Charles de Menezes was innocent and murdered

[Michelle*s_Farm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711639.stm

Charles de Menezes was innocent. Surely the West has "lost it" and de Menezes is a symbol of a crumbling conscience in the name of 'homeland security'.

The Patriot Act (USA) and the "Shoot to Kill" policy of UK Police are tragic violations of human rights and freedoms. In this new idealogical battle between the West and radical extremists it is absolutely critical that the US and the UK do not become monsterous fascist regimes with regards to policing. Unfortunately our rights and safety are being compromised by political and policing establishments. There should be serious (as opposed to lip service) educational programs training police, investigators and even older politicians on how to effectively deal with the new threats facing the US and the UK. For example - effective versus non-effective profiling, ethnicity / cultural confounds, and the peril of fear-driven police responses.

Checking library records is absolutely intolerable. Roving wire taps and cameras in the streets are absolute intolerable. Shooting Brazilian national Charles de Menezes was wrong and requires a radical shift in the game plan in the US and the UK before more innocent people are murdered, injured, or violated by the state. I fear we are not living in an ethical democracy anymore - were we ever or has all of this just been a twisted pipe dream? It seems that whenever democracy is seriously tested it fails miserably. de Menezes' murder is a symbol of this decay of the values we self-deceptively hold most dear.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

The man should not have been shot. He was already down. When a man is down, he should not be shot or hit or anything.

We still need the patriot act. If the British had somthing like the Patriot act, the London bombings might have been stopped.

The Patriot act helped stop a plan to destroy the Brooklyn bridge.

NYC terrorist atttacks were prevented before the existence of the Patriot Act. I like the name of the act and surely it has some useful components. However, I think there are serious questions regarding major parts of the current Patriot Act. At least we can debate the act, but can we change it?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4759727&sourceCode=gaw

[YoungRemy]

regarding the Patriot Act:

I am not involved in terrorist activities, therefore the government can read my emails and check my library records, they can also search my backpack when i get on the subway...

if all of this stops ONE attack from happening, I am all for it.

its not a question of "if", but "when" will they attack again?

[Michelle*s_Farm]

You are correct, and I think this is why most polticians are in favour of the Patriot Act. However, it is hubris for the politicians who voted in favor of it to believe that politicians and leaders in a democracy always make the right choices for their people. The loss of rights is a slippery slope of exponential decay. I see this possibility as an unexpected 'butterfly effect' where we sacrifice a little but 10 years later this minor decision results in an intolerable loss of rights and it is too late to go back to where we were. Not all politicians, corporate leaders, and law enforcement can be trusted to use the Patriot Act in proper and ethical ways. Indeed enforcers may not even know when they are misinterpreting and abusing such a document. Especially if they feel they are just doing the right thing.

regarding the Patriot Act:

I am not involved in terrorist activities, therefore the government can read my emails and check my library records, they can also search my backpack when i get on the subway...

if all of this stops ONE attack from happening, I am all for it.

its not a question of "if", but "when" will they attack again?

[YoungRemy]

i understand we are trying to protect the civil liberties of innocent americans. its all about finding the balance. i think they have done a good job of protecting NYC and keeping it safe, but for a price. i feel alot safer with cops in every station...


five years ago, NYPD was the enemy among enemies. now we have got to work together, that goes for the whole country,now it goes for the whole world...

[Michelle*s_Farm]

You know it is strange to think that Londoners not only have to worry about terrorist attacks on the tube but also being shot and killed by their own government driven by a fear-based mandate to protect the people. Ironic, no?

i understand we are trying to protect the civil liberties of innocent americans. its all about finding the balance. i think they have done a good job of protecting NYC and keeping it safe, but for a price. i feel alot safer with cops in every station...


five years ago, NYPD was the enemy among enemies. now we have got to work together, that goes for the whole country,now it goes for the whole world...

[YoungRemy]

You know it is strange to think that Londoners not only have to worry about terrorist attacks on the tube but also being shot and killed by their own government driven by a fear-based mandate to protect the people. Ironic, no?

oh absolutely, I'm sure Scotland Yard is backpedaling now that they have killed an innocent...

now they have seen what fear can do to a society....

[Michelle*s_Farm]

oh absolutely, I'm sure Scotland Yard is backpedaling now that they have killed an innocent...

now they have seen what fear can do to a society....

Nicely put. I do worry about the kind of future we are crafting based on our fear of being attacked. It is sad because I do believe there is a opportunity to transcend the violence and hatred to show the world there is another way to deal with this inherent distrust between groups. Human history is littered with missed opportunities and making things far worse than they need or should be. American and Canadian prison camps for Japanese innocents during WWII comes to mind. David Suzuki was forceably imprisoned in one as a youngster.

http://www.metowe.org/htm/heroes/suzuki.htm

[travesty]

police still have orders to shoot suspected bombers in the head

wear a helmet London!!! (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050724/wl_uk_afp/britainattackspolice_050724100907)

Riot helmets and very tight fitting clothing, spandex maybe, are sure to become haute coutre over there soon. Everyone will look like downhill skiers going to work.... sweet! :D They'll start making downhill suits that look like dress suits, you know like the tuxedo t-shirt. Pass on the moon boots though, there was that whole Richard Reide thing you know.

[avignon]

What right do we give up? We give up the right not to be inconvienced.
We still have the most important rights. (Right to vote exc.)
I beleive in order for the patriot act to come into effect, you have to be a suspected terrorist. (I might be wrong)
But if we start by sacrificing one or two liberties, when will it stop? What will trigger suspicion and therefore make a person subject to search and seizure without any viable probable cause? If I am on this message board and I say that I disagree with the patriot act, will that be enough, eventually, to make me a suspect in "the war on terror"?

[travesty]

But if we start by sacrificing one or two liberties, when will it stop? What will trigger suspicion and therefore make a person subject to search and seizure without any viable probable cause? If I am on this message board and I say that I disagree with the patriot act, will that be enough, eventually, to make me a suspect in "the war on terror"?

Sadly, our liberties have been eroding sice the day they signed the Declaration of Independence. Slowly, but surely and many of them have been given up to "protect me" (allegedly) from things far less dangerous than terrorists. Things like, riding a motorcycle without a helmet and driving without a seatbelt. I can't buy beer over 3.2%ABV or a Keg in Utah and not over 5% in NC. I can't buy the assualt rifle I would like to have to "protect" myself and my family. I can't twist fat blunts in my own home, or anywhere else for that matter. I pay a higher percentage of income tax than other people, and now, NJ wants to tell me I can't smoke in my own car for chrisssake! My point is this we've all given up some of our liberties for things far less serious than terrorism. It ALL SUCKS but at least they are trying to protect me from someone other than ME!

[ChrisLove]

You know it is strange to think that Londoners not only have to worry about terrorist attacks on the tube but also being shot and killed by their own government driven by a fear-based mandate to protect the people. Ironic, no?


You know I was far more worried this morning on the tube about being shot by the police than being blown up by terrorists, I always take a backpack to work and listen to my walkman on the journey in. Today I didn’t take the Walkman on the underground in case I didn’t hear an instruction from a plain clothes officer to stop – seriously.

[travesty]

You know I was far more worried this morning on the tube about being shot by the police than being blown up by terrorists, I always take a backpack to work and listen to my walkman on the journey in. Today I didn’t take the Walkman on the underground in case I didn’t hear an instruction from a plain clothes officer to stop – seriously.

That sux, sorry it has come to that. However in the spirit of making lemoade out of lemons, I gotta belive that a "Don't Shoot, I'm Not a Terrorist" shirt would be a big seller. Set up a little kiosk at the top of the tube stations. :eek:

[QueenAdrock]

^Yeah, but what do you do if someone who's OBVIOUSLY a terrorist comes up to you wanting a tee-shirt? I mean, you can't deny them the right to buy it. And if you tried to stop them from buying it, that'll bring about the whole controversy of racial profiling. So you either get yelled at for being a racist, or confuse officers by letting terrorists have your tee-shirts. :(

[travesty]

^ or confuse officers by letting terrorists have your tee-shirts. :(

Pretty sure the cops aren't going to look the other way just because your t-shirt says "I'm not a terrorist". If that were the case then we are both missing out on the very profitable "I'm Not A Crack Dealer" business. Think of the prime territory you could have for that one in DC Queen!

PS if someone was OBVIOUSLY a terrorist, I would probably GIVE them all of the t-shirts and run like hell!

[Monsieur Decuts]

any ideas how to better handle this situation?

[travesty]

any ideas how to better handle this situation?

Everyone gets implanted with a small spinal detonator that sets off when explosives are detected on that person's body. :D

If you are still alive then you are not a suicide bomber that day.

[Documad]

Sadly, our liberties have been eroding sice the day they signed the Declaration of Independence. Slowly, but surely and many of them have been given up to "protect me" (allegedly) from things far less dangerous than terrorists. Things like, riding a motorcycle without a helmet and driving without a seatbelt. I can't buy beer over 3.2%ABV or a Keg in Utah and not over 5% in NC. I can't buy the assualt rifle I would like to have to "protect" myself and my family. I can't twist fat blunts in my own home, or anywhere else for that matter. I pay a higher percentage of income tax than other people, and now, NJ wants to tell me I can't smoke in my own car for chrisssake! My point is this we've all given up some of our liberties for things far less serious than terrorism. It ALL SUCKS but at least they are trying to protect me from someone other than ME!
I'm glad to see you have focused your rage on what's important! :)

I'll bet those laws you're talking about have saved more US lives than terrorists have taken. By a long shot.

P.S. you don't need an assault rifle for home protection. You're better off with a shot gun. As qdrop and I discussed, when the intruder hears you getting it ready, he'll run. ;)

[Michelle*s_Farm]

I'm glad to see you have focused your rage on what's important! :)

I'll bet those laws you're talking about have saved more US lives than terrorists have taken. By a long shot.




This article is bang on:

Five Shots Confirm Stupidity of Bush-Blair Anti-terrorist approach by Peregrin Wood

It's fairly obvious, but it needs to be said: The brutal police killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in London shows the heart of what is wrong with the Bush-Blair approach to fighting terrorism. To prevent harm to innocent civilians, their police state regimes are harming innocent civilians.

Before our Republican readers even start complaining that it is necessary to shoot unarmed, law-abiding civilians five times in the head on the off chance that they might be terrorists, let me point out that even from the perspective of a Homeland Security goon's ideology, shooting Jean Charles de Menezes five times in the head without even asking him to put up his hands was stupid.

What kind of rocks for brains police officer knocks a suspect down then shoots the suspect five times in the head when that suspect is not behaving violently? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it turned out that Menezes actually was a terrorist planning to bomb the London undergound. Well, if that had been the case, then the British police would have been a lot further along in their investigations of last week's bombings if they had just one live suspect to question.

What really gets me is that Jean Charles de Menezes was Brazilian. You know, that's the country that is known for women in very small outfits and a rapidly shrinking rainforest. Brazil is also known for not being a central hub in the worldwide Al Quaida network. Ask someone, "Where is Osama Bin Laden hiding out", and Brazil would be maybe the 162nd country someone would name.

Oh, but the initial press reports said that Jean Charles de Menezes "looked South Asian" - just like those Pakistani bombers, right? On both sides of the Atlantic, the anti-terrorist panic politicians are making a sick and twisted use of the ethnic hatred that the War on Evildoers has spawned, getting people to believe that anyone with brown skin must be a dirty rotten terrorist. Here in the United States, the Republicans are arguing that to defeat Muslim terrorists from Asia, we have to keep Mexicans who don't speak English from immigrating to our country. The connection? They're foreigners, like 95% of the rest of the human race. That's not security. That's nationalist xenophobia.

Menezes wasn't even a Muslim. He wasn't particularly religious, but he was thinking about becoming a Mormon. Well, Muslim and Mormon both begin with M, right, so I guess that the police weren't too far off, right? The next thing you know, the Homeland Security guys will be kicking down the doors of Methodists and Mennonites and shooting them five times in the head - just in case, to prevent violence.

The further we go along in this anti-terrorist terror crusade, the crazier it gets. America's anti-terror policy sends FBI agents to harass Quakers and Greenpeace activists, and to set up super-sized computer databases to spy on law-abiding Americans. There is no logic in these efforts, just the effort to keep exploiting the fear for as far as it can go.

Yes, terrorists could attack at any moment. But, they probably will not attack any moment now. Any terrorist attack in the United States will almost certainly be a long time coming. The days when a sane American can wonder when the next plane will hit are far behind us. On the other hand, there is no question that the government is using that "next plane" threat to attack Americans' basic liberties - right now.

I prefer to work against the threat that I know is there, thanks, and tell the police to keep their guns in their holsters and follow the old, pre-Homeland laws.

SOURCE:

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2005/07/24/menenez-shot-five-times/

[Jasonik]

The real lesson here is when the police say STOP!... you fucking stop.

Rule of law means something. If you want to be all anti-authority and show absolutely no respect or aid for law enforcement then you might as well blow yourself up along with some innocent civilians. Cops are doing a really hard job and mocking and disrespecting them by making their work -FOR YOUR SAFETY that much harder is antisocial and it undermines the very social contract that the supposed loss of is being bemoaned.

It's so weird to me that when a civil rights disparity or other social ill needs remediation those who think government is the optimum vehicle for change seem to think that when public safety is threatened the government can't be trusted to deal with it.

If you're on the right side of this, the police are your friends. If you get all sketched out by police and have something to hide, then that becomes everyone's problem.

Before I'm accused of blaming the victim just remember the Darwin Awards.

[travesty]

It's so weird to me that when a civil rights disparity or other social ill needs remediation those who think government is the optimum vehicle for change seem to think that when public safety is threatened the government can't be trusted to deal with it.


I have never heard it put more eloquently and direct....brilliant! (y)

[Medellia]

The real lesson here is when the police say STOP!... you fucking stop.
But they were plain clothes officers, correct? If that's the case then how was he to know they were cops and not some random chavs trying to shake him down?

[Jasonik]

Unit420[2.0], you've got your stories confused.

-Penn Station: man says he has a bomb in his bag; station evacuated.

-Double-decker tour bus: men with stuffed backpacks and pockets seem suspicious to busdriver who radios police; everyone is evacuated and searched.

If I were on that bus and the police told me to keep my hands up and exit the bus I WOULD DO IT...(there were snipers with rifles aimed at the bus). My only point is that you'd have to be an idiot not to ASSIST THE POLICE WITH THEIR JOB.

But they were plain clothes officers, correct? If that's the case then how was he to know they were cops and not some random chavs trying to shake him down?

I understand the situation of the particular case; it's very sad. My point is that some people are getting all scared of the police and fearful of the government like they would be more likely to flee the bloodthirsty cops and I'm saying that's just plain crazy. Thinking that a bullet can be outrun is just as crazy. I think it's a pretty good policy to act calm and do what the person with the gun says whether they're friend or foe regardless of which neighborhood I'm in.

[Ali]

Riot helmets and very tight fitting clothing, spandex maybe, are sure to become haute coutre over there soon. Everyone will look like downhill skiers going to work.... sweet! :D They'll start making downhill suits that look like dress suits, you know like the tuxedo t-shirt. Pass on the moon boots though, there was that whole Richard Reide thing you know.Pin Striped Bullet Proof Vests and Titanium Brollies will be all the rage soon...

[Ali]

I think it's a pretty good policy to act calm and do what the person with the gun says whether they're friend or foe regardless of which neighborhood I'm in.He didn't know they had guns. He didn't know they were cops. He didn't know anything except that white men were chasing him and he was in Stockwell (a very rough part of London).

The cops overreacted. I can see why they did and I don't think that the individuals in question should be held accountable, as they thought that they were stopping an actual bomber and had been ordered to 'disable the brain'. The blame lies at the feet of the intelligence officers who thought that this guy was a bomber and for allowing the guy to walk to the train station (in case he met with accomplices) rather than stopping him on the way. That's where they fucked up. They were trying to catch all the bombers rather than stop one. They let him get all the way to the station before they decided to stop him, and the way they did it spooked him into running, heading for the station to escape what he thought were Wide Boys, making them think he was trying to blow up the train.

I hear that the Met have received anti-terror training in Israel.

Looks like it...

[ChrisLove]

I don’t know how much attention this is getting in the states, but it is back in the news again over here because some of the initial results of the inquiry have been leaked to the press.

The key findings include

- Whereas the initial reports from the police said that Charles de Menezes ran vaulted a barrier, ran from police and wore a heavy jacket that could conceal a bomb…. It now turns out that
- The police were of guard because the guy monitoring his house was n the toilet when he left.
- Charles de Menezes walked through the ticket barrier using his travelcard
- Charles de Menezes picked up a copy of the Metro (free newspaper) to read on his journey
- Charles de Menezes did run to catch the train but did not fail to respond to police officers.
- Charles de Menezes sat in a seat on the train and just before the train left, armed officers boarded the train, grabbed him and fired 11 shot at close range 7 hitting him in the head 1 in the shoulder and 3 misses.

All pretty shocking really.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4159902.stm

[El Nino]

I'm sorry to reserect a page 2 post, but too much of this going on around here lately. (People on BBMB making out and out judgement calls on situations and not responding when new facts bring to light the fact that they were wrong.) Answer to this with a "he ran from the cops" etc. etc. I dare you. It'll only get worse if you do though.....

Police knew Brazilian was 'not bomb risk' (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553440,00.html)

[Documad]

That story confused me because it was all over the place. I bet it makes more sense if you've been reading lots of other articles.

So it now seems like there is no justification for the shooting, even if he had been the guy they were seeking. It looks really, really bad for the cops who did the shooting. I can't believe they haven't given statements yet. And that's just horrible. That whole thing needs to be pressed, those cops should be prosecuted, and the family's going to get a shitpile of money. But that whole thing is not too likely to reoccur.

What bothers me more though, is that he was not even the right guy. And he was apparently going to be arrested because he had semi-darkish skin and lived in an apartment complex with other people who had semi-darkish skin. That kind of thing affects the lives of a hell of a lot of people.

And good for the cops who spoke up and said what I'm sure isn't going to make them popular. That had to be tough.

EDIT: and thanks for posting that, btw. I haven't been following it and I found it interesting.

[ms.peachy]

I'm sorry to reserect a page 2 post, but too much of this going on around here lately. (People on BBMB making out and out judgement calls on situations and not responding when new facts bring to light the fact that they were wrong.) Answer to this with a "he ran from the cops" etc. etc. I dare you. It'll only get worse if you do though.....

Police knew Brazilian was 'not bomb risk' (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553440,00.html)
I still maintain the IF the facts had been as originally reported, that it is a tragic but understandable situation, and that had that been the way things happened, it is not a 'murder'. However, I have all along supported investigation into the circumstances as well, as that is only reasonable. As new information emerges I am prepared to acknowledge that there may be need for redress. Because it's not about 'me', you see. So you don't need to "dare" me or anyone else, because it's not appropriate to gloat over a man's death.

[Ali]

So you don't need to "dare" me or anyone else, because it's not appropriate to gloat over a man's death.Who's gloating?

I'm outraged. I was outraged when it happened. I understand why they did what they did, because they thought he was a bomber, but how could they have been so wrong, on so many counts.

It's because he looked a bit foreign, that's why he was suspected.

[ms.peachy]

Who's gloating?

I'm outraged. I was outraged when it happened. I understand why they did what they did, because they thought he was a bomber, but how could they have been so wrong, on so many counts.

It's because he looked a bit foreign, that's why he was suspected.
I wasn't suggesting that you were. And I absolutely understand your feelings. As I was prepared to give every benefit of doubt to the police until proven otherwise - which, sadly, is what seems to be emerging - it is very disappointing to see the catalogue of errors and misinformation.

What grated me was that sneering "I dare you" in El Nino's post. I felt it was inappropriate.

[Documad]

Yeah, I thought el nino's tone was offensive. I figured he thought I was a reactionary anti-terrorist nut and he didn't understand that I was evaluating the facts as they unfolded.

I'm a big liberal who's also hugely pro police. I think they have an impossible job and that their reactions would be very different the day after a terrorist bombing than they would be during an average encounter. In almost every situation I've dealt with, the shooting is justified by what the cop believed at the time (even if some of it turned out not to be true). That's why we give them a lot of latitude when judging them after the fact.

If the facts had been as initially reported, I'd have supported the police.

But this thing now appears to be off the charts for bad police work -- before and during the incident, and also during the investigation that followed.

[El Nino]

Look, I would not gloat over anyone's death, and I came across that way and I offer my humble appology. I did not intend to come across as snarky at the time, but re reading my post I can see that I did. I wrote the post late at night, half pissed and pissed off.

As a British citizen, This situation with the police really irks me to no end. I am now more affraid (for me and my family) of the police than I am of any terrorist bomber. The terrorists have at least made their intentions clear, no lies and no bullshit. The police on the other hand, straight up lied about this whole thing from the get go. If you were watching the news that day there were even eye witness accounts on the BBC that do not jive with the known facts today - you have to wonder.....plants?

So once again sorry for offence. I love BBMB BTW.