Menezes execution: 3 unanswered questions.

[Warren Stupidity]

While the key facts in the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes by police in London are not in dispute: he was not connected in any way to terrorism and he was deliberately executed by a trained police anti-terrorist team while under their control, there are other facts in this case that are very unclear.

1) the sequence of events that led to his execution, specifically it was initially stated by the police that he was under surveillance from when he left a 'known terrorist house', took a bus to the stockwell train station, and entered the station, at which point the chase and execution took place.

Why was a suspected suicide bomber allowed to enter the crowded train station, or even board the bus? If he was not in any way connected to terrorists what was he doing at a 'known terrorist house'? Was he actually at this house at all? Was he actually under surveillance before he got to the station? (Sorry for the edit, these additional points just occurred to me.)

2) it has been stated frequently in the reports in the press that de Menezes did not obey orders to stop and fled from the team of undercover agents. It is also reported that the team shot and killed him because there was no other way to deal with a suicide bomber who could detonate his bomb in 'less than a second'.

I find it very unlikely that the team would both be under orders to 'tackle and kill' suspected suicide bombers under the 'less than a second to detonate' theory, and that they would clearly identify themselves as police and order de Menezes to stop and submit to their authority. These seem to be irreconcilable.

3) it has been stated frequently in the press reports that de Menezes was wearing a thick (yellow?) overcoat that was inappropriate for the 70 degree weather that day. Oddly, given the rapid publishing of photographs of the suspects in the previous two sets of bombings (7/7 and 7/14) no pictures of de Menezes in his inappropriate coat have been published.

Where are the photographs?

[Justice]

1. I recall news reports that he was terrified

I remember thinking that someone made a mental note that this man looked terrified - and that was before they tackled him and put 5 bullets into him.

When you stand back and look at this situation, it sits squarely at the feet of Blair. I don't blame the police, who are genuinely concerned about bombs - after 7/7 and then again on 7/14 - they have reason to know it is real. But the fact there were bombs on 7/7 - that is directly linked to the UK being in Iraq. And the UK being in Iraq is directly linked to Blair.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I blame the police and I blame Blair.

Orders to tackle and kill suspects are immoral. You do not get a pass on immoral activities because you are 'acting under orders'. We settled that defense at Nuremburg.

The police are indeed genuinely concerned about bombs and bombers. The 'tackle and kill' squads are under orders to commit crimes against humanity and their actions and orders are those of a fascist police state, not a democracy. Other tactics are required, even if it means that some attacks will be successful.

[Mass]

3. What is your point

It was fairly obvious from the first witnesses accounts that this was a major police screwup. They have recognized so much now.

It seemed pretty obvious that they panicked.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. OK you need to do some research

There is no indication at all that the police panicked. This was a specially trained team - trained to do exactly what they did: tackle and kill a suspected suicide bomber. Screwup - obviously, panic: I don't think so.

My point is that the initial police reports were bullshit. Initially it was stated that de Menezes was a know muslim terrorist suspect, that this was a successful operation, not a total screwup. That report was a lie. Within that report were statements made (as reported in the media) that de Menezes was wearing a thick overcoat and that is why he was obviously a suspect as a suicide bomber. OK - where is the picture? Or is that also a lie?

Does it not puzzle you that de Menezes 'has no connection to terrorists' and yet is reported as being 'under surveillance after leaving a suspected terrorist house'? Those are contradictory statements. No curiousity?

Is it not massively curious that under surveillance from when he left the house, de Menezes is allowed to board a bus and enter a crowded train station, and only then is an attempt made to stop him?


Finally there are statements in the press that de Menezes fled after being order to stop by this team. I find that impossible to reconcile with the fact that this team's mission was to tackle and kill suspected suicide bombers. Why would you order a suicide bomber to stop and submit to arrest in a crowded subway station? Wouldn't the suicide bomber blow himself up right then and there? Something is basically wrong with the facts as reported.

My point is that beyond the fact that this was a summary execution worthy of a police state, not a democracy, something absolutely stinks in the reported story. The police versions are so full of holes and contradictions that a reasonable person must conclude that they are lying and that there is much more to tell about what really happened last friday.

[mrfrapp]

4. Terrorist House

The "known terrorist house" you refer to in point one are actually flats (apartments). Menezes lived in one of those flats.

The question I want answered is this: since when is it legal for plain clothed police officers to carry handguns? I've no problem with armed police so long as they're clearly identifiable as police but plain clothed officers with concealed weaponry is something else entirely. Certainly, I had no idea that it is legal and I think I might have run if confronted with what appeared to be ordinary citizens (that's the idea of plain clothed police isn't it) brandishing handguns.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. It appears that Britain has special tactics teams

that are armed to the teeth and trained for specific types of operations, this being one of them.

I don't think de Menezes was even given the chance to surrender.

[Missy M]

7. Why didn't they detain him as soon as he left the 'house'?

None of it makes sense to me. Why did they allow him to enter the station if they suspected him. Why did they murder him? The entire episode doesn't make sense and an innocent man is dead. I understand the need to stop the terrorism but at least make sure you have the right people and perhaps detain and question them before they are headed for the subway or bus.