Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

police murdered innocent man on tube

ebn | 23.07.2005 16:50 | Anti-militarism | Repression | Social Struggles | London

Fuck it's true. Cops really did shoot and kill a man who not only was unarmed and not carrying a bomb but was actually not even connected to the terror attacks.


The man was followed by police from a block of flats that was under surveillance, chased onto the tube then pinned down while police fired five bullets into his head at point blank range.

The Metropolitan Police Service have now admitted he was not connected to the failed bombing on Thursday and have described the shooting as a "tragedy" that the service "regrets".

It was also revealed that the driver of the train was chased by cops and had a gun pointed at his head as he tried to flee the scene.

great... trigger happy cops and bombers on the underground - I'll stick to my bike thanks.


Shot man not connected to bombing Failed bombing suspects
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm)

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.

The man's death is being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.





NO BOMB LINKS TO SHOOTING
( http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1190065,00.html)

The man shot dead by police in Stockwell, south London, is not connected to the investigation into the attempted terror attacks in the capital.

Scotland Yard is yet to release the identity of the man killed by undercover armed officers.

A police statement said: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police, 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."

Police said the man emerged from a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police surveillance as part of the investigation into the incidents on Thursday 21st July.

He was then followed by surveillance officers to the underground station. His clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions.

The circumstances that led to the man's death are being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the IPCC in due course.

ebn

Comments

Hide the following 89 comments

Bloody apologist Beeb

23.07.2005 17:13

Note how they say " police followed him from a south London flat" when the Sky report is that "Police said the man emerged from a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police surveillance as part of the investigation into the incidents on Thursday 21st July."

The police statement says "block of flats" as well

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1706021,00.html

It makes quite a difference ........

ftp


he should have known better !

23.07.2005 17:17

he came out of an entrance to a block of flats that was under police surveillance and his appearance was "well dodgy" and besides the police have said they are very sorry and that it's a tragedy , so stop whinging
our police are wonderfull !!

magoo


execution

23.07.2005 17:40

This man was executed by police. He wasn't "white". Imagine the outrage if he was. He was just an "asian".

People now have to worry about cops shooting people in the underground besides suicide bombers.

This man was being followed by a group of men in plain clothes. We know that in the last weeks many attacks have occured against "asian" people following the 7/7 bombings. Maybe he was running because he was fearing for his life. He ended up being executed in public.

f-face


Why?

23.07.2005 17:41

Apparently he had 'links' with one of the bombers. If he was completely innocent why was he in a building that was being monitored by the police, and why did he run off when challenged?

Murdered is a strong word, these cops killed him when looking back they shouldn't have, but you can't blame them because this guy could have been a suicide bomber. What If he ran onto the train and set off a bomb and killed innocent people and the cops did nothing?
By saying he was murdered you are saying that the cops conspired to kill him, which they didn't. It was a very tough judgment call, shoot him to prevent a bombing but he may be unarmed, or not shoot him and get myself and others blown up after we jump on him. I guess the cops didn't want to die so they shot him. The guy is stupid for not stopping, especially after the bombings and the tightening of security. At this stage you can't say hes itotally innocent unless you know more than Scotland Yard.

M


f-face

23.07.2005 17:43

His crime was not being "white" and wearing a jacket.

f-face


f-face

23.07.2005 17:47

magoo is "well dodgy".
Should he/she be executed?

f-face


Police murder admitted - but who will prosecute the guilty?

23.07.2005 17:53

This cannot pass. If we let the police get away with shooting an unarmed civilian - five times, in the head, while being held down, as Mark Whitby witnessed and told the BBC - there is no limit to what they will do next.

The police who held this man down and delivered summary justice have to be subjected to criminal proceedings, or the rule of law means nothing in England.

The social-democratic politicians who warmly congratulated the assassins on their actions without even waiting to hear the whole story - that's you, Charles Clarke - should be ashamed.

The social-democratic politicians who supported the policy of "shoot to kill" - that's you, Ken Livingstone - should be ashamed.

The social-democratic politicians who inspired all of this - and that's you, Tony Blair - should be ashamed.

The whole social-democratic cabal who gave up their student ideals to lead us into this dark, uncharted territory - that's you, New Labour, with your pitiful 35% popular vote and your inheritance of Thatcherism - should be ashamed.

This is further proof that state terror, as always, is the flip side of individual terror.

Incredulous in London


Winning "hearts and minds" the Israeli way?

23.07.2005 17:55

"the police have taken advice from officers in countries such as Israel and Sri Lanka which have long experience of suicide attacks."

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4708373.stm

Boycott Israeli Goods


M read the article BEFORE you post

23.07.2005 18:07

> Apparently he had 'links' with one of the bombers.

That's not what the police statement says - it says he was unconnected to the bombers

> If he was completely innocent why was he in a building that was being monitored by the police,

He came out of a block of flats (meaning a multiply occupancy building) within which was an address that the police apparently had uner surveilance. Maybe he lived there, or was visiting friends, or delivery or whatever - the fact is that he did not come out of the address under surveilance and the police now say he was NOT connected to the attacks.

> and why did he run off when challenged?

Plains clothes white cops follow asian man in south london then pull gun... what do you think? Perhaps he didn't speak english. Perhaps he had a warrant out for an unrelated crime. Perhaps he was an illegal imigrant being sought by the imigration department. Perhaps he had just picked up his weekly fix or was carrying a large quantity of weed. Who knows... Fact is, he had nothing to do with the bomber and was murdered because he was asian looking.

> Murdered is a strong word, these cops killed him when looking back they shouldn't have, but you can't
> blame them because this guy could have been a suicide bomber.

murder is murder.
and you could be a sucide bomber too.
would you blame me if I shot you?

> What If he ran onto the train and set off a bomb and killed innocent people and the cops did nothing?

Fucks sake... cops were wrong! He had nothing to do with the bombers. Don't you get it?

> By saying he was murdered you are saying that the cops conspired to kill him, which they didn't.

They chased him, knocked him to the ground and fired five bullets into him. Those five shots were not a random number but based on advice for a shoot to kill policy in dealing with sucide bombers. So yes, they did deliberatly kill him after conspiring to ensure the best method of killing a suspected sucide bomber. They murdered him. simple.

> It was a very tough judgment call, shoot him to prevent a bombing but he may be unarmed,
> or not shoot him and get myself and others blown up after we jump on him.

They got it wrong. They followed the wrong guy. They made him nervous and then in their panic they killed him. Tought judgement call? This is somebody they apparently thought had a bomb. They followed him from a block off flats and allowed him to get in the station and then into a train! Fucking hire some professionals and get these idiots off the street!

>The guy is stupid for not stopping, especially after the bombings and the tightening of security.

Stupid? Do you know how many asians have been attacked in the street by strangers since the 7/7 attacks?

> At this stage you can't say hes itotally innocent unless you know more than Scotland Yard.

You are an idiot. You didn't read the thread at all. Listen really carefully. The cops have admitted that the man was not connected to the bombers. He was innocent.

n


I'm sure mr magoo

23.07.2005 18:07

will be ABLE to provide a PERFECTLY reasonable explanation for THIS extra-judicial MURDER.
I look forward to HIS reply.

alwun


Shooting of innocent man on tube

23.07.2005 18:47

They (the police)can't get away with this,the shooting of a innocent man.It is up to the public to show there anger at this matter.GRAHAM....

graham


Executive death

23.07.2005 19:06


The power given to police officers to shoot and kill arises out of state of emergency decrees that are in operation since the 7/7 bombings. The police may use force, reasonable force to prevent a crime occuring. This is the position of s.3 of the Criminal Act 1967. But the circumstances that would allow the use of force are provided in the police guidelines and not by a statute that has been passed by parliament. This makes the decision to shoot and kill a totally executive decision and the death of any person if the shooting is successful an executive death. The death of this innocent man at Stockwell tube station, should act as a reminder that we are living in a state, where shoot and kill is not a right but rather an arbitrary power. Even more it reminds us that democracy is not what we are living in.

anonymous


Curiouser and Curiouser

23.07.2005 19:16

'Man shot dead was not a bomber'

Why would "police" shoot a man - five times - AFTER he had been apprehended? Perhaps to keep him from relating what he had witnessed?

Reuters

LONDON: A man shot dead by police at a London Underground station on Friday was not one of the four bombers who tried to attack the city's transport system on Thursday, Sky Television reported citing security sources.

"This is what I am picking up from security sources that the man who was shot this (Friday) morning at Stockwell tube wasn't one of those four bombers that police are hunting," Sky reporter Martin Brunt said.

A spokesman for London's Metropolitan Police said only: "the gentleman shot at Stockwell today has yet to be identified, so it would be impossible to link him to anything at this stage."

Police shot the man a day after four attempted bomb attacks in London and 15 days after bombers killed more than 50 people in the British capital.

Police said the shooting was part of an operation directly linked to an "anti-terrorist" probe.

They said they were still looking for four men in connection with Thursday's attacks, which caused chaos but killed no one.
 http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEH20050722114819&Title=Top%

Police seeking London bombers shoot man dead
 http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005

Don't Fall for the PsyOps


Was he really innocent?

23.07.2005 19:18

The BBC website says the following:

1: Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase a man into Stockwell Tube station from the street
2: One person says the man vaulted the automatic ticket barriers as he made his way to the platforms
3: The most direct route is via this escalator or the staircase that sits alongside it
4: Police challenge the man but he apparently refuses to obey instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm


Just becos he had nothing to do with the failed attack, desn't mean he was innocent. You think there's only four potential suicide bombers in Britain? If he was innocent why was he running from the cops? Why did he jump over the turnstile? Why did he refuse to obey police instructions?

Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in British history.
One day after yet another attempt.

If he was innocent then what happened is more like suicide on his part not homicide on the policemen's part.

I ask all of you who so easily criticise the police: What would you have done if you were in the their shoes? Let him board the train? What if he really did blow it up and killed scores of innocent people?

I don't want to live in a police state, but I don't want to live in anarchy neither.

Oh and please don't play the race card. The more it gets played, the more likely people to ignoire it. It's like the boy who cried wolf. People are paying less and less attention to accusations of racism and many right wingers are now using it as a badge of pride.

How was the shooting racist? I bet a white man doing the same thing he would've suffered the same fate. And people would be saying: "Imagine the uproar if he was asian".

Proud Liberal


It's time

23.07.2005 19:36

It is time to put real, concerted pressure on Blair to resign.
Since his justification for the current, ongoing state of exception in which police and politicians can continue to act on their own executive authority would be his usual bleating that he could not stand by and watch in case 'something' were to happen, then it is time for him to admit that something HAS happened, and it is in a very real way HIS fault.

Jo


Put it in perspective

23.07.2005 19:38

For a site about being 'alternative' and not trusting the world media and the world government, you guys are a little bit trusting.

Terrorism, as its name suggests, isn't just about killing people, its about causing fear, terror etc, in the lives of ordinary people.

Consider for a moment, the differences between how people reacted on the 7th to how they reacted on the 21st. On the 7th, we've been repeatedly told that people didn't panic as such, yet on the 21st, we see people panicking.

To me, that suggests that the terrorist are winnning.

Now consider for a second how the police, and media are playing this out. The media reporting all these incidents is causing racial tension. Hell, I only have to walk up the street to a garage run by those of a ethnic origin, and they'll tell me how sales are down, how they've been called names, how people have asked if they are going to run away to london and blow themselves up...

The police on the other hand, have realised that their tactics in Leeds etc have been somewhat heavy handed. This incident won't help. So instead, they seem to be playing things down. Incidents that to me seem related, we're being told are 'people unconnected to the current line of enquiry' etc.

If anything, i'd say the police are attempting almost a media blackout or at a minimum, a media obscifution.

Now consider something else...

How many people reading this have ever held a gun. How many here have shot a gun. How many people here have shot a gun at someone who could have been a suicide bomber. How many here have taken a live...

Guess not many... I personally wouldn't be able to do it...

Firearms officers are trained to make those kind of descisions. They're trained to make instant choices between the life of a suspect and the lives of hundreds of innocents... These officers take regular pysch evaluations to ensure they are mentally capable of taking those kind of shots. These are your typical 'pig' of the street that no kid, parent, shopkeeper respects. These are effectively the creme de la creme.

As for the pushing the suspect to the ground, holding him down, and shooting him 5 times in the head...

WTF?

I honestly wish I knew where this came from. Not only is it not in the operating guidelines for the police, SAS, or any other special forces, a basic look at video footage from thursday the 21st and a basic consideration of personal safety shows that doing this is idiotic.

The officers immediate concern is to stop the suspect and make sure his hands cannot activate any detonators, before ensuiring he's not armed/rigged, and then taking the suspect into custody. Does a bunch of officers jumping on a potential suicide bomber sound sensible? Would you jump on a guy that might have 4 kilo of plastique strapped to his chest?

Cut the police some slack, they've not got much support, and people not trusting their desicsion isn't going to help. Yes, if its proved that the guy they shot is innocent, the officers are likely to be up on manslaughter charges.

Adam

Adam
mail e-mail: adam@thunderscape.co.uk


Protest should be organised

23.07.2005 19:40

After this disgraceful abuse of police power, not to mention human rights - the police and the government who must surely authorise such atrocities need to be brought to account. I would suggest that a large protest or something similar should be organised as quickly as possible, this is meant to be a democracy after all. The people of this country will not stand for this sort of thing, the man who does not defend his liberties does not deserve them.

anon


Brazilian Fundamentalist??

23.07.2005 19:52

The news banner thing on the BBC website says the guy may have been Brazilian....

Which might have explained why he was running away. He might not have understood the methods of our friendly english bobby- as 20 of them in plain clothes and machine guns chased after him. Also that might be why he found London a bit chilly in July.

Jim


yes 'n and also

23.07.2005 20:04

he came out of a block of flats, but that doesn't mean he came from one of the flats in the building.
He might have nipped through the back door and out of the front and used it as a short cut.
His reasons could well have been that he was a dope dealer, he told his wife that he was going somewhere and intended to go to the pub, whatever ! and if challenged by a bunch of gun slingers why not leg it.
I lived on the other side of that esate until 1984 and I often walked through those buildings for various reasons.

plod


Caution

23.07.2005 20:20

I would only suggest to stop speculation at this time, as far as I know there is nothing for sure, but quite soon the details will be released. I can't pronounce myself without knowing for sure what the REAL facts are.

observer


Hmm, Not Really

23.07.2005 20:28

"I'm sure mr magoo will be ABLE to provide a PERFECTLY reasonable explanation for THIS extra-judicial MURDER. I look forward to HIS reply." alwun

Times of the highest tension. Cops make a mistake of the very, very worst order. First to put their hands up to the mistake as soon as it was confirmed, so hardly a cover-up. A tragedy, right enough.

I suspect that Magoo, like me, will be expecting nothing less than a full criminal investigation followed by the levelling of appropriate charges. Has to be manslaughter, I would have thought, although I'm not familiar with the niceties of English (and Welsh) criminal law.

Boab

Boab


So what if he's Brazilian?

23.07.2005 20:29

He could've been a blond haired blue eyed whiteboy for all I care. Why did he run?

Liberal


Like Rio, but without the beaches

23.07.2005 20:40

You are from Brazil (the country, not the movie). You are used to living around gangs fighting each other with guns of all sizes. You go to London, perhaps because you are sick of living around those guys. All of a sudden you find yourself chased by a bunch of guys in plain clothes. They have weapons. Your instinct is to run. You got killed.

e.


Hope this is freak occurance.

23.07.2005 21:23

I don't blame the cops, I think they were scared of what he could have been, and I think anybody in their shoes would be scared, too.

But you're right, the victim could also have been scared of what the cops could have been.

So I guess ultimately the murderers of this man are those who instil the fear, the terrorists here, and if you're right the gangsters in Brazil.

- - - - - - -

I don't think people do any favours by saying this is an abuse of police power or repression. If he wasn't a suspected threat to innocent lives, why else would the police kill him?

A lot of people on this website seem biased in their hatred of the police. Many of them do want to abuse their power, but I believe most are decent people who just want to protect us.

I bet if the victim does turn out to be innocent then the cops who killed him would be very upset over it. I don't think anybody with an ounce of humanity wouldn't be troubled if they knew they had slain an innocent man.

I do hope this is freak occurance.

Liberal


Oh Liberal!!

23.07.2005 21:32

You are very naive, and now I think, somewhat disillusioned in your heros in blue. But it is time to move on and take a long hard look at the world you live in.

Skyver Bill


Proud Liberal poxy twat

23.07.2005 21:41

> If he was innocent why was he running from the cops? Why did he jump over the turnstile?
> Why did he refuse to obey police instructions?

I often refuse to obey police orders - it usually results in my arrest or them fucking off cause they know they are in the wrong. It doesn't usually end in me being shot dead with bullets in the head. But then, I am not asian - I am white.

> If he was innocent then what happened is more like suicide on his part not homicide on the
> policemen's part.

Fuck off,, sucide because he ran from white suspious white people? You sick cunt.

> I ask all of you who so easily criticise the police: What would you have done if you were in the
> their shoes? Let him board the train? What if he really did blow it up and killed scores of
> innocent people?

HE DID BOARD THE TRAIN YOU DICK!! The cops let him get on the train before they killed him. If he had a bomb then they may all have been killed, cops and all. BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE A BOMB - HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! The police have admitted this - why are you still defending them?

> How was the shooting racist?

Asian man leaves block of flats under servielance wearing bulky jacket on the coldest morning of July. Cops follow him and assuming he is a bomber they do not stop and search him before he gets to the tube but instead allow he to board the train then execute him. Do you see them shooting any white people as sucide bombers? No, me neither. Infact the vast majority of people killed by British cops are none white.

n


Some questions

23.07.2005 22:10

Not even a “liberal” can defend this incident. Here are some questions for those who would like to try.

If someone jumps a barrier on the tube, after failing to stop for some plain clothed officers should they expect a fair trial or instant execution?

Surely the guidelines for shooting a suicide bomber 5 times in the head to prevent them triggering a bomb has to be by a sniper some distance away. Chasing a guy through a tube station gives him ample time to detonate the explosives. Does any one know the exact nature of the guidelines? Why did they let him get into the packed train if they believed he had a bomb?

As for the race issue: do you really believe that a white skinned guy would have been apprehended or even been suspected of being a fundamentalist Islamic suicide bomber? I am sure such people exist, but given the well documented ethnic sensibilities of members of the met, and the recent rolling out of dark skinned Muslims all over the British media to explain their religion after the recent bombings, do you think those with the guns on Friday would really have done this to a white guy?

If you advocate a "liberal" society, you have to accept risks. There is the remote chance that anyone you see is a suicide bomber. If a dark skinned man breaks several laws and runs from the police during a time of fear of dark skinned men, he should be able to expect the same “liberal” treatment as any other person of any skin colour in Britain.

This incident certainly sends a message to those who are considering suicide bombings – try it and you’ll get killed. Are suicide bombers afraid of death?
If this incident was designed to send any kind of message does it count as a terrorist incident itself?

Tripdee
mail e-mail: metoday@hotmail.com


Britian Says Man Killed by Police Had No Tie to Bombings

23.07.2005 22:20

By ALAN COWELL
Published: July 24, 2005

LONDON, July 23 - Scotland Yard admitted Saturday that a man police officers chased and shot to death at point-blank range in front of horrified subway passengers on Friday had nothing to do with the investigation into the bombing attacks here.

Senior investigators and officials of the Metropolitan Police said the man was believed to be South American; it was not known whether he was Muslim. No explosives or weapons were found on the man's body after the shooting, police officials said.

The incident sent shock waves through the country's 1.6 million Muslims, already alarmed by a publicly acknowledged shoot-to-kill policy directed against suspected suicide bombers. And it has dealt a major setback to the police investigation into suspected terrorist cells in London.

"This really is an appalling set of circumstances," said John O'Connor, a former police commander. "The consequences are quite horrible."

Azzam Tamimi, head of the Muslim Association of Britain, said: "This is very frightening. People will be afraid to walk the streets, or go on the tube, or carry anything in their hands."

The admission by the police that it had killed a man not involved in the investigation revived and fueled an already tense debate over the arming of British police officers. It also came after a series of police misstatements since July 7, when four bombing attacks on three subway trains and a double-decker bus in London killed 56 people, including the four suicide bombers, and injured hundreds of others.

On Thursday, four more attackers attempted to bomb three other subway trains and a bus, but their bombs failed to explode. On Friday, plainclothes police officers staking out an apartment followed a man who emerged from it, then chased him into the Stockwell subway station and onto a train. The man tripped and the police officers in pursuit fired five rounds at point-blank range.

After the shooting, Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said, "The information I have available is that this shooting is directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation."

The police then issued images taken from closed circuit television cameras of four men suspected of carrying out the failed attacks on Thursday and said that, while the man they shot may not have been one of the men in the photographs, he was still being sought as part of their investigation. "The man shot at Stockwell station is still subject to formal identification and it is not yet clear whether he is one of the four people we are seeking to identify and whose pictures have been released today," a statement said Friday.

"Nevertheless the man who was shot was under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was itself under observation because it was linked to the investigation of yesterday's incidents." the Friday statement said.

"He was then followed by surveillance officers to the station. His clothing and his behavior at the station added to their suspicions," the statement added, apparently referring to reports that the man was wearing bulky jacket on a summer day.

Throughout Saturday, the police refused to give any further details. Then, in the late afternoon, Scotland Yard issued a statement contradicting the earlier police comments.

"We believe we know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police, although he is still subject to formal identification," the new statement said. "We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday, 21st July."

The statement repeated that the man had been seen emerging from an apartment house under police surveillance and had been followed by officers.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets," the statement said. It said the police had started a formal inquiry.

So far in the investigation, the police have detained two suspects. It was not clear whether those men were among the four caught on security cameras.

jjj


No to protests

23.07.2005 22:22

I have been quite shocked and disappointed that this man was killed when he didn’t have a bomb. The cops that shot him probably are as well, not only do they have to live with the fact they killed a man, but they killed a man with seemingly no connection to the suicide bombers. I don't think any protests about the police would be welcomed. This is a tough enough time as it is, these are very dark days. If people start protesting about police brutality, that'll stir up even more tensions within the already fragile Muslim/Police relationship. At this stage it appears to be a tragic mistake, and the police have claimed full responsibility. I can imagine there will be angry Muslims in Britain wanting cops blood, and a mass protest would probably fuel this hatred. Why can't we all except this was a tragic mistake and move on, like we are trying to do with 7/7. The police are busy dealing with bomb threats and hunting for the four terrorist suspects. Is it wise to focus on the police and make the police the enemy? The real enemy are the terrorists, they started this situation. Without the terrorists this man shot by the police and the many more killed in bomb attacks would not be dead. All people who are against terrorism should stick together.

M


A reply to Proud Liberal

23.07.2005 22:26

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
Stockwell passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen a man of Asian appearance shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers".
"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said.
"They unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead, five shots, he's dead."

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1534779,00.html
A police spokesman named the dead man as Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian who had been living in London for the last three years, working as an electrician.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4708373.stm
The police deployment of firearms is governed by a manual published by the Association of Police Officers, last revised in February 2005. It is not true to say that police officers must identify themselves or shout a warning when confronting a suspect believed to pose a grave and imminent threat.

So here’s a question for Proud Liberal

Imagine you’re living in a wet, cold, foreign country; you pull on a thick jacket to keep warm, nervously eyeing your surroundings as you leave the blocks of flats (where you’ve just finished re-wiring a flat for an OAP) given the recent up surge in racist attacks. You notice three suspicious white blokes with some sort of weapons concealed under their jackets. You quicken your pace to try and lose them but they keep following you. In desperation you run into the nearest tube station in the hope you can lose them by jumping onto a train. The police panic, draw their guns and start waving them about (Remember they’re not obliged to identify themselves or issue a warning);

Do you
A. Assume you unidentified assailants are the police stop and put your hands up
B. Assume this is some ort of racist attack, mugging or murder attempt and run for your life.

Rember the guys immediate concern is to ensure he's not going to get killed. Does running away from a bunch of unidentifed men with guns sound sensible? What would you do in a state of fear and panic?

Cut the guy some slack will you , they've got terrorists running around on the underground trying to kill people.

Richard


How am I sick?

23.07.2005 22:28

I think it's horrible that an innocent person has died and I feel sad for his family, but what about from the police's point of view?

If you run away from cops onto a train so soon after terrorists have targeted trains, then I am sorry but that *IS* suicide. And it doesn't matter what colour you are becos you get white terrorists, too.

They told him to stop but he wouldn't. He may not have had a bomb, but cops don't have X-Ray specs either. What are they supposed to do? I asked that before on my first post but nobody has answered me.

Maybe I'm not the sick one, but instead you're the sick one for thinking the cops murdered him for no good reason.

You remind me of posters on Little Green Footballs. There's very little difference of opinion on their too cos they also abuse anybody who dares to think differently. If you don't mix with people who think differently, then you'll only reinforce each other's prejudices.

They also talk about Muslims the same way you talk about Cops. As if they are not human, should not to be trusted, and always up to something.

Liberal


Murder, not manslaughter

23.07.2005 22:43

It would be manslaughter if the shooting was unintentional. But I don't see how holding someone down then pumping five bullets into their head could be construed as accidental. The intention to kill can not be disputed. You do not injure, disable or disarm by putting five bullets in a person's head. Murder it is.

Of course, the 'justice' system will not follow its own rules. It's doubtful anyone will get done for manslaughter, let alone murder. There'll probably be some convoluted misadventure verdict.

By the way, there seems to be a a fair few bigots, fascists and reactionary bastards on Indymedia these days. Wouldn't it be nice if just for a change, the police 'misadventured' these fuckers with a few bullets to the head. Ha ha.

pleb


comfirmation of identity is Jean Charles de Menezes

23.07.2005 22:50

It has now been admitted that the man who was shot was not connected with the bombings in any way.He was actually Brazilian not asian!
It is horrifying how people have so easily accepted that its ok for the cops or whoever they were to shoot someone dead in this way

From Gardian,story also seen on Sky news.

The man shot dead in Stockwell tube station yesterday was not connected to the attempted bombings of London on July 21, police said tonight.
A police spokesman named the dead man as Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian who had been living in London for the last three years, working as an electrician.

Police said the shooting was a "tragedy" and they expressed "regret".

In a statement, the Metropolitan police said: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell underground station by police on Friday July 22 2005."

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday July 21 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets.

"The man emerged from a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police surveillance as part of the investigation into the incidents on Thursday July 21.

"He was then followed by surveillance officers to the underground station. His clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions."

I suppose there will still be people who defend this 'because he was acting suspicious.' It seems to me that anyone with dark hair and a sun tan is now at risk of being suspected of being a terrorist.



silvia


Response to 'n'

23.07.2005 22:51

> I often refuse to obey police orders - it usually results in my arrest or them fucking off cause they know they are in the wrong. It doesn't usually end in me being shot dead with bullets in the head. But then, I am not asian - I am white.

Have you ever been told to stop by armed police during a terrorist enquiry? No? How can you compare being a twat to being a suspected terrorist? Do you think the police target asian people because they're racist? Don't you think it has anything to do with the fact that all the suicide bombers have been either asian or black?

> sucide because he ran from white suspious white people? You sick cunt.

They weren't suspicious white people, they were armed cops. They would have said 'Stop, armed police.'

> HE DID BOARD THE TRAIN YOU DICK!! The cops let him get on the train before they killed him. If he had a bomb then they may all have been killed, cops and all. BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE A BOMB - HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! The police have admitted this - why are you still defending them?

He tripped as he boarded the train and the cops pushed him over and they shot him seconds after. So he got onto the train, but its not as if he had time to calmly detonate a bomb. How were the police supposed to know he didn't have a bomb? They killed him because they thought he had one, it turns out he didn't, the police have admitted that. Move on.

> How was the shooting racist?
>Asian man leaves block of flats under servielance wearing bulky jacket on the coldest morning of July. Cops follow him and assuming he is a bomber they do not stop and search him before he gets to the tube but instead allow he to board the train then execute him. Do you see them shooting any white people as suicide bombers? No, me neither. In fact the vast majority of people killed by British cops are none white.

>Asian man leaves block of flats under servielance wearing bulky jacket.

All of the previous bombers were either black or asian. Why are you surprised they target asian people?

>Cops follow him and assuming he is a bomber they do not stop and search him before he gets to the tube but instead allow he to board the train then execute him.

They couldn't stop and search him because he ran off! They didn't allow him on the train, they chased him to the train and he tripped on the way in. They didn't execute him, they shot him because he didn't comply and they thought he was a bomber. An execution is pre meditated and callous, this was a heat of the moment, split second decision shooting that was within the guidelines of the rules of engagement.

>Do you see them shooting any white people as suicide bombers? No, me neither. In fact the vast majority of people killed by British cops are none white.

Again, ALL the previous bombers were asian or black, so it makes sense that they monitor asians and blacks over whites does it not? Name me ONE case from anywhere in the world where there has been a white suicide bomber.....Also, how do you know British cops have shot more none white people than white people? Any evidence? Facts?

M


Comment 1

23.07.2005 23:00

" This man was executed by police. He wasn't "white". Imagine the outrage if he was. He was just an "asian".

People now have to worry about cops shooting people in the underground besides suicide bombers.

This man was being followed by a group of men in plain clothes. We know that in the last weeks many attacks have occured against "asian" people following the 7/7 bombings. Maybe he was running because he was fearing for his life. He ended up being executed in public."

Welcome to the f*cked up world that is England, where we don't stop people at the gates with enough force that when they do get in, they don't understand our language and are threatened by our way of life and the everyday goings on.
Do you not think this man was asked to stop?
Do you not think, if he had either the ability to understand or the frame of mind to understand he wouldn't have done what he did?

I'm glad the police are willing to kill, because 1 person dead is a whole lot better than 50 dead or 100 or 500 or 5000 or the whole frick'n country.

OJ


Murder, not manslaughter?

23.07.2005 23:08

Yeah, thats just what we need, highly trained cops off the streets during a serious terrorist threat.............

And who said they held him down? The reports i've seen said he half tripped and was half pushed....Do you really think the cops would take their time holding someone down while they take aim if they think the man has a bomb? He would have been shot as soon as he fell over to prevent him from setting of a bomb.

M


Lesson for Liberals

23.07.2005 23:50

Many who consider themselves liberals, it appears to me, are not really liberals at all, since they fail to understand their own putatively liberal principles, notably in the case of civil rights.

The point of a civil right is to secure a liberty under law; to so entrench a liberty as a right that, when agents of the State propose the existence of a state of affairs which recommends the infringement of said liberty, it may not be infringed even so.

Think about it: if a civil right is subject to infringement by agents of the State whenever a putatively sufficient reason to infringe it can be given, then that civil right does not indeed exist at all in any meaningful sense. To put it another way, the civil right to a particular liberty will prevail in all cases except where agents of the State can provide a rationale for infringing it.

Think about it, liberals. And note that whenever States do infringe putative civil rights, they are seldom so incompetent that they fail to introduce some specious rationale for doing so.

Understand that if you believe that civil rights can be traded off against some putatively justified infringement - for example that one can trade off the right not to be shot dead when under-cover policemen, ignorant as yet of any facts of the case, work up a groundless suspicion of intent, against the rationale of protection against terrorist murders - then you are giving a senseless interpretation of the liberal principle of a civil right. A philosophically rigorous liberal cannot justify the infringement of civil rights, on pain, as I said at the beginning, of ceasing to be a true liberal.

No liberal can therefore justify the murder by policemen of a suspect. Many "liberals" of course do and will express the opinion that, in the present state of affairs, we must partially trade off civil rights against our response to the heightened threat of murder. Those who do so fail to comprehend liberalism; they believe that civil rights should always prevail - except when there is a reason not to let them.

What kind of a principle is that?

It is very rare in my experience to meet a real liberal. We are on the slippery slope to liberal democracy Israeli-style: a State which pronounces itself defender of liberalism and democracy, while systematically oppressing a subject population. How different from that, in principle rather than scope as yet I'll own, would be a UK State, pronouncing its defence of liberalism and democracy while its security agents feel justified in chasing and shooting every coat-wearing, bag-carrying individual of possibly Asian appearance who dares to approach a public transport vehicle? Naturally, there are a million reasons, other than that he was a would-be suicide bomber, that this guy decided - in a panic, probably - to run from a gang of armed men in his pursuit.

Dear liberals, I know that you mean well - even though you are unfortunately ideologically submerged (which is very frustrating by the way for a Lefty like me who would very much like to be able to live his life without capitalism, please?) - so just consider what it means to be in favour of liberalism, and the pseudo-democracy which you think is the real thing only because you've never been near real democratic participation: it means that you don't support discretionary execution.

It means that YOU DON'T SUPPORT DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION!!!

P.S. Isn't it sad when a socialist has to teach liberalism to those who haven't even understood that much?!

Liberation! (depleted-uranium flavour)


Easy to criticise isn't it.......

23.07.2005 23:57

..........when you don't have the responsibility of making split second decisions over other peoples lives. Imagine the circumstances had been different - The man had been a bomber but the police hesitated in bringing him down and he had blown up the tube station/train killing half a dozen people in the process - next day headlines - "eye witnesses have reported the police failed to act when they had the chance seconds before the man detonated the device etc etc.................." public enquiries, suspensions, chief commissioner's head on the block blah blah
Yeah, it's real easy to sit here and play armchair critic when it's not you..............I do not see the police as untouchables, they are humans, they make mistakes but I think those who seek to capitalise on this tradegy to reinforce there own rhetoric that the police are a modern incarnation of the Gestapo are pathetic in the extreme.

AC

AC


Accident, m'lud

24.07.2005 00:04


Sorry everyone, but posting on here without listening, he was asking for it, no?

Proud macho cock with a gun


Make your minds up

24.07.2005 01:02

I am going to stay clear of the previous threads, for reasons of mere housekeeping in the poor filing system IMC uses. This one is near the top of the pile.

This is thoroughly ugly. A fortnight ago, it was Dissent. G8-alternatives et al looking bloody stupid, now it is any who offered a word of support to the police. Back then, nonsense was spouted concerning the "lop-sided" security in concentrating on an event with a track record of disorder and where eight powerful political leaders were meeting. Why could the police not have "done their job", and protected the ordinary Londoners, we were asked. Now they were ostensibly doing so, and there is an equally vitriolic outpouring.

Aim_Here asked if I thought the Alecs of this world were not likely to be shot by mistake. No, of course not. Does he, or she, think the Aim_Heres of this world are not likely to be innocent bystanders when a bomb explodes? I have been back over my posts, and am relieved to see at no point did I rejoice in the shooting. Nor did I claim that suspects should be subject to summary execution. Comments were made that if it were a terrorist, it was a “job well done” and that the officers should be carried on adoring shoulders. They were not made by me.

What I did do was to offer a rationale for that which was going through the officers’ minds. My mistake was, when faced with the drivel coming from certain individuals who were bending over backwards to find fault with the police, to stick in my heels. We were *all* offering mere conjecture. There is no dichotomy is believing the invasion of Iraq to be disgusting and immoral, and also believing that there exists a real danger of terrorist attack. Aim_Here’s, however, was the only counter point which was not barking mad. It turned out to be correct, but could easily have been wrong.

We were treated to some pop psychology (I forget by whom) about “moral relativism”. That is precisely what the poster was playing at. That it is apparently infinitely preferable to have a bomb goes off than to kill/incarcerate an innocent man. It is not. Nor is the alternative.

Murder remains too emotive a word. Equally, referring to a “shoot to kill” policy resurrects uncomfortable memories of reprehensible behaviour in Northern Ireland. This was not a premeditated killing. It is a monumental operational foul-up, but the officers were not intent on bagging an al-Qaida or slotting a Taleban. When next the police hang fire - and believe me, they will - I hope they will not be dealing with a real ‘kazi. For their sake, as much as

My first thought on hearing the initial reports was, Christ, do not let this be an innocent man. Not because I wanted death to anyone with a connexion to the Tube bombings, no matter how nebulous, but simply because it meant had courted his own demise. If a drunk smashed up his car, killing only himself, I would be sorry but will not let it bother me. Perhaps, as I said elsewhere, I have made it easier to condone it by dehumanising them. But it is only ever *individuals* whom I have done this to.

The joke that during the 1980s, ~*insert barracks town*~ considering bringing in the I.R.A. as peacekeepers belies the fact that there is a lot of complacency and ingratitude out there. The security forces are more likely to be crucified for their mistakes, and crucified again when they are not around, than they are to be thanked. [1] Much is made of the fact that, over the past two decades, as many Falkland veterans have died destitute or by their own hand as on a few acres of sheep-farm. Yes, the Maggot Scratcher bears responsibility for this, but which society abandoned them? Answer, the same society which was positively wetting its collective knickers at the sight of the task force setting sail.

Many of the same voices calling the police trigger-happy animals are the same which were greitin' after the Tube bombs. For crying out loud, make up your minds! How many of you drive? I expect you are deeply concerned about the quest for hydrocarbons, but resign yourselves to filling up at E$$O. Even those, like myself, who do not drive still live a reasonable life on the goods brought by road.

To those who are claiming they feel less safe with armed-police than with 'kazis on the loose, you are self-satisfied idiots. Suspend all emotion: one entirely innocent man has been shot; several entirely innocent men have been surrounded by armed-police, but *not* shot; several dozen entirely innocent people have been turned to human confetti; several dozen entirely innocent people were damn well near turned to human confetti. Although, in the scheme of things, that has not left my mind white with fear, it does concern me more than the horrible turn of events at Southwell.

I have had a little too much cake. My sore stomach is partially my fault.







[1] That comes from literature on non-violence, before anyone asks.

Alec


very easy to criticise actually

24.07.2005 01:29

The Government caused the reasons why people want to blow themselves and others up ( I am not saying that they are right to do so, they are in fact as bad as the murderers in Government and those carrying out their orders), and now the Government has given the police the go ahead to kill people in the UK.

Maybe one way to solve the problem, rather than continue this cycle of brutality is for those responsible for supporting Afghanistan and Iraq to turn themselves in to the ICC for crimes against humanity.

It is easy for us to criticise from the comfort of our armchairs, because those of us that do criticise could see the UK being targeted by those unhappy with our blatantly unjust and murderous foreign policy (as could even the CIA in 2002), and most of us could see the Government using that as an excuse to remove more of our civil liberties, in this case a universal human right of a right to life to the poor sod who was shot 5 times in the head for no apparent reason (see above posts for reasons why he was not at all likely to be a suicide bomber).

This time the guy that was shot was not even carrying a table leg in a bag.

Tripdee


mistakes only tolerated if you are white

24.07.2005 03:05

Evidently, the white folks responding to this article are so conveniently blind to the realities in this world that they are doing their utmost to project this, plain and simple, cold-blooded murder as an accident. Stupid comments like: Why did he run if he was innocent? Why was he in the block of flats under police surveillance, if he wasn't in some way guilty?

To all the white folks reading this, I say: REMOVE THE BLINDERS FROM YOUR EYES, AND YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH.

Why did he run if he wasn't guilty? Consider a black man in america being chased by a gang of white men, possibly KKK, and tell me one good enough reason why he should remain stationary with hand extended to greet them. I am quite sure that Rodney KIng would have something to say about this; he was chased by uniform policemen, not plain clothes officers, and he was brutally beaten when they caught up with him.

What was he doing in the block of flats being observed by the police? In the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that Almighty God destroyred, there was still one righteous man whose name was Lot. No matter how bad a neighbourhood, there has to be at least one good person living there.

The irony about this declaration of 'war on terror' by Bush and Blair, a sinister revelation has raised its ugly head. Blacks and Muslims are now, more than ever, stereotyped. If any other bombs go off, it got to be one of those evil terrorists, the blacks or the muslims.

No wonder the good book says; "For there shall arise false Christs and false prohets and shall show great signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Matthew 24, 24.

Clarence Edwards


MURDER is exactly what this is.

24.07.2005 03:57

And murder is exactly the crime the police who shot this innocent man should be charged with. That would be Justice.

Dancing Dave
mail e-mail: davidk@oz-online.net


Morrissey say...

24.07.2005 04:58

...it's a death for no reason - and death for no reason is murder.

FedUp


A response to some comments above

24.07.2005 08:42

Re Was he really innocent?

- "Just becos he had nothing to do with the failed attack, desn't mean he was innocent. You think there's only four potential suicide bombers in Britain? If he was innocent why was he running from the cops? Why did he jump over the turnstile? Why did he refuse to obey police instructions?" -

You've obviously superficially read some of the news, but have you actually tried reading it properly and dissecting and absorbing what has been reported step-by-step?

The man WASN'T running from cops. He was running from heavily armed men dressed in jeans and t-shirts who initially accosted him as he calmly entered the station to take an underground journey, as thousands of other Londoners do day in, day out. He wasn't at any point aware that he was being accosted by cops.

NOT A SINGLE WITNESS recalls hearing these armed men at any time identify themselves as police or show any identification whatsoever. Note well - these guys weren't even wearing police uniforms. There is considerable doubt whether they were even police officers to begin with. The Met claimed that they were, but are now obfuscating about specifically what sort of police they were and from which branch or division. Respected academics and defence experts have pointed out quite rightly that the way the armed men operated did not in any way shape or form resemble the standard police modes of operation or conventional rules of engagement procedures. There has been credible speculation from various respected sources that the guys who shot him may have been from a new undercover army unit formed in April of this year and deployed within the past couple of weeks on British streets following the first tube bombings.

In the aftermath of the bombings and also widespread intimidation, victimisation, assaults and other acts of terror and oppression against non-whites in the south of England, would you not run a mile if guys in t-shirts and jeans armed to the teeth came chasing after you?

Ultimately, the man did end up obeying the instructions of the men (although he wasn't aware at any point they were police instructions) when he tripped up on the train and was then pushed to the ground by one of the armed men, who then shot him immediately 5 times in the head.

So you see, even when they had apprehended him and had an opportunity to search and arrest him and explain what they were after, the "police" choose not to do that. They weren't in the least bit interested. They simply shot him. Although the police have so far failed to explain why these men shot the man, they appear to have made assumptions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that this man COULD have a bomb.

Why did they assume this man COULD have a bomb? Their thinking seems to have followed the following course:

1) the guy has come out of a large block of flats they happened to be surveilling due to some tenuous link the address may or may not have had with the unsuccessful tube bombings on 21/07. [Remember we don't know yet for sure whether they were actually survelling a particular flat in the block this guy lived in. We don't know yet whether he actually even lived in that particular block. He may just have been visiting it or dropping off a letter. We just don't know. Remember it's not a crime to leave a block of flats just because the authorities happen to be secretly surveilling it! The guy had a basic democratic right as a visiting long-term worker in Britain to visit or leave any part of Britain he so wished. What we do know however is that...]

2) for some reason they choose to follow this guy, and when they saw he was going to catch a tube train decided to deploy deadly force to prevent him doing so. Now they had no credible or specific intelligence information or grounds whatsoever for suspecting this man to be a terrorist, a suicide bomber or risk to anyone whatsoever. It's also clear that they didn't actually find out who he was, what his name was etc until AFTER he died and The Brazilian Embassy got involved. Now it seems likely that other people who lived in the block left that building that day. To go to work. To take their kids to school. To get their weekly shopping. The only thing this man appears to have been guilty of is being born HISPANIC, and looking a bit "Johnny Foreigner" in the aftermath of the London bombings and having the 'audacity' to leave a building (that he wouldn't have even known was being secretly surveilled) and going to catch a train. This sort of crude criminal profiling that anyone black, asian and now hispanic is to be judged guilty and to be harassed and possibly executed, until later proved innocent is outrageous, barbaric and an entirely unacceptable, seeds of genocide-style policy that much be stopped in its tracks NOW!

PS Your assertion that the shot Brazilian man effectively committed suicide, as well as being cloud-cuckoo land logic, is offensive in the extreme. As is your futile attempts to defend your position. This was not, as you appear to be trying to suggest 'suicide by cop'. This was A MURDER/EXECUTION BY COP. They didn't possess any reasonable grounds whatsoever for suspecting this man was a suicide bomb threat to anyone, other than that he looked foreign and had come out of a block of flats they were curious about. Perhaps you should sit down and try writing a letter to his family explaining that their son was shot but that it was "all his own fault" and "he had it coming" to him. I'm sure they would just love that.

PPS As for the man wearing a heavy coat on a warm summers day, that's his choice. It doesn't entitle the police to shoot you. Clearly the term "fashion-police" has taken on a rather dark and macabre meaning now. It's also worth remembering that the weather in Brazil is much hotter than London. A typical British summers day would feel like Spring (maybe a little cold in comparison) to a Brazilian used to summer temperatures regularly in the 30's and 40's.

Re Murder, not manslaughter

"there seems to be a a fair few bigots, fascists and reactionary bastards on Indymedia these days"

It wouldn't surprise me if a large number of them are probably police!

.


Jean Charles Menezes

24.07.2005 09:21

Before sounding off about whether it was right or wrong to kill this man, you might like to see who you are talking about.

 http://noticias.terra.com.br/mundo/galerias_js/foto/0,,OI20607-EI4062-FI249479,00.html

I'm in Brazil at the moment and obviously this is the main news.

His cousin Vivian, who lived in the same house in London is quoted as saying: "My cousin was going to work and they are saying he had the attitude of a terrorist. Here it's a race of theirs. You run to get the train because if you miss it and its just gone, it could be three, four or ten minutes. So he was shot in the head from behind. It was extremely stupid. I don't know how to explain it."

This was in one of the leading papers Folha de Sao Paulo, which calls the shooting a 'crime'.

Obviously, if Jean jumped the barriers, he was paniced as well as late for work. But the paper says his cousin states the information from the police "leaves a lot to be desired. My cousin was the victim of incompetence and injustice. He was completely innocent."

The paper says he liked the UK so much he was wanting to settle permanently.

It's winter here at the moment and still hotter than London. People's metabolism is noticably different. Babies are wrapped up against the cold if the temperature dips to 20 degrees. Brazilian's in the UK are amazed at how we don't feel the cold. Hence Jean's 'unseasonable' clothing.

Mike Brady
mail e-mail: mbrady@uol.com.br
- Homepage: http://mikebradybrazil.blogspot.com/


Maybe there is another explanation.......

24.07.2005 09:42

Any death is of course regrettable, but with apologies to the freinds and family of the dead man if indeed he does turn out to be completely unconnected with acts of terror, I would like to suggest an alternative theory.

Given that the terrorists / bombers are not only willing to give their lives in their so-called jihad nonsense but desperate to do so, perhaps blowing themselves up is not always the best way to advance their cause.

Consider how the shooting of this man has further divided our society, how it will make the armed police more hesitant to use force to prevent a potential suicide bomber taking hundreds of innocent people with him. Consider how the public are now drawn further into the culture of fear, but now in fear of the very police who are there to protect them.

It has now been reported that this man was not a suicide bomber (ie: had no explosives on him). But this is not consistent with a number of other facts, ie: the emergence from the flat under surviellance and know to be connected with the terrorists; the wearing of a thick and bulky jacket in temperatures of 22degC; the attempts to evade armed police and get to the tube. Various postings on IMC have suggested maybe the guy had a stash of weed on him - get real, not even a dope dealer is going to run given such bad odds when faced with several armed police! There really is no other way to put all these facts together.

This terrorist has advance his cause much further than he would have done by simply detonating himself, I believe this was a case of 'assisted suicide'.

Very clever ..........so don't be fooled. Any death is regrettable, but lets not get soft on the shoot to kill policy - its unfotunate but essential under these circumstances.

tina cat visit


Suicide by cop? Take a reality check, pleeeaase!

24.07.2005 10:33

[Yet another 'person' trying to disseminate a "suicide by cop" theory. The state are really grasping at straws to get their guys off the hook for this one. Don't be surprised if you start to see this kind of nonsense being reported in the British tabloids through the week!]

"It has now been reported that this man was not a suicide bomber (ie: had no explosives on him). But this is not consistent with a number of other facts, ie: the emergence from the flat under surviellance and know to be connected with the terrorists; the wearing of a thick and bulky jacket in temperatures of 22degC; the attempts to evade armed police and get to the tube...I believe this was a case of 'assisted suicide'."

1) The man wasn't "emerging from a flat that was under surveillance". He left a property in A BLOCK OF FLATS that was under surveillance. There has been no evidence or information released to suggest that either a) he himself was initially specifically under surveillance or b) the flat he had left was specifically under surveillance. Do you bother to read the news? Are you not aware that the Metropolitan Police are now lamely apologising for this tragic killing and have formally announced that this man had no terrorist connections whatsoever and was entirely innocent?

2) There has also been no evidence or information released to state that either the flat or block of flats was known to be connected with ANY terrorists. Where are you getting that information from? Have you bothered to read any of this mornings newspapers? For example, The Observer states:

"The address in Tulse Hill was identified from materials found inside the bombers' unexploded rucksacks on Thursday and was immediately put under surveillance."

 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1535226,00.html

How was the address identified from materials found inside the unxploded rucksacks? Somewhat unhelpfully, it doesn't say. Was there a utility bill, business card or something in the rucksacks? Was there a luggage label or an address from a current or previous owner of the rucksacks written or attached to the rucksacks? Finding something that tenuously connects the rucksack to a probably out-of-date and unconnected address does not entitle you to execute an olive skinned Hispanic man simply because he subsequently emerges from that particular block and is wearing a cosy fleece on a comparitively chilly (compared to Brazil) London morning!

3) the man didn't "attempt to evade armed police and get to the tube." If you read all the primary witness accounts that have been published, you will discover a) the armed men were not wearing police uniforms, and b) they didn't identify themselves as police officers. The man was running from armed men, who - as far as outward appearances were concerned - and given the failure to identify themselves, would have understandably appeared automatically to have been either a) armed robbers or b) terrorists. Certainly not police officers.

But don't worry Tina. Although the state will undoubtedly now be in in overdrive mode trying to minimise the national and international fall-out from this shooting, few of us plan to be fooled by the unsophisticated, ill-informed, offensive and disingenuous candour that your expressing. Remember this is Indymedia. Those sort of tactics are probably better suited to the letters page of The Sun.

.


Man lived for time in area with high murder rate explaining why he may have ran

24.07.2005 10:43

"The BBC's correspondent in Brazil, Tom Gibb, said Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police.

He said: "The murder rates in some of these slums are worse than in a lot of war zones and that could explain why, when plain clothes officers pulled a gun on him, he may have run away."

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711639.stm

.


Unfortunate but necessay post

24.07.2005 10:52

Why do the appologists seem to ignore the points raised in posts condemning the police?

PLease address the points raised above explaining why you believe that shooting Jean Charles de Menezes was necessary rather than repeating the "unfortunate but necessary" mantra.



Tripdee


Yes, the police are racist

24.07.2005 15:15

A few words from a "Yank". The UK police are definitely racist. An apologist for the cops claimed all bombings are by nonwhites. My response to that: what about the IRA? How many Irish have been killed by British police? My guess is zero. The reason: the Irish are white.

Bloody Yank


Cops scared him?

24.07.2005 15:22

I seriously doubt the cops didn't identify themselves to him, but even so;

hmm lets see....
recent bombings (he must have known that)
Police out in full force an looking for anything suspicious (he must have known that too)

In the wake of a serious terrorist attack, you would have thought he'd assume a group of men with guns trying to stop him near a railway station were police.

Don't say he ran because the cops weren't in uniform, how are cops supposed to shadow suspects dressed in uniform? And how could he not understand they were cops? They would have said 'stop armed police' to stop him thinking they were a gang of armed criminals. Do you not think the cops would know he'd be scared and would probably run if they approached him without saying anything and pulling guns? Its like when cops raid houses, they knock the door down and shout 'police,' they don't just knock the door down and raid the house without saying anything.

If you are all right, why are the cops not called murderers in the media? Why did the Muslim council of Britain not say it was a racist shooting? Why does the head of Liberty say the cops are not to blame and have to make split second decisions? Why are your views in the minority? It seems to me you are extremists yourselves. You're views are as far fetched as the BNP's.









M


definition of 'murder'

24.07.2005 16:09

i would like to point out that under british law, murder is defined as a, having actually killed the dead person, (actus reus in legal speak) and b, having intended to kill him/her (mens rea). manslaughter is killing without intending to.

from all reports, the police not only killed this innocent bloke, but also intended to. therefore, they murdered him. british law also eschews capital punishment after trial. why then did the state sanction this murder without a trial? whatever the desperated times that we are living in, to allow state sanctioned killing of civilians (and yes, i am ignoring war, one point at a time) is a very, very dangerous precedent, and one which terrifies me personally (and i'm white). this is a slippery slope which, as far as i can see, can only lead to the retraction of freedom of speech. so this week suspected terrorists are being shot. next week anybody else who disagrees with the neo-liberal order of things?

jellyjohnson


white terrorists / Harry Stanley

24.07.2005 16:29

Bloody Yank is absolutely right in pointing out that there are, and have been, plenty of white terrorists (including the IRA, Timothy McVeigh etc). However, their being white didn't prevent the British Army and security services killing or conspiring in the deaths of a significant of innocent civilians in Northern Ireland (Pat Finucane etc). Interestingly, one of the most controversial cases of a civilian being shot dead by the British police was Harry Stanley, a Scottish man mistaken for an Irish terrorist while walking home with a table leg in a bag. In that case the armed, uniformed police did identify themselves but, being entirely innocent, Stanley kept walking. If a man can misunderstand the intentions of armed, uniformed police who identify themselves, then I would imagine seeing men in civilian clothes following you before producing guns - and allegedly not identifying themselves - would prompt all but the most ludicrously trusting to run for their lives...

Nick


Police don't shoot-to-kill whites?

24.07.2005 18:34

So the police don't 'shoot-to-kill' whites?

I refer you to the history of the British State forces in Northern Ireland. I am not a Republican or a nationalist, but there's ample evidence that 'shoot-to-kill' was official state policy in NI in dealing with 'suspected terrorists'.

Interestingly enough, in the case of NI, there was also collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries and the 'security forces' (and many believe that the Dublin/Monagahan bombings could not have been carried out without some form of collusion) - as well as the State running agents in the Republican groups ('Stakekife' is probably the most famous example - but there have been many others, the most successful of which of course have not been outed and may still be operating).

(See for example, Dennis Faul's book 'The SAS in Ireland', Peter Taylor's TV series 'The Brits' and numerous other objective histories of the IRA or the following pages from the CAIN website:

 http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/docs/sluka00.htm - Extracts from 'Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror' edited by Jeffrey Sluka (2000)

 http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/docs/rolston00.htm - 'Unfinished Business: State Killings and the Quest for Truth' by Bill Rolston

 http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/docs/stevens3/stevens3summary.htm - Stevens Enquiry: Overview and Recommendations, 17 April 2003

 http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/docs/niaolain/niaolain00.htm - Extract from 'The Politics of Force: Conflict Management and State Violence in Northern Ireland' by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (2000)

 http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/birw0299.htm - Deadly Intelligence: State Involvement in Loyalist Murder in Northern Ireland - SUMMARY

 http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/murray.htm - State Violence: Northern Ireland 1969-1997 by Raymond Murray

----------------------------------

But ah you say, that's 'over there', our police would never do that here.

Really?

Remember this? The offensive weapon being a table leg in possession of a (white) carpenter - who apparently the police thought was Irish (he was Scottish).
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm

What about this guy, a mentally ill (white) man with a Samurai sword? This article also details the shooting of a black man in Brixton who had a novelty replica-gun fag lighter.
 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/shot-j23.shtml

Or the case of Diarmuid O'Neill, suspected terrorist, unarmed, and complying with police orders.
 http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450142000?open&of=ENG-2EU

According to the RCG's 'Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism' publication, between 1990 and 2001 there had been some 43 incidents of police/security forces shooting unarmed people in England and Wales, resulting in 28 deaths.
Source:  http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/162/162_shoo.htm

And finally, why these police (or whatever they were) won't face murder charges:
 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1345517,00.html

indie-soc
- Homepage: http://www.indymedia.ie


Comment 2

24.07.2005 20:11

"A few words from a "Yank". The UK police are definitely racist. An apologist for the cops claimed all bombings are by nonwhites."

All the bombings surrounding the London attacks have been commited by "nonwhites".

I'm not pro white, anti black, against the asian community, etc etc but really, The police are acting in a correct fashion, saying that they are racist is just plain stupid.
They shot a man running from them, trying to evade capture whilst dressed in what was I think described, suspicious clothing, in a building that in recent weeks has been subject to numerous attacks by nonwhite men with bombs.



OJ


Comment 2 comment

24.07.2005 21:36

"All the bombings surrounding the London attacks have been commited by 'nonwhites'."

So we are told by the cops - although apparently some of the earlier 'eyewitness' reports from the 7/7 bombings told a different story. But of course London is far more used to bombing attacks launched by white people - either from Ireland or further back - Germany.

"I'm not pro white, anti black, against the asian community, etc etc but really, The police are acting in a correct fashion, saying that they are racist is just plain stupid."

Why? They are making presumptions based on the colour of peoples skin rather than any specific evidence relating to the person themselves. That IS racism.

"They shot a man running from them, trying to evade capture whilst dressed in what was I think described, suspicious clothing in a building that in recent weeks has been subject to numerous attacks by nonwhite men with bombs."

What building? Stockwell Tube or the building they had under servielance? Lets put this into perspective, the building they were 'watching' was a block of flats. The man they killed was an electrician whos 'capital crime' was wearing a jacket on the coldest morning of the month and who ran from white armed men in a week that has seen dozens of attacks by whites against ethinic minorities.

Stop making excuses, the cops were wrong! Shot to kill is WRONG





argh!


Harry Stanley

24.07.2005 21:51

I'm sick of this innocent Harry Stanley shit. Harry Stanley was a convicted armed robber who had burglaries and assaults on his record. The police didn't shoot him because he was Irish. Its not as if they got a call saying 'There’s an Irish guy walking in the street, code red,' they shot him because they got a call from a man in a pub Stanley was in saying he had a shotgun concealed in a bag. When the cops caught up with him they identified themselves and he turned and raised the bag (it was dark and they believed it was a shotgun) so they shot him. The police don’t shoot people because they get off on it, they shoot people who they feel are a threat to their lives. Stop treating Harry Stanley like an innocent victim of 'brutal racist police aggression.' Cops get killed to you know, its not like they dont fear for their own lives. If I was one of the cops I wouldn't wait to see if he had a real gun or not.

M


You're funny!

24.07.2005 22:11

>So we are told by the cops - although apparently some of the earlier 'eyewitness' reports from the 7/7 bombings told a different story. But of course London is far more used to bombing attacks launched by white people - either from Ireland or further back - Germany.

Hahahahhaha! Yeah, it’s a conspiracy, the cops lied that asian and black terrorists are responsible for the London bombings...its really white people. I guess the CCTV of the bombers is faked and the four real bombers got away and the cops murdered four asain and black people to make it seem like they died in the blasts...It all makes sense now...!





M


Comment 3 - Police were right, Brazilian man wasn't.

24.07.2005 22:20


"So we are told by the cops - although apparently some of the earlier 'eyewitness' reports from the 7/7 bombings told a different story. But of course London is far more used to bombing attacks launched by white people - either from Ireland or further back - Germany."

But, thats not what we are talking about. The man was shot in relation to 7/7.

"Why? They are making presumptions based on the colour of peoples skin rather than any specific evidence relating to the person themselves. That IS racism."

Thats not racism, the police are making these presumptions because the previous bombers from 7/6 and 14/7 have been of a non white skin colour. And, I don't know, I'm just throwing something up here but there is probably evidence they are following which, we don't know about that is pointing in the direction of nonwhite men. Use your head.

"What building? Stockwell Tube or the building they had under servielance? Lets put this into perspective, the building they were 'watching' was a block of flats. The man they killed was an electrician whos 'capital crime' was wearing a jacket on the coldest morning of the month and who ran from white armed men in a week that has seen dozens of attacks by whites against ethinic minorities."

The station.
But these were not white men looking to attack him, they were police officers.
Was this man deaf? stupid? blind?
The police aren't stupid either they are not going to chase this man through London streets guns drawn.

Imagine:
"Police, Stop!"
"No, quite alright, I'll just keep running, I've done nothing wrong"

"Stop making excuses, the cops were wrong! Shot to kill is WRONG"

So is suicide bombing, something this man might have had the intentions of doing.
If he did have explosive material, would you still be annoyed at police for shooting him dead?
Thought not.

OJ


Presumptions...

24.07.2005 22:21

>Why? They are making presumptions based on the colour of peoples skin rather than any specific evidence relating to the person themselves. That IS racism.

Don't you agree that because all the previous bombers have been asian and black, it makes sense for the police to focus more on asian and black suspects? How many white Islamic terrorists are there? None.

And take a look at this:  http://www.mpa.gov.uk/issues/deaths/default.htm notice how from 1998 to present day LESS black and asian people have died in police custody than other races. Does this mean the police are racist to the races in the 'others' section?






M


Are we nearly there yet?

24.07.2005 22:51

M:

"I'm sick of this innocent Harry Stanley shit. Harry Stanley was a convicted armed robber who had burglaries and assaults on his record."

Irrelevant - the cops didn't know who he was - at the time of shooting he was a man walking home with a table leg he'd repaired,


"And take a look at this:  http://www.mpa.gov.uk/issues/deaths/default.htm notice how from 1998 to present day LESS black and asian people have died in police custody than other races. Does this mean the police are racist to the races in the 'others' section?"

Okay, so over the whole period, 38 0f the 98 deaths were Black or Asian. That's 38.7% - whilst ethnic minorities make up 28.8%* of London's population.

How is that not proof of racism?

* http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/minority.html

OJ:

"If he did have explosive material, would you still be annoyed at police for shooting him dead?"

Did he have explosive material on him?

Thought not.

BRB


stats

24.07.2005 23:20

Sure - less blacks and asians in absolute terms, but in relation to the proportion of the population that is black or asian it is still disproportionate.

Krop


Winning "hearts and minds" the Israeli way

24.07.2005 23:23

British Cops trained in Israel
"Operation Kratos": London Met Police Special Operations Unit "Shoot to Kill"

Full Story:
 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050724&articleId=732

The Israelification of Britain's police:
 http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/WorldNF.asp?ArticleID=173220

The Reason for Suicide Bombers
 http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/reason-for-suicide-bombers.html

End Foreign Occupations
- Homepage: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050724&articleId=732


potentiality...

24.07.2005 23:53


because we THINK someone is ... a terrorist or might have a weapon (of mass destruction?) we do have the right to kill??


i thought indymedia started out because people (of the left??) did not believe what the mainstream media reported and i hoped to find here a forum for people who doubt without being cynical the official version given by state and its media.

but what do i find? a couple of braindead zombies like M, Tina Cat Visit , artaud, "liberal" or "humanist" ...all well trained citizens overtly repeating on this site what they got from others, repeating what state and media has told them to believe.

a country was invaded, thousands of people killed and still being killed because of the greed of a powerhungry empire and its vassals. a man was shot! because of the angst and a security hype of those who build their power on the insecurity and instability that is caused by their politics. and the man who was shot was not innocent, because we are all not innocent since we have not the guts to join the fight against this evil government which, in its greed and arrogance drives us deeper and deeper into this nightmare of strike and counterstrike and tighter and tighter security - which means the absolute control of those who need to oppose. thats why we are guilty because we do not oppose! and thats why those blind ones those who think they fight for fight for or defend freedom (freedomfighters, martyrs, policemen) will get our ass one day.

nofascist
mail e-mail: paranoia@go4.it
- Homepage: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41338000/jpg/_41338481_poster203.jpg


M, you gotta face the FACTS about Harry Stanley

25.07.2005 10:24

M,

Are you an East London firearms officer. I ask this because your regular rants about Harry Stanley positively reek of a guilty conscience.

The officers who executed Harry Stanley justified their actions as you outline - challenge, turn, raise, BANG-BANG-BANG. Unfortunately the forensic evidence (which was deliberatly excluded by the coroner in the original inquest) showed all the bullets entered his body from the back. This is why the verdict of unlawful killing was reached. The facts are that 2 police officers diliberately killed a man (for fun? becasue they could? - best not to speculate) and LIED about the circumstances.

Skyver Bill


re Cops scared him?

25.07.2005 10:26

re Cops scared him?

"In the wake of a serious terrorist attack, you would have thought he'd assume a group of men with guns trying to stop him near a railway station were police."

I think most normal people try their best to live their lives by basing their decisions based on facts and not assumptions. Not a single eye witness has come forward to verify the police claims that they identified themselves as police officers, so assumptions that they MUST HAVE done so are just that. Assumptions, and not facts.

If the officer who subsequently shot him, had based his decision to shoot the guy on facts (i.e. that there was NOT a solitary shred of evidence to suspect him of being a suicide bomber whatsoever) and not groundless, fantasised assumptions, then Jean Charles de Menezes would still be alive today.

"If you are all right, why are the cops not called murderers in the media? Why did the Muslim council of Britain not say it was a racist shooting? Why does the head of Liberty say the cops are not to blame and have to make split second decisions? Why are your views in the minority? It seems to me you are extremists yourselves. You're views are as far fetched as the BNP's."

1) The cops ARE being called murderers in the media. There are many people on Indymedia and countless other web forums who share this viewpoint. Furthermore, information and ideas do not need to be written down or formally mediated to be going on or exist. Grass-root feeling does not to be filtered or shown on mainstream, state-subjugated media outlets for it to be there. Just because news papers and TV channels owned and operated by Bush-Blair regime supporting, multi-billionaires are not reporting peoples feeling that this was a cold-blooded execution does not mean those opinions do not exist. Straw polls (for what they're often worth) are clearly indicating that millions of people feel this killing was wrong. Whether people who feel the shooring wasn't justified are in the minority or not is immaterial. These are OUR views. This is theoretically a democracy. And all viewpoints to this sort of debate should be valued and welcome.

2) As for the claim that the Muslim council of Britain have not come out and said it was a racist shooting? I have no idea whether a spokesman for that organisation has made or failed to make such a statement. What I do know however, is that spokespeople for any organisation can not possibly represent the views of every member of their organisation. Clearly, it would be absurd to suggest that a solitary spokesperson for the Muslim council of Britain retains some kind of monopoly on opinion as to whether this was a racist shooting or not. Countless individuals and organisations clearly feel that there have been considerable levels of racist discrimination by the police since the first bombings took place. Millions of people and many organisations feel that at the very least there MAY be a strong undercurrent of racism behind the initial pursual and subsequent shooting of this man.

3) The head of Liberty is voicing a personal opinion. The fact that he or she is a spokesperson for an organisation does not mean her opinion carries any more or less weight than any other individual or organisation. Of course, given the blind-sighted culture of “expertism” that exists within our society (that often continues to help contribute to much disinformation and miscarriages of justices in this country - the Professor Sir Roy Meadows/shaken babies fiasco among them) its hardly surprising that you are conditioned into believing that “if it ain’t spoken by an expert, it ain’t worth listening to”.

So-called experts continue to earn a fortune in Britain day in day out, on the news certainly, but particularly in the British courts. Supplying partial, biased and frequently scientifically unsound viewpoints to the prosecuting authorities in exchange for knighthoods, professorships and bucket loads of cash. And of course nice, head-line grabbing, guilty verdicts. That is so-called justice and democracy at work in Britain today.

.


I guess i'm still a 'brainless zombie....'

25.07.2005 11:17

You say that none of the witnesses heard the cops say 'stop, armed police.' They challenged him OUTSIDE the station and he ran INSIDE, inside the station is where the eye witnesses were. They wouldn’t have shouted ARMED POLICE at the top of their voices when they first approached him. So you have to agree it’s more than likely that the witnesses inside the station didn’t hear the police identifying themselves because they didn’t see the police challenge him.

And you would have thought that seen as he came from Brazil where the cops shoot and kill 600 people a year, he'd be more careful when approached by armed police. I still think he should have stopped and done what he was told. How else are the police suppose to know who's a good or a bad guy?

M


Actually....

25.07.2005 12:25

"i would like to point out that under british law, murder is defined as a, having actually killed the dead person, (actus reus in legal speak) and b, having intended to kill him/her (mens rea). manslaughter is killing without intending to. "

Erm, no. Legally murder predisposes specific prior intent, on the basis that the crime was planned. Manslaughter, or culpable homicide north of the border, is the offence where the specific offence is unplanned.

In the case of the police shooting, the officers did not specifically intend to shoot an innocent man, indeed it is open to legal debate whether it could be shown that (prior to the office) the planned to definitely kill someone. Therefore the charge most likely to be appropriate, and to secure the greatest chance of conviction, would be manslaughter. Nevertheless both would be unlawful killing.

Incidentally, there's not really such a thing as British criminal law du to different legal jurisdictions, although in civil matters there is a considerable degree of convergence.

Boab


I guess we'll need to wait and see...

25.07.2005 13:04

I guess we'll need to wait and see...

I think we'll really need to wait for the initial and later full inquiry results to come out to be sure one way or the other over the warnings that the police claim that they gave. Or wait for the first book to come out on the subject, which will are no doubt being written even as we speak ready to be rushed out for Christmas! There are so many strands of information to chew over. There are clearly many questions and inconstencies, particularly how and why both the police and the government LIED and continued to claim the man they shot was a terrorist even when they had no evidence whatsoever to justify that claim. I know that it's not illegal to defame the dead, but how these people can sleep at night, besmirching an innocent mans name just so they don't look bad in the media is beyond me.

Incidentally, you might be interested to know that in a Daily Mail poll on Friday (before it was finally revealed the man was innocent) 84 per cent of readers were in favour of shooting suspected suicide bombers. Which is shocking given ANYONE, particularly if they look vaguely foreign, could be a suspected suicide bomber by the yardstick the authorities seem to be using. That has plummetted now to only 68%. And in fact, in an ITN poll at lunchtime it was 50% for and 50% against. If that extrapolates up to the rest of the population, roughly 25 million people in Britain are against shooting suspected suicide bombers. Hardly a minority of people against!


"When was his innocence known?
Within an hour of the shooting, investigators were briefing that the dead man was one of the four bombers who had escaped 24 hours earlier when their devices failed to go off.
There was a sense of relief that one of the men had been stopped and that a statement of the police's resolve and intent had emphatically been made.
But that sense of relief soon turned to concern when officers began to examine documents found on the body.
Publicly, however, the authorities maintained that while not a bomber, Mr de Menezes was linked to the terror plot.
At 3.45pm on Friday Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - almost six hours after the fatal shooting - declared: "I can say as part of operations linked to yesterday's incidents Met police officers have shot a man. The information I have available is that this shooting is directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation."
That night Government sources were suggesting the terror suspect shot dead at Stockwell had been "known to police" from a recent counterterrorist investigation.
On Friday night, there was growing anxiety among both anti-terrorist officers of SO13 and senior detectives.
The awful truth
Initially, police believed Mr de Menezes may have been carrying false documents but by Saturday morning the stark reality of the tragic mistake became clear.
His cousin Alex said he was contacted by police to say the family had been asked to go to Brixton police station because the dead man was a terror suspect and they needed to identify the body.
Once the family arrived, and were questioned by detectives, it soon became apparent that Mr de Menezes was not a terrorist and certainly not one of the bombers.
At 4.53pm Scotland Yard's Press Bureau issued a statement: "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."
Yesterday morning Sir Ian Blair publicly apologised but insisted there could be no change to the police's shoot-to-kill policy. "
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=356937&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

.


Comment 4

25.07.2005 13:35


"Did he have explosive material on him?

Thought not."

Note the "If", jackass

This man was presumed a danger until he was stopped and searched.
It didn't have to happen the way it did if this man used his head and stopped.

The colour of his skin is technically quite irrelevant. He was presumed a danger due to his actions, location and attire.
If this man had stopped, none of this would have happened, he would have been searched and left to go about his business.

Put yourself in the shoes of the police. Its a very tense time, you are in a busy tube station chasing a man who right now you think he has explosive material.
Make the decision then, the lives of everyone including yourself in the station or the life of a suspect bomber.

This isn't racsim, its common sense, and despite this mostly being opinion, you are blind if you cannot see that.

OJ


If

25.07.2005 15:54

OJ: "Note the "If", jackass"

The "if" is irrelevant - it is not illegal to run away from the police - if he even knew they were police.

"Put yourself in the shoes of the police. Its a very tense time, you are in a busy tube station chasing a man who right now you think he has explosive material.
Make the decision then, the lives of everyone including yourself in the station or the life of a suspect bomber."

And I "think" this because

1) He came out of a BLOCK of flats where a surveillance team was supposed to be monitoring a flat

2) He is wearing a think jacket on a warmish day

3) He's run off after guns have been waved at him.

I think if I shot him I'd be committing murder.

"This isn't racsim, its common sense, and despite this mostly being opinion, you are blind if you cannot see that"

Okay - if "common sense" means shooting Brazilian electricians on tube platforms, I am vehemently opposed to "common sense"

I don't want a world based on that kind of common sense.

BRB


Response

25.07.2005 16:24

>an ITN poll at lunchtime it was 50% for and 50% against. If that extrapolates up to the rest of the population, roughly 25 million people in Britain are against shooting suspected suicide bombers. Hardly a minority of people against!

So because the results of a pole were 50/50, half of Britain’s population will be against shooting suspected bombers? I doubt a large enough proportion of Britain’s population voted in an ITN news poll to accurately reflect the whole of Britain’s public opinion.

>Okay, so over the whole period, 38 0f the 98 deaths were Black or Asian. That's 38.7% - whilst ethnic minorities make up 28.8%* of London's population.

How is that not proof of racism?

Don’t you think that if the police were racist more blacks and asians would die in police custody despite them being a minority? Don’t you think they’d target a minority group more?


It’s just been on the news that the Brazilian mans visa had expired and he was here illegally, that’s a good reason why he could have ran.




M


Comment 5

25.07.2005 17:58

"Okay - if "common sense" means shooting Brazilian electricians on tube platforms, I am vehemently opposed to "common sense"

I don't want a world based on that kind of common sense. "

So you think the police should step back and do nothing?
They shot him because they suspected he was carrying explosive material.
If he stopped this wouldn't have happened plain and simple.

The common sense of this man is something I hope no one else has because if so, this same scenario going to happen again.

Do you want more terroist attacks? because by the standings of all you who say that what the police did was wrong, you do want another terroist attack. And you want our government to take no action in both finding and convicting those responsible or stopping it from happening again.

OJ


SEVEN bullets in the head!

25.07.2005 17:58

"Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, at Stockwell Tube station, south London, on Friday."

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

"The unanswered questions

What led police to be so suspicious of Mr De Menezes?

Why was he not apprehended when he left the house?

Why was he allowed to board a bus?

Who, if anyone, authorised the shooting?

What was the exact warning given by police?"

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535632,00.html

Guido
mail e-mail: Guido@stopimperialism.be


Response 2

25.07.2005 18:09

>The "if" is irrelevant - it is not illegal to run away from the police - if he even knew they were police.

If they told him he was under arrest and he ran, he would be breaking the law. It’s called ‘unlawful escape from legal police custody.’

>1) He came out of a BLOCK of flats where a surveillance team was supposed to be monitoring a flat

It was a small block of flats and only three officers from the whole team followed him. We don’t know the full reasons why they decided to follow him, maybe they just wanted to ask him if he’d seen anything suspicious in the flats.

>2) He is wearing a think jacket on a warmish day

They didn’t know he was from a tropical country or how long he’d been in Britain, he ran off before they could ask him. If you saw someone walking around on a cold day with no cloths you’d think that was suspicious.

>3) He's run off after guns have been waved at him.

They didn’t ‘wave guns at him.’ They drew their guns and identified themselves as police officers. The cops would be smart enough to know that waving guns at someone would scare them and could cause them to run. Why would they want someone to run if they want to question or arrest them?

>I think if I shot him I'd be committing murder.

But you’re not an armed police officer whose job it is to track terror suspects...With that kind of logic you’re saying that whenever the police arrest, say, a drug dealer they should be charged with kidnap and assault.

Another example, Lets just say you went to Iraq and set up a check point on a road and started shooting people who didn’t stop, you’d be comitting murder. Solders can set up check points on roads and shoot people who don’t stop because its their jobs and they’re following orders. Do you see the difference?

>Okay - if "common sense" means shooting Brazilian electricians on tube platforms, I am vehemently opposed to "common sense"

Riiiight...Yeah, the cops are specifically targeting all Brazilian electricians on tube platforms aren’t they? I’m sure they’d give up the chance to arrest someone with a bomb strapped to their chest over the chance to shoot a Brazilian electrician any day...

And if you want to make a cocky statement about the police shooting all people who fit his profile, don’t miss out the fact that his was here illegally and he ran away from them.

M


Finally

25.07.2005 18:57

M (coplover) wrote: "If they told him he was under arrest and he ran, he would be breaking the law. It’s called ‘unlawful escape from legal police custody.’"

Thats a big if - theres no evidence they even said they were police, let alone that he was under arrest - UNDER ARREST for what exactly? - dodgy dress sense, living in a flat, being mistaken for an Asian, having an imaginery bomb - the mind boggles.

I defy you to outline the legislation which allows cops to shoot dead a man who runs off when under arrest.

M (braindead cop lover) wrote: "It was a small block of flats and only three officers from the whole team followed him. We don’t know the full reasons why they decided to follow him, maybe they just wanted to ask him if he’d seen anything suspicious in the flats."

Why didn't they walk up to him at the bus stop then, produce their warrant cards and say "excuse me sir, did you see anything suspicious in the block of flats you've just come out of"?

Only 3 officers ...... were you one of them?

M (sycophantic braindead cop lover) wrote: "They didn’t know he was from a tropical country or how long he’d been in Britain, he ran off before they could ask him. If you saw someone walking around on a cold day with no cloths you’d think that was suspicious."

If I saw someone naked on a cold day, I wouldn't think it meant I cvould kill them. Especially as I have no idea where s/he comes from, or their residency status.

M (gameplaying sycophantic braindead cop lover) wrote:"But you’re not an armed police officer whose job it is to track terror suspects...With that kind of logic you’re saying that whenever the police arrest, say, a drug dealer they should be charged with kidnap and assault."

Hang on a minute sargeant - you asked me to put myself in the shoes of the cop and I did. BTW, how much has the Met paid out for false imprisonment and false arrest recently? I don't know about alleged drug dealers, but activists had seem some generous pay outs over the fiasco where cops decided to unlawfully protect the queen from having activists amongst her admiring fans during the Jubilee.

M (violent gameplaying sycophantic braindead cop lover) wrote - "Another example, Lets just say you went to Iraq and set up a check point on a road and started shooting people who didn’t stop, you’d be comitting murder. Solders can set up check points on roads and shoot people who don’t stop because its their jobs and they’re following orders. Do you see the difference?"

Yup - the first is a thug, and the second is a mindless thug. From your own training you should be aware that a coinstable hgas a dutyto ensure that he acts within the law - and can still het into bother for following an illegal order. Same goes for the mindless thug at the checkpoint.

As for common sense - it was OJ, not me who labelled the execution of a Brazilian electrician common sense.

Now get of your Metropolitan Police computer and go and shoot some innocent members of the public while you've got carte blanche to do so.

OJ wrote: "Do you want more terroist attacks? because by the standings of all you who say that what the police did was wrong, you do want another terroist attack. And you want our government to take no action in both finding and convicting those responsible or stopping it from happening again."

I don't think shooting Bralzilian electricians, regardless of their immigration status, will end the terror. I do want the government to find and convict HIS killer along with the network behind the bombers. (the bombers after all are dead) But most of all I want them to take their murderous soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan and for Blair and his gang to be tried in the ICC..........

BRB


another place for you

25.07.2005 19:10

Why exactly do people who's views are so obviously promoted by the mainstream media come to Indymedia? (See tonight's evening standard headline that the the man the police killed had an expired visa as if that makes it legit). Is is just to pick fights?

Liberal is fucking right, someone who passively promotes the status quo by maybe choosing an alternative lifestyle but never actually thinking critically or choosing to actively change things. Why don't you just go to a different website where you agree with the reporting?

annoyed


Comment 6

25.07.2005 21:13

"As for common sense - it was OJ, not me who labelled the execution of a Brazilian electrician common sense.

Now get of your Metropolitan Police computer and go and shoot some innocent members of the public while you've got carte blanche to do so."

I don't think you understand me.
Until this man was dead the police believed that this man was about to detonate explosive devices ina tube station.
Because this stupid man would not stop for police officers he endangered his own life and the lives of others, he installed fear into the occupants of the station.

They shot him because, until they later searched him, which remember they couldn't do because he would not stop, they had reason to believe that he was about to detonate explosive material.

You can keep comming back with
"Oh but he wasn't he was just wearing a big coat" and "He was afraid he was going to be killed by gangs"
Bottom line is this mans actions led to his death. When he chose to run into a busy station chased by police he made himself a suspect.

I bring you back to my first comment.
1 life vs 50/100/500/5000/the population of the UK.

I hope they have the guts to shoot and kill the next one they suspect because if they don't, it may end in disaster. Disaster on a much bigger scale than anything we've seen before in the UK.

OJ


OJ and out

25.07.2005 21:26

"Because this stupid man would not stop for police officers he endangered his own life and the lives of others, he installed fear into the occupants of the station."

And I haven't yet seen one report which gives Jean Charles de Menezes IQ score.

Your assertion is that is "common sense" to execute a Brazilian electrician because he came out of a block flats (in which the police were supposed to be monitoring a flat), wearing a thick jacket and failing to stop when ordered by the police.

You then go on to assert that he (rather than the bombers and the police with their defective intelligence) installed fear in the occupants (?) of the station.

You then say that you hope the police have the guts to shoot and kill the "next one".

So, you, like the terrorists think that it is okay to take innocent lives.

I'm out of here - I come to IMC UK for alternate news, not to get involved in prolonged discussions with reactionary twats and cops who have no respect for lives or freedom.

BRB


Tch Tch

25.07.2005 22:24

"Why exactly do people who's views are so obviously promoted by the mainstream media come to Indymedia? "

Well if they're here to be convinced, or at least swayed, then we're doing a bloody poor job of convincing them! Perhaps we need to get rid of some of the poorly considered tirades, vexing responses, and name calling in order to concentrate on well-supported, referenced news pieces.

Would you rather they all watched Fox? Or relied on the Sun?

Educate!

Observer


Comment 7 - BRB? nah, don't bother.

26.07.2005 01:08

"So, you, like the terrorists think that it is okay to take innocent lives. "

Until this man was on the floor dead, when the police could search him he was presumed a suspected threat due to his actions and attire.

Yes the police killed an innocent man, but what if he had been a suicide bomber? It wouldn't be one man, it would be 10's maybe 100's.
Is 1 not better than that?

"I'm out of here - I come to IMC UK for alternate news, not to get involved in prolonged discussions with reactionary twats and cops who have no respect for lives or freedom."

Thats great mate, maybe later you will realize people have different views to yours.

OJ


To The Trolls

26.07.2005 02:55

The hateful language used by the Trolls here is really shameful, but sadly typical of this atmosphere of Neo-Fascism in which we currently find ourselves.

There is no evidence to support the Government's story, and don't forget that these are the same people who swore up & down that Saddam Hussein and his vast arsenal of WMD posed a dire threat to Britain, the USA, and ultimately, the world, all the while knowing the "facts were being fixed" to justify a pre-planned, illegal Act of Aggression.

In the most highly-surveilled country in the world, it is inconceivable that this was not caught on camera, yet no CCTV footage has been brought forth to prove what the Government is claiming.

What IS conceivable is that this man simply saw something he should not have, such as intelligence operatives planting last week's devices, as they seem designed not to detonate, but rather, to point investigators in a specific direction, presumably towards one of the PNAC target destinations, thus providing "justification" for further planned Aggressions.

That's why so much work went into retracting the earlier stories about military explosves being used on 7/7, the Government's first claimed "al Qaeda link".

There was no need to shoot this man, not after he had already been apprehended. The only reason I can gather would be to silence a possible witness, that could have blown this thing wide open.

I will continue to believe so, and say it loudly, until the LIARS surrounding Bliar are able to prove their Conspiracy Theory.

Any truly concerned commentator would do so ...

Don't Fall for the PsyOps


Seriously Dude

26.07.2005 03:27

"Thats great mate, maybe later you will realize people have different views to yours"

I've already heard yours from Tony Blair, Ian Blair, Ken Livingstone, CNN, The Sun ...........

You're saying its alright to sacrifice a few innocent lives to save many innocent lives.

So, as I've already pointed out, are the bombers.

Its only a matter of scale - and as I've also pointed out, its Dershowitz's morally bankrupt argument.

Now, I come here because I want something different from Tony Blair, Ian Blair, Ken Livingstone, CNN, The Sun ...........

Hows about you?

BRB


the case and its agent provocateurs

26.07.2005 08:03



considering what the people's educationalist is saying here i realise how much a stubborn revengist like M could determine the flow of this discussion. I think of him as an undercover agent and I think it is better to ignore him and his kind than letting the discussion follow the platitudes of their arguments.

thinking through the "case" again i can find more contradictions than those that were already discussed, so let me sum up here.

A) the case

--> police observing a BLOCK of appartements. suspects flat was number 21, Menezes flat was number 17. shit, they followed the wrong guy.

--> guy enters bus, rides on the bus for 25 minutes. why was he not arrested on the bus? why, when he was expected to be a suicide bomber, was he not expected to blow up this bus? why, when he did not blow up the bus was he expected to blow up the subway?

--> why was he expected to be a suicide bomber anyway? so far the pattern of assaults showed that the bombers, when entering the transport system, entered it as a group. also the pattern of assaults showed that the explosives were carried in rucksacks and never directly ON the body, as a belt, or whatever. what made the police think that this time it was different? a singular bomber with a belt - that, so far, was unprecedented in london.

--> as we know, none of the witnesses, so far, had seen the police calling at the Menezes. so either he did not realise that he was followed and just ran because he was late trying to catch the subway, or he felt threatened and followed by unidentified hooligans (plain cloth!). in any case, the police was expected to arrest the suspect without shooting him, and it seems they did not even try.

--> why, for instance, did they not try to arrest him inside the subway car after they followed him into the waggon?

--> what made them think that he would trigger the bomb as soon as he entered the car, or maybe out of anxiety? so far the bombs in subway and busses had been triggered (simultaneously) either remotely or through timed fuse. so shooting him would not have prevented the bomb to be triggered.

B) in connection to this case we also discussed its inherent racism and anti-islamism. the case and especially the way it is treated in the media as well as in this discussion makes it clear that we still live in the middle ages.

C) same with the ubiquitous calls for more security and dismantling of civil rights. the state that ought to protect becomes a danger in itself. personally i feel more threatened through this new security madness than through the madness of the bombings. (mostly actually through the madness that robot M represents)

D) the way discussions are led here and voluntarily being disturbed an monopolized by people like M or OJ is another way of infiltration and control. agent provocateurs are not new, usually used to stir up the anger of the crowd. which might be good in this case if it leads to a more radical agenda against police measures like execution in public. however, as mentioned above, it hinders a more differentiated analysis of the case and the problems attached to it.

thats why i repeat - ignore agent provocateurs - go for a differentiated discussion and then take action!

cheers.

nofashist
mail e-mail: paranoia@go4.it


Comment 8

26.07.2005 13:23

"I've already heard yours from Tony Blair, Ian Blair, Ken Livingstone, CNN, The Sun ..........."

But, you haven't heard my opinion. All you've done is kept saying "the police are murderers" and "the police are racist".
You want evidence that what the police did was justified?
Give me evidence that what they did was unjustified.


And maybe, if I watched CNN, if I bought and read The Sun, if I thought that Tony Blair is a good leader for this country maybe, I'd share their views.
And right now, I'm not sharing the views of the people on this board.
I accept that perhaps the police used too much force, that 8 bullets was too much but in my mind and I'm sure a hell of a lot of others, the police were not racist in the way they acted and not murderous.

Murder is defined as "Unlawful killing". In the seconds leading up to that mans death, it was lawful because police had every reason to suspect he was about to commit murder, on a big scale.

OJ


educatin'

26.07.2005 13:29

Last time I checked, popular education didn't happen most effectively on an online chat. It's pretty obvious that lots of people aren't here to be swayed or convinced when the same argument happens through over 80 posts and wastes the time of so many people who are looking for intelligent discussion.

It's also not my role to educate everyone, especially during a situation where new facts, speculation and misunderstandings are emerging every minute. Most of us have political consciousness that have evolved over a long period of critical thinking, (and are hopefully still evolving) not just some easily disseminated facts that we can pass on to everyone else.

Rather than try to educate the shit stirrers, should we not ignore them and focus on developing a useful response to this current situation?

annoyed


Tch Tch 2

26.07.2005 22:18

"Rather than try to educate the shit stirrers, should we not ignore them and focus on developing a useful response to this current situation? "

Well I suppose it would be hard to argue that there appear to be two diametrically opposing camps more interested in a good argy-bargy than a debate. But its also clear from the postings that those who fall into what might be called pro-establishment camps are no fools (or "trolls", as I keep seeing in print). They are not unrepresentative of the wider middle classes.

Perhaps we have to ask why they are not convinced - is the evidence insufficient? Do we need to present it in a more structured manner? Is there too much "white noise" from some of the more extreme responses?

If we cannot convince a sizeable proportion of the population, then we are wasting out time. We need to take them with us, not drag them kicking and screaming.

Observer


Pure Murder it sounds like to me

29.09.2005 00:06

After reading all the reports it sounds like pure murder to me. The poor guy must have panicked that's all. How can these bastards go round murdering people like this? What about the other guy on the streets carring a table leg that got shot to death because they thought it was a gun. The world has gone mad!!! Are they going to shoot everyone carring suspected items? All guns should be destroyed. Their must be other means of stopping suspects without murdering them. I don't know how they can sleep at night knowing what they have done. I can only hope God will punish them eventually.

John Duncan


Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
Regions
All Regions
Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Nottingham
Scotland
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on indy.im and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Schnews
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
VisionOnTV
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
Topics
All Topics
Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
Workfare
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Guantanamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
SOCPA
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech