Posted on 08/17/2005 3:07:34 PM PDT by Quick1
The family of a man shot dead by police who mistakenly suspected him of being a suicide bomber are calling for the "shoot-to-kill" policy to be suspended.
It comes after leaked documents contradicted previous accounts of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July.
Investigation papers, leaked to ITV, suggest the Brazilian was restrained before being shot eight times.
His family say they want a full judicial inquiry to reveal the "truth".
The documents, seemingly from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into the shooting, contradict first reports which suggested Mr de Menezes did not hurdle the barrier at Stockwell tube station and was not wearing a padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb.
They also suggest Mr de Menezes had walked into Stockwell Tube station, picked up a free newspaper, walked through ticket barriers, had started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down in a train when he was shot.
In the immediate aftermath of the incident - which happened a day after the 21 July failed bomb attacks in London - police said Mr de Menezes had been acting suspiciously and suggested he had vaulted the ticket barriers.
Police also said the 27-year-old electrician had worn a large winter-style coat - but the leaked version suggested he had in fact worn a denim jacket.
Mr de Menezes' cousin Allessandro Pereira said: "My family deserve the full truth about his murder. The truth cannot be hidden any longer. It has to be made public.
"Everything we have said has been proved to be true.
"Jean was an innocent man who was shot in cold blood. We now know that he wasn't wearing a bulky jacket, that he wasn't acting suspiciously or that he was told to stop by the police.
"He was being restrained when he was shot and killed."
The IPCC made it clear that we would not speculate or release partial information about the investigation, and that others should not do so
There was a royal screwup here, and someone is going to get handed their ass.
That doesn't mean second reports are always right. I doubt the London police are complete morons (and trigger-happy morons at that) -- so there may be more sides to this story that are yet to emerge.
I said it several times here on FR that the police version of the story would not hold up.
Yeah, I don't know what to believe any more. Initially I thought that if this was the situation, as described by the Police, it was understandable...tragic, but understandable.
Now I am wondering what it was that made those officers use deadly force. Did he even run? Are there other factors we didn't hear about?
"There was a ROYAL screwup here"
Pun intended?
I wonder who in the IPCC is leaking this.
The officers who shot him were told that he had been positively identified as a suicide bomber. I'm not saying that makes right what they did to him, just that it makes more understandable as to why they executed this poor guy.
A true tragedy... an innocent killed in the confusion of war. But what's to be expected when modern western nations allow themselves to be invaded by jihadists intent on making our streets a war zone.
Don't fool yourself into believing otherwise. The islamo-fascist call all lands not under Islamic rule "DAR-AL-HARB" or Land/DOmain of War.
Thanks. I hadn't heard that.
Yep, I can imagine that if I am the pursuing officer and command tells me that the man I am pursuing IS a suicide bomber I am going to be a little quicker to pull out the iron. Sounds like the mess up came from higher.
Don't be so quick to believe what someone says here.
I dunno... coming up with lies such as "bulky jacket in summer" and "jumped turnstile and refused to surrender" when there are PICTURES and VIDEO TAPE is purty durn moronic.
Remember, he was in the country illegally. This certainly could act as a deterrent.
Yes, this information is helpful...
C'mon Jim!
This poor workin' slob got his brains blown out by a colossal clusterfluck, and THEN it was CYA time!
Someone should seriously be brought to trial for the attempted cover-up at least!
I'm with you for the 1st part... but the 2nd? This was the panic of war. From what I heard the 1st (non-armed) team lost sight of the guy and there was a panick in the handover of the tail to the 2nd (armed) team. There was the extraordinary burden of preventing another bombing.
We civilians shouldn't just mistakes made during war conditions in the same terms as "colossal clusterfluck"s commited under normal times. We've never won a war in which we criminalized the mistakes of those we sent to fight it.
CORRECTION: "shouldn't just" = shouldn't judge
How can you say that?
SOMEONE tried to cover this up, insead of fessing up to a mistake in a moment of great stress.
That is important for two reasons.
1) Catching LE's in lies discredits them in future actions
2) Someone who would LIE in such a grave circumstance has NO BUSINESS having life/death power.
Dittos
What's the chances the officer pulling the trigger was allowed to release the incorrect initial report? Chances are even those up the chain of his direct command did not say that.
How are you so sure it was a "LIE" and not a misreport that ran out of control. See poster #2 re: "first reports from the battlefield". That has always been the case and while corrections are needed - I still don't understand those who get more fired up over the mistakes of our side than the intentional outrages of our enemies. I hope you're not one of them!
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.