On July 22, 2005, British police mistakenly shot and killed an innocent Brazilian man, John De Menzies) in London's subway system. The story starts at a block of flats in Tulse Hill, South London, where De Menzes, lived. The police were present in Scotia Road, South London, monitoring the block of flats in which they suspected that the terrorists who days earlier had tried to bomb the subways, were residing. There was a covert surveillance team in the area and there was a firearms unit stationed just around the corner on standby. Everyone was highly trained but everyone was also very apprehensive.
At 9:30 De Menzies left this block of flats walking to the bus stop on a journey that would ultimately end in his death. But at that precise moment there appears to have been a catastrophic failure of the surveillance operation; none of the police officers were sure he was one of the wanted men. Despite that, they decided to follow him anyway. It only took him a few minutes to get to this bus stop just around the corner.
Suddenly, one of the police officers yelled “POLICE!” De Menzes immediately stood up and stepped towards another officer who then wrapped his arms around De Menzes. One of the other officers then shot De Menzes in the head seven times. Another officer fired a bullet in De Menzies’ torso. They had shot to death, a totally innocent man.
How did this stupid mistake happen?
Consider the following: 1. Terrorist bombers have recently set off bombs in London in subways and a bus, killing 56 people. 2. The young man left a house under surveillance by the police, a house where suspected terrorists lived. 3. The young man was wearing a coat in the summer and the police thought he might be rigged as a suicide bomber.
Under those circumstances, it shouldn’t surprise anyone as to why the police pounced on him. However, should the officer have shot him once he was apprehended?
Consider the following: 1. The young man, if he was a bomber, had his hands free and could have set off the explosives around his body, if there were any. (which there were not) 2. If he was a terrorist, shooting him in the head may have prevented the terrorist from setting off the explosives. However, suppose he was a terrorist who was rigged for explosives and in his hand was a device that would set off the explosives the instant he released his grip from the device. Would shooting him in the head under those circumstances been appropriate? Probably not.
Take into consideration the fact that the young man did something that brought about his own death. He should have not jumped up from his seat with one of his hands in his pocket the moment he heard the word “POLICE!” even if he thought the plain clothes people approaching were thugs. The fact that the police were not in uniform and may not have identified themselves as police officers, he had no reason to suspect that they were going to do him harm right in the middle of a crowd.
The police at this point would have been very edgy and extremely nervous, considering the fact that they thought the man was carrying a bomb with him and was about the set it off with his fingers on the switch in his pocket.
If you were the police officer with your handgun in your hand facing a suspect whom you really believed was a suicide bomber, he was in the immediate grip of police officers, and you couldn’t see what was in his hands, what would you do? Probably the same thing the police did.
I don’t fault the police for shooting this poor man in the head as their actions were instinctive. I do however blame the police for stupidly following the wrong man in the first place. They should have taken greater care in determining whether or not they had the right man in the first place.
Instead of waiting to see if the so-called suspected terrorist was going to bomb the subway, they should have apprehended him on the street. If he was a terrorist carrying a bomb, it would be less of a tragedy if the bomb went off in the street that had already been cleared than a busy subway car in which a great many innocent people would have been killed.
UPDATE: On December 13, 2008, a British jury decided that it was a string of police failures that caused the death of a Brazilian electrician shot by anti-terror police after he was being mistaken for a suicide bomber. The jury at a coroner's inquest rejected claims by London police that they lawfully killed Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old shot seven times at close range by police who followed him onto a subway car. The jurors' failure to exonerate the police is a blow to London's force, which has always insisted it was trying to protect the public from a suicide attack when its officers shot the unarmed man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dahn, your statement that Jean Charles de Menezes "did something that brought about his own death" is quite untrue and most unjust. He was completely innocent and entirely blameless. He was given no chance. Like other passengers on the train he simply rose from his seat and made for the exit. He was in fact wearing only a light denim jacket, t-shirt and jeans, had no coat and was not carrying anything. He did not as you say jump up with one hand in his pocket. According to police evidence he stood up and "his hands were held below his waist and slightly in front of him" - (this would be on account of the fact that they were attached to the ends of his arms). It is highly doubtful that he heard the word "police!".
The Independent Police Complaints Commission have published two official reports, 'Stockwell One' and 'Stockwell Two'. They make disturbing reading: -
".. there were 17 passengers in the carriage at the time the incident commenced .. It is perhaps significant that none of the 17 witnesses recall hearing the police officers shout ‘police' or ‘armed police' immediately prior to the shooting, whilst the eight police officers on the train recall either shouting or hearing this. Those officers have been interviewed under caution concerning allegations that they have conspired to pervert the course of justice."
(Stockwell One page63)
Other quotes from the IPCC reports: -
"Given that they believed they were confronting a suicide bomber it is perhaps illogical that they would have challenged him prior to trying to detain him."
".. at no time were the orders given to take a critical shot."
".. the two CO19 officers who shot de Menezes do not suggest that they acted on such a direct instruction."
".. the message to the passengers on board the train was clearly to leave immediately."
"The actions of Mr de Menezes are not surprising. He had been in London on 7 and 21 July 2005 and, in common with all commuters, he too was probably in fear of further bombing campaigns. His actions were more likely attempts to leave the train to avoid any further incident."
(www.ipcc.gov.uk/
index/resources/evidence_reports/
investigation_reports/ipcc_
resources_stockwellone.htm)
The would-be bombers of the day before had attempted to explode homemade devices that had taken weeks and months to prepare, boiling down gallons of hair bleach to mix with chapati flour filling 6litre containers packed round with nuts and bolts, improvised detonators of plastic tubes, batteries and modified torch-bulbs all packed into bulky rucksacks. After failing to blow themselves up with these what manner of extraordinary, invisible, undetectable explosive device does anyone imagine they might have conjured up to conceal under jacket and t-shirt less than 24hrs later?
Police may have stupidly believed that the young man with "mongolian eyes" was a suspected suicide bomber, but I cannot believe they could have really truly believed that he, at that moment, was in possession of a bomb.
You believe they shot no less than seven bullets into his brain acting purely on instinct. I do not.
In a joint stement with the Menezes family of 23 November 2009, Sir John Stevenson, head of London's Metropolitan Police, said:-
"The Commissioner would like to take this opportunity of making a further unreserved apology to the family for the tragic death of Jean Charles de Menezes and to reiterate that he was a totally innocent victim and in no way to blame for his untimely death."
Post a Comment