Ten police officers were facing the threat of criminal charges yesterday after an official report into the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes found there might be sufficient evidence to prosecute them. The report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) into the Brazilian’s death was delivered to the Crown Prosecution Service, who will decide whether to bring charges.
Mr de Menezes was killed at Stockwell tube station, south London, on July 22 2005 by police using a then secret shoot-to-kill policy called Operation Kratos, the day after failed terrorist attacks on London’s transport network.
Mr de Menezes was mistaken for a suicide bomber and shot eight times from close range while being held down by police.
Under the Police Reform Act 2002, the IPCC sends its findings to the CPS when “the report indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed by the person whose conduct was the subject-matter of the investigation”.
It is a low threshold and the CPS will prosecute if it believes there is a greater than 50% chance of conviction and that the public interest would not be harmed by trying officers who were involved in a national security operation. Contrary to some reports the IPCC does not ascribe any blame to the Met’s commissioner, Sir Ian Blair.
It’s too early to comment; but, I thought I’d keep folks up-to-date.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, probably a political sacrifice.
The guy ran from them and it’s his fault. The police officers did what was right at the time. I might sound harsh but that’s my opinion.
I share the exact same opinion as you Peter, IF the guy ran, then he gave the police suitable reason to react in the way they did.
The shooting has caused many a debate with my freinds, but if they simply got the guy on to the ground he could still have detonated a device and to be totally honest, I would rather one accidental death than 20+ intended ones.
I feel that if you run from the police you have something to hide.
I do accept that I do not know every detail of this issue, but as I say, IF (capitalised on purpose) the guy did run then the police weren’t acting out of order.
Peter,
How on earth can you blame the victim? The policy was SHOOT TO KILL. He was already being held down by at least two Police officers. No where else in any democratic country would this not have been called a cold bloody murder.
It was clearly a deliberate killing, of an innocent person, and there was nothing he could do to prevent it. Is that a reasonable thing?
Yes, the guy was held down, but had he been running before he was pinned down? That is what I had been meaning.
If the guy hadn’t been running, I think that the person who gave the order should be charged, the officers shouln’t be blamed for an order they would have been disciplined for not taking.
I do not condone murder but I do not condone stupidity either. Anybody in London would have been aware of the events and that the police would naturally be on high alert.
He was stupid to run from the police and was given the oppourtunity to not be shot. Also, why run from them when they identified themselves as police officers and apparantly had nothing to hide?
Oh and if anybody MUST be charged over this, then charge the person who gave the orders. The officers in question were only acting appropriately on orders.
Yes, the guy was held down, but had he been running before he was pinned down? That is what I had been meaning.
Yes, he was running… to catch the train. It’s what people do when they see the train pulling into the station and they realise that if they run, they’ll be able to get on board before the doors close and it pulls away.
And contrary to what was claimed at the time, he DIDN’T vault the barriers – he used his ticket/pass to go through them completely legimately.
That’s not to say that they police should be prosecuted: but the guy didn’t do anything at all suspicious or stupid or foolhardy or wrong. There was no way he could have predicted that running to catch a train would cause him to become the victim of a judicial execution.
So, running is a shoot to kill, no trial required offense. Dear lord, I’d hate to think what you advocate for J-Walking.
People sometimes freak out. That should not be a death sentance.
Peter and Graeme
The police DID NOT identify themselves. They were undercover. They didn’t identify themselves until after the victim was dead. It was reported by witnesses that de Menezes was running to catch the train. Anyone who lives in a city with a subway will tell you, that happens every train.
Second, the reports were that the police trailed him from his house to the subway. De Menezes’ crime was having a dark complexion. That was the only thing he was guilty of. After all, don’t all terrorists like Timothy McVey and all the I.R.A. have that dark complexion terrorist look too?
And if you think that it is better him then me, well asshole, that makes you just as guilty. Because your support will allow government sanctioned terrorist activities against their own citizens. And remember, when they come for you, who do you think will be left to come to your defense?
Running for a subway train sufficient justification to murder someone?
Charge only the officer in charge? A good start, but that shouldn’t get the shooters off the hook. The Nuremberg defense (“I was only following orders”) is invalid in Britain. The shooters should have known better.
Ok, I am going to now apologise.
I was commenting without complete information, I was out of the country and away from any media or communications stuff and so, have not been totally and fully accurate.
I was still assuming that what the police had origionally said was still valid.
I do still however believe that the officers themselves shoudn’t be charged for this as long as it was an order given by somebody senior to them. As I said last time, if they refused to obey, they would have been disciplined.
Once again, I apologise for believing what the police said.
There’s only one name to what the London police did:
MURDER ONE!…No further comments!!!!!
“I do still however believe that the officers themselves shoudn’t be charged for this as long as it was an order given by somebody senior to them”
Like has been mentioned: that is not a valid excuse.
Also, they weren’t ordered to kill him, they had the power and it was up to their judgement. It’s the police officers that are fault here. Personally I think from the start it has been aparent that it all went horribly wrong.
If their judgement is that bad they shouldn’t have been a) under those orders and b) holding guns at all.
Is the picture from The Transporter?
About following orders…
WHY is that not a valid excuse?
I feel that being punished for not following orders seems to make sense to me, raise concerns with orders if need be, but still, if told to do so, do it.
If armed response units can be charged for following orders then these departments will continue to shrink and eventually dissapear in fear that at some point they will be charged for doing as instructed, or they will have the right to refuse any mission, when in general they do not have all the details that the person (or people) giving the orders have, which is definately not in the best interests of anybody.
How would you like your family being held hostage by some nut and the ARU refusing to take the guy out after all other avenues have been exhausted in case of a lawsuit somewhere down the line?
I will tell you now, this is not a closed matter in my mind, tell me why you feel that following orders is not a reasonable explanation. I am not meaning for arguments in this specific case, I mean more in general.
Shoot someone for running from police. We just accept our overlords so unconditionallly anymore. Break into my house and if I shoot, more than likely will be prosecuted.
Simply disobey a police officer and deadly action is ok.
I am still waiting for even one witness from that flight from Miami who heard the panicked passenger yell ”I have a bomb” to come forth. We know what happened to him for not even fleeing, just running is enough offense.
Why should “I was only following orders” not work as a defense?
The law is quite clear. The only time it is a defense to kill someone is in self defense or if someone else is in imminent / immediate danger.
The belief that someone is a bad person is not a defense. The belief that someone might commit an offense is not a defense. The belief that someone might be a member of an organization you think is bad is not a defense. The mere fact that someone does not do as you instruct them is not a defense. The belief that your superior want that person dead is not a defense.
After WW II when the Nazis were tried for genocide and war crimes. Many of them used the defense that they were only following orders. As the majority of trials were held in the German city of Nuremberg, this became known as the Nuremberg Defense. The Allied Judges rejected that argument. There is and can be no excuse to commit crimes against innocent civilians and prisoners of war.
With these police, it is assumed that they have a certain level of intelligence to get the positions they held. There is also the reasonable expectation that they have a reasonable understanding of the law, better than a lay person.
Panicking while wearing a jacket ought not be a capital crime. I understand the officers feared he was a suicide bomber, but “shoot first” is not an acceptable policy for our law enforcement.
I’m reminded of a local incident that occurred two years ago. A suspect was sleeping with his girlfriend in a motel room when a swat team broke down the bedroom door and charged in. The suspect did what a lot of us would do if someone surprised you while sleeping: he reached for a nearby pistol. The police shot him dead, along with his girlfriend.
Personally, I felt the people responsible for planning that raid should have be arrested for manslaughter. But then I also believe we should not have reason to fear our law enforcement.
Here we are in January 2006, and even now some “Internet correspondents” are sympathising with and making excuses for the Metropolitan Police Service over the Jean de Menezes shooting. Where have they been for the last six months? “He was wearing a bulky jacket, he ran from the police, refused to obey a police order, jumped the barrier, was acting suspiciously … ” Hello, anybody home?” That was all police and mainstream media propaganda. The media was issued a list of guidelines intended to exonerate the police and blame the victim. It all went tits up when an IPCC whistleblower leaked the story to ITN. However, it’s extremely worrying to realise how much of the original version stuck in the minds of the public. Just shows the damage that can be wrought on small minds in a short span of time. Presumably the realisation that authority lies through its collective teeth deals a crushing blow to the funamental assumptions Joe Public holds dear. “It does in me ‘ead” I believe is the expression used.
The risk-takers emigrate, the risk-adverse remain. And as the risk- adverse support authority, Tony Blair knows he can move his Police State UK programme up a gear. When you’ve spent some 25 years of your life outside the UK, occasionally you need a “heads up”. Because the reassuring notion that “Brits can’t be that stupid” appears to be a conjecture too far. Guess V.I. Lenin had it right. “You never run out of …”
Seriously, those fucking cops need life in prison. Same for the killers of Abdul Diallo, Harry Stanley, etc etc.
When cops are blowing people’s brains out for no reason other than the fact that they are paranoid, and armed then their usefulness has ended.
Its not like they shot at a running man who was actually a suspect of something. They held him down, and shot in right in the head multiple times. There is no defense for this.
It’s easy to call this an accident but this is far worse than that. The poor guy happened to live in the flat below someone connected to a terrorist. He sadly had slightly tanned skin. He sadly happened to catch the tube like 90% of other Londoners. He sadly was followed by insane cops who never identified themselves and shot his 8 times in the head before he could say anything. The irony is that poor Jean Charles was Brazilian and the way in which he was killed could have been taken out of the idiots guide to Brazilian policing.
The totally terrifying part is how the Police have covered this up. They shot the wrong guy. They totally screwed up. Yet they don’t want to take the blame. I think the cops who pulled the trigger and the cops who allowed things to go this far have to pay a price for their mistake.
If the Coroner’s Court Inquest doesn’t return a verdict of “Unlawful Killing” (by persons known) than it’s a miscarriage of justice. Just look at the dirt rolling out: Keystone Kops meet the Godfather. Issuing plonkers like that with firearms was reckless endangerment and an open invitation for a killing. Literally a miracle that one of the police officers wasn’t shot as well. Hope those directly involved, including Clarissa Dick do time for this. But fat chance in Police State UK.