Jean Charles de Menezes - Marked for Death.

I've been reading up on the execution-style killing of this innocent person; I'm haunted by it, since he was born the same year as I and I see a certain familiarity in his face.

It seems that The Telegraph is stating that this person was killed under guidelines set by Operation Kratos, a multinational training exercise where UK police officers (and I imagine others?) trained with Israeli and Sri Lankan police to learn how to deal with threats from suicide bombers. The Telegraph elucidates:

"Under Operation Kratos, a senior officer is on standby 24 hours a day to authorise the deployment of armed squads to track and, where necessary, shoot suspected suicide bombers."

Well, I guess it's good that they have administrative oversight on the whole thing, rather than just telling officers to just go ahead and shoot to kill.

"The guidance states that in extreme circumstances an armed officer can shoot a suspect in the head if the intelligence suggests that he is a suicide bomber who poses an imminent danger to the public or police. This is to avoid setting off any explosives that might be attached to his body. Five shots are deemed necessary to render a terrorist incapable of detonating his bomb."

Ok, that does in fact sound like what happened to Jean Charles, though it didn't seem like the circumstances were extreme enough. Different strokes for different folks, though.

To me, this is the kicker:

"The officer can open fire only if authorised to do so by a chief police officer - either at the start of a pre-planned operation, as seems to have been the case at Stockwell, or by police radio during a "spontaneous" incident."

So it sounds like Menezes was marked for death when he left his apartment; the only thing that could change that was how 'non-suspiciously' he reacted when the officers confronted him.

I'm not passing judgement and it's not yet clear whether Menezes was warned by the officers, or exactly how he ran away, but this seems to be the chain of events:

• Metro Police are watching a flat block (apartment building) which was linked to the previous failed bombing.
  
• A Brazilian man comes out, wearing a sweatshirt/jacket/heavy overcoat, depending on who you listen to.
  
• The Bobbies call it in to the 'senior officer' - "We've got a suspect, send out the armed death-squad."
  
• The man walks to the end of the block and gets on the bus.
  
• They probably check the next Tube station the bus is going to, dispatch the 'death-squad' to Stockwell.
  
• Menezes gets off bus, notices some strange activity in his periphery.
  
• Approximately 20 plain-clothes officers advance on him. They no doubt look like fairly rough and tumble characters, being the London equivalent of SWAT. They may or may not have identified themselves to Menezes.
  
• Menezes starts heading down into the Tube, stops to buy a ticket (according to some witnesses). He's hoping that the ticket agent would just hurry up, he's not sure what's going down.
  
• Menezes gets spooked - no witnesses have made clear that the officers actually identified themselves, and it's allegedly part of the Operation Kratos training/policy not to, since the 'bomber' will definitely blow up if he knows the cops are onto him.
  
• Menezes runs, trips/flops over the ticket turnstile, continues running down an escalator.
  
• He jumps into the train, is described as looking like a 'cornered rabbit or fox.'
  
• Several officers charge into the train after him, shout 'EVERYBODY OUT!'
  
• Two officers hold Menezes down, another shoots him 5 times in the back of the head.

Think about that, if you live in an apartment in a city. Think about the fact that any of your 'eccentric' neighbors might be a terrorist, and that might eventually mark you for suspicion just by living down the hall.
Think about it when you get up in the morning - "Does this shirt make me look like a terrorist? I mean, does the color make it look like I need to be held down and shot 5 times in the back of the head?"
Why should you have to think about it?

•  this is a great post

  you might want to alter the title a little before Pounder et al start in on you..  

  by sunzoo on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 11:48:25 PM PDT

  •  Either that

    or edit out the bit about how he's not passing judgment, because, rightly or wrongly, he actually is.  

    by Del C on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:56:40 AM PDT

    •  Disagree

      Please let me know where. The only piece of 'flair' I left in was referring to the 'SWAT team' as a 'death squad' (because that's what the policy makes me think of, rightly or wrongly), and my editorialization about shirts. Other than that I'm stating what "seems to be" the chain of events, quoting directly or indirectly from a number of sources I've read. I want to hold myself to account on being rational, so please point out directly if there's a point which is not adequately supported.

      In my mind, the door is still open for someone to put forth some credible information to 'justify' this, but everything I'm seeing is pointing towards a bad policy implemented badly, and not just a horrible accident and "wrong place at the wrong time" as apologists are claiming.

      by steppenwulf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:59:33 AM PDT

•  When winter rolls around

  think twice about keeping your coat on in the subway.
  You might be asking for trouble.

  by obgynlover on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 11:58:31 PM PDT

•  BTW

  Another piece of bullshit that I'd like to head off just because I've seen it as a "talking point" on various winger blogs; it was not a hot, muggy, London summer day, or at least not by my standards.

  The temperature was an average 62 F, with a low of 55 F. That may be warm by London standards. I'm from Florida. That's the sort of temperature where I definitely wear a jacket.

  by steppenwulf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:01:35 AM PDT

  •  Can we please stop

    with the long-distance weather reports?

    Daytime was in the mid-60s.  It wasn't hot, but it was definitely muggy.  I was in short sleeves & sandals all day - a sweater/light jacket was more than adequate for anyone feeling chilly. I too would have thought Mr de Menezes a bit overdressed.  But as we all make mistakes when deciding what to wear, and as I'm not a police officer responsible for finding a suicide bomber the day after yet another attempt to kill dozens of people, I wouldn't have thought any more of it.

    Please, I'm not saying wearing a puffa or overcoat meant this poor man deserved to die.  It just meant that, added to all the other reasons why he was (mistakenly) under suspicion, they could not rule out that he did not have explosives on him.
    

    by JR Terrier on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:31:19 AM PDT

    •  Sir...

      I don't believe you've been paying attention. The information which I've found that lead me to write this diary indicates that the only reason de Menezes was "suspected" was that he walked out of a certain apartment, wearing a jacket. Period. They didn't know his name or face, had nothing else on him.

      Based on this, a team of heavily armed plainclothes officers was dispatched to intercept him, with orders to shoot to kill if necessary. There was no bundle of reasons. Just a guy coming out of a certain apartment, in a jacket.

      There are eyewitness accounts coming out that the officers didn't even identify themselves (other than quietly putting on a "Police" hat while Menezes was running away from this "gang" of agents creeping up on him.)

      It's the fact that he was wearing a jacket, and that he came out of a certain flat-block that started the chain of events. Hence, Menezes was marked for death at that point, by events transpiring he could know nothing about.

      And my "long distance weather report" is based on the fact that a lot of the apologists on the right and left are making their own long distance weather report ("it was sooooo hot and muggy in London, it was absolutely sweltering, he must have been an idiot to wear a jacket").

      I went to the facts by checking an actual source of weather data. And, in case you didn't pick up on it, I'm in South Florida, where it's lately been highs of 90-105 F during the day. When it gets down to 65, people here start drinking hot chocolate and wearing turtlenecks. And although it's not the same as Brazil, it's a lot nearer than London. So that's my long distance weather report for you.

      This all goes to the fact that it's not completely insane for Menezes to wear a jacket in this weather - and it is still unclear what he wore, as it has been called a fleece, an anorak, a heavy padded jacket, and a long overcoat, depending upon what sort of spin the journalist in question is trying to put on the story.

      by steppenwulf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:33:39 AM PDT

      •  With respect

        I'm not an apologist for anything. (I'm not a sir, either, but I appreciate the respectful tone!)  I'm simply saying that unless you were here in London on Friday, you cannot know for sure what the weather was like, or whether the police's assertion was outrageous or reasonable. Any opinion on how warm, chilly or muggy it was is not valid unless you were here, experiencing it.  

        You're right in pointing out that we don't know if it was a puffa, or overcoat, or fleece or what - which further underlines the fact that we shouldn't jump to too many conclusions just yet.  And of course no one is saying Mr de Menezes was insane for wearing what he did.  But Brazil has chilly weather too, he had been in London for three years, and to assume that he felt the cold more than your average Londoner (not that there is one) is misleading and beside the point.

        I'm sorry to be so anal about this, but insisting that you know what the weather was like will undermine your stance - the rest of which I'm entirely able to take on board.   Please remember, we're obsessed with the weather over here...

        Also, I have very much been paying attention. On Friday, the police released CCTV images of the four suspects, running from the site of each tube station/bus.  They thought Mr de Menezes resembled the man caught on camera on Stockwell the day before.  The image is very blurry, but the skin tone and build & haircut is similar.  So really, it wasn't just the overcoat that made him suspicious - he was fitting a physical profile.
        

        by JR Terrier on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 08:25:08 AM PDT

        •  Thanks

          You're right, apologies for assuming gender, I'm working on that... You also have a much closer perception of what's coming out on this, as (you've at least implied) you're in London. It doesn't sound like we actually disagree on anything, it sounds like you are also withholding judgement until the facts are known.

          My position on the weather is just a response to the assertions I've seen here and elsewhere that JCdM must have been soft in the head to wear a jacket on such a sweltering day - I don't think one has to be in London to assert that 62-69 degrees might be considered cold by some. An untenable assumption is that, out of all people in London, no-one would be inclined to wear a jacket, heavy or otherwise, on such a day.

          If the police are now making the assertion that they actually believed one of the CCTV images was Menezes, that bolsters their case slightly (in terms of sincerity), although I still think it's shoddy police work since I don't see the resemblance in any of the released images, nor a clear resemblance in the images to anyone in particular.

          by steppenwulf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:14:24 AM PDT

•  Is it okay to say I HATE Likudite Israel?

  I hate their death squads.

  I hate their missiles into residential neighbourhoods.

  I hate their exporting torture techniques and murder techniques to America and Britain.

  I hate their belief that it's God's will to steal land and impoverish anyone who isn't "chosen" like them.

  I hate all this evil that is spreading like a cancer from the open sore of Israel.

  That said (whew) I love many, many wonderful Jews and even a few Israelis, and I'm terribly saddened at what started as an idealistic nationalism after WWII has degenerated into what we see today.

  by LondonYank on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:13:18 AM PDT

  •  i hate the likud police state model too

    but it is important to realise that there is more pull than push on this process. in this i would blame britain and america for going to israel for advice in the first place. it might be a self-destructive way to go about things, but - pardon the dark pun - nobody held a gun to blair or bush's heads and made them adopt those methods.

    by wu ming on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:29:55 AM PDT

    •  30 years of bombs, but nothing like this

      was ever done to an Irishman in London.  I want to be proud of my city and its embrace of tolerance.  I don't want it to become Israel-lite.

      by LondonYank on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:46:20 AM PDT

      •  none of us do

        including, i would imagine, more than a few israelis. right-wing militarism is poison no matter where it rears its ugly head. i hope that britain wakes up before it goes further down this dark road; i am close to losing hope for the states.

        by wu ming on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:45:30 AM PDT

•  I already admitted to hating Bush and Blair

  It just boiled up how much I hate what Israel is doing that came as a surprise to me this morning.

  But, yes, you are right.  Bush and Blair are the extremists we should hold accountable for turning the USA and UK into lawless rogue states sponsoring terrorism at home and globally.

  by LondonYank on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:34:41 AM PDT

  •  Should have appeared as a reply to Wu Ming

    who commented here, very kindly, without flaming me . . .

    by LondonYank on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:41:29 AM PDT

•  What to do instead?

  As a dedicated civil libertarian, this story really bugs me. But as a comment in PP's post said, if the guy

  -was wearing a heavy coat in midsummer

  -jumped a turnstile to get to the train and did not stop when the police told him to do so

  -in a city that has had EIGHT suicide bomb attacks in the past month.

  I truly believe that for the police to do anything else would have been irresponsible. No doubt it is a shame that he died, and no doubt I wish there was a better way.

  But picture it this way: if this were the Federal Triangle stop on the DC Metro and the same thing happened on Bush's watch, except that the police ignored the person and let a Metro car blow up, would we not be leading the charge with LTTEs, calls to senators and other congresspeople and other efforts to influence the media? Would we not be crying malfeasance on the part of US anti-terrorism policy?

  You bet.

  And that's why this argument is ultimately pointless. And you can bet your bottom dollar that 90% of America wouldn't even understand why this is even an argument.

  I guarantee you, in fact, that most people would certainly be more interested, rightly (I believe) or wrongly, in preventing the murder of many with the justifiable use of force against someone who is showing through their actions an extremely suspicious and suicide bomber-like pattern of behavior than in gallingly arguing that this man was marked for death.

  He was marked for death all right. He was marked for death because he acted precisely like a suicide bomber in a city with 8 suicide attacks in a week. And folks, I hate to say it, but it is better for him to die wrongly that for all of those people to find out exactly what a bomber is after. Face it, life isn't always pretty or fair.

  If this attitude prevails in law enforcement officials in a Democratic administration, I would seriously consider voting for someone who cares about saving lives.

  by jkennerl on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:12:42 AM PDT

  •  In fact, I would say

    That the police in this situation deserve to be saluting for throwing themselves into an uncertain situation and acting with reckless disregard for their own safety.

    Remember, Jean Charles de Menezes is only innocent in hindsight. At the moment of decision, only the police were there, and they were the only ones acting to prevent the loss of dozens of lives.

    by jkennerl on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:17:10 AM PDT

    •  innocent in hindsight

      is exactly what is wrong about your way of thinking, and our constitution outlawed it with good reason.

      as for the coat, on a sweltering 62 degree english summer's day, it isn't as odd as one might think. and if we're going to start culling people for jumping turnstiles, my guess is that there will be a lot more space on the subways in most cities.

      it is offensive that you are so willing to sacrifice somebody else's liberty and life so that you might have a sense of false security. if it were your brother, your friend, your neighbor who got capped for living in the wrong neighborhood, my uess is that you'd be screaming about the police, but it's an acceptable loss when it's somebody you don't know.

      civilized countries don't execute suspected criminals on the streets.

      by wu ming on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:51:59 AM PDT

      •  That's not true

        Your constitution didn't outlaw it.  In fact you yourself have the legal right to kill in your own defence.  You will not be charged with murder even if you turn out to be wrong.  The important criterion is whether you had reason to believe your life is in danger.  

        So it is with police officers.  They can shoot to kill in situations where they have reason to believe that innocent lives are in danger, and can escape prosecution even if they are wrong about that, as long as they were not unreasonable in that belief.  

        Going back to the current situation, my initial assumption was that they were in fact unreasonable.  Some of the information coming out is making me rethink that a little, but they're not out of the woods yet.  
        

        by Del C on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:54:37 AM PDT

      •  Weather report

        Please see my comment above.  It was muggy short sleeves/light jacket weather.  An overcoat was in my opinion inappropriate - although the degree to which this makes someone suspicious is dependent on other factors.

        Sorry to pick at this point, but there's an important debate to be had here, and I'd rather you didn't undermine your case with inaccuracy & false assumptions.

        by JR Terrier on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 05:44:41 AM PDT

  •  He acted like a suicide bomber?

    I really don't get this.  He was only followed in the first place because he emerged from a suspected apartment building, where lots of people were living and I'm quite confident that the majority of them are not terrorists.  If it weren't for this fact, he'd be alive today.  

    He then ran from the police, but despite numerous people claiming that he knew that it was the police, there is no basis for this fact.  His behavior suggest that he didn't, I mean, why run from the police, if you have nothing the hide, right?

    The fact is, NOTHING in the chain of events provides hard evidence that he was a suicide bomber.

    by hesk on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:28:04 AM PDT

  •   civil libertarian? circa 1984?

    by lukyluke on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:31:39 AM PDT

  •  What to do different

    Starts with: publicly announce the new 'shoot suspected suicide bombers' policy when it is adopted.

    Why was the policy implemented without announcing it? To avoid an uproar, I assume. But if it had been announced, some bombers might have been discouraged, and some 'false positives' might have been prevented.

    by Elwood Dowd on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:20:46 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      At the very least there should be multilingual signs in subways, airports, and possibly buses stating the "ground rules" (if challenged by an officer, stop and keep your hands visible, don't carry backpacks with wires hanging out, etc). I mean, we put up a sign to let people know they'll get a ticket for parking in a certain spot, I think that certain death should be treated at least as seriously.

      But you are right that simply telling the "truth" about the policy would cause an uproar. If you make it completely clear, like a big yellow sign in the Tube that says "WARNING: SUSPICIOUS DRESS, SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY, OR FAILURE TO OBEY AN OFFICER MAY CAUSE YOU TO BE KILLED", it would have a profound effect on people's perception of a 'free' society.

      by steppenwulf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:09:51 AM PDT

•  Looks like fear was the guiding factor...

  From The Times

  Here is the part of the article that grabbed my attention:

  By far the most controversial claim comes from a number of witnesses who have cast doubt on police statements that they shouted a warning or identified themselves to the suspect before opening fire.

  Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout "police" or anything like it. Mr Ruston, a construction company director, said that he saw two of the officers put on their blue baseball caps marked "police" but that the frightened electrician could not have seen that happen because he had his back to the officers and was running with his head down.

  Mr Ruston remembers one of the Scotland Yard team screaming into a radio as they were running. Mr Ruston thought the man that they were chasing "looked Asian" as he tumbled on to a waiting Northern Line train.

  Less than a minute later Mr Menezes was pinned to the floor of the carriage by two men while a third officer fired five shots into the base of his skull.

  Again, Mr Ruston says that no verbal warning was given.

  In my view this was a knee-jerk killing - murder.

  by Marcus Junius Brutus on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:05:24 AM PDT

  •  The important point

       The important point that the "defenders of the constabulary" keep omitting is that Mr. de Menezes was pinned to the floor and shot at point-blank range.  He had no opportunity to resist.  He was doing nobody any harm.  If he was dangerous, shooting him in the head made him neither more nor less safe.  This was murder, pure and simple.  The abomination of this killing cannot be disguised.

    by WIds on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 06:12:38 AM PDT