Stockwell man unconnected with terror enquiry

[Mark]

Just on the Sky News the man shot dead by Police in Stockwell yesterday is unconnected to the investigation into the terror attacks.

[Tommy]

A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.

Two other men have been arrested and are being questioned after bombers targeted three Tube trains and a bus.The statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005."For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

The statement confirmed the man was followed by police from a block of flats that was under surveillance.His death is being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Two men are still being held at Paddington Green police station, central London, in connection with Thursday's attacks.The first man was arrested at around 1630 BST on Friday during a raid on a block of flats near to Oval and Stockwell Tube stations.

Eyewitnesses said he was led away with a woman and child.The second man was arrested late on Friday night, also in the Stockwell area.

Both are being held under anti-terrorism legislation which gives police 14 days before they have to bring charges.Three devices found after the failed bombings were the same size and weight as those used in the suicide attacks of 7 July, which killed scores.The fourth was smaller, apparently contained in a plastic box. The same chemicals appear to have been used.They targeted Oval, Warren Street and Shepherd's Bush stations and a bus in Hackney.

[Benji]

it was in the newspaper today about a witness seeing a belt on him with wires

obviously speculation for now, but it makes you question, why run away from armed guys, running over a fense and fail to give up even when you've got guns pointed at you

[Sparky]

i think in the current climate its right for the police to act then ask questions later

[Steven]

it was in the newspaper today about a witness seeing a belt on him with wires

obviously speculation for now, but it makes you question, why run away from armed guys, running over a fense and fail to give up even when you've got guns pointed at you

142883[/snapback]

If the Police operate a shoot to kill policy what do you do. If you stand there you are likely to be shot and if you run your are likely to be shot.

[Steven]

i think in the current climate its right for the police to act then ask questions later

142891[/snapback]

I can deal with people putting bombs on the Tube, but it is worse if Police are not upholding the Rule of Law and are instead carrying out unwarranted executions on Tube trains.

In so many ways though the fault lies not with the Officer concerned but the person who allowed the standard operating procedures to change as it has created the situation of damned if you stand still and damned if you run.

[Benji]

but to be under surveillance he must have been up to something

it says he was not conencted to the bombings, doesn't mean he hadn't any other links

no offenec steven i'm talking about your stance on the situation that many british people take, nothing personal. I believe it's this attitude that allows things like this to happen. They are provided for, looked after and giving no reason to fear consequences of action of a terrorist nature. As harsh as this statement sounds it's my opinion, selfish or not; i would rather someone believed of being a terrorist (and remember the technology available to the highest secture of the forces) had action like this taken on them, then our police sitting back, and WAITING for something to happen. I believe one of the big downfalls in this country is our wanting to wait for something to happen before acting. All of this high security measures and deportation of extremeists, it has only happened after the bombings, why not before? Because we as a country are too scared to stand up for the protection of ourselves. I am fully behind this 'shoot to kill' decision drifting on the lips of politicians and as sparky says,

i think in the current climate its right for the police to act then ask questions later

. We live in a cruel world! surely after july 7th that is evident now

[rossporterlc]

i bet the guy shot is a bit cheesed off by it too

[Thracian]

i think in the current climate its right for the police to act then ask questions later

142891[/snapback]

I can deal with people putting bombs on the Tube, but it is worse if Police are not upholding the Rule of Law and are instead carrying out unwarranted executions on Tube trains.

In so many ways though the fault lies not with the Officer concerned but the person who allowed the standard operating procedures to change as it has created the situation of damned if you stand still and damned if you run.

142898[/snapback]

I can't easily deal with either, nor am I happy with cancelled football matches. Not letting radicals in at all would be safest, least bloody and would protect our football.

Special laws should be introduced to deal with all illegal immigrants enforceable immediately and with any non-natives found to be living here while in possession of forged papers.

That said I bet the officer gets stitched up by the Government or their cronies at the CPS.

And yet itappears he was equally in a no win situation. A man running away, refusing to stop, possibly or reputedly with wires attached. If he had a bomb and it went off how could the officer deal with the consequences of perhaps another 50 deaths - and all on his conscience cos he could have done something? These things are only easier if you are not there.

[Thracian]

i bet the guy shot is a bit cheesed off by it too

142951[/snapback]

Not if he was a Muslim, cos he'll be in Paradise and, as a martyr, probably surrounded by virgins, so I understand. If not he made one big mistake.

[Matt]

Fair Enough shoot the fockers IF they are or planning terrorism, e.t.c, and this seems to be the concencesus of most people but most people I have been talking to have been saying shoot the fuker even if he wasn't a bomber, I was shocked when they said that, the police do need to start shooting people and the death penalty needs to be bought in but the police/authorities have to be 100% sure they have the right people, this may be a hard thing to do, and the shooting of this person was all done on instinct, I don't know a way to stop it, I do agree with the death penalty though!

But within terrorism the death penalty is abit pointless because most terrorists are suicide bombers, so they want to die anyway...

This may be abit of a harsh suggestion and it may no work because the terrorists are so selfish but what if authoritys start punishing the families of suicide bombers? Doubt it would work and its so harsh on the families, but its only a suggestion...(May be abit of a silly suggestion TBH!)

[john_lcfc]

do you reckon his family could sue the police authorities?

[Steven]

but to be under surveillance he must have been up to something

it says he was not conencted to the bombings, doesn't mean he hadn't any other links

no offenec steven i'm talking about your stance on the situation that many british people take, nothing personal. I believe it's this attitude that allows things like this to happen. They are provided for, looked after and giving no reason to fear consequences of action of a terrorist nature. As harsh as this statement sounds it's my opinion, selfish or not; i would rather someone believed of being a terrorist (and remember the technology available to the highest secture of the forces) had action like this taken on them, then our police sitting back, and WAITING for something to happen. I believe one of the big downfalls in this country is our wanting to wait for something to happen before acting. All of this high security measures and deportation of extremeists, it has only happened after the bombings, why not before? Because we as a country are too scared to stand up for the protection of ourselves. I am fully behind this 'shoot to kill' decision drifting on the lips of politicians and as sparky says,

i think in the current climate its right for the police to act then ask questions later

. We live in a cruel world! surely after july 7th that is evident now

142947[/snapback]

No offence but it is only certain the block of flats he came out was under surveillence and not the person himself. With the shoot to kill policy it does not give those that are innocent, like this guy, the chance to live. If stands still he likely to be shot and if he runs he is likely to be shot. What would you do ?

It is not up to anyone, Police or otherwise, to appoint themselves as judge, jury and executioner.

[TrickyTrev]

This is absaloutely terrible news for London. A great city can stand in th coaerdly face of terroism whilst upholding the key principles that make it so great. No blame attacked to the police officers involved, their job is extremely pressurised and mistakes can be forgiven. However, state sponsored killing does not happen in the city and country that I love without great reason.

Lets hope this is a one off and they catch the bastards for real sooner rather than later.

[Thracian]

but to be under surveillance he must have been up to something

it says he was not conencted to the bombings, doesn't mean he hadn't any other links

no offenec steven i'm talking about your stance on the situation that many british people take, nothing personal. I believe it's this attitude that allows things like this to happen. They are provided for, looked after and giving no reason to fear consequences of action of a terrorist nature. As harsh as this statement sounds it's my opinion, selfish or not; i would rather someone believed of being a terrorist (and remember the technology available to the highest secture of the forces) had action like this taken on them, then our police sitting back, and WAITING for something to happen. I believe one of the big downfalls in this country is our wanting to wait for something to happen before acting. All of this high security measures and deportation of extremeists, it has only happened after the bombings, why not before? Because we as a country are too scared to stand up for the protection of ourselves. I am fully behind this 'shoot to kill' decision drifting on the lips of politicians and as sparky says,

i think in the current climate its right for the police to act then ask questions later

. We live in a cruel world! surely after july 7th that is evident now

142947[/snapback]

No offence but it is only certain the block of flats he came out was under surveillence and not the person himself. With the shoot to kill policy it does not give those that are innocent, like this guy, the chance to live. If stands still he likely to be shot and if he runs he is likely to be shot. What would you do ?

It is not up to anyone, Police or otherwise, to appoint themselves as judge, jury and executioner.

143029[/snapback]

Only if Marshall Law is declared should the goalposts be moved and then the terms should be spelt out and the new ground rules explained.

The more one reads about this it was an utter calamity. Sadly whatever qualities they do have police and security officers are not always the brightest sparks in the foundry.

Hence the need as in all enforcement organisations for sound and properly informed leadership. Sadly this incident doesn't appear to have benefitted from either.

[Steven]

Good article in the Times.

Oops, sorry, won't do. We can't just shrug our shoulders over this shooting

Tim Hames

THE POLICE, according to a Sunday newspaper yesterday, fear a “backlash in the Muslim community†after the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian electrician, at Stockwell Tube station on Friday. What the police should fear is a backlash from the entire civilised community. Yet there is no evidence that either the politicians or the public will provide it. The theme has been that this was a tragic “mistakeâ€Â, but one which was unavoidable, even inevitable, in the current climate.

The breadth of the coalition of “Oh dear, but . . . †in this instance is astonishing. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, who can normally be relied on for controversy, has declined to condemn either the specifics of this event or the shoot-to-kill strategy behind it. The Liberal Democrats, whose purpose in life, surely, is to defend civil rights in difficult times, are similarly reticent. Muslim Labour MPs, such as Khalid Mahmood have urged caution. Even Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, has given warning against a “rush to judgmentâ€Â. It has been left to the Brazilian Government to express anger about the manner in which Mr Menezes died.

*

It should not be angry alone. I am a hardliner on the War on Terror and remain a hawk on the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. But if al-Qaeda has created an atmosphere in which an ordinary person can have five bullets pumped into him by the police, and society shrugs its shoulders, then the terrorists have already won a modest victory.

The inconsistency bordering on callousness of Scotland Yard has been breathtaking. It was initially suggested that Mr Menezes was under surveillance and had been approached after he walked from his residence in Stockwell to the Tube station. It is now clear that he started his trip from Tulse Hill, where he had stayed at someone else’s home, was watched, was noted wearing bulky clothing, yet was allowed (despite the slaughter at Tavistock Square on July 7 and the attempted blast on a double-decker at Hackney last Thursday) to board a bus for a 15-minute journey and was challenged only when he sought to buy an Underground ticket. Why was someone whom the police continue to insist was a “potential suicide-bomber†no menace on the No 2 bus, but an urgent threat who had to be taken out when moving in the direction of the Northern Line?

And then there was the attempt to “spin†this situation to suit the police immediately after the shooting. It must have been obvious within minutes that the man concerned had no explosives on him and it is highly likely that he had identifying documentation. Yet for hours on Friday police sources were briefing that this shooting was “directly connected†to their inquiries into the botched bombings of July 21 and over the weekend the implication rumbled on that he had lived in, or perhaps near, or somewhere quite close to, multi-occupancy accommodation that had been deemed “suspiciousâ€Â.

This attempt to blame Mr Menezes for his own death continues unabated. It was hinted that he might have been an illegal immigrant, as if that justifies what occurred. It has been argued that it was “irresponsible†of him to wear a quilted jacket in July, as if that were a crime. There are, furthermore, “no excusesâ€Â, it is intoned, for the fact that he ran when armed plainclothed police officers shouted at him.

I don’t know about you, but if I found myself minding my own business on the São Paulo metro and was suddenly confronted by men wearing no uniforms but wielding weapons, screaming at me in Portuguese, I too might choose to bolt for it. It was not merely the police but their victim who had to make a split-second decision.

At a minimum, the Metropolitan Police should be expressing something a little stronger than “regret†and admitting unambiguous, if partially understandable, responsibility for this outrage. Yet the spirit in which they are operating was summed up by Lord Stevens, the former Commissioner of the Met, in his News of the World column yesterday. Now Sir John Stevens, as he was, was an admirable public servant and he does make a number of compelling points about the pressure that the police are under and the unique dangers posed by suicide bombers. Even so, to dismiss this death as an “error†that should not result in the shoot-to-kill policy being reviewed verges on the sadistic. “My heart goes out,†Lord Stevens wrote, not to the Menezes family, but to “the officer who killed the man in Stockwell Tube Station.†Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

There should be three consequences of this terrible tragedy. The first is that every aspect of the investigation that will be conducted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission should be published. There must not be the slightest possibility that the Metropolitan Police might be covering up its embarrassment by, for example, citing “operational reasons†why the decisions taken last Friday morning cannot be scrutinised. The second is that the shoot-to-kill policy has to be re-examined. There is a world of difference between a plainclothes policeman finding himself riding on the Tube and spotting a man with a large bag behaving in a manner that makes him a potential suicide bomber and shooting him, and chasing a person on to a train carriage and firing at him.

The final and most important aspect relates to Mr Menezes and his loved ones. This man was, in effect, as much a victim of the London bombs of July 7 as those who died then. It is inconceivable that he would have been killed by the police if those terrorist atrocities had not happened. His name should be included among those who will be supported by the fund that was set up to help those left behind after those murders. We must be honest about how his awful death took place and be ready to learn the lessons.

Source

[Steven]

Dodgier by the moment. <_<

Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket

Relatives say Met admits that, contrary to reports, electrician did not leap tube station barrier

Jean Charles de Menezes, 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.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.

"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

Flanked by the de Menezes family's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and by Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner, she condemned the shoot-to-kill policy which had led to her cousin's death and vowed that what she called the "crime" would not go unpunished.

"My cousin was an honest and hard working person," said Ms Figueiredo who shared a flat with him in Tulse Hill, south London. "Although we are living in circumstances similar to a war, we should not be exterminating people unjustly."

Another cousin, Patricia da Silva Armani, 21, said he was in Britain legally to work and study, giving him no reason to fear the police. "An innocent man has been killed as though he was a terrorist," she said. "An incredibly grave error was committed by the British police."

Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at 10am last Friday after being followed from Tulse Hill. Scotland Yard initially claimed he wore a bulky jacket and jumped the barrier when police identified themselves and ordered him to stop. The same day the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said the shooting was "directly linked" to the unprecedented anti-terror operation on London's streets.

The following day Sir Ian apologised when detectives established that the Brazilian electrician, on his way to a job in north-west London, was not connected to attempts to blow up three underground trains and a bus in the capital.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has began an inquiry which is expected to take several months. Yesterday it emerged one armed officer involved has been given leave, and two have been moved to non-firearm duties. Ms Figuerdo condemned Sir Ian's decision to authorise the leave, saying she wanted to see the man who shot her cousin, and he should be in jail.

The body of Mr de Menezes is being flown to Brazil tonight for a funeral tomorrow. Simultaneously, a memorial service will be held at Westminster Cathedral, with TV coverage beamed live to Brazil.

Ms Peirce condemned Sir Ian's statements on the case, saying there had been a "regrettable rush to judgment".

She was astonished that the phrase "shoot to kill" was being used as if it was a legitimate legal term; the family would demand "transparency" both as to the facts of what had happened and on the policy.

She added that the family were ready to cooperate with the complaints body, and she saw no reason for delay: "They know what their questions are and we see no reasons why they should not be answered.

Source