and some people have made comments to the effect that the Brazilian guy should not have run, should not have been wearing a coat, should not have been in the vicinity of known terrorists,etc. All of that may be true, but none of it is a capital offense, and none of it should be used to try to make excuses for mistakes the police made, but some people have done just that (not you, Matt, and not really even in this thread so far, so relax).

I am not going to look all this stuff, I have read it, and you can too with the help of the search function, and I don't mean that disrespectfully.

As far as not giving the London PD a free ride, what exactly would you do if you were able to do something about this?

JohnBT
July 30, 2005, 08:11 AM
So far in this thread I've learned that the man had an expired visa and was not in the country unlawfully. :confused:

John

gc70
July 30, 2005, 09:58 AM
In this and related threads, I have seen excellent points on both sides of the discussion and information supporting both sides. More importantly, divergent attitudes and philosophies have been expressed about this incident that I would love to explore.

What standards should apply to the police (or government or "authorities") in this incident? Should the standards applied to the police (or government or "authorities") be different than the standards applied to common citizens? If so why and with what differences?

What underlying philosophy should govern? Should it be the philosophy of the individual reflected at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence? Or should it be the philosophy of a society reflected at the beginning of the Constitution? When the two philosophies are in conflict, which should prevail?

Lone_Gunman
July 30, 2005, 10:14 AM
I think the government should adopt a "First, do no harm to its own citizens" policy.

In other words, don't shoot people in coats just because they have dark hair and are not behaving the way the government wishes they would.

I do not expect the police to be able to defend me against terrorists all the time. If we take the subway system in NYC as an example, tens of thousands of people access it daily through many subway stations. There is no way to protect something that size, and with that many people using it. I don't expect the government to be able to do that, and I don't want them to waste my tax dollars trying to do something impossible.

Unfortunately, I think most people do want the government to do "whatever it takes" to keep them safe, and if that means an occassional sheep takes a bullet, they are fine with that.

I honestly don't think we want to live in the type of society where terrorism is not possible.

If you enjoyed reading about "No "padded coat"...no turnstile jumping" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!