Posted on 08/16/2005 11:00:26 AM PDT by Prodigal Son
ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.
The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.
The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.
Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.
By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.
The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.
He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.
He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police HAD agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.
Perhaps their rules of engagement need to be fine-tuned.
</gross understatement>
BTTT for later
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
The television story was a bit more in-depth. They showed some documents and pictures.
The guy was just really, really unlucky and the police made some key cock-ups. By the time the shooter team got word, they thought they were dealing with a terrorist. But it appears that the man was in no way acting suspicious whether by deed or by attire. His misfortune was to have lived where he did and to hurry to get on a waiting train.
ITV isn't so bad. I'd rather watch them than the BBC.
They had official police documents with eyewitness reports (some of those eyewitnesses being the police themselves). This story is built on the accounts of the police themselves and the photo showing no bulky jacket.
The police screwed this one up pretty badly in my opinion.
If true, this is more than just incompetence. It would mean that the police lied to cover up their mistake.
How about the picture of the dead guy with a denim jacket on? Do you think they just made that up? This was a stupid mistake that will likely make police hesitant if they actually see a belt-bomber. Not to mention there was a massive amount of misinformation put out by the cops to cover up this mess.
How about the picture of the dead guy with a denim jacket on? Do you think they just made that up? This was a stupid mistake that will likely make police hesitant if they actually see a belt-bomber. Not to mention there was a massive amount of misinformation put out by the cops to cover up this mess.
I watched the 10:30 news report just now and it had a few more details.
If you recall from the first reports and from Sir Ian Blair's press conference the man was a suspect who was dressed in a thick 'padded' jacket, acted odd, vaulted the turnstile, ran from police after being challenged and straight on the train as if being chased.
But from the new details:
The guy never vaulted the turnstile- he used an electronic ticket.
He was never challenged by police.
He was not dressed suspiciously.
He did not act in a suspicious manner.
He was never positively identified as a suspect.
The policeman who was watching the apartment building and supposed to be taping the people coming in and out was busy urinating at the time.
The man, although light skinned, was described as IC2 African. (the difference between the Brazilian and the man the police thought he was is quite striking when the two men's photos are situated side by side).
Police had been told to shoot if the suspect ran.
The innocent man walked normally in the station but ran when he saw the train.
He boarded the train, sat down and then the police ran in and shot him 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder.
.........
All this must be taken in the context of what had just happened in London of course but the bottom line is the police did, in fact, kill an innocent man.
Hey, sometimes even DEBKA gets a story right.
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
It seems people want this guy to be guilty of something. But when you start wanting reality to conform to a preconceived idea you've thrown all objectivity out the window. Let reality be as it is and let belief conform to it and not vice versa.
These are the facts as we know them now: First and foremost- the man was innocent. That much is not in dispute. So the reality is- an innocent man was killed by the police.
When this first happened, it was reported he was wearing a bulky jacket and had behaved erractically (jumping the turnstile) and fled from the police. When it came out the man was innocent people still clung to these 'facts' in order to justify a police killing. But now those 'facts' have melted away. The man was NOT wearing a bulky jacket and he was not behaving in a strange manner.
This leaves only the context of the day of the killing. The context was that there had just been two bombing incidents in London and this man's apartment building was being watched. Given that context (and tossing the bulky jacket and other items out) is the fact that he came out of a suspect apartment building and boarded a tube train sufficient reason to kill the man? In my opinion- the answer is NO. If you can shoot him just for that reason, why not just go into the apartment building and shoot everyone there before they have a chance to get up to any mischief?
I don't want the reality to be anything other than what it is. If it makes 'my side' look bad, so be it. If the police are guilty of something here- I want them to pay the same way you or I would have to pay if we did something similar. The man was innocent and he was gunned down for no reason.
Bookmark
Based on the information we were getting the morning this happened: the guy left a residence that was under surveillance; the guy was a suspect from the failed bombings the previous day; the guy fled police - it sounded like a good kill to me.
The facts, though, don't support that and would indicate the police acted foolishly. The residence under surveillance was an apartment building. The guy looked like a suspect but wasn't (you kill someone without a positive ID?). And rather than fleeing from police, as we were told, he never jumped a barrier and was running to catch a train ... something people do in tubes and subways all over the world every day.
That morning I was defending this police tactic. Both the Israelis and the Brits (against the IRA) have employed it to some degree of success in the past. But if they're going to continue doing it they need better training and better rules of engagement. Especially better rules of engagement.
Of course, the end result may be that someday somewhere a cop will have a site on a guy that needs killing, hesistate because this awful foul up pops into his head and the consequences are disasterous.
I stated that we didn't know what really happened because we weren't there, and I was roundly thrashed, and verbally spat upon by a good number of Freepers.
DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Never fear, though. Being a fake conservative means never having to say you're sorry.
Indeed. Perhaps they should have shut the system down for a few days until people had cooled down.
It seems like they were looking for someone, anyone, to pay for a horrible terrorist attack *chough*iraq*chough*.
Anybody have a lozenge?
Well, on the day of the shooting, given the reports we had I too thought the police did the only thing they could have. But that hinged on the way the man was dressed and the fact that he ran into the station- jumping a turnstile as well.
But you take that away and the police have no reason to shoot the man.
It doesn't bother me to say I was wrong or hasty in my comments. We have more information now and given that the man turned out to be innocent I think this version makes a lot more sense.
I always try to make this point when the feeding frenzies start, but I get stomped on for being anti-this, pro-that,etc, etc, etc ... you know the drill.
How much do you want to bet some people will think that this article and the accompanying photo are part of some vast left-wing conspiracy and are completely fabricated?
Seriously. I gaurantee you that people will think the source made the whole thing up. *shrug*
It's a big world.
Aye, that's the truth. I'm fascinated with the way reality gets replaced by 'versions of events' myself. In the end we never know. Nowadays people seem to want things to be 'this way' or 'that way' and reality gets molded like clay to fit to political or ideological necessity.
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.