When the victim of the Stockwell shooting was identified as a Brazilian, my immediate thought was "Oh well, at least he wasn't a Muslim, at least there won't be so much trouble."
I then felt extremely guilty - my first thought should, of course, have been for his family, etc.
But was my first reaction understandable? Justifiable? Correct?

C'mon Trane I know you know better than that.

What-You need someone to remind you that the man was a human being before anything else?

But you shouldn't kick yourself for it. After all-you're only human.

I aint mad atchya.

Ohh

ic

Totally unacceptable tbh, and to those who say "he should of listened to the cops etc" Yes, but your forgetting he came from the rough ghetto slums of Brazil where shootings are an everyday occurence. He must of thought "I came to Britain to escape drama and now i got a couple of guys pointing mp5s at me, i'm outta here!"

....and he paid the price. (Bearing in mind the police were plain clothed.)

See this is what I just can't overstand the way people are so quick to dismiss a senseless killing the taking away of human life by the hands of other humans. Watching the news they did a survey for people to vote who agree that shoot to kill should still take place and 86% were in favour. They also read out a few samples of the thousands of texts and emails they received and all the samples said the man should never have jumped over the barriers and should not have run. Not one message stated how did the police make such an error. Its like the people just want revenge blood for the recent bombing and any blood will do.

Even the police who publically say sorry for the killing imediately follow this sentence with a but blah blah blah. Experience has taught me that when someone says sorry for something and immediately follows it with a "but" the sorry was not geniune and they haven't learnt a thing from their mistake. Experience has always shown they do the same thing over and over again.

The following was taken from a news website


Police chief apologises after man shot by mistake

Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has apologised to the family of a Brazilian man who was shot by police at a Tube station in London.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was killed on Friday morning as he tried to board a Tube train at Stockwell, south London.

Detectives admitted he was not connected to the suspected suicide bomb bids on three Underground trains and a bus on Thursday.

Sir Ian said: "This is a tragedy. The Metropolitan Police accepts full responsibility for this. To the family I can only express my deep regrets."

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended the so-called "shoot-to-kill" policy adopted by police for dealing with suspected suicide bombers.

He said he "deeply regretted" the killing of an innocent man. But Mr Straw said it was essential that police were able to deal effectively with the threat of a suicide attack.

The man's cousin Alex Pereira, 28, said his cousin was "a 100 per cent good guy who never did anything wrong and had no reason to run. I don't think he ran from police. I don't think he would do that. They can't show anything that shows that he had."

Mr Pereira said police had watched his cousin get on a bus. They followed him for about 500 metres. "If he had a bomb he could have blown it off on the bus."

He added: "Now what they (police) have shown is that they are incapable and stupid. There's no explanation to what they have done."

A statement from government officials in Sao Paulo said: "The government expects the British authorities to explain the circumstances that led to this tragedy."

The human rights organisation Liberty called for a "comprehensive" investigation, while rank-and-file police leaders urged people to remember that firearms officers had to "make split second decisions" with "life-long consequences".

The police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), has announced an independent investigation into the shooting.

Mr Menezes emerged from a house in Tulse Hill, south London, on Friday morning that was under surveillance because of a suspected link to the attempted bomb attacks. His clothing and behaviour added to the officers' suspicions, police said.

He caught a bus to Stockwell Tube where he was challenged by officers, who told him to stop. The man then bolted down an escalator, according to witnesses.

He apparently tried to get on a train before he was apparently shot five times in the head by an officer with an automatic pistol.
<[LinkedText_1]>[/b]

<[LinkedText_2]>[/b]-->

If he were about to blow himself in the tube why did they let him take abus?

10 special branch guys have been watching him

Seems to me you folks might rather be in the street making noise and demanding the establishment of some sound "rules of engagement" when it comes to investigating and identifying suspects orpersons suspected of being terrorists or involved intheir actions, and also laying down some ground rules as to how such persons ought to be confronted, apprehended, or if need be, neutralized, insuch a way as to ensure that no such errors as have already occured, occur again, and which also are designed with the purpose ofminimizing harm to public entities as might otherwise be casualties of such attacks, confrontations, apprehensions or neutralizations.

It is obvious to me that the police do not know what they are doing, or how to do it effectively. They are afraid and they are untrained. The fact that any person suspected of being a terrorist was

(a) misidentified or identified as a suspect without any probable cause to suspect

(b) permitted to access public transportation

(c) tackled and thrown to the floor of a public transportation vehicle

(d) fired on multiple times in the midst of bystanders

All of these factors, more than suggesting a simple lack of sensitivity and possibly lots of room for ethnic profiling, alsodemonstrate a dangerously low standard of professionalism and morale.

People herein New York ought to beespecially concerned as well about this event and any other events occurring, or having occurred anywhere in the world.

Seems to me you folks might rather be in the street making noise and demanding the establishment of some sound "rules of engagement" when it comes to investigating and identifying suspects orpersons suspected of being terrorists or involved intheir actions, and also laying down some ground rules as to how such persons ought to be confronted, apprehended, or if need be, neutralized, insuch a way as to ensure that no such errors as have already occured, occur again, and which also are designed with the purpose ofminimizing harm to public entities as might otherwise be casualties of such attacks, confrontations, apprehensions or neutralizations.

It is obvious to me that the police do not know what they are doing, or how to do it effectively. They are afraid and they are untrained. The fact that any person suspected of being a terrorist was

(a) misidentified or identified as a suspect without any probable cause to suspect

(b) permitted to access public transportation

(c) tackled and thrown to the floor of a public transportation vehicle

(d) fired on multiple times in the midst of bystanders

All of these factors, more than suggesting a simple lack of sensitivity and possibly lots of room for ethnic profiling, alsodemonstrate a dangerously low standard of professionalism and morale.

People here in New York ought to beespecially concerned as well about this event and any other events occurring, or having occurred anywhere in the world.

@Hrunopi

What you said make perfect sense but you know all the majority of the public is concerned about is why did the man run.......yes you heard correctly now doesn't that just sum up the level of intelligence in Britian. So it doesn't take rocket science to know this disaster will happen again, because barbarian are on the lose with automatic guns in our neighbour heavily populated with Ethnics I have no doubt that if they were watching a suspect in a heavily populated white area they would've adopted different tactics.

@Mafdet

You know, since I've posted about the run issue already, I do need to again remind everyone that when these kinds of things occurr, the minute the police shoot and kill anyone for any reason, the entiore scene is quardoned and "gagged" by a blue wall of silence.

That is not policy or procedure. It is just what happens, period.

We do NOT know that the man killed ran away from the police or refused to stop when ordered because

none of us were there

and the police MUST justify the action that led to the outcome whether they were mistaken or not. Or does anyone understand that?

Or does it even make sense that under any normal circumstance the police would have to had determined that the suspect in question did something that could be determined as a hostile act-which by the way, includes, flight.

Trust me-I know.

I'm not saying the police were right, nor am I saying the man killed was wrong. I am only saying that none of us is in any position to pass judgement on anyone-unfortunately including the police, under these particular circumstances-without first considering all the relevant factors, the absolute dynamics involved in this kind of situation. Which is why I say there has to be established "rules of engagement".

Understand that the police DO have a job to do regardless. That doesn't mean they can all eqaully do that job responsibly or with the best interest of the public in mind.

We should also understand that WE, the public play a role in the protection of our own lives as well. The police must depend on the people for information as to how to act and what to act upon. As long as they are allowed to keep the ball because the public are too afraid and too dependant on the police to do things "right", they will always do things wrong and as long as noone has gottn blown up for the day, it's all good.

The police had their foul shot, and missed.The people have to take the ball back.