Utter Incompetence

Not exactly surprising given the outcome of the chase, but still, the level of sheer incompetence is breathtaking, especially given that one would think the IRA would’ve given them plenty of experience.

What is amazing is that they watched this guy ride a bus, pick up a free paper, and then suddenly decide that they want to shoot him as he boards a train? What, a bus wasn’t a good enough target? And what did they think he was entering a station for? To buy a pack of mints? What a cluster-fuck. Right up there with shooting a guy 41 times for having a wallet in his hand.

Or, alternatively, if you’re particularly brainless, perhaps its just that the inquiry board and the papers just hate freedom.

From the NYT:

London Inquiry Refutes Police in Their Killing of a Suspect

By ALAN COWELL Published: August 17, 2005

LONDON, Aug. 16 - An official investigation was reported Tuesday to have directly contradicted the police account of the killing of a young Brazilian man after the bombing attempts in London on July 21, including the assertion that he had been fleeing officers when he was shot.

The man, Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was shot several times in front of horrified passengers on July 22 on a subway train at Stockwell station, in South London. The killing came a day after four attackers failed to detonate bombs in what seemed to be a copy of the deadly bombings two weeks earlier, and it intensified an already emotional debate over the introduction of armed police units.

At the time, the police said Mr. Menezes wore a bulky jacket on a hot day, began running from officers despite commands to halt, vaulted the ticket turnstile and ran stumbling onto the subway train.

On Tuesday, however, a news report on British television said an inquiry led by the Independent Police Complaints Commission had contradicted every one of those points. The report said that the officers had misidentified Mr. Menezes as one of the failed July 21 attackers and that he was killed even though he walked into the subway station wearing a light denim jacket, did not vault the turnstile and was sitting on the train when the officers moved in.

Neither the police nor the Independent Police Complaints Commission heading the inquiry denied the news report, but both declined to comment substantively on it.

The killing brought alarm from opponents of arming police units and from Muslim groups who feared that officers were singling them out after the July 7 bombings, in which 52 civilians and 4 bombers were killed.

The events at Stockwell station were said to have been captured on closed circuit television cameras of the type that proved central to identifying the bombers on July 21 at other locations, where their explosives failed to detonate properly.

Initial accounts quoting witnesses said the man had been pursued and shot as part of a “shoot to kill” policy intended to prevent potential bombers from detonating their explosives.

The documents broadcast on Tuesday, however, said that the man had not seemed to react to being followed, and that the officers mistakenly identified him as one of the July 21 bombers just as he boarded the train.

At that point, according to the report, one officer suddenly pinned Mr. Menezes and another shot him. The report quoted an unidentified officer as saying: “I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had been previously sitting. I then heard a gunshot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage.”

In a parallel development, Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said Tuesday that the police had found no direct evidence of a link between the July 7 and July 21 attacks.

Separately on Tuesday, the police in Manchester said they had arrested four people on terrorism charges not related to the July bombings.

And from the Guardian:

New claims emerge over Menezes death

**· **Brazilian was held before being shot
**· **Police failed to identify him
**· **He made no attempt to run away

Rosie Cowan, Duncan Campbell and Vikram Dodd
Wednesday August 17, 2005
The Guardian

The young Brazilian shot dead by police on a London tube train in mistake for a suicide bomber had already been overpowered by a surveillance officer before he was killed, according to secret documents revealed last night.

It also emerged in the leaked documents that early allegations that he was running away from police at the time of the shooting were untrue and that he appeared unaware that he was being followed.

Relatives and the dead man’s legal team expressed shock and outrage at the revelations. Scotland Yard has continued to justify a shoot-to-kill policy.

Jean Charles de Menezes died after being shot on a tube train at Stockwell station in south London on July 22, the morning after the failed bomb attacks in London.

But the evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by police officers and eyewitnesses and leaked to ITV News shows that far from leaping a ticket barrier and fleeing from police, as was initially reported, he was filmed on CCTV calmly entering the station and picking up a free newspaper before boarding the train.

It has now emerged that Mr de Menezes:

**· **was never properly identified because a police officer was relieving himself at the very moment he was leaving his home;

**· **was unaware he was being followed;

**· **was not wearing a heavy padded jacket or belt as reports at the time suggested;

**· **never ran from the police;

**· **and did not jump the ticket barrier.

But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

The documents reveal that a member of the surveillance team, who sat nearby, grabbed Mr de Menezes before he was shot: "I heard shouting which included the word ‘police’ and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

“He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 officers … I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting … I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage.”

The leaked documents and pictures showed the failures in the police operation from the time Mr de Menezes left home.

A surveillance officer admitted in a witness statement that he was unable to positively identify Mr de Menezes as a suspect because the officer had been relieving himself when the Brazilian left the block of flats where he lived.

The police were on a high state of alert because of the July 7 and July 21 bombings, and had been briefed that they may be called upon to carry out new tactics - shooting dead suspected suicide bombers in order to avoid another atrocity.

The IPCC investigation report states that the firearms unit had been told that “unusual tactics” might be required and if they “were deployed to intercept a subject and there was an opportunity to challenge, but if the subject was non-compliant, a critical shot may be taken”.

But it now appears, that contrary to earlier claims, Mr de Menezes was oblivious to the stakeout operation. On the morning of July 22, police officers were in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, watching a property they believed contained one or more of the would-be bombers who had tried to detonate four bombs on London transport less than 24 hours before.

One firearms officer is quoted as saying: “The current strategy around the address was as follows: no subject coming out of the address would be allowed to run and that an interception should take place as soon as possible away from the address trying not to compromise it.”

But the report shows that there was a failure in the surveillance operation and officers wrongly believed Mr de Menezes could have been one of two suspects.

The leaked papers state: "De Menezes was observed walking to a bus stop and then boarded a bus, travelling to Stockwell tube station.

“During the course of this, his description and demeanour was assessed and it was believed he matched the identity of one of the suspected wanted for terrorist offences … the information was passed through the operations centre and gold command made the decision and gave appropriate instructions that de Menezes was to be prevented from entering the tube system. At this stage the operation moved to code red tactic, responsibility was handed over to CO19.”

CCTV footage shows Mr de Menezes was not wearing a padded jacket, as originally claimed, and that he walked calmly through the barriers at Stockwell station, collecting a free newspaper before going down the escalator. Only then did he run to catch the train.

A man sitting opposite him is quoted as saying: “Within a few seconds I saw a man coming into the double doors to my left. He was pointing a small black handgun towards a person sitting opposite me. He pointed the gun at the right hand side of the man’s head. The gun was within 12 inches of the man’s head when the first shot was fired.”

A senior police source last night told the Guardian that the leaked documents and statements gave an accurate picture of what was known so far about the shooting. But the IPCC refused to confirm the documents were genuine adding: “Our priority is to disclose any findings direct to the family, who will clearly be distressed that they have received information on television concerning his death.”

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, said: “It is critically important for the integrity of the independent police investigating process that no pressure is put upon the IPCC before their full report is published and that no comment is made until that time.”

Harriet Wistrich, lawyer for the family, said: “There is incompetence on the part of those watching the suspect and a serious breakdown of communication.”

Asad Rehman, spokesman for the family’s campaign, called for a public inquiry. “This was not an accident,” he said. “It was serious neglect. Clearly, there was a failure both in police intelligence and on an operational level.”

Don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions. These stories are based upon the standard anonymous leaks. Believe them at face value at your own risk.

As in most cases, the truth will eventually come out.

Police were doing their job. Good on them. Eyewitnesses interviewd at the scene on BBC and CNN said that the guy was running away from police and was tackled and hit the deck as he dove into the train before he was shot. Hardly sitting on the train minding his own biz. Pretty stupid guy for not just halting and putting his hands up.

So what’s your point? Are you a British Muslim afraid of getting your ass shot too?

Many years ago, there was an episode of “The Twilight Zone” that showed the panic that can occur from innocuous events when a particular mindset is in place. Rod Serling had excellent insight into the human mind.

**The Monsters are Due on Maple Street **- 3/4/60

A supposed meteor and weird power outage cause a nice neighborhood to become an out of control mob. All the while it was actually invading aliens using devices to make neighborhoods turn against themselves.

Read the story. According to the IPCC report, he was going about his day quite normally, and only ran to the train because it was about to take off.

The point here is that the cops lied in their initial interviews, and only through the inquiry process did this become clear. So not only did they screw up and shoot an innocent man, but they then lied to cover it up.

As for you, I don’t know what kind of idiocy you are trying to defend by saying “good on them” when they shot a guy for doing nothing. But let’s say that he ran - does that make it okay?

And as for me being a British Muslim, or in his case, Brazilian Catholic (presumably), isn’t that the point? It doesn’t matter what I am - only that this is stupidity and doesn’t defend a nation, no matter what you might think. But I guess injustice is only injustice if it happens to you, eh?

I think that is the interesting part of this story - the reason I posted it, to some extent, was to see if people would come out and try to defend the indefensible, and apparently they are.

The guy, according to Scotland Yard, was not involved in anything, not Muslim, and now according to the report, just going about his day usually. Apparently it has become a crime to run for a departing train and being brown while doing so. It’s just utter incompetence, and it amazes me that anybody could defend this sort of failure.

But then again…

it amazes me that anybody could defend this sort of failure.

It amazes you that some people here don’t give a crap about the facts, but will always spout off the “my guy good- your guy bad” line, or the “lets kill all the Muslims, huh huh Beavis” line?? You must be new here (sarcastic, but not in a smiley face way)

Not as bad, but Art’s “lets wait until all the facts become clear” is pretty funny too - not the first time I’ve seen that either.

Karl Rove denies anything to do with the Plame leak

Art: of course I believe him

More investigation shows quite clearly that Rove was ths one who identified Plame to Novak

Art: lets wait until the facts become clear.

British police gun down a terror suspect

Art: Can’t ask for better allies than the British

More investigation shows quite clearly that the British police screwed up royally and kill a plainly innocent man

Art: lets wait until the facts become clear.

Classic.

I think both the left and the right can be accused of “my guy” partisanship, but I think that the right has escalated it to an art form. Part of this is simply strategic. The left, I think as a matter of temperament, tends to be more polite and likely to acknowledge alternative viewpoints as potentially valid or at least, understandable. I think it is just part of the somewhat more mild-tempered and inclusive liberal ideology.

The right considers this a sign of weakness and a signal to take even more liberties with the facts than they already do. And it works, or they wouldn’t continue using it. Look at the various Karl Rove-sprung tactics in recent years, from the Swift Boats to the flyers about McCain’s “illegitimate” daughter. They have shown that in spite of their willingness to co-opt the putative moral high ground, they’re also equally likely to engage in some pretty dirty fighting. In some cases, its the same guys doing both - Ralph Reed, for example.

I’ve seen some on the right argue that this is their right to some extent because it shows the left has no backbone, by not descending down to this level to fight. And I think this leads to a bit of conundrum. Do we fight the right on their own turf, and give up our own principles, or do we try and continually take the high road, talk about the issues, and get hammered because the right uses fear and loathing to accomplish their task? Perhaps, but I think it would take a mass lobotomy to be able to imitate some of these tactics. Justice Sunday? The propagated notion that Christians are somehow a set-upon minority? Revising evolutionary theory? I mean, I don’t think anybody on the left has nearly the lunacy or gall to invent some of these notions. And I don’t think it’s because of a lack of creativity.

You are jumping to conclusions way too fast. I am not saying the reports on the shooting in London are wrong. I am saying you have no clue what the source of the information is, so why do you assume it is true?

This stuff will likely sort out in short order. Just be a little patient before you blow your top. You will have plenty of time for that once you can base your reaction on more than a single anonymous source.

I don’t have a dog in the “did the London police act correctly or not” fight. They either did or they didn’t. Either way, so be it.

Did you also blow your top at the reports about Koran desecration at Gitmo too? Same old same old single anonymous source report that proved to be wrong. How many times will you fall for this before you learn?

I don’t know if the ABLE DANGER reports are true either. Now that single anonymous source has at least come forward, so the truth will surely out. I am going to hazard a guess that the truth will not match the dramatics of initial reports.

It is less clear that the Rove stuff will ever clear up. Miller is in jail to protect what might be the real source of that story, so we may never know.

Better safe than sorry … better one ignoramous than a significant number of everyday citizens.

If the police shouted at me to stop and put my hands up in the train station just after the London bombings I would freeze with my hamds in the air not breathe and even allow my hair to get blown by a breeze.

Ben Franklin never faced Muslim Terrorists with modern weapons.

You don’t get it. The guy they shot was an “everyday citizen” as you put it.

What exactly about him puts him out of this category? As the story indicates, he was just going about his day normally, and the next thing he knows he’s got 5 or 6 bullets in his head. And they shot him after they had already subdued him.

And you put this down to what, a few broken eggs to make an omelet? Are you just completely obtuse, or do you not believe that police/security forces are capable of making mistakes and/or simply having bad tactics or training?

Or is it okay with you if the police going around summarily executing “suspicious” people and then shrugging their shoulders and saying, “whoops”. Frankly, your position is completely confounding and almost beyond comprehension.

You’ve clearly missed his contributions in other threads.

You should ignore his posts - he’s frustrated about his sexuality and venting here.

You simply do not know any of these “facts.” Read your article again and tell me who is the source of the information. You can not answer this question, so how can you have any clue it is true?

Did you believe the Rathergate documents too? At least then you had documents, though they proved to be forged. Here you don’t even have that.

If a story was created out of thin air to justify the shooting, it will fall apart soon enough. Just be patient.

They are excerpts from IPCC documents which have not been disputed by the police. I am patient. But news of this blunder has been filtering out for a few weeks, and this is simply the straw that broke the back.

Gee, it’s interesting to see you so suspicious of allegations, Art. If I recall correctly, you seemed to take those Swift Boat veterans allegations at absolute face value, despite the fact that their “facts” were uncorroborated, and in fact, contradicted official records and some of their own previous recollections. But you seemed more than happy to attest to their veracity and their “honor” in sliming John Kerry.

It seems to me that your level of evidentiary scrutiny seems to vary based on the target, or am I missing something?

You are missing something. The Swift Boat vets accusations were not single sourced or anonymous and resulted in Kerry’s revising his biography and having the author go basically into hiding. The obvious example is Christmas in Cambodia, which later evolved into his running guns to Khmere Rouge (our enemy, so that never happened either). As a candidate for President, Kerry never addressed most of the charges and stopped taking news conferences until the issue blew over. That tells you something.

Everything that came out today about the shooting may prove to be completely true. I don’t know, but neither do you. We eventually will know in all likelihood though, so no need to go ballastic just yet.

I am also suspicious of ABLE DANGER. I have been through the MSM printing inflamatory articles based upon anonymous sources that proved wrong over and over again. I still fall for it occasionally, usually when I am predisposed to believe it, but I recognize the pattern most of the time. This story fits the pattern to a tee, so swallow it whole at your own risk.

I am still waiting for the WMD to be located.

And I am waiting for the grand conspiracy against Karl Rove to be uncovered.

The report is from the Independent Police Complaints Commision.

The guy swiped his Oyster card, never hurdled the barrier. This is after having walked to a bus (remember they blew up a bus on the 7th July. Apparently it was ok to let a potential suicide bomber on a bus but we had to draw the line at the tube), got off the bus and walked to stockwell tube.

He did not run.

He stopped to pick up the Metro which is a free paper given out for tube commuters.

He was wearing a light denim jacket.

He was in his seat.

He was shot in his seat.

He was being held by one police officer when he was shot in the head the first time by another policeman.

Now the claims he did not stop? You cant fucking stop if you are already stopped, where are you going to go?

All you revisionists can think what you want, the CCTV from the trains and the station is all in the police possession. The statements released / leaked today are witness statements made by people on the train to the IPCC.

No, the report is a single source anonymous leak supposedly coming from within the investigation you cite.

What you cite may prove 100% correct. There is evidence everywhere, so the true story will certainly come out. The CCTV cameras, the body, the clothing, the subway card, the bullets will not lie.

Just wait a bit. This will all clear up. Plenty of time for cop bashing then.

No, the report is a single source anonymous leak supposedly coming from within the investigation you cite.

What you cite may prove 100% correct. There is evidence everywhere, so the true story will certainly come out. The CCTV cameras, the body, the clothing, the subway card, the bullets will not lie.

Just wait a bit. This will all clear up. Plenty of time for cop bashing then.

No, you are wrong. The CCTV footage shows him purchasing the paper, wearing the denim jacket, and swiping his card (the turnstile jumper was a policeman in pursuit). The source of the shooting description is that of the surveillance officer who was holding the suspect when the suspect was shot.

Time to start the cop bashing, then?